🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <tcpnntpd.16.8.26.16.53.4.11946.3931@etu.tu.albany.ny.us>,
    <fiato@tu.albany.ny.us> wrote:
> 
> Hi, I was wondering what any of you people htink on choosing Netcom as
> an ISP. Thanks.
> 
>If you�re looking for a reliable ISP and are thinking of using NetCom, 
you might be interested in my experiences with the company:

First Mailing (8-10-96):
Second mailing (8-13-96):

TO: NetCom Tech Support:

Since signing up with you guys a few months ago, at the urging of the 
"Dummies" series book people, we have found your service to be despicable. 
In 60% of tries (and getting worse), I cannot even access my own web page. 
I have recently moved from Reno to Seattle, and thought that would solve 
the problems. Unfortunately, they are now worse. Your service is now 
virtually unusable, and without value of any kind. The error messages run 
the gamut. Often your server just hangs at various stages. Much of the 
trouble comes from trying to send or receive email. I'm using Win 95, by 
the way, and Nescape 3.0, with Eudora. Your customers from all over the 
country are screaming, and reporting the same problems. I receive email 
from all over the country (when it gets through to me at all), complaining 
of not being able to access my site. They get messages like "Server is 
not responding", or it simply hangs for ten minutes. When trying to use 
email I often get messages like "non-authoritative host not found". Or, 
again, it will hang at various stages of trying to send or retrieve email 
and never recover. I am able to send or retrieve email without any problem 
in only about five percent of tries now. Your people are well aware of 
these problems, yet 
you seem unwilling or unable to fix them. They have persisted now for a 
couple of months. That's long enough to fix ANY problem. I have emailed you 
about this problem several times over the last month. You have refused to even 
bother to respond (actually one of your "tech" people named Lisa did respond 
with nonsense that had nothing to do with the question(s) being asked---
surprise, surprise). I've called several times and asked for a return call. 
Not once has a single of your employees mustered the simple decency or 
professionalism to respond by returning my call(s). I have written you. 
You have ignored my letter. As it stands, you have ten days (10 days) to 
respond to me with the following information:

(1) What in the damned hell is the matter with your service? And:
(2) When will the problem(s) be corrected?

The questions are just that simple, yet you cannot seem to be bothered to 
respond to them. Perhaps, in that case, I cannot be bothered to pay you, 
either.

If you choose to ignore me this time as well, the following will occur:

You will be asked the above questions AGAIN via your local Better Business 
Bureau, your local Consumer Affairs office, your postal inspector, your 
Corporation Commission, the FCC, and the public service commission if it's 
applicable in your state. In addition, I'll post this email in every 
newsgroup that's even remotely appropriate. And I'll keep on posting it 
until the public is absolutely aware of your rotten business practices. Try 
to grasp this concept: I pay you money. You supply me a service. If you do 
not supply the service, I stop paying you money. Try hard to comprehend that. 
I'm sick of problems with you, but I am loathe to move my site and lose all 
the advertising I have out on it. Still, if I can't access my own site, no 
one else can either. The "Dummies" series book writers were wholly in error 
about your company and because of you, their credibility is zilch. So far 
you stink. Either get your acts together or get out of the business. It's 
just that simple. Even the folks at Burger King can figure that out. Why 
can't you?


Third Mailing (8-17-96) includes the following:

At 6:15 P.M. Pacific time, 8-21, I tried to access my page through your 
Seattle server. I got the message:

"There was no response. The server could be down or not responding. If you 
are unable to connect later, notify the server's administrator". Well, it's 
later and I'm notifying you (again). I receive this message or others like 
it in virtually nine out of ten attempts to pull up my own site now. This has 
been the deteriorating pattern for roughly two months. We all know what you've 
done---you've grossly oversold the capabilities of your equipment. You have 
decided to F**K your regular paying users, in favor of signing on as many new 
accounts as possible. It's a despicable practice, but most of the clueless 
yuppies who are in charge of ISPs don't seem to understand the concept. I 
have left you people message after message demanding to know when you will 
begin providing the service you are being paid to provide. I will continue 
asking for an answer to these question until I get one. My attempts are 
being posted in various newsgroups. Lots of folks are sick of scurrilous ISPs. 
Lots of folks want to know where they can go to simply get decent service. 
No more; no less. You are showing them that NetCom ain't the place to get it. 
Is this the image you wish to project? Or is it that you simply don't give a 
damn? If your equipment is bug-riddled, fix it. If you've oversold it, put 
more equipment on line---or stop taking new customers. It's this kind of 
excruciatingly simple logic that seems to utterly escape the college-weenie 
mentality. --Trouble is, we all suffer for your stupidity. All any of us wants 
is the service we're paying you for. Sure equipment goes down from time to 
time. We all accept that. But when it does, FIX IT! If you think that's 
unreasonable, you're imbeciles.


Fourth Mailing (8-20-96) included the following:

I am still waiting for a meaningful, productive and satisfactory reply to 
the following. I have been unable to access your web page builder for some 
ten hours now. This is repeated OFTEN. This is representative of the problems 
I experience with NetCom daily. The errors range from "no answer" to "line 
busy" to "server not responding" to "connection terminated", etc. etc. etc. 
This has been the pattern for two months now. Why should I continue to pay 
you for service this shoddy? Seriously! Why? Two months is long enough to 
fix ANY problem. Why won�t NetCom get its act together?


Fifth mailing (8-21-96) included the following:

It has now been well over ten days since the original was sent to you. You 
have refused to answer either of my questions. You have corrected zero of the 
problems we're having with your service, and you have offered no suggestions. 
I try to use your system day after day after day, and it never improves---it 
only gets worse. You are indeed a company of idiots, and you've shown us all 
that NetCom is little more than a badly deployed scam. It is now clear how 
you operate. We will notify the "Dummies" book authors of our experiences with 
you. We resent that they steered us onto such an incomprehensibly bad company. 
Our sentiments are not unique among Internet users.  SGN.


Sent again on (8-23-96) (Sixth Mailing):

To date, (8-30-96) neither question has been answered, and the problems 
continue at an increased rate. Over the past 24 hours, for example, I have 
made 27 attempts to connect with my own web site, and have been connected 
only 3 times. The server times out, or is not on-line. It doesn�t seem to 
matter which city I go through, or which computer I use, or where I am when I 
connect. If this is the kind of service you want, then please, sign up with 
NetCom. I now have no choice but to change ISP�s, and lose two months worth 
of diligent work, advertising my site. In my opinion, this company is the 
worst of the worst, and I should have heeded the reviews before signing up. 
I thought, however, that the "Dummies" folks, who so prolifically recommend 
NetCom, knew more than the magazines. I was wrong. Having been through this, 
would I buy another Dummies book? 

Scott Neil
8-30-96

NOTE: No replies are read or responded to.

Sent to NetCom AGAIN on 8-30-96 (seventh time). No reply is expected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
    http://www.dejanews.com/      [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]