I swapped to Optus for my home phone and internet connection some time ago. I've become increasingly disenchanted with Optus due to their inability to provide a mail server that consistently delivers mail immediately along with their decision to increase broadband download speeds for new users while denying the increase to long term customers.
Telstra have been making efforts to win back some of their lost customers. The last time they called, the offer was a joke so the conversation was short. This time though, they offered me their Ultimate Home Line and Broadband package for $109.95 per month. This package includes 25GB of downloads at speeds of up to 30Mbps plus unlimited local and STD calls from your home line. Calls to Telstra mobiles are capped at 50c for 20 minutes, calls to other mobiles are capped at $1.85 for 20 minutes. Installation is free and extras such as Message Bank, Call Number Display and so on are included as part of the package. I thought this was a very good offer so I agreed to switch.
Two days ago, Telstra called me to inform me that they couldn't connect my house to Big Pond cable so did I want ADSL 2? As I've had Foxtel cable installed here for 8 years I was rather bemused by the claim they couldn't install Big Pond cable. I did mention this to the girl but it didn't register very well so I informed her that I wouldn't be taking up the offer.
Lo and behold, after many days of waiting for the email that informed me of all the contract details to arrive, I finally received those details by mail. It turns out that the girl was just saving me some time as I would have been cancelling anyway. I've written this letter to John Rolland, the head of Telstra's Customer Sales and Service Department, whose autograph was attached to their written offer.
25th January 2008
Mr John Rolland
Executive Director
Telstra Customer Sales and Service
Dear John,
I am writing to confirm my cancellation of the agreement I made to transfer to your service and to seek an explanation for the rank contradictions between the verbal offer I was given over the phone and the written offer that arrived today. I was phoned 2 days ago and informed that my house did not have Big Pond Cable access. Since I've had Foxtel cable at this address for 8 years I found that claim to be quite amusing but decided to take it at face value and gave an oral indication that I did not want the service. After all, if a company can't find the cable I'm currently using I fear for their ability to provide a service in any case.
Today I received the confirmation letter for my proposed transfer. According to the offer I was made on the phone I would be receiving the Ultimate Home Line and Broadband for 109.95 per month with all services included and with no charge for the broadband installation.
Consequently, I was rather surprised to discover that, according to the letter I have received today, I will be paying $220.00 for the broadband installation, plus a monthly charge of $ 6.00 for Unlimited Call Back, Call Return and 3 way chat, plus another $6.00 for Calling Number Display.
But wait, there's more. I get to pay another $6.00 for Message Bank plus $9.95 for the BigPond Security Bundle in addition to the $109.95 for the Ultimate Home Line and Broadband Bundle. Clearly the Homeline Ultimate is a separate package to the Ultimate Homeline since I'm being billed $89.95 for Homeline Ultimate package as well. I love English and reversing words so they still make sense is a nice trick, I'm not sure it's worth $89.95 a month so what else I get for the $89.95 a month John?
That's $227.80 per month! I forgot to mention I get the 2 months free on the Homeline Ultimate package so I only have to pay $137.85 per month. That's very generous of you John, it is an almost indescribable pleasure to have the opportunity to be served by such a gracious corporate master.
Admittedly, that generosity is somewhat cancelled out by the $220.00 I have to pay for the cable installation. However, "If a technician is required to visit your premises to connect your service, additional charges will apply". What does this mean? That I have to pay $220.00 to install it myself and if I need someone from Telstra to do it, I get to pay more? Or that if you can make it work by osmosis from your technical centre in Bangalore then I only have to pay $220.00? What is a technician according to Telstra John? I certainly can't work it out, perhaps you can help me.
This document comprehensively contradicts the verbal offer I was made over the phone. I want to know why the legal document confirming my deal with Telstra is charging me well over double the amount I was told I would have to pay when I signed up. In my view, this is fraud. Many people cannot read and comprehend all the details of your offer. Many others will not read all those details because they trust Telstra to have some integrity. Consequently Telstra has a responsibility to be honest. It is an unAustralian act of bastardry to persuade customers to switch providers by presenting an offer with very good terms and then sending them a document that utterly contradicts those claims. It's not a major problem for me, I read fine print. The fact of the matter is that I don't see why a person should need proofreading skills good enough to get you a job at the New York Times in order to change your telecommunications provider!
Additionally, I was promised that these documents would also be emailed to me. I'm still waiting for that email. John, it is my responsibility to inform you I will be forwarding this letter along with copies of your company's contract to the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading and to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Additionally, I will be copying this email to www.wentreport.com so that other Australians may have the opportunity to avoid being skewered by your underhanded tactics.
It is my hope that you will initiate a review of your company's documentation practices and ensure that contracts you send to csutomers bill them only for the services and costs that were agreed to in the verbal sign up. Surely Telstra is capable of serving its customers as actively as it "supports communities and businesses through sponsorships and partnerships".
Yours sincerely,
Lindsay Went
Friday 25 January 2008
Saturday 12 January 2008
An open response to Peter Roebuck
I'm still looking for evidence and reasons as to why Ricky Ponting should be sacked as Australian captain. Nothing he has done is exceptional for an Australian captain, or indeed a captain of any other country. The first article was long on rhetoric and short on logic. The follow-up basically admitted that the first was written to stir things up and get attention. In that, it was successful. In providing logical reasons for the demand in the first, it was a failure.
Australia has sacked one captain in the last 80 odd years and that was for overly defensive captaincy over a long period. Consequently, sacking of Australian captains is a responsibility that is taken pretty seriously, with the reluctance to do so prolonging the careers of Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor when strong cases were available for dismissing both of them.
Over zealous appealing, celebrating and unnecessary sledging have been characteristics of the modern game and are shared by all teams and most captains. Demanding decisions and pressurising umpires is a trait most players are pretty good at. Anil Kumble has been a master of it.
Indian players indulged in sledging during the test, they participated enthusiastically in appeals deliberately designed to deceive the umpire and convince him to give players out. While they didn't participate in over the top celebrations, they compensated for that burst of good taste by deliberately wasting time after both dismissals in what turned out to be the final over of the game. Sending a man out with incorrect gloves was a particularly shrewd although thoroughly unsportsmanlike tactic that may well have saved the game by preventing an additional over being bowled. For a man who was allegedly intent upon pressuring umpires, Ponting's refusal to appeal for Sharma's dismissal due to the amount of time it took him to get out there is striking.
Anil Kumble certainly saw no problem with this behaviour as he indicated that his team was the team playing the match in the spirit of the game. The Indian captain was very happy to imply that the loss was solely the responsibility of the umpires. He did not devote a word to all the runs the Australians gained through their superior ground fielding and running between wickets in comparison with the consistently lacklustre performance of the Indians in these areas. There can be no doubt that if India were even vaguely competitive in these areas, the Australians would not have had the time to bowl them out.
As there were no corresponding claims from you that Kumble should join Ponting in cricketing exile, I infer that you are satisfied that he and his team were meeting the required standard for cricketing behaviour. It would appear that demands for cricketing morality and leadership start and end with Ricky Ponting.
This is the same captain whom you saluted for sporting behaviour in 2005. (1.) You have also saluted his general captaincy in 2006 after the Ashes victory and on many other occasions.
What is the leadership required of an Australian cricket captain? Please define it and explain how other countries are meeting that standard and how recent Australian captains have met it and where Ponting has not met it ? If only Australian captains should meet this standard, could you please explain why captains of other cricketing nations are not required to meet it?
Was this really the ugliest Australian effort of the last 20 years? Glenn McGrath's efforts against the West Indies in 2003 comes to mind.
Harbhajan Singh started the altercation, and then responded inappropriately to the inevitable responses and said something he should not have, that had been clearly explained to him would cause problems. What would your article have said had it been an Australian who had produced an unacceptable comment after being privately warned by the Indian players about it? It may be that Symonds did not want Ponting to wash it under the carpet, which would have been the easier option.
I saw plenty of sympathy for Harbhajan Singh from you, despite him being a very experienced cricketer with a long history of sledging. Hunted from the game? If his suspension holds up, he'll be back. If someone's being hunted from the game, it's Brad Hogg, who was put up on a charge in a cynical tit for tat exercise which has seen not a comment from you in sympathy for the man or in disgust at the callous tactic. A suspension along Harbhajan's lines could well endanger Hogg's future as his position in the team is precarious. I believe he has a family too.
With regards to Simon Katich being captain, your Australian citizenship clearly has not overridden your English cricket heart. Only an Englishman would suggest making someone captain who can't even make the team. There is no place in Australian cricket for a captain who isn't worth his place in the side. The captain who resigned was heavily influenced in doing so by his complete inability to score runs, Katich would likely find himself in the same spot. As for one day cricket, even if he scored runs, his strike rate simply does not justify a position.
I wasn't impressed with Ponting's lack of awareness re India's feelings myself or his general behaviour during the Sydney Test, but it's a huge step from that to sacking him. I am a strong supporter of the Australian policy to only sack captains when there is no other alternative. I certainly don't sack them for conduct well within the bounds of accepted behaviour in the modern cricket game. Whether the behaviour should be accepted is another issue altogether, one that should be being debated with the sort of passion you displayed in venting over Ponting. Nevertheless, sacking someone for behaving in the same manner as his peers is unjustifiable. We'd have to retrospectively sack every Australian captain for the last 30 years and most of our opposing captains as well.
Most of this mess is a reflection of the hypocrisy in modern cricket etiquette. It's normal to cheat when you're batting or appealing, but it's an insult to your opponents when you're catching. It's part of the game to be rude and intimidate your opponents in most conceivable ways as long as you don't say certain unacceptable comments. While cricket has that half hearted and illogical moral code built in, it's going to continue to have blow ups about player behaviour. I have zero respect for this code of etiquette and think it's appalling. However, seeing that it's accepted by the game in general, I cannot support dismissing a captain for following it.
An aside to finish. One of your concerns about Ponting was his pressuring of umpires, something you see every time the ball hits the pad anywhere near in line. Why are appeals necessary? It may be a historical part of the game but there's no reason for them. If the umpire puts up his finger, you're out. Appealing influences umpires. Ban it. It'll make the game more boring, but it'll make umpire's decisions more reflective of what they are seeing, not what the players are seeing or claiming to see. Other sports with waiting time don't have appeals before a decision, it's obvious when a decision needs to be made and they just look at the umpire and await it.
Australia has sacked one captain in the last 80 odd years and that was for overly defensive captaincy over a long period. Consequently, sacking of Australian captains is a responsibility that is taken pretty seriously, with the reluctance to do so prolonging the careers of Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor when strong cases were available for dismissing both of them.
Over zealous appealing, celebrating and unnecessary sledging have been characteristics of the modern game and are shared by all teams and most captains. Demanding decisions and pressurising umpires is a trait most players are pretty good at. Anil Kumble has been a master of it.
Indian players indulged in sledging during the test, they participated enthusiastically in appeals deliberately designed to deceive the umpire and convince him to give players out. While they didn't participate in over the top celebrations, they compensated for that burst of good taste by deliberately wasting time after both dismissals in what turned out to be the final over of the game. Sending a man out with incorrect gloves was a particularly shrewd although thoroughly unsportsmanlike tactic that may well have saved the game by preventing an additional over being bowled. For a man who was allegedly intent upon pressuring umpires, Ponting's refusal to appeal for Sharma's dismissal due to the amount of time it took him to get out there is striking.
Anil Kumble certainly saw no problem with this behaviour as he indicated that his team was the team playing the match in the spirit of the game. The Indian captain was very happy to imply that the loss was solely the responsibility of the umpires. He did not devote a word to all the runs the Australians gained through their superior ground fielding and running between wickets in comparison with the consistently lacklustre performance of the Indians in these areas. There can be no doubt that if India were even vaguely competitive in these areas, the Australians would not have had the time to bowl them out.
As there were no corresponding claims from you that Kumble should join Ponting in cricketing exile, I infer that you are satisfied that he and his team were meeting the required standard for cricketing behaviour. It would appear that demands for cricketing morality and leadership start and end with Ricky Ponting.
This is the same captain whom you saluted for sporting behaviour in 2005. (1.) You have also saluted his general captaincy in 2006 after the Ashes victory and on many other occasions.
What is the leadership required of an Australian cricket captain? Please define it and explain how other countries are meeting that standard and how recent Australian captains have met it and where Ponting has not met it ? If only Australian captains should meet this standard, could you please explain why captains of other cricketing nations are not required to meet it?
Was this really the ugliest Australian effort of the last 20 years? Glenn McGrath's efforts against the West Indies in 2003 comes to mind.
Harbhajan Singh started the altercation, and then responded inappropriately to the inevitable responses and said something he should not have, that had been clearly explained to him would cause problems. What would your article have said had it been an Australian who had produced an unacceptable comment after being privately warned by the Indian players about it? It may be that Symonds did not want Ponting to wash it under the carpet, which would have been the easier option.
I saw plenty of sympathy for Harbhajan Singh from you, despite him being a very experienced cricketer with a long history of sledging. Hunted from the game? If his suspension holds up, he'll be back. If someone's being hunted from the game, it's Brad Hogg, who was put up on a charge in a cynical tit for tat exercise which has seen not a comment from you in sympathy for the man or in disgust at the callous tactic. A suspension along Harbhajan's lines could well endanger Hogg's future as his position in the team is precarious. I believe he has a family too.
With regards to Simon Katich being captain, your Australian citizenship clearly has not overridden your English cricket heart. Only an Englishman would suggest making someone captain who can't even make the team. There is no place in Australian cricket for a captain who isn't worth his place in the side. The captain who resigned was heavily influenced in doing so by his complete inability to score runs, Katich would likely find himself in the same spot. As for one day cricket, even if he scored runs, his strike rate simply does not justify a position.
I wasn't impressed with Ponting's lack of awareness re India's feelings myself or his general behaviour during the Sydney Test, but it's a huge step from that to sacking him. I am a strong supporter of the Australian policy to only sack captains when there is no other alternative. I certainly don't sack them for conduct well within the bounds of accepted behaviour in the modern cricket game. Whether the behaviour should be accepted is another issue altogether, one that should be being debated with the sort of passion you displayed in venting over Ponting. Nevertheless, sacking someone for behaving in the same manner as his peers is unjustifiable. We'd have to retrospectively sack every Australian captain for the last 30 years and most of our opposing captains as well.
Most of this mess is a reflection of the hypocrisy in modern cricket etiquette. It's normal to cheat when you're batting or appealing, but it's an insult to your opponents when you're catching. It's part of the game to be rude and intimidate your opponents in most conceivable ways as long as you don't say certain unacceptable comments. While cricket has that half hearted and illogical moral code built in, it's going to continue to have blow ups about player behaviour. I have zero respect for this code of etiquette and think it's appalling. However, seeing that it's accepted by the game in general, I cannot support dismissing a captain for following it.
An aside to finish. One of your concerns about Ponting was his pressuring of umpires, something you see every time the ball hits the pad anywhere near in line. Why are appeals necessary? It may be a historical part of the game but there's no reason for them. If the umpire puts up his finger, you're out. Appealing influences umpires. Ban it. It'll make the game more boring, but it'll make umpire's decisions more reflective of what they are seeing, not what the players are seeing or claiming to see. Other sports with waiting time don't have appeals before a decision, it's obvious when a decision needs to be made and they just look at the umpire and await it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)