Hi Joel,

I am interested in taking this further and would like to join you in
your action. If you have a pro-forma letter that I can use? Or do I have
to hand-craft my own.

I found it hard enough
(http://gordondownunder.blogspot.com/2004/12/jetstream-upgrade-debacle.html)
getting upgraded to the Jetstream Plus plan from the Jetstream Surf 3GB
plan that the downgrade to 128kbps upstream from 192kbps was
particularly insulting. Moreover, by upgrading to the 10GB/2Mbps/192kbps
plan, I was purchasing a product from Telecom with a well defined
specification set. It was Telecom who decided to downgrade my connection
so they could get out of hot water with the government. A
customer-oriented organisation should have compensated their customers
(by reducing the cost of the service by $10 to $20) for taking this
'high-handed' action.

Unfortunately, my evidence of discussion with Telecom is my previous
blog entry. It could be argued that my switch to the Plus plan was an
attempt to prevent excess charges. I would argue, however, that
Telecom's Jetstream plan upgrades announced on October 24th 2004 raised
customer expectations in the Jetstream service and, quite clearly,
identified the speeds associated with the service plans. I have no doubt
that their Terms and Conditions allow them to do this but that does not
make what they did acceptable when they are the monopoly supplier in the
market.

Regards,

Gordon

Mark Foster wrote:
> Just confirm for me that you're not talking about the plan listed here:
>
> http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases_detail.asp?id=3068&page=1&pagesize=10&filtertext=Jetstream+Starter&m1=1&y1=1996&m2=8&y2=2005&filter=filter
>
>
> (sorry for the long link)
>
> Mark.
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Telecom seems to have changed the jetstart + plan. After publicly saying
>> they would "Grandfather" and keep existing customers "as is" in
>> computerworld earlier this year, at the 2mbit 192kps up rate. They have
>> changed the plan to only be 128kbit up. I have confirmed this with
>> another user of the plan.
>>
>> His contact with Telecom seems to be that they are defending the move as
>> "Keeping in Compliance" with the com com agreement.
>>
>> I have contacted Consumer Affairs about this, as I believe it is in
>> breach of the Consumer Gurantees Act as well as the Fair Trading act (in
>> that it is an issue of measure and weight).
>>
>> I don't know about others, but I would not have switched to ADSL from
>> cable knowing that the upstream would shrink. I rely on that extra
>> 64kbit for visitors to my site for both research and non profit use.
>>
>> I would be interested to hear from others on the plan, who are willing
>> to make a submission to the Consumer affairs people.
>>
>> Evidence of discussions with Telecom and your ISP over the matter is
>> useful.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Joel W
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 message
>>
>>

-- 
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 message