RE: Churn Fee (was) Re: JetStream
From: LEE Tet Yoon <leety_at_ihug.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 02:16:27 +1200 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040801013838.0416f8b0@pop.ihug.co.nz>
At 11:40 p.m. 31/07/2004, you wrote:
That depends... If the fee applies to those on any/all JetStream (except Starter perhaps) plans before bitstream who are automatically consider Telecom customers (as Bruce's message suggests) then I would strongly disagree . In fact even if subscribers are considered to be customers of their existing ISP then I would still disagree for reasons I have made clear before.*
If
Then I would say it's fair even tho I still don't necessarily feel the best idea...
* Even though ISPs can offer Surf etc, as they were really Telecom retail products, there has been little room for customisation (and therefore few reasons to care which ISP you are with or to go with an ISP which might have a lower quality of service). Also, Xtra because they are still in many ways a part of Telecom, have naturally had a greater reason to want to promote the service (and have done so). Therefore, it's likely that many people have chosen Xtra as their ISP for Jetstream products (especially Surf) but would want a different ISP's bitstream product. Even though they have a chance now to try to convince people to change to them before the churn fee is introduced (as Orcon may be doing), this is much more difficult without a product to offer at the moment. Advertising a future product may just result in confusion. Trying to explain why people should change now and not later will not be easy (which might be why Orcon are offering a cheaper price rather then trying to ex
= Actually also Jetstream 256k which I think still exists although I wonder if there is anyone at all still using it since Surf is nearly as good but so much cheaper...
-- This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list. see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ, and various documents. To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@lists.unixathome.org with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the messageReceived on Sun Aug 1 02:16:22 2004 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Nov 30 11:48:31 2006 EST