DISCLAIMER: All my previous posts have to some degree or the other been of a sarcastic nature. No comments, posts, thoughts or sarcasm can be used against me in a court of law. By way of reading this you have accepted the terms and conditions.
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Thanks for the info.Invites are not going through for nzbsa at the moment.
They are working on the problem.
I thought the management (the CEO, in fact) answered my ticket to begin with?
I don't see why you're so surprised to see me assume you're lying - you blatantly lied to me when you convinced me that you can provide an uncapped 20Mbps service?
It would have at least blocked those that are trying to see what your seeding, or would it not?
15GB download underway (thanks Blizzard for not putting files on the DVD), looks like it's gonna take all night
15GB download underway (thanks Blizzard for not putting files on the DVD), looks like it's gonna take all night
D3? Test realm?
Whether they are trying or not is irrelevant. I am annoyed because I specifically asked them, on two separate occasions, whether they are ready to provide a 20Mbps service on their network. The answer was always yes. I activated the service on the 1st of November, and never, ever got 20Mbps performance on any protocol. I have used only 167GB of data so far - on TI, WA, even OW accounts I am well into the 400s at this time of month.
The "transparent and fair" story is a load of hogwash, too. The moment I pointed out that they are not meeting their end of the deal, while I met mine, they pointed me to the T's and C's (same ones as any other ISP, which they claim they want to be different from) and refused a refund. Probably because their cash flow is nonexistent, due to the fact that they have very few premium clients - which is evident from this thread alone, where most subscribers are using 2 and 4Mbps accounts.
Also worth noting is that they are charging the same price an established, working ISP charges, even though it is blatantly obvious that they are far from a working business, rather just a bandwidth reseller on a sub-standard backbone and without a budget to establish a provision for high-end clients (but only too willing to take the money).
Yes, we all know it would be difficult to prove. You assume that I would have to retain legal services just for this, which is not the case (as you know). I wouldn't incur any cost, but that's besides the point. I also don't want to destroy a business even before it's taken off, but I hate being taken for a ride - with a friendly, smiling facade, while all along they know they can't provide what they are charging me for. School fees, I guess, for me - I should have done more research before buying into the forum hype - but I guarantee you that with this kind of business ethics they won't get very far.
Whether they are trying or not is irrelevant. I am annoyed because I specifically asked them, on two separate occasions, whether they are ready to provide a 20Mbps service on their network. The answer was always yes. I activated the service on the 1st of November, and never, ever got 20Mbps performance on any protocol. I have used only 167GB of data so far - on TI, WA, even OW accounts I am well into the 400s at this time of month.
The "transparent and fair" story is a load of hogwash, too. The moment I pointed out that they are not meeting their end of the deal, while I met mine, they pointed me to the T's and C's (same ones as any other ISP, which they claim they want to be different from) and refused a refund. Probably because their cash flow is nonexistent, due to the fact that they have very few premium clients - which is evident from this thread alone, where most subscribers are using 2 and 4Mbps accounts.
Also worth noting is that they are charging the same price an established, working ISP charges, even though it is blatantly obvious that they are far from a working business, rather just a bandwidth reseller on a sub-standard backbone and without a budget to establish a provision for high-end clients (but only too willing to take the money).
Yes, we all know it would be difficult to prove. You assume that I would have to retain legal services just for this, which is not the case (as you know). I wouldn't incur any cost, but that's besides the point. I also don't want to destroy a business even before it's taken off, but I hate being taken for a ride - with a friendly, smiling facade, while all along they know they can't provide what they are charging me for. School fees, I guess, for me - I should have done more research before buying into the forum hype - but I guarantee you that with this kind of business ethics they won't get very far.
You do realise:
1. Mods can still see your original reply
2. OMB already has it qouted
3. And me now
Lawyer bailed over suing for a couple of hundred?I do, of course. I have my reasons for removing it.
Lawyer bailed over suing for a couple of hundred?![]()