Is it just me, or do ISPs in New Zealand tend to operate on the south-side of the “moral tracks”? At the moment, I’m trying to decide whether it’s worth having an argument with Orcon over the advertising for their “Zero Shock” plan (see “The Yogurt Container Broadband Plan“) — supposedly, this plan is “traffic managed” to keep email and web access fast, and the speed of P2P applications are reduced as a consequence (by accepting this, you get the piece of mind that if you go over your datacap, you won’t get charged extra… as long as you don’t keep going over every month). For me, traffic management actually meant I had the average speed of a 28K modem most evenings for any site out of the country. Of course, if you look at their Terms & Conditions, there’s just enough caveats there to make them liable for nothing. Legally they’re fine. I quibble, however, on the dubious morals that allow a company to sell a “broadband” plan that they know barely meets the definition at the best of times.
To be honest, I really have no argument with Orcon otherwise. It just seems like false advertising to call something “Zero Shock”, when I find myself damn shocked at how slow it is.
The other ISP I have experience with is IHUG, who, if they reduce their prices for some reason, will keep quiet about it… “it’s your responsibility to check our website”. I’ve experienced this and so, more recently, has my father. Seems you should focus on keeping your current customers happy, rather than just attracting new ones.
That’s two of NZ’s larger ISPs, and I know the largest (Xtra) has had problems in the past.
I wonder if the issue is industry wide?
They’re all crooks mate. Apart from Telstraclear they seem to all go through Telecon’s backbone and the traffic shaping is done there. Hopeless.