TekSavvy Internet Service - buyer beware
marty
highspeed Internet service. After many fruitless phone calls and
attempts to fix the problem, the problem appears to be with the modem
that I have bought from them. Here is actual extract of email received
from them today:
"As per our conversation earlier, if the modem is not defective, you
are responsible
for the shipping charges both ways. Unfortunately we will not be able
to send you a
new modem right away, because we sell speedtoch 516 modems, and we do
not have any
speedtouch 510 in stock."
JF Mezei
> "As per our conversation earlier, if the modem is not defective, you
> are responsible
> for the shipping charges both ways. Unfortunately we will not be able
> to send you a
> new modem right away, because we sell speedtoch 516 modems, and we do
> not have any
> speedtouch 510 in stock."
How long ago had you purchased your modem ?
When you buy a modem (as opposed to renting it), then there is a certain
level of resposability that the owner must take when the modem breaks.
You might want to get them to write down on paper how they will decide
whether your modem is deffective or not. In the end, it may be easier
for you to just go to a local electronics shop and buy any DSL modem.
This way, you have 2 modems, save on shipping costs and if you have
intermittent problems you can rule out the modem by using the second one
and see if the problem persists or not.
The other option would be to ask them how much they would charge for an
"upgrade" from a 510 to a 514 (I assume it is an "upgrade" ? This way,
you'd get a faster turnaround.
Looks like Teksavvy is growing :-(
tsiguy
No growing... Just can't please everyone apparently.
Rocky
tsiguy
Please provide me with your personal information so that I can look
into your situation (tsi...@teksavvy.com)...
PS - Next time, when you post please do not confuse hardware issues
with Internet Service.
Regards,
Rocky
Mike
"tsiguy" <ro...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:1157506708....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Hi JF,
>
> No growing... Just can't please everyone apparently.
>
> Rocky
everything all the time.
Roges Hyspeed Internot Slurport
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:44FE20FF...@teksavvy.com...
JF offers some good advice.
my sister recently found her modem not working too good (it was a freebie
from a prev ISP) I suspected the PSU but the modem still had lights on it.
she picked up another (identical) refurb the same for $25.00 it was the PSU
so now she has two good modems and one good PSU.
so in the three years she has had DSL it has cost her $25 for hardware !
Check out the many electronic surplus stores online (she used forest city)
Hell If I get past the warranty with many things then I am happy.
tsiguy
Just had a look.... you purchased this 510 modem in Sept 2004. Thomson
won't support this modem this far out of date, so there's no way we can
do much for you either at this point for a replacement. Looking
through your ticket details, it looks as though you might have had a
power surge which would also void any warrantees.
Regardless, feel free to email me your concerns and I'll see what I can
do to help you out.... You may also want to discuss modem replacement
(ie: if it was a power surge) with your insurance.
Regards,
Rocky
tsiguy
Not sure if you know who tsiguy is but if you are looking for help,
this isn't the way to go.
Rocky
Mike
> Hi Mike,
>
> Not sure if you know who tsiguy is but if you are looking for help,
> this isn't the way to go.
>
> Rocky
company, and how you are still a small operation and dont keep all models of
modems in stock like bell would. Its not a bad thing at all.
JF Mezei
> Just had a look.... you purchased this 510 modem in Sept 2004. Thomson
> won't support this modem this far out of date,
Hey tsi guy... (any relation to family guy ? :-)
Is it pretty standard for consumer-grade equipment to fall of the
"supportable" list so quickly ? For enterprise stuff, the manufacturers
generally garantee hardware support for 5 years after date of last manufacture.
Or is this the case of the 510 having been end-of-lifed more than 5
years ago, and ISPs getting access to unsold leftover stocks at great
"clearance" price ?
marty
the 2 year warranty !
I can't tell you if I have had a power surge, but I have a high pitch
noise from the modem and when the modem has been off for a while it
takes several hours to "warm up" and connect. It will cycle through the
indicator lights for hours trying to connect. Once connected it will
work OK for days. One of your people suggested that I never turn it
off, but that does not seem like a reasonable solution.
Mike
material which would drive up the cost, which would mean consumers wouldn't
buy them anymore because its cheaper to replace it. Plus its not their fault
you plugged your modem into an unprotected outlet! Its the classes retail
shopper who returns shit because they break it, or don't use it properly and
get mad at the store for not eating the loss.
Mike
"marty" <montr...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1157510794....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> "Won't support this modem this far out of date"? It is still within
> the 2 year warranty !
>
> I can't tell you if I have had a power surge, but I have a high pitch
> noise from the modem and when the modem has been off for a while it
> takes several hours to "warm up" and connect. It will cycle through the
> indicator lights for hours trying to connect. Once connected it will
> work OK for days. One of your people suggested that I never turn it
> off, but that does not seem like a reasonable solution.
Malcolm Ferguson
Why would they stock such an old model? Even SpeedTouch.ca doesn't
stock this model any more:
<http://www.speedtouch.ca/typesearch.php>
JF's a little behind the times suggesting the 514 too. I have a 546
(four port version of the 516) and couldn't be happier. Better than any
combination of router and modem I've had so far.
Malc
Bill_W_...@yahoo.com
not surprised by their responses - delay, throw up obstacles, then try
to blame the customer. The line about contacting your insurance company
is a classic.
You could never get a human being on the phone. You would leave a
detailed message with your problem and they would call back and leave
you a message six hours later and say "Please call us if you still have
a problem", And this was for a mid-sized corporate customer!
This could go on for days. Finally you got a human being on the phone
and you had to start over explaining your problem. Granted Bell is not
much better, but they at least keep better logs and are less flippant
with customers.
Keep us informed as to how this ends!
Bill
Yo Ho Ho
news:1157510794....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> the indicator lights for hours trying to connect. Once connected it
> will work OK for days. One of your people suggested that I never turn
> it off, but that does not seem like a reasonable solution.
It seems like a very reasonable solution, especialy since the modem is
out of warranty. My modem has been running almost nonstop (except for
some resets) for over three years. I would get a replacement soon tho.
marty
more often it would have lasted more than 24 months.
JF Mezei
>
> Point is that modem is not out of warranty and maybe if I turned it off
> more often it would have lasted more than 24 months.
Power cycling any electronic equipment is what kills it, unless the
equipment has inadequate ventilation at which point heat buildup is what
kills it (notably hard drives).
In terms of warrantee, this could be a touchy situation. You may have
bought it 2 years ago, but if you didn,T buy it from an authorised
reseller, the manufacturer may balk at honouring such a warrantee,
especially IF the produce had long ago been discontinued and you ended
up purchasing a modem that was a clearance sale.
Have you tried contacting the manufacturer directly for warrantee
support ? It is possible that the ISP may not be able to restock that
particular modem, but if you deal directly with the manufacturer, you
might get a replacement unit.
tsiguy
The 510 models (or 516s) rarely come back to us... They're good modems.
Had we have had any on hand we would have tried a switch between them
to help (hence why you haven't seen much of anything on the forums,
nearly ever on us for hardware).
Marty: Have you tried calling the manufaturer directly to see what
they'd do for you? Sometimes the manufaturers will try and help fix
the hardware or replace it with a similar aged model...
Rocky
Marc Bissonnette
news:1157512200.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> We used to use this company. Their customer service was awful so I am
> not surprised by their responses - delay, throw up obstacles, then try
> to blame the customer. The line about contacting your insurance
> company is a classic.
Why is it "classic" ? If there was indeed a power surge, then his
insurance may well cover it, if he chooses to make a claim. Many people
aren't aware of this. (As an example, I learned recently that, depending
on your policy, you can actually make a claim for burning your counter
top with a hot kettle/pot)
> You could never get a human being on the phone. You would leave a
> detailed message with your problem and they would call back and leave
> you a message six hours later and say "Please call us if you still
> have a problem", And this was for a mid-sized corporate customer!
>
> This could go on for days. Finally you got a human being on the phone
> and you had to start over explaining your problem. Granted Bell is not
> much better, but they at least keep better logs and are less flippant
> with customers.
While my company, CanadianISP does receive money from TekSavvy for
advertising (just to make sure everyone knows that connection), it
behooves me to point out that TekSavvy's rep and customer comments have
been overwhelmingly positive in this newsgroup over the past couple of
years (at least!). There have been a couple of instances where TekSavvy
customers suffered an outage or service reduction and they (TekSavvy)
have been honest and up-front not only in solving the problem, but
admitting it in this newsgroup and outlining what they did to fix it.
Unless my memory is fading - and I'm not that old, yet - They're the only
ISP to have done this type of public relations work in this newsgroup in
ages: It's a rare thing to see an ISP say "Yep, there was a screw-up,
this is what happened, this is what we did to fix it and we're really
sorry it affected you" (Paraphrasing on my part)
I'm all for calling an ISP when they screw up and do it badly, (Whether
they're a customer of mine or not: And they all know this), but I'm a
bigger fan of playing fair.
--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.
tsiguy
I can only assume you're talking about another company.... We're ranked
one of the top servicing ISPs in the country, and we never make excuses
and blame the customer... We'll flat out tell you it's our problem when
it is.
Rocky
tsiguy
me twice in a matter of minutes to post! Thanks for the support guys!
Rocky
Marc Bissonnette
news:1157517824.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> LOL... I feel I'm repeating all of a sudden.... Marc and JF just beat
> me twice in a matter of minutes to post! Thanks for the support guys!
:-) Ya gotta call em as ya see em :)
Just because I'm supposed to be neutral in how I talk about all ISPs,
doesn't mean I'm happy to let a slam go by when it's undeserved, or offer
kudos when it is deserved. (Though technically, my commitment to
neutrality is reserved for recommending for or against an ISP, but that's
kinda splitting hairs :) )
Frankly, I wish there were more ISPs willing to air a little clean *and*
dirty laundry in here, showing how they're handling things well; If they
don't want to take advantage of the medium in which they operate, well...
--
JF Mezei
>
> We used to use this company. Their customer service was awful so I am
> not surprised by their responses - delay, throw up obstacles, then try
> to blame the customer.
I've been with them for over 2 years now. When I started, I got to know
the tech support folks by name (and the reverse ;-( and was very
impressed. They have since grown and hired more folks , so when you
call, you may have to wait on hold a few moments (no horror stories) and
get someone who doesn't know you. But it is still quite good.
When I look at the poor souls over at IGS who haven't had email service
for days and are unable to even reach tech support because their phone
system appears to be blocking incoming phone calls (I guess so they
don't have to pay the long distance fees while customers are on hold for
3 hours), then Teksavvy looks really great despite them having grown.
I've exchanged emails with the top guys and still do from time to time,
and they do value customer input. Technologically speaking, they have
grown a LOT since I started with them. Multiple transit providers
(requiring lots of new stuff like BGP), peering etc. I had doubts that
, having some Windows based servers, they could cope, but except for a
few idiosyncracies (such as no Reply-Path: in messages extracted from
their POP server), their services have worked very well and very
reliably.
I am not 100% sure, but since I have been with them, I think that they
have more than doubled in size. They have to be doing something right to
grow like that. And they pay their bills and there are no rumours about
them folding without warning, or throwing customers away.
And no major upheaval like other ISPs that have been taken over by some
bigger corporation. And if they can keep *MOI* for more than 2 years,
and not threathen to force me out, then they have what it takes to grow
and cater to any customer :-)
Their offering has also improved since I have been with them (real
access to newsgroups, real spam filtering). they are still lacking a few
things like backup dial up which many other ISPs offer.
I suspect the OP didn't get immediate resolution because the new guys
are probably not empowered to make financial decisions (upgrade a
customer modem) and may have been wishy-washy instead of passing the
call to someone who is empowered.
> The line about contacting your insurance company
> is a classic.
Have to agree about that. Pretty lame, especially when you consider
deductible is probably higher than cost of a new modem. This all
depends on whether the modem they sold to their customer was eligible
for full 2 year warrantee at that time.
tsiguy
The reason I mentioned Insurance was that in many case, as I've been
told, some small household claims don't have the generic $300 or $500
deductible.... It would seriously be worth asking in cases like the one
that occured at the start of this! I'll try and get more details on
it...
Regards,
Rocky
tsiguy
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1157526845.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "tsiguy" <ro...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
> > The reason I mentioned Insurance was that in many case, as I've been
> > told, some small household claims don't have the generic $300 or $500
> > deductible.... It would seriously be worth asking in cases like the one
> > that occured at the start of this! I'll try and get more details on
> > it
>
> That's almost insane. The fucking evil insurance company will increase
> your premiums for the next five years by double the cost of a modem.
> Insurance salesmen are like lawyers, but without any education.
> --
> W. Oates
> Teal'c: He is concealing something.
> O'Neil: Like what?
> Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.
Bill_W_...@yahoo.com
recommendation, and it is within warrranty, then they should take
responsibility even if they bought it on a closeout three years ago.
Considering this poor guy is paying these people $1 day or more for
service, you may expect a bit better treatment. I expect this type of
treatment from the likes of Future Sh*p, not a so-called service
provider.
And how can a "top Canadian" service provider that sells and leases
"thousands" of modems fail to stock a suitable replacement modem for
customers under warranty.
Mike
Geoffrey Welsh
> Insurance salesmen are like lawyers, but without any education.
... but insurance underwriters and actuaries are highly trained to ensure
that they make money no matter what risks they insure against.
--
Geoffrey Welsh <Geoffrey [dot] Welsh [at] bigfoot [dot] com>
Wayne
> Point is that modem is not out of warranty and maybe if I turned it off
> more often it would have lasted more than 24 months.
Wait, so long as you keep it on, your service works? I don't understand the
problem. You're supposed to keep it on all the time.
Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers
TSI Marc
You appear to be the same person as Bill_W_...@yahoo.com.
Posting from ips that are all on our network:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.248.158.80
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.248.153.151
Both correspond to your username for post times.
Why are you responding to your own posts?
Marc
Madonna
> When you buy a modem (as opposed to renting it), then there is a certain
> level of resposability that the owner must take when the modem breaks.
ADSL modems are sold a different way than most electronics. The usual
channel to get an Alcatel or SpeedStream modem is to get it through the ISP.
IIRC The seller is supposed to honour the warranty also.
Is there warranty info (duration, terms, shipping costs) on Teksavvy website?
As a reference, some companies pay shipping both ways (e.g. LG Electronics)
and some make you pay to ship items back (e.g. Dell's 30-day satisfaction policy).
Some also make substitutions if the exact model isn't available.
> In the end, it may be easier
> for you to just go to a local electronics shop and buy any DSL modem.
"Thomson does not sell DSL SpeedTouch modems directly to end users.
You will most likely find a Thomson SpeedTouch modem or router offered
to you by your local telecom company or ISP together with one of their
standard DSL connection services."
( http://www.speedtouchdsl.com/supfaq.htm )
speedtouch.ca is an online business, although the domain name is a
registered trademark, the domain does not belong to Thomson.
TSI Marc
>JF Mezei wrote:
>> When you buy a modem (as opposed to renting it), then there is a certain
>> level of resposability that the owner must take when the modem breaks.
>ADSL modems are sold a different way than most electronics. The usual
>channel to get an Alcatel or SpeedStream modem is to get it through the ISP.
>IIRC The seller is supposed to honour the warranty also.
>
>Is there warranty info (duration, terms, shipping costs) on Teksavvy website?
Hi Madonna,
The issue is not that we do not want to honour the waranty. Its that
we do not know if the modem is the problem. We are willing to ship a
new modem to him if he pays for it and if we find that it is the modem
then we can see about having it replaced. If its not the modem then he
could return the new modem we shipped him and we would then refund
him. If the modem was damaged by a surge or something like that then
the warranty is void.
We obviously honour warranties. We could not have the solid reputation
we have if we did not.
The thing is that he does not want to pay for a single thing and he's
posting under different names trying to stir up... something? We've
had 4 of our techs look into this as well as me and Rocky.. this is
the kind of stuff that makes people like us not want to participate in
these forums, sadly.
Marc
JF Mezei
> The issue is not that we do not want to honour the waranty. Its that
> we do not know if the modem is the problem. We are willing to ship a
> new modem to him if he pays for it and if we find that it is the modem
> then we can see about having it replaced. If its not the modem then he
> could return the new modem we shipped him and we would then refund
> him. If the modem was damaged by a surge or something like that then
> the warranty is void.
This sounds overly complex. And how do you guys determine if the modem
was power surged or not ?
I don't know what your relationship with Speedtouch is and whether they
pay some of the shipping when a unit is under warrantee.
I think you might want to have a stated policy on your web site on how
these things work.
And perhaps the original poster has a point. If you sell model X, then
you should ensure you always have a model X in stock until the warrantee
expires on the last model X you have sold. This way, when a customer
reports his model X is broken, you can ship him/her/it a replacement
right away, and when the broken model X is repaired/replaced by
Speedtouch, the replacement becomes your new spare.
TSI Marc
>was power surged or not ?
Overly complex? Just being smart about it. When a modem is possibly
bad we first do some tests with the customer to see if it really is
bad. Usually involves testing with another modem or bringing the modem
to a friends house and trying it there. In this case he doesn't appear
to have done that. He's just saying replace it. So we said fine no
problem, ship it to us and we'll do our own testing. We usually split
the shipping costs if the modem is found out to be bad but if we can
find no fault in the modem then the shipping both ways is paid for by
the customer. Which is what he was told. We do our own testing on the
modems, we'll do a variety of things including trying to upgrade the
firmware, having it run in sync for 12 or so hours straight with a
pppoe session. Just trying some of the features to see if its working
properly. Its usually pretty obvious if there's a problem. These
modems are well built and we see very little of them come back. If we
can see that there may be something wrong with it then we RMA the
modem with our distributor and they'll usually confirm what we noticed
and replace the modem, at which point we would pay for the shipping
back to the end user. Effectively splitting the costs for shipping.
>
>I don't know what your relationship with Speedtouch is and whether they
>pay some of the shipping when a unit is under warrantee.
We dont have a relationship with Speedtouch, that would be the
distributor we buy them from. The distributor does not sell directly
to end users.
>I think you might want to have a stated policy on your web site on how
>these things work.
Perhaps, it was never a problem. Our procedures are fair, I think
you'd agree from reading what I wrote above.
>And perhaps the original poster has a point. If you sell model X, then
>you should ensure you always have a model X in stock until the warrantee
>expires on the last model X you have sold. This way, when a customer
>reports his model X is broken, you can ship him/her/it a replacement
>right away, and when the broken model X is repaired/replaced by
>Speedtouch, the replacement becomes your new spare.
model X is discontinued. Nobody can buy those anymore, the
manufacturer no longer makes them.
Marc
Nate
day or so? It could be because your line is marginal. If you get the
attenuation and SNR from your modem then you'll know if your line is
marginal or not.
"marty" <montr...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1157494529.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marc Bissonnette
disgorging news:44FF20BF...@teksavvy.com:
That's not very realistic from a business point of view.
Let's say you sell 10,000 Model X's in 2006. In 2007, the manufacturer
discontinues Model X and introduces Model Y: What you are suggesting is
that the ISP hold 10,000 Model X's in reserve, tying up a crap load of
capital in inventory that might never be used. In today's
supply-on-demand inventory model, that just doesn't make sense. It makes
more sense to have the manufacturer courier the replacement to the
customer, where it will arrive just about as fast from the US as it
would from Canada.
I don't know what TekSavvy's modem service policy is, though I would
imagine that most would provide the modem sales as a convenience,
perhaps even at a discount if they did buy in bulk, but service would be
from the manufacturer (again, I don't know what TekSavvy's policy is on
that) - Providing warranty service would be a PITA, IMO, for an ISP
where technology is changing relatively quickly, unless you're renting
the modems out.
(Personally, I rent my modem from NRTCO for exactly that reason: If it
becomes obsolete, it's a quick change at their office up the road: Same
thing for power surges, since our power grid is less than
ultra-reliable, it's a quick change at NRTCO for my modem :)
JF Mezei
> model X is discontinued. Nobody can buy those anymore, the
> manufacturer no longer makes them.
If even the manufacturer cannot provide Model X to replace one still
under warrantee, then the manufacturer would likely have a policy that
you/distributor are authorized to replace broken Model X with Model Y.
However, I find it unlikely that Speedtouch would no longer have any
spares lying around for modems that would have been sold through
legitimate channels and still under warrantee. They have a legal
obligation because of the warrantee statemement. (and often augmented by
local laws)
JF Mezei
> Let's say you sell 10,000 Model X's in 2006. In 2007, the manufacturer
> discontinues Model X and introduces Model Y: What you are suggesting is
> that the ISP hold 10,000 Model X's in reserve,
Nop. I am suggesting he hold 1 Model X in reserve for the duration of
the warrantee. (say 2 years). If, during those 2 years, you have 10
customers who have problems with model X, it is unlikely they will all
return them at the same time. So between "model X events", you have time
to return the faulty modem to the manufacturer who will then send you
back a replacement model X from its spares inventory.
And since the ISp is also expected to be able to test/configure/support
modems it sells, it is a good idea for it to keep at least one of each
modem it has sold over the years in order to support its customers.
Now, I got from modem from ISTOP, and it is a model which Teklsavvy has
never sold, so I do not expect any support on it. But while at ISTOP, I
expected ISTOP to be able to support the modem they had sold me. (and
they had provided me with an extensive technical manual in PDF form
which 3com said didn't exist).
> that) - Providing warranty service would be a PITA, IMO, for an ISP
> where technology is changing relatively quickly, unless you're renting
> the modems out.
But it appears that this is the case with the ISP being the retailer,
the manufacturer totally detached from the initial loop.
TSI Marc
<jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>If even the manufacturer cannot provide Model X to replace one still
>under warrantee, then the manufacturer would likely have a policy that
>you/distributor are authorized to replace broken Model X with Model Y.
The modem would be replaced with the next nearest model from what they
had.
>However, I find it unlikely that Speedtouch would no longer have any
>spares lying around for modems that would have been sold through
>legitimate channels and still under warrantee. They have a legal
>obligation because of the warrantee statemement. (and often augmented by
>local laws)
Hurm, not too sure what you're saying there. I dont know what they
have laying around at their factory :P
Marc
Fid
>The thing is that he does not want to pay for a single thing and he's
>posting under different names trying to stir up... something? We've
>had 4 of our techs look into this as well as me and Rocky.. this is
>the kind of stuff that makes people like us not want to participate in
>these forums, sadly.
>
>Marc
I'd hate to think you'd want to bail out of the NG based on a negative comment
by a customer. I find it fascinating that an ISP even takes the time to
monitor this group. It's quite interesting watching this played out here, and
to see the attempts you've made at rectifying the situation.
I'd never heard of you before subbing to this NG a couple of months back, but
you're on my short list of replacements when Ma Bell finally pisses me off for
the last time. <g>
Mike
"tsiguy" <ro...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:1157507751....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Mike,
>
> Not sure if you know who tsiguy is but if you are looking for help,
> this isn't the way to go.
>
> Rocky
>
> Mike wrote:
>> "tsiguy" <ro...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157506708....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hi JF,
>> >
>> > No growing... Just can't please everyone apparently.
>> >
>> > Rocky
>> If anything its more of a sign of how small they are since they don't
>> stock
>> everything all the time.
>
You still haven't explained what you are talking about?? Also don't top
post! You should know better!
tsiguy
> You still haven't explained what you are talking about?? Also don't top
> post! You should know better!
...thought the message you posted came from marty. It was late!
Rocky
DevilsPGD
"tsiguy" <ro...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>I can only assume you're talking about another company.... We're ranked
>one of the top servicing ISPs in the country, and we never make excuses
>and blame the customer... We'll flat out tell you it's our problem when
>it is.
Sure, but some people don't like to hear it's their fault, regardless of
who's fault it really is.
--
Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal
parts water and papertowel.
-- Dennis Miller
DevilsPGD
<marc\_@_/teksavvy.com> wrote:
>Hello Marty,
>
>You appear to be the same person as Bill_W_...@yahoo.com.
>
>Posting from ips that are all on our network:
>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.248.158.80
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.248.153.151
>
>Both correspond to your username for post times.
>
>Why are you responding to your own posts?
Perhaps he doesn't have any friends that will support him?
DevilsPGD
<re...@newsgroup.please> wrote:
>Warren Oates wrote:
>> Insurance salesmen are like lawyers, but without any education.
>
> ... but insurance underwriters and actuaries are highly trained to ensure
>that they make money no matter what risks they insure against.
Imagine that, they want to make money too.
Sylvain Robitaille
> Hello Marty,
> You appear to be the same person as Bill_W_...@yahoo.com.
>
> Posting from ips that are all on our network:
> ...
> Both correspond to your username for post times.
> Why are you responding to your own posts?
Or sharing access with Bill_W_...@yahoo.com, who (in that case)
would be likely to side with Marty on this issue.
At the risk of sounding as though I'm defending Marty (which I prefer to
let him do himself), though, I find it's bad form for the ISP to take
advantage of information that only they have access to in an effort to
discredit the claims made against them. Consider the following:
- TekSavvy have nothing to prove to this newsgroup. Their reputation
as an ISP appears to be firmly established and will remain, erode,
or strengthen based on the quality of service they deliver to clients.
- Marty's (or "Bill's") complaint isn't specifically against Marc or
Rocky, but rather against what he may perceive as a faceless
commercial entity. He's acting (it appears) on the principle of
"the customer is always right" and appears to feel that TekSavvy
has said "of course you're right, sir, but let's just confirm that
you aren't wrong." (I'm not saying that you shouldn't confirm
whether the modem is really at fault before dealing with shipping
a replacement, just that this is what Marty's actions appear to be
based on.)
- The claims made as "Bill_W_Stephens" had absolutely no basis in
fact, as anyone who's ever picked up the phone to speak to the folks
at TekSavvy (even if only to enquire about service) will attest.
Did Marc really fear someone would jump in to support those claims
if he didn't point out that they were made on Marty's access time?
- TekSavvy's willingness to be cooperative within reason on this
matter seems quite clear. What it seems they're stubbornly
overlooking is that the customer appears to believe he's right,
because "the customer is always right."
If TekSavvy told the customer, at this point, publically or not (I
expect if they attempted to not be public about it, the customer would
make it public anyway), "listen, you let us know when you're prepared to
work with us and troubleshoot the problem according to our procedure,
but until then you'll have to tackle this on your own, accepting that
we do not believe there is any problem with our service offering,"
it would seem to me that TekSavvy were being completely reasonable.
If the modem was purchased in September 2004, and includes a 2-year
warranty, the customer should consider himself motivated to follow
the proposed procedure, to the letter, in order to obtain service or
replacement under warranty, if he's so entitled.
You won't please everyone, and angry customers will almost always be the
most vocal. My point is that you shouldn't let it get personal, and
you shouldn't feel as though you have to _prove_ the customer is wrong.
Your other customers know the level of service they get from you, and
those that stay for the long term will do so for that level of service,
not because you were able to discredit an angry customer's attempt to
appear as though others also are dissatisfied with the service.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hakim
news:5gitf25enssmb3bvc...@4ax.com:
> Hello Marty,
>
> You appear to be the same person as Bill_W_...@yahoo.com.
>
> Posting from ips that are all on our network:
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.248.158.80
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.248.153.151
>
> Both correspond to your username for post times.
>
> Why are you responding to your own posts?
>
> Marc
Man you are one genuine asshole. I have just called Rogers back and
uncanceled my cable by taking the offer they made me yesterday. I WAS
calling to get your service tomorrow since I saw you listed as a payee
on Royal Banks list. I was also telling people in other groups about
your unlimited service, but now I have a different story to tell them.
I would rather have an ISP that I hate like you could not imagine,
Rogers, then one who has so much free time that he goes snooping logs
on his customers, Teksavvy. I am glad I found this out now.
I bet you spend all this free time of yours snooping peoples emails and
USENET posts as well. What a creep! This is very sad.
F**K YOU ASSHOLE!
Marc Bissonnette
news:Xns9836F125918...@216.151.153.14:
First off, they are *their* logs - the ISP's - Secondly: When someone
bashes your company, are you supposed to sit back and just take it,
*especially* when you know that the nature of the complaint is so against
the regular response and reputation of the company ?
Thirdly: Do you _really_ need to resort to language like that ? Not only
does it not further your cause, but gives the impression that you are
merely a teen-aged child who still gets a kick out of being a potty mouth
in public.
Good luck with Rogers. <ahem>
nobody
> calling to get your service tomorrow since I saw you listed as a payee
> on Royal Banks list.
You're right. One shouldn't do business with a company that does
business with the Royal Bank. But if the Royal Bank discloses private
banking information about its customers, then don't blame Teksavvy,
blame that bloody bank that breaks the data privacy law. If that bank
truly has a public list of customers accused if being deadbeats, then by
all means, post the URL here and you may wish to advise the privacy commissioner.
> Rogers, then one who has so much free time that he goes snooping logs
> on his customers,
Well, customers write a complain lacking personal information (normal
for a newsgroup). One of the principals of the company sees this, and
investigates internally why this wasn't resolved. Such investigation
would have to involve finding the identity fo the complainer in order to
access whatever problem tracking database they may have internally. So
in such a case, this is perfectly normal.
In fairness though, finding out that posts from different identities
pointed to the same customer and posting this publically may have lacked
a bit of diplomacy. However, consider that in the ISTOP days, such a
complaint would have been resolved VERY quickly. The ISP would have cut
off service to the customer who made such a complaint.
Here, you have one of the principals of the company wanting to
investigate in good faith but realises that some customer isn't
interested in resolving but rather smeering the ISP.
Mike
I was just really confused and wanted to make sure you knew I wasen't
putting your comapny down but rather playing it up!
tsiguy
> putting your comapny down but rather playing it up!
Eyes were crossing by about midnight (let alone 3)! hehehe....
Appreciate the follow-up though.
Rocky
tsiguy
> let him do himself), though, I find it's bad form for the ISP to take
> advantage of information that only they have access to in an effort to
> discredit the claims made against them.
You're right, the time sucked from our end on that.... We were trying
to fix the issues with Marty and saw the Bill guy also mad at us, we
click on the show original link inside options (in Google news groups)
and see the same IP for both. It made a little mad and as a result
replied with that same anger... Guess we should have gone for a coffee
run before posting! ;-)
> - Marty's (or "Bill's") complaint isn't specifically against Marc or
> Rocky, but rather against what he may perceive as a faceless
> commercial entity. He's acting (it appears) on the principle of
> "the customer is always right" and appears to feel that TekSavvy
> has said "of course you're right, sir, but let's just confirm that
> you aren't wrong." (I'm not saying that you shouldn't confirm
> whether the modem is really at fault before dealing with shipping
> a replacement, just that this is what Marty's actions appear to be
> based on.)
In the midst of all of this, Marc spent a few hours trying to track
down what happened and to see what steps had been attempted by the
customer and by us..... So regardless of what was posted, we're still
trying to help.
>
> - The claims made as "Bill_W_Stephens" had absolutely no basis in
> fact, as anyone who's ever picked up the phone to speak to the folks
> at TekSavvy (even if only to enquire about service) will attest.
> Did Marc really fear someone would jump in to support those claims
> if he didn't point out that they were made on Marty's access time?
Unfortunately, the world of first impressions is huge these days as
people judge based on very little things.... such as the guy who was
mad at us earlier in the post, saying FU at the end.... We're not your
tipical company, we just aren't. We look into every problem that has
issues, we buy equipment that doesn't go down (the move to Juniper for
routing and purchasing of IronPort for Spam), we have someone on staff
for quality assurance.... we go the extra 10 miles on everything we do!
:-)
By looking into this problem, as stated above, we saw a major issue
that devoloped that made us very mad (we're not big on people who kook
posts).... Like I said earlier though... the time was poor on pointing
this out.
>
> - TekSavvy's willingness to be cooperative within reason on this
> matter seems quite clear. What it seems they're stubbornly
> overlooking is that the customer appears to believe he's right,
> because "the customer is always right."
On this, we'll always tell it like it is.... If we believe we're wrong,
we'll work with the customer to fix the problem, but due diligence will
be the way to go on claims that are iffy... we're about being fair, not
getting screwed.
> You won't please everyone, and angry customers will almost always be the
> most vocal. My point is that you shouldn't let it get personal, and
> you shouldn't feel as though you have to _prove_ the customer is wrong.
> Your other customers know the level of service they get from you, and
> those that stay for the long term will do so for that level of service,
> not because you were able to discredit an angry customer's attempt to
> appear as though others also are dissatisfied with the service.
Point taken! :-)
Thanks for the input... This hardware issue was one of the first with
this kind of public issue and it's been, well, a learning curve it
seems, as we weren't expecting this kind of attention to it.... In any
case, it likely got blown out of proportion a little for sure.... I
think the issue from our end came with it being paralleled with our
service... (title read Teksavvy Internet Service - buyer
beware.....).... wasn't a good start to the read!
Have a good one all,
Rocky
TSI Marc
>by a customer. I find it fascinating that an ISP even takes the time to
Not bailing, and it wasn't the negative comment, it was the
underhandedness. That post by "Bill" about a dissatisfied company...
was an outright fabrication. By our own customer of two years..
doesn't that just suck? anyway, no worries my skin is tougher then
that.
>monitor this group. It's quite interesting watching this played out here, and
>to see the attempts you've made at rectifying the situation.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
>I'd never heard of you before subbing to this NG a couple of months back, but
>you're on my short list of replacements when Ma Bell finally pisses me off for
>the last time. <g>
hehe. cool. good to hear.
Marc
TSI Marc
> as an ISP appears to be firmly established and will remain, erode,
> or strengthen based on the quality of service they deliver to clients.
Its important to defend ones interests. Its because we treat it as
"important" to defend these accusations that our "reputation" is
firmly established. If we didn't care what people were saying... why
even post in here? We genuinly care about our customers, is that so
bad? I dont feel the "need" to defend, its simply that I care.
> - Marty's (or "Bill's") complaint isn't specifically against Marc or
> Rocky, but rather against what he may perceive as a faceless
> commercial entity. He's acting (it appears) on the principle of
> "the customer is always right" and appears to feel that TekSavvy
> has said "of course you're right, sir, but let's just confirm that
> you aren't wrong." (I'm not saying that you shouldn't confirm
> whether the modem is really at fault before dealing with shipping
> a replacement, just that this is what Marty's actions appear to be
> based on.)
The key word in this is "appear". What I'm saying is that it "appears"
to me to be entirely a different thing then what you're saying.
> - The claims made as "Bill_W_Stephens" had absolutely no basis in
> fact, as anyone who's ever picked up the phone to speak to the folks
> at TekSavvy (even if only to enquire about service) will attest.
> Did Marc really fear someone would jump in to support those claims
> if he didn't point out that they were made on Marty's access time?
I posted after people had already jumped in.
> - TekSavvy's willingness to be cooperative within reason on this
> matter seems quite clear. What it seems they're stubbornly
> overlooking is that the customer appears to believe he's right,
> because "the customer is always right."
He's right until he shows he is genuinly acting against us.
>If TekSavvy told the customer, at this point, publically or not (I
>expect if they attempted to not be public about it, the customer would
>make it public anyway), "listen, you let us know when you're prepared to
>work with us and troubleshoot the problem according to our procedure,
>but until then you'll have to tackle this on your own, accepting that
>we do not believe there is any problem with our service offering,"
>it would seem to me that TekSavvy were being completely reasonable.
>
>If the modem was purchased in September 2004, and includes a 2-year
>warranty, the customer should consider himself motivated to follow
>the proposed procedure, to the letter, in order to obtain service or
>replacement under warranty, if he's so entitled.
>
>You won't please everyone, and angry customers will almost always be the
>most vocal. My point is that you shouldn't let it get personal, and
>you shouldn't feel as though you have to _prove_ the customer is wrong.
>Your other customers know the level of service they get from you, and
>those that stay for the long term will do so for that level of service,
>not because you were able to discredit an angry customer's attempt to
>appear as though others also are dissatisfied with the service.
This is not about pleasing everyone. This is about the fact that real
people read these forums, some only read them partially. Its important
to address these untrue and unfair postings. I was not out to "prove"
anybody wrong. I was out to defend our position. And honestly who
knows, we may have found out we were wrong.. at which point we'd have
said so and made good as best we could. It just doesn't appear to be
the case here.
As far as personal goes. Any company owner will tell you that its
personal when it comes to their business. And I've really tried over
the years to "not" let it be personal. But the fact is that it "is"
personal no matter how you try to word it otherwise.
I do appreciate your feedback here though.
Marc
Marc Bissonnette
disgorging news:q130g257tacfhfs4k...@4ax.com:
I think the whole incident has been handled quite well by TekSavvy,
personally.
Often, technical support can end up being a lose-lost situation when
you're dealing with someone who is frustrated and angry at something they
don't understand. I remember this well not only from my time working as a
TS guy, but even today in dealing with customers, supporting my own CGI
and database code. Computers and computer-related services often
frustrate people; It can be worse because the problem is often something
they can't even see, much less understand. After all, if you've got, say,
a toaster that doesn't work; You can see the silly thing and know that if
you took it apart, the problem would probably be something as simple as a
broken wire or separated component.
With IT services, though, consumers often haven't the *foggiest* clue as
to how it works or why it isn't working: That's not a put-down, just a
fact of life. They assume, though, that it's "just supposed to work".
I've seen some perfectly nice, reasonable and polite people turn into
complete and utter ***holes when their computers don't work - go figure.
Working tech support can often be a test of patience that even a rock
would be hard-pressed to achieve.
People point to IStop and poke fun at them for cutting off a customer who
got like that, but really, their model (from what I could see, anyway)
was basically "Only use us if you're the type of person who gets all of
this and is able to solve it either on your own or at least have the
understanding not to get pi**ed off at our support folk". Not a model
everyone agrees with, but it worked for them (and I'm betting their tech
support people had much lower stress levels :) :) :) )
I'm not a big believer in "The customer is always right" - especially
when it seems the unspoken addendum is "no matter what", because that's
just not the case. There was a discussion like this in alt.www.webmaster
recently, along the lines of 'firing clients' - Me, I'm in business to
make a little money, learn new things and talk to interesting people. I'm
not in business to get ulcers, high blood pressure or a heart attack. If
someone slams my business or myself with completely fabricated evidence,
I'll do what needs to be done to protect my business, including telling
the customer he's a so-and-so if I think he's just being malicious. On
the other hand, if I'm being told that I've screwed up and it needs to be
fixed, I'll do that and offer my mea culpa's, as well.
M&M
"nobody" <nob...@nobody.org> wrote in message
news:44FFA109...@nobody.org...
> Hakim wrote:
>> calling to get your service tomorrow since I saw you listed as a payee
>> on Royal Banks list.
>
> You're right. One shouldn't do business with a company that does
> business with the Royal Bank. But if the Royal Bank discloses private
> banking information about its customers, then don't blame Teksavvy,
> blame that bloody bank that breaks the data privacy law. If that bank
> truly has a public list of customers accused if being deadbeats, then by
> all means, post the URL here and you may wish to advise the privacy
> commissioner.
What? Royal Bank simply has them listed as a option to pay bills
on-line...thats all. All banks that have on-line banking have companies
listed so you can pay bills on-line.
I think you've read the original post wrong.
M&M
"Marc Bissonnette" <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9836F3330AFC7dr...@216.196.97.131...
Marc, I agree with your comments but the OP is right. Yes, its their own
logs they've examined and they have every right to do it...but posting it
here for the world to see is plain wrong. What next? Private information
posted because you've upset or hurt the feelings of Teksavvy? Disconnection
of service? If they have no problem publicly doing this, what else are
they capable of?
TSI Marc
>logs they've examined and they have every right to do it...but posting it
>here for the world to see is plain wrong. What next? Private information
>posted because you've upset or hurt the feelings of Teksavvy? Disconnection
>of service? If they have no problem publicly doing this, what else are
>they capable of?
Hello M&M,
No information was posted at any time. No logs were posted. No emails
were read, no data was collected... absolutely nothing was
compromised. We do not read any data or information passed through our
systems. Nor do we randomly post information about customers. The
customer initiated this entire thread, publicly.
Marc
Marc Bissonnette
news:edph35$197$1...@news.datemas.de:
> Marc, I agree with your comments but the OP is right. Yes, its their
> own logs they've examined and they have every right to do it...but
> posting it here for the world to see is plain wrong. What next?
> Private information posted because you've upset or hurt the feelings
> of Teksavvy? Disconnection of service? If they have no problem
> publicly doing this, what else are they capable of?
Now that's going more than a little too far; As tsiguy pointed out, no
private information was posted: In Usenet, it is unfortunately too common
that when you see someone trying to slag another, be it a company or a
person, to create a sockpuppet to "support" their original post; It's a
cheap tactic and I see nothing wrong with someone pointing out that
poster "A" and poster "B" are the same person or coming from the same
account: It doesn't identify them, compromise them, release anything
private about them, other than to say "these two people saying bad things
about us are the same person"
The whole thing, IMO, has been handled professionally by TS. Even when
they felt they got a little too defensive, they posted a mea culpa.
That's professional and classy, IMO. Creating sockpuppets to slam a
target, on the other hand, is not. (And, just to be fair: If it were two
different people posting from the same account, fairness says that that
should be pointed out, specifically to avoid being outed as a sockpuppet)
M&M
> Now that's going more than a little too far; As tsiguy pointed out, no
> private information was posted: In Usenet, it is unfortunately too common
> that when you see someone trying to slag another, be it a company or a
> person, to create a sockpuppet to "support" their original post; It's a
> cheap tactic and I see nothing wrong with someone pointing out that
> poster "A" and poster "B" are the same person or coming from the same
> account: It doesn't identify them, compromise them, release anything
> private about them, other than to say "these two people saying bad things
> about us are the same person"
>
> The whole thing, IMO, has been handled professionally by TS. Even when
> they felt they got a little too defensive, they posted a mea culpa.
> That's professional and classy, IMO. Creating sockpuppets to slam a
> target, on the other hand, is not. (And, just to be fair: If it were two
> different people posting from the same account, fairness says that that
> should be pointed out, specifically to avoid being outed as a sockpuppet)
>
Marc,
If I called up Bell or Rogers and complained that my connection was dropping
every day, and the CSR said to me "Well, we just can't please everyone
apparently." Then, I get angry, and the CSR responds back "Not sure if you
know who I am, but if your looking for help, this isn't the way to go." You
think its professional of an individual representing a company to respond
like that?
I know they pay you for advertising, so you don't have to answer this.
P.S. I don't have any dealings with Teksavvy, good or bad, nor do I know the
original poster. I am not on anyones side here, just stating what my
opinions are based on what I have read in this thread.
tsiguy
Hi M&M,
You're picking at pieces of the conversation to find arguments.....
That's not at all how this conversation went. If you called TekSavvy
and complained that your connection was dropping, you'd get answers on
the first call... not after calling every day.
Rocky
TSI Marc
>
>If I called up Bell or Rogers and complained that my connection was dropping
>every day, and the CSR said to me "Well, we just can't please everyone
>apparently." Then, I get angry, and the CSR responds back "Not sure if you
>know who I am, but if your looking for help, this isn't the way to go." You
>think its professional of an individual representing a company to respond
>like that?
At no point did Rocky or any of our staff say that to the customer.
Mike
"TSI Marc" <marc\_@_/teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:cf01g2h8q0imttf38...@4ax.com...
> >Marc,
>>
>>If I called up Bell or Rogers and complained that my connection was
>>dropping
>>every day, and the CSR said to me "Well, we just can't please everyone
>>apparently." Then, I get angry, and the CSR responds back "Not sure if
>>you
>>know who I am, but if your looking for help, this isn't the way to go."
>>You
>>think its professional of an individual representing a company to respond
>>like that?
>
> At no point did Rocky or any of our staff say that to the customer.
>
I am not a teksavvy customer either, but would love to be if bell would
upgrade my neighbourhood to support DSL
Marc Bissonnette
>>
>> Now that's going more than a little too far; As tsiguy pointed out,
>> no private information was posted: In Usenet, it is unfortunately too
>> common that when you see someone trying to slag another, be it a
>> company or a person, to create a sockpuppet to "support" their
>> original post; It's a cheap tactic and I see nothing wrong with
>> someone pointing out that poster "A" and poster "B" are the same
>> person or coming from the same account: It doesn't identify them,
>> compromise them, release anything private about them, other than to
>> say "these two people saying bad things about us are the same person"
>>
>> The whole thing, IMO, has been handled professionally by TS. Even
>> when they felt they got a little too defensive, they posted a mea
>> culpa. That's professional and classy, IMO. Creating sockpuppets to
>> slam a target, on the other hand, is not. (And, just to be fair: If
>> it were two different people posting from the same account, fairness
>> says that that should be pointed out, specifically to avoid being
>> outed as a sockpuppet)
>>
>
> Marc,
>
> If I called up Bell or Rogers and complained that my connection was
> dropping every day, and the CSR said to me "Well, we just can't please
> everyone apparently." Then, I get angry, and the CSR responds back
> "Not sure if you know who I am, but if your looking for help, this
> isn't the way to go." You think its professional of an individual
> representing a company to respond like that?
Ummm... I don't see how this relates to the TS story - that's not how it
was related by the customer or TS.
My understanding is this: Customer had a modem that went buggy: Asked TS
to fix or replace it; TS said "Not sure if this is our fault or not, but
send it to us and if it is our fault/responsibility, we'll get it back to
you" (Not quoting, just paraphrasing). The customer, IIRC, took issue
with being asked to pay for the shipping to TS.
I'm not privvy to the exact conversation, but if I were in their place,
my answer to the client's initial problem would be along these lines:
"Okay, you have a wonky modem, we don't know if it's something that we're
responsible for or you are, without first testing it ourselves. You send
it to us at your expense: If it's our fault/responsibility, we'll
fix/replace it and send it back to you (our cost) and credit your account
with your shipping costs. If it's not our fault/responsibility, we'll
call you and let you know to ask you what you'd like to do next".
At the very end of it all, ya gotta remember that on DSL connections, the
average ISP is only making $2-$5 a month in profit: When you throw a $10
shipping cost in there, for example, there's two to five months of
serving that customer while making no revenue from him (Not even counting
CSR time, etc). I'm not saying that that's the only consideration in
play, but I think most of us are business savvy enough to know that it
*is* a factor, especially when you have to be consistent across thousands
of customers.
> I know they pay you for advertising, so you don't have to answer this.
<shrug> I'd like to think that I come across as a pretty straightforward,
don't-beat-around-the-bush kinda guy. In this particular instance, I
agree with TekSavvy and said so publicly.
There have been instances in the past where a customer of an ISP will
email me privately to see if I can help resolve an issue/disagreement
with their ISP - Some people seem to think I'm an arbitrator or whatnot.
In those cases, I forward the issue to the ISP (with the user's
permission) and, if appropriate, offer my own thoughts on a solution, if
I think I see all the details. To date, there's only been one customer
who's issue could not be resolved and frankly, I don't think there was
much anyone could have done to satisfy that one individual.
If an ISP chooses not to advertise on CanadianISP, that's their choice,
but really, it's a site that happens to generate a little revenue for me
(okay, more than a little, but still, Internalysis pays the bills); You'd
still see me running CanadianISP even if there weren't a single
advertiser on there: It's a neat and useful site and gives me access to
data about trends and usage that I wouldn't normally see. It's better
than me kissing rear-end just because someone happens to pay me a few
bucks, which you'll never see me do :)
All of that aside (ready for the brag?) CanadianISP gives good results to
ISPs, whether they advertise or not (Though there is a *substantial*
difference in the number of users who choose to click through a
highlighted or banner'ed ISP over those that aren't) - I'd like to think
that unless I were calling Rocky and Marc poopie-heads in all sorts of
more, erm, "colourful" language, they'd probably still go with what works
:)
There has been _one_ ISP that cancelled advertising with CanadianISP and
as much as I hate to admit it, it was my fault: After the buyout of
CanadianISP, I got a bunch of invoices mixed up between what was paid
versus what was outstanding and got a little too agressive in trying to
get the ISP to pay up. As the ISP owner pointed out, a simple phone call
on my part would have solved things, rather than me making an arse out of
myself with the emails. Live and learn (I'm *much* more polite with "your
bill is late" types of emails, now :) )
> P.S. I don't have any dealings with Teksavvy, good or bad, nor do I
> know the original poster. I am not on anyones side here, just stating
> what my opinions are based on what I have read in this thread.
I think it's been a decent thread on how to manage public relations along
with user management, no matter who's reading it :)
M&M
"Mike" <goui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FC%Lg.36717$ED.1...@read2.cgocable.net...
Yes, you're right. He did say this to you, and when you questioned him, he
then stated the response was really directed at "Marty", the customer. I'm
just calling it as I see it.
Geoffrey Welsh
> Nop. I am suggesting he hold 1 Model X in reserve for the duration of
> the warrantee. (say 2 years). If, during those 2 years, you have 10
> customers who have problems with model X, it is unlikely they will all
> return them at the same time.
... unless a power surge in an area takes out a few at once. <grin> Still,
it would be nice if they had 'a few' on the shelf.
For many years my employer bought our desktop computers from a local computer
store. They used decent parts, built good systems, had good prices and went
out of their way to help us out when we really needed it. But their one year
parts two years labour warranty was a problem because CPUs changed every few
months and, when we toasted a CPU (which, thankfully, was practically unheard
of), they didn't have a spare on the shelf... they had to send the faulty CPU
to Intel (or the distributor) and we were without one of our desktop systems
for a while. They didn't stock a couple of every CPU they sold for just such
an emergency and, at their markup, I really couldn't blame them. Similarly,
it would not have been practical for us to keep a couple of every model of
computer we'd ever bought on the shelf just in case we needed to swap out a
system or scavenge a part. So, unfortunately for them, our business needs
dictated that we switch to Dell, who stocked spare parts and offered 4-hour
(server) or next-day (workstation) on-site repairs and even allowed us to
extend warranties for important systems and components for up to five years.
I once had to exercise the 4-hour repair option on a doorstopped tape
autoloader that was a couple of years old and was pleased that a technician
arrived in a couple of hours to check it out and the replacment unit,
obviously shipped ahead just in case he couldn't fix it, arrived about half
an hour later by courier.
Just in case you might think the moral of the story is to stick with bigger
vendors so that they can afford to stock replacement parts, I should point
out that returning my modem to Sympatico illustrates the disorganization that
comes with many such large companies: months after I had canceled my account,
they sent me a bill for a modem (at quite a price, too, even neglecting the
fact that I'd paid it off several times over at $10/month); fortunately, I'm
a certified professional procrastinator and had to drop off my modem at their
return center because I left it too late to mail it, and I had a date-stamped
receipt to prove that I had in fact returned the modem. (And, yes, when I
handed it in it had all the appropriate papers and stickers that we're
supposed to use when mailing it in.) I hate dealing with organizations so
big that they not only have bureaucratic screwups, they treat the customer
impersonally and expect the customer to document their error; subscribers
shouldn't have to keep paperwork like that.
> But it appears that this is the case with the ISP being the retailer,
> the manufacturer totally detached from the initial loop.
Unfortunately, it's common for retailers to sell an item and tell any
customer who's having a problem that the manufacturer is responsible for the
warranty; worse, some retailers even sell grey market (i.e., not imported
through official distribution channels and thus not covered by the
manufacturer's local division of appointed repair center) items. That's sad,
but what's sadder is the number of consumers who buy on price alone and don't
think about service until they're complaining that they're not getting any.
--
Geoffrey Welsh <Geoffrey [dot] Welsh [at] bigfoot [dot] com>
I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories because, although I disagree with
George W. Bush on many things, I don't believe that he would ever do anything
that would kill thousands of Americans, injure countless more, endanger the
economy, and risk exposing him as a liar just to advance his own agenda.
Nevermind... that's what he did in Iraq!
Sylvain Robitaille
> I'm not a big believer in "The customer is always right" - especially
> when it seems the unspoken addendum is "no matter what", because that's
> just not the case.
I agree, but my point here is that the customer appears to believe that
he _is_ right, perhaps "no matter what". Recall that I made a point to
mention that it appears to me that TekSavvy have attempted to be fully
accomodating, within reason, on this matter.
> I'll do what needs to be done to protect my business, including telling
> the customer he's a so-and-so if I think he's just being malicious.
> ...
Therein lies what triggered my first message in this thread: You can
tell the customer he's a so-and-so, preferably in private, but be very
aware of how that makes you look to other (perhaps potential) customers.
Had TekSavvy, in this case, pointed out to the user in private that
they were very aware that the two messages being compared came from
IP addresses that they could show were used by the same account,
and even perhaps requested that the user retract his statements, that
would be one thing, but to come out in public and use information that
is supposed to be private in an attempt to discredit the user's claims
(which I personally feel had no credit to begin with, but that is beside
the point), or perhaps to attempt to embarass the user into retracting
his staements, strikes me as unprofessional.
That, coming from an organization that has appeared to me in all
other matters I've witnessed as quite professional, clueful, and very
reasonable, triggered my message.
Sylvain Robitaille
> ... (we're not big on people who kook posts)....
Well, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, there is a non-zero
possibility that Bill_W_Stephens was merely sharing Marty's access.
There's a fine line that you find yourself treading on when you're
trying to deduce someone's actions based on information in your logs.
You can identify activity they never knew you logged, but you also need
to be careful to conclude only what you know. In this case, someone
claiming to be Bill_W_Stephens, accessing the netnews service by way of
Marty's account with you. Whether or not that should be public
information, is quite a delicate issue, in my opinion.
> Thanks for the input... This hardware issue was one of the first with
> this kind of public issue and it's been, well, a learning curve it
> seems, as we weren't expecting this kind of attention to it....
This is probably largely why you don't find most other ISPs having much
presence on public newsgroups. Angry users don't have to maintain any
level of professionalism (unless they want to maintain a certain level
of credibility that is, but anger is often stronger than good judgement).
> In any case, it likely got blown out of proportion a little for sure...
Agreed; from about the time the subject line of the original message was
writtem, I'm sure ...
Sylvain Robitaille
> Its important to defend ones interests. ...
You could easily have done that in a much more discrete manner, from
sending the message privately instead of on the newsgroup, to suggesting
that the message from Bill_W_Stephens clearly wasn't referring to your
service offering (ie. "we don't appear to have a Bill_W_Stephens on
record as a past or present client").
Still, I don't believe you need to let yourself get backed into a
defensive position in this case. As I stated in my earlier posting
TekSavvy has nothing to prove to this newsgroup. They've built their
reputation from the level of service they provide.
> Its because we treat it as "important" to defend these accusations
> that our "reputation" is firmly established.
No, the reputation was established (in my mind, at least) long before
you or Rocky were ever seen on this newsgroup.
No offense intended, but if I were to base an opinion of TekSavvy only
on the messages I've seen on this newsgroup that I know were from
someone at TekSavvy, it would likely be along the lines of "new to the
net, probably worth keeping an eye on, but let other people work out
their growing pains."
On the other hand, based on personal experience, the experience of friends
and colleagues, and the experiences reported on this newsgroup by others
who I don't believe have any business affiliation with TekSavvy, it's
a lot easier to conclude "very clueful, pleasant, and reliable". One or
two messages (from one or two clearly dissatisfied customer(s)) aren't
going to suddenly erode that impression.
> I posted after people had already jumped in.
I've taken the time to review the thread up to your post that triggered
my message, and don't see any that were in support of the claims made as
Bill_W_Stephens.
Mike
"M&M" <M...@m.com> wrote in message news:edq29r$5gl$1...@news.datemas.de...
Well no he thought I was a sockpuppet.
JF Mezei
> Unfortunately, the world of first impressions is huge these days as
> people judge based on very little things....
Mr tsiguy...
Any ISP will have plenty of horror stories over its history. But by
having the owners (or people in charge) participate, it not only helps
to defuse each situation, but also leaves a great image.
Consider the current IGS email problems where IGS seems to be *very*
quiet. I think this is something people notice. And that poor Gabe who
is no longer in tech support and tries to help nevertheless gets blasted
because in the end, he just isn't "high enough" in the company to make a
formal announcement.
If you remove the last 1.5 years of ISTOP, you'll find that its
principal was quite active here. Before I signed up with them, I had
seen the many negative messages. But I had also seen him participate and
provide highly technical and complete answers to technical questions,
and there were also many positive messages and that impressed me more
than the negative stories.
*HOW* you handle a problem customer is, in the end, more important than
the complaints of the problem customer and when you present yourself
well to handle a problem customer, it actually helps your company's
image BIG TIME.
Don't worry about people airing dirty laundry in public. Worry about
making sure you publically wash that dirty laundry and make it smell
good. That is what potential customers will see when they lookup your
ISP in google/newsgroups.
If you were to stop participating in the newsgroups/forums, then any
dirty laundry will remain unanswered and that is when the ISP gets a bad
hit in its image.
JF Mezei
> He's right until he shows he is genuinly acting against us.
Use Google to your advantage. Respond professionally and don't accuse
the customer. That is what ends up staying in the "public record". You
may know that he is the same guy and that his goal is to smear you, but
you don't need to make that accusation in public. You can write
something like "you sound like you have the same problem as <other
poster>" and invite the second guy to contact you privately to fix the
problem. Or if it is a former customer, invite him to contact you to
tell you exactly with whom he had dealt with because you want to ensure
this doesn't happen again to other customers.
TSI Marc
Thank you for your feedback, you bring up good points. I will consider
these in my future posts.
Regards,
Marc
JF Mezei
> The whole thing, IMO, has been handled professionally by TS.
I tend to agree with M&M on this though. In the end, the majority may
view it your way. But a certain number of people will see it the wrong way.
So, if the accusation that 2 nicks pointed to the same guy had not been
made (or had been very subtle), almost all people would have seen it in
a positive way.
tsiguy
Thought you should know:
Marty called me this morning to discuss this post and everything was
worked out....
Regards,
Rocky
Hakim
why don't you just shut up with your stupid babble. you are kissing their
ass for ad money, GREAT BIG PERIOD!
Marc Bissonnette
news:Xns9837E226046...@216.151.153.13:
[snippage]
Marc Bissonnette <dra...@internalysis.com> wrote:
>> I think it's been a decent thread on how to manage public relations
>> along with user management, no matter who's reading it :)
>
> why don't you just shut up with your stupid babble. you are kissing
> their ass for ad money, GREAT BIG PERIOD!
You are, of course, free to think that way.
You might, however, lookup some of the IStop threads and my contributions
to those: Never got a dime from them.
Good luck in your resumption of your Rogers account :)
Hakim
> First off, they are *their* logs - the ISP's - Secondly: When someone
> bashes your company, are you supposed to sit back and just take it,
> *especially* when you know that the nature of the complaint is so
> against the regular response and reputation of the company ?
The reputation of their company is fast becoming shit. When their main
presence in this groups threatens customers with no support for shiting
on them I expect most people who are not looking to line their pockets
with advertising dollars can see the Teksavvy halo getting dimmer. That
is some great way of protecting their reputation, going after customers
in public. Haaaaaaa!
> Thirdly: Do you _really_ need to resort to language like that ? Not
> only does it not further your cause, but gives the impression that you
> are merely a teen-aged child who still gets a kick out of being a
> potty mouth in public.
well you give the impression of a loud mouthed fool sucking the
advertising tit. SUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK!
> Good luck with Rogers. <ahem>
Actually Rogers Internet works very well here and always has. There are
many other reasons for hating Rogers.
Hakim
news:1157680303....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
That does not change what you Teksavvy guys did. Very low class.
Marc Bissonnette
disgorging news:bch1g2hu8sak43v9r...@4ax.com:
> Hi Sylvain,
>
> Thank you for your feedback, you bring up good points. I will consider
> these in my future posts.
Hey, think of it this way: If you decide to throw it all to the winds,
just hire someone like me: A dedicated and faithful follower of the Simon
Travaglia school of BOFH management. Just give me read and write access
to /var/mail and /etc/passwd and the customer service email account:
You'll find those pesky, negative customers aren't so pesky when it's
"discovered" that they've been involved in torrid image exchanges of nude
orangutangs...
BWahHHaHAHAahhaAaAAHAAAA!
:)
--
Marc Bissonnette
news:Xns9837E420218...@216.151.153.21:
> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9836F3330AFC7dr...@216.196.97.131:
>
>> First off, they are *their* logs - the ISP's - Secondly: When someone
>> bashes your company, are you supposed to sit back and just take it,
>> *especially* when you know that the nature of the complaint is so
>> against the regular response and reputation of the company ?
>
> The reputation of their company is fast becoming shit. When their main
> presence in this groups threatens customers with no support for shiting
> on them I expect most people who are not looking to line their pockets
> with advertising dollars can see the Teksavvy halo getting dimmer. That
> is some great way of protecting their reputation, going after customers
> in public. Haaaaaaa!
I disagree with you, Hakim, but I fear that all the references to proof
and examples in the world will not change your opinion in me: That is, of
course, your right in this wonderful country of ours.
>> Thirdly: Do you _really_ need to resort to language like that ? Not
>> only does it not further your cause, but gives the impression that you
>> are merely a teen-aged child who still gets a kick out of being a
>> potty mouth in public.
>
> well you give the impression of a loud mouthed fool sucking the
> advertising tit. SUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK!
<shrug> If that's your opinion, then that's your opinion. I think you'll
find it doesn't overly bother me.
>> Good luck with Rogers. <ahem>
>
> Actually Rogers Internet works very well here and always has. There are
> many other reasons for hating Rogers.
Then you shouldn't have any problems at all going back to them - Good
luck and happy transfers!
Hakim
> Hakim wrote:
>> calling to get your service tomorrow since I saw you listed as a
>> payee on Royal Banks list.
>
> You're right. One shouldn't do business with a company that does
> business with the Royal Bank. But if the Royal Bank discloses private
Don't know what you are going on about here. Finding them in RBC's list
of payees was a big plus for me. It was the only DSL ISP that I found I
could pay that way.
> Well, customers write a complain lacking personal information (normal
> for a newsgroup). One of the principals of the company sees this, and
> investigates internally why this wasn't resolved. Such investigation
> would have to involve finding the identity fo the complainer in order
> to access whatever problem tracking database they may have internally.
> So in such a case, this is perfectly normal.
NO, he searched the logs for the info on the second account that was
blasting on Teksavvy because he suspected that it might be the same
person and then publicly posted the information. I will bet you he also
searched on anyone else using a teksavvy IP that posted negative
comments so he could try to discredit them. That time and effort could
have been better spent. There were many better ways of handling that
whole thing.
> In fairness though, finding out that posts from different identities
> pointed to the same customer and posting this publically may have
> lacked a bit of diplomacy. However, consider that in the ISTOP days,
> such a complaint would have been resolved VERY quickly. The ISP would
> have cut off service to the customer who made such a complaint.
Well you knew what you were getting into with Ralph. If yoyu were stupid
enough to push his buttons too many times then you got what you BARGINED
for. Real dick head but Istop was good while it lasted. Couple of my
friends had it and miss it.
> Here, you have one of the principals of the company wanting to
> investigate in good faith but realises that some customer isn't
> interested in resolving but rather smeering the ISP.
Because he figured it was past the point of any good faith support from
Teksavvy. His post to this newsgroup got Teksavvy off their asses and
now he his happy. It also let the rest of us know that Teksavvy are not
perfect at customer support as they would have us believe.
Hakim
news:ki10g21vdo4t8nhm7...@4ax.com:
> But you find nameshifting slander ok?
Maybe you would like to quote back to me where I said that. Don't
try to summarize my comments you idiot. You are too far stupid.
JF Mezei
> This is probably largely why you don't find most other ISPs having much
> presence on public newsgroups.
Their loss. Those few ISPs that do have the courage to show up are the
ones who tend to grow and become trendy and attracts lots of new customers.
The best way to know how a potential ISP might react to your problems is
to look at newsgroups and dslreports and look at those ISPs that do have
a presence there. That goves you a very good idea of how they work.
When you have hundreds of ISps to choose from on CanadianISP, which ones
do you choose ? Having one/more reps/presidents participate in public
newsgroups is HUGE plus and shows they really want to help their
customers and also find out what customers and potential customers want
from an ISP.
And an ISP that participates is also going to be educating users in many
cases (providing technical reasons for a problem/issue etc, and that
leads to potential customers seeing that they know what they are talking about.
Marc Bissonnette
disgorging news:4500E6CE...@teksavvy.com:
[Subject header changed to something less negative)
Just an addendum to the above:
Many will say "Why bother with usenet when less that 5% of the users
actually read it" - The answer, of course is that while we may well be
that 5% of users, the collective "we" tend to be the more technically
savvy (ZING! Punny!!!!) - Often, it is the collective "we" that people
come and ask "Hey, I gotta change ISPs: Who do you use/ who would you
recommend". That recommendation is then passed on, in the form of "Hey,
I've got this geek friend who recommended I switch to such-and-such an
ISP and man, what a difference!" and so on.
I know that in the pre-CanadianISP days, I'd do that all the time, just
'cuz I was on the internet before I could walk or talk (okay, *slight*
exxageration, but... :) ) I remember many, many a friend, colleague and
customer who switched to Interlog when I was a customer with them, simply
because they kicked butt in their service, both technically and customer-
wise.
JF Mezei
> Don't know what you are going on about here. Finding them in RBC's list
> of payees was a big plus for me. It was the only DSL ISP that I found I
> could pay that way.
I have completely misunderstood this part. I thought it was some
accusation of Teksavvy not having paid its bills with the Royals, as
opposed to being able to pay Teksavvy bills via Royal bank.
Note that Istop had also setup the ability to pay one's IOSTOP bills via
banks. And that had impressed me quite a bit for such a small company to
be able to particiipate in a bill payment scheme that used to be
reserved to very large utilities.
> person and then publicly posted the information. I will bet you he also
> searched on anyone else using a teksavvy IP that posted negative
> comments so he could try to discredit them.
In my experience with Teksavvy, the real reason would have been to
contact the person to try to find out what went wrong and how things
could be fixed/improved to make the customer happy.
A disgruntled customer can be turned into an asset if you can find out
why he became disgruntled and fix whatever caused it.
In cases where the person is just badmouthing without any valid reasons,
you still need to be diplomatic and show you've tried to help and let it
become obvious the other guy is clearly not interested in you fixing his problem.
> Well you knew what you were getting into with Ralph. If yoyu were stupid
> enough to push his buttons too many times then you got what you BARGINED
> for. Real dick head but Istop was good while it lasted.
ISTOP had a good service until the last 18 months when outages became
more common as Bell was practicing on breaking things, especially the
ottawa-trwanna link used by Ralph. And if you could bypass the
president, they had excellent technical support. No suggestion of
ALT-CTRL-DEL ever from these people. And until the last 18 months or so,
they were quite popular and trendy. In many ways, Teksavvy has become
the new "trendy" ISP and they have grown substantially in the last
couple of years. People often underestimate how word of mouth on usenet
and dslreports can really make or break an ISP.
Madonna
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> altered the spacetime fabric by
> disgorging news:4500E6CE...@teksavvy.com:
>
>> ones do you choose ? Having one/more reps/presidents participate in
>> public newsgroups is HUGE plus and shows they really want to help
>> their customers and also find out what customers and potential
>> customers want from an ISP.
It's a huge plus ... as long as they are professional.
> [Subject header changed to something less negative)
The subject is still not accurate, the thread is not really discussing
"TekSavvy Internet Service" (nobody's complaining about that apart from
the sockpuppet), the thread is about "TekSavvy modem store" warranties.
> Many will say "Why bother with usenet when less that 5% of the users
> actually read it" - The answer, of course is that while we may well be
> that 5% of users, the collective "we" tend to be the more technically
> savvy (ZING! Punny!!!!) - Often, it is the collective "we" that people
> come and ask "Hey, I gotta change ISPs: Who do you use/ who would you
> recommend". That recommendation is then passed on, in the form of "Hey,
> I've got this geek friend who recommended I switch to such-and-such an
> ISP and man, what a difference!" and so on.
In fact I've also recommended TekSavvy ISP to other people based on
information I got here on usenet.
JF Mezei
> In fact I've also recommended TekSavvy ISP to other people based on
> information I got here on usenet.
And I chose Teksavvy based on a recommendation here (Linda Rocco: thanks
again !). In my quick searches to find a quick replacement for ISTOP, I
had not even heard/stumbled on it until that person mentioned it.
Madonna
> At the very end of it all, ya gotta remember that on DSL connections, the
> average ISP is only making $2-$5 a month in profit: When you throw a $10
> shipping cost in there, for example, there's two to five months of
> serving that customer while making no revenue from him (Not even counting
> CSR time, etc). I'm not saying that that's the only consideration in
> play, but I think most of us are business savvy enough to know that it
> *is* a factor, especially when you have to be consistent across thousands
> of customers.
I'm not sure I can agree with your business math:
1) The modem profit margin should be calculated from the price of the modem.
2) The warranty cost should be spread according to failure rate and
number of customers who bought the modem, not just that single customer.
Think of FutureShop selling an MP3 player to 200 people for a profit of 10$ each.
If it costs 20$ to replace but only 1% break within the warranty they
still come out ahead.
> I think it's been a decent thread on how to manage public relations along
> with user management, no matter who's reading it :)
Yes, and we need advice from a fireman about how to fight usenet flames :)
Madonna
> That does not change what you Teksavvy guys did. Very low class.
I think Marty's original post describing a problem he was having is on topic for
this newsgroup and raises a valid question about how warranties are honored.
But using sockpuppets and defamation to obtain free shipping is lower than low.
Rocky at least didn't try to mislead us.
As for people's personal logs, it raises an ethics/privacy question which most ISPs stay as
far away as possible from since it's a very sensitive topic.
tsiguy
As mentioned above/earlier.... We goofed, out of frustration/anger
towards what was going on, we goofed. We didn't spread any this guys
information publicly, but we went out of our way to let him know what
he was up to and that we didn't appreciate it.... Problem was that we
were focussing directly on him without regards to the onlookers....
tsiguy
Believe you and I had a running into a few months back (mid June)
discussing Cogent/Peer1. Being as this has turned into a public issue,
why don't you and I bring this to more of a one-on-one situation....
Call me at 877-779-1575 and ask for Rocky, just say it's Hakim and I'll
take the phone for sure! I'll be more than happy to work through
what's peeved you off! :-)
Hope to talk with you soon.
Regards,
Rocky
tsiguy
Madonna wrote:
> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> > JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> altered the spacetime fabric by
> > disgorging news:4500E6CE...@teksavvy.com:
> >
> >> When you have hundreds of ISps to choose from on CanadianISP, which
> >> ones do you choose ? Having one/more reps/presidents participate in
> >> public newsgroups is HUGE plus and shows they really want to help
> >> their customers and also find out what customers and potential
> >> customers want from an ISP.
>
> It's a huge plus ... as long as they are professional.
>
> > [Subject header changed to something less negative)
>
> The subject is still not accurate, the thread is not really discussing
> "TekSavvy Internet Service" (nobody's complaining about that apart from
> the sockpuppet), the thread is about "TekSavvy modem store" warranties.
This is actually what got me worked up and what caused some of the
off-shooted issues....
off-shooted issues: As mentioned today and in the past, it was ill
timed and should have been a one-on-one or in a hinted manner... In
any case, it's happened and I can't take that part back, the only thing
I hop is that we're all capable of moving past this as TekSavvy's
service is one of the best around and will remain that way. We do
appreciate and listen to the "geeks" out there... Ask JF, and others,
who have emailed/called in with their concerns or suggestions.... Some
we ignored, or set aside for another, but some we actually implemented.
Over the last few days, we've learnt how to and how not to deal with
certain things and I believe we'll be stronger for it in the future.
Marty and I had a good conversation and he now knows he can call me or
email me direct with concerns such as what has happened so as to avoid
this embarrassing situations. Another thing that we often don't pay
attention to in here is what's typed versus what is meant. Typed words
often don't reflect emotions or sometimes even the sense of things....
The last intention we had was to come across as a trying to discredit
someone, but we were pissed at the guy and it happened.... We still
didn't disconnect him, we didn't block his call when he called in and
we still tried getting to the bottom of his hardware issue. So, in the
end, we're not bad people, but we are definitely human and even in our
position (as owners), we sometimes make some bad choices.... you just
hope you don't make too many of them! ;-)
Regards,
Rocky
tsiguy
Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <1157716964.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "tsiguy" <ro...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
> > As mentioned above/earlier.... We goofed, out of frustration/anger
> > towards what was going on, we goofed. We didn't spread any this guys
> > information publicly, but we went out of our way to let him know what
> > he was up to and that we didn't appreciate it.... Problem was that we
> > were focussing directly on him without regards to the onlookers....
>
> have in place at your shop; who in your shop has access to sensitive
> customer data; who in your shop might, in a fit of "frustration/anger",
> do something silly with that data. I don't care how good your technical
> support is, or how stable and reliable your service is, I still don't
> trust anyone.
>
> Warren "I'm wearing a cardboard belt" Oates.
Hi Warren,
As with any other ISP (I think), the only ones with access to servers
or to client data, such as the one that concerns you, are management
level people, and even then in most cases. One thing to notice is
there's been very little postings from any of our employees as we've
instructed them not to and if they are to do so, that it be verified by
us first. Internally, they're bound by a non-disclosure and sign a
document allowing us to do a background check on them. Aside from
that, comon sense has to prevail a little anyway... The information
available to them here isn't worth enough to not only lose their jobs
over but even less to go to jail for! ;-)
Regards,
Rocky