Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 15:07
My thoughts too.
I would think they have some fundamental issues here.
Firstly, misleading and deceptive conduct - everyone who bought the phones had expectations that they would last more than 3 years - they haven't for a number of reasons; that their contract would give them a good insurance policy for emergency comms - it doesn't because the sats aren't working ...
They probably even knew that the CDMA network has a limited life.
They were not far-sighted enough to put effective commercial plans in place.
They sold a service they couldn't deliver and a handset they couldn't support long term.
People had a right to have a reasonable expectation that a big co like that would do their homework.
Trade Practices would have them by the short and curlies.
To boot we've been paying for the handsets, indirectly our taxes have been paying the government rebate ($2,000 I think) which just lines their pockets too, and we are paying exorbitant monthly service fees to boot.
Now, in my case I am not paying a brass razoo until they fix the system (I'm not really expecting that they will), and they seem to have accepted my position (they have stopped sending me bills, and on the last phone call said they would credit all the charges) ... but how they could possible wiggle their way out of this I have no idea.
If you have one of their phones, and bills from them now, and assuming you aren't able to use it as is the case with me, I would be getting touch with them and demanding money back and putting everything with them on hold until they either go broke (I think that is pretty likely) or they fix it (I would guess this is at least 12 mo away).
Cheers
Andrew.
FollowupID:
485501