Problems with Netvigator: your experiences?

Reply
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

    Problems with Netvigator: your experiences?

    Netvigator says that I signed a longer contract that I actually signed up for. Actually I didn't sign up for anything. Everything was done on the phone.

    I think that this (Netvigator saying that the contract is longer than what was agreed on the phone) is a very common practice by this company, and I don't see why I should put up with it. So if they sue me after I refused to pay for the months I didn't actually sign up for, I plan to go to court.

    Another thing that is certainly unethical and probably illegal is their advertisement that the broadband connection is 100..., while in reality it's obviously much much less most of the time.

    And of course NOW TV doesn't work half the time...

    I wonder if you could give me your own experiences with Netvigator and NOW TV. If I do go to court, would you be willing to come present your own experience?


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    23,221

    A contract is a contract even made orally on the phone. Netvigator will have a recording of your conversation, so you need to be very sure of your memory of what was said.

    NOW TV works very consistently for me. If it doesn't work for you then that is a network fault and you should report it to the fault reporting number.

    I'm not sure which service you have from them that is "100.." If you are looking at the Ethernet connection on the back of their modem and seeing that it says 100MBit/s and thinking that is the speed of your internet connection then you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet and networking in general that you will be laughed out of court should you try to go there. The most common services offer peak rates of 6MBit/s or 8Mbit/s in total. This includes the bandwidth for the NOW TV, so if you are streaming a NOW TV show the amount of bandwidth available for internet traffic is substantially less. The 6/8 MBit/s is guraranteed to the PCCW exchange. No ISP can guarantee download speeds once traffic leaves their network - the internet is inherently a shared facility - there is no dedicated bandwidth. But having said that I regularly get download speeds of 6MBit/s from sites around the world.

    (NOW HDTV has a higher bandwidth connection, but the same principle applies)


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

    I was hoping for informed, intelligent posts, not childish personal attacks.

    If anybody has something useful to add, please go ahead. If you have too much time on your hands and want to show how much you know, I am sure there are many other posts to which you can "contribute".


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,487

    If you go to court and the issue is the length of contract the judge will have no interest is " how fast " " doesn't work half the time " .

    Those issues are not relevant to the contract UNLESS you bring a case for none provision or misrepresentation. With that you have to support it with a lot of evidence and their inability or refusal to rectify the situation IAW their published terms and conditions relevant to the contract.

    SO - in this case the answer is simple. Ask for a transcript ( written or recorded ) of the information they are relying on to make their case. If they do then you can review their evidence, if they don't then its highly unlikely they would bring a case to court. If they did then your position of complaint would be strong as they have refuse to bring evidence to the defence prior to appearance.


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

    Thanks Boris.

    The problem is that they say "all our contracts under the conditions you enjoyed are 24 months". However, the person with whom I talked on the phone (21 months ago) said I can sign up for 21 months. Probably because he worked on commission and I made it very clear there was no way I was going to sign up for 24 months.

    So probably he lied, but this is not my problem. As far as I am concerned, he was an employee of Netvigator, and the contract is legally binding for both of us. Since Netvigator doesn't send a contract to its customers there was no way to check whether the bloke I had talked to said the truth.

    Also, what I want to see is if there is a trend of Netvigator breaking the law. I did hear of people complaining that Netvigator claims the contracts were for a longer period that they actually agreed to on the phone (I guess that's the whole point of not signing contracts!). If I can find a few people with similar experiences than mine I would have a strong case in court and maybe we can make Netvigator change its practices.

    Last edited by pinko; 15-05-2008 at 10:51 AM. Reason: .

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    23,221

    If you just want people to tell you how wonderful you are and how PCCW is the devil incarnate then you've come to the wrong place. However, if you would like some help to expand your understanding of the internet, business, contracts and the HK legal system then that's what we try to do...

    What the agent said to you on the phone IS the contract. If you are sure that he said 21 months then you have a case. But they have the recording and you have a 21 month old memory. The sum involved (3 months rental) is, presumably, under $1000 - how much of your time and effort is it worth to recover $1000?

    And to address your question about their advertising, what bandwidth do you think you have signed up for? You can determine what they think they are selling you by logging in to the Netvigator homepage.

    Last edited by PDLM; 15-05-2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason: typo

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by pinko
    Thanks Boris.

    The problem is that they say "all our contracts under the conditions you enjoyed are 24 months". However, the person with whom I talked on the phone (21 months ago) said I can sign up for 21 months. Probably because he worked on commission and I made it very clear there was no way I was going to sign up for 24 months.

    So probably he lied, but this is not my problem. As far as I am concerned, he was an employee of Netvigator, and the contract is legally binding for both of us. Since Netvigator doesn't send a contract to its customers there was no way to check whether the bloke I had talked to said the truth.

    Also, what I want to see is if there is a trend of Netvigator breaking the law. I did hear of people complaining that Netvigator claims the contracts were for a longer period that they actually agreed to on the phone (I guess that's the whole point of not signing contracts!). If I can find a few people with similar experiences than mine I would have a strong case in court and maybe we can make Netvigator change its practices.
    Forget para 3. Its indicative of someone lashing out in anger and trying to divert attention from the main issue and is a waste of time. The court would take no notice of this in relation to any action being brought about contract length. Concentrate your mind at the task in hand.

    IF - the guy has said what he did then thats in your favour IF they are relying on the verbal conversation to form a contract. It matters not that the contract benefits are relevant to 24 months IF the company rep has given in to issuing said benefits for a 21 month period. You got a deal based upon the information issued. They then cannot change it afterwards unless its agreed by you.

    Get the transcript and base your defense upon that.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

    Thanks a lot Boris, very helpful.


  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

    Boris, what if they say that they don't have a transcript of our phone conversation, but that "all our contracts are 24 months long, and therefore this too was 24 months"?

    Wouldn't it be helpful to go up to court with several people who had the same experience with Netvigator?


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,970

    In response to your original request, my experience

    has been variable. I find that netvigator has not worked quite abit of the time, and NOW_TV is generally poor quality and sometimes unavailable, but I think most of my problems stem from the phone connection, not the netvigator product itself. I hvae had the phone people out 4 times in the last 6 months to repair bits and reset the exchange.

    In terms of the contract, it was quite clearly laid out to me how long it was, but then I did it by going into a shop so they could not do it verbally. And will continue to do so with HK service companies until they wake up and actually give good service by phone. Having said that, when I wanted to cancel the unwanted "add on" services they did that without a quibble - indeed the salesman told me, when I asked about the VOIP one, was it like Skype and he said not to bother keeping it as skype was much better! Can't complain there.

    So, overall, it's nowhere near as good as what I had in NZ, but I don't really have good grounds for complaint. Good luck with yours. I support anyone who tries to make companies accountable for their services - it's 100% necessary and a few consumer laws and a consumer watchdog in HK would not go amiss!


Reply
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast