Page 18 of 33

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:38 pm
by Gidget
dale wrote:The exewiki site looks like it may have been compromised as there is inserted text here:

http://exewiki.exetel.com.au/index.php? ... l:AllPages

Also, a bucketload of spam e.g:

http://exewiki.exetel.com.au/index.php? ... eling-gold
Yes, I have been cleaning it out as time permits.

Gidget

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:50 am
by Shady
dale wrote:The exewiki site looks like it may have been compromised as there is inserted text here:

http://exewiki.exetel.com.au/index.php? ... l:AllPages

Also, a bucketload of spam e.g:

http://exewiki.exetel.com.au/index.php? ... eling-gold
Thanks mate. It's being looked into.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:27 am
by thomashouseman
The Unicode SMS page still says it's 5c a sms.
Agreement:
$0.05 Per Message.
I agree to this fee being debited to my credit card/bank account, billable on my monthly invoice.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:08 pm
by raymond
It has been corrected.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:47 am
by BradM
Regarding changes in the past few days to http://www.exetel.com.au/business-hspa-pricing.php and the corresponding corporate page http://www.exetel.com.au/corporate-hspa-pricing.php ,
you might like to verify that the page is the way you really want it to read.

(A) I noticed changes in this sequence,from memory:
1. The first HSPA (no voice) plan was changed so that the monthly charge became $0.00 (was $5.00)
2. Then later a condition was added "THESE PLANS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO CORPORATE CUSTOMERS ORDERING TEN OR MORE SERVICES"
3. Then first HSPA (no voice) plan was changed so that the monthly charge was set back to the original $5.00

So the net effect is that, whereas that first HSPA (no voice) plan could have been ordered by any business before with a minimum charge of $5 per month, not it can be only ordered in lots of 10 or more but at exactly the same price.

Is this a mistake, or was the intention to restrict the plan and make it less attractive ?


(B) Further down the same page, another anomaly is that the cheapest HSPA+voice plan had its minimum monthly spend cut to $0.00 (was $5.00) also, but has been left that way, so an HSPA+voice service is now $5.00 cheaper than HSPA-only.
Was that the intention or was that an error ?


(C) There is a heading in blue "Post Paid HSPA Plan Inclusions (Business 'Fleet' Users - Conditions Apply)" which seems to refer to inclusions but has no link to inclusions and doesn't make sense without the inclusions being available to read.


(D) The above changes (maybe they are not complete) beg the question of where a small business ordering less than 10 services is supposed to go; there is simply no option to do this at any price. Does this mean that Exetel is getting rid of small businesses - that there is corporate (10+ services) and residential, and just an unfilled hole in between ?


(E) If the above represent errors, I'd suggest that new web pages be developed and debugged and checked for consistency before being posted up on the site.

I am following the evolution of these plans for my own business and for some clients; I am interested in the outcome.
Thank you.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:04 am
by melanieb
BradM wrote:Regarding changes in the past few days to http://www.exetel.com.au/business-hspa-pricing.php and the corresponding corporate page http://www.exetel.com.au/corporate-hspa-pricing.php ,
you might like to verify that the page is the way you really want it to read.

(A) I noticed changes in this sequence,from memory:
1. The first HSPA (no voice) plan was changed so that the monthly charge became $0.00 (was $5.00)
2. Then later a condition was added "THESE PLANS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO CORPORATE CUSTOMERS ORDERING TEN OR MORE SERVICES"
3. Then first HSPA (no voice) plan was changed so that the monthly charge was set back to the original $5.00

So the net effect is that, whereas that first HSPA (no voice) plan could have been ordered by any business before with a minimum charge of $5 per month, not it can be only ordered in lots of 10 or more but at exactly the same price.

Is this a mistake, or was the intention to restrict the plan and make it less attractive ?


(B) Further down the same page, another anomaly is that the cheapest HSPA+voice plan had its minimum monthly spend cut to $0.00 (was $5.00) also, but has been left that way, so an HSPA+voice service is now $5.00 cheaper than HSPA-only.
Was that the intention or was that an error ?


(C) There is a heading in blue "Post Paid HSPA Plan Inclusions (Business 'Fleet' Users - Conditions Apply)" which seems to refer to inclusions but has no link to inclusions and doesn't make sense without the inclusions being available to read.


(D) The above changes (maybe they are not complete) beg the question of where a small business ordering less than 10 services is supposed to go; there is simply no option to do this at any price. Does this mean that Exetel is getting rid of small businesses - that there is corporate (10+ services) and residential, and just an unfilled hole in between ?


(E) If the above represent errors, I'd suggest that new web pages be developed and debugged and checked for consistency before being posted up on the site.

I am following the evolution of these plans for my own business and for some clients; I am interested in the outcome.
Thank you.
Hi Brad,

I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture. The fleet model has been built for larger businesses who would require at least 10 services. Our current plans are already suitable for smaller businesses, and still very competitive.
A)To clarify the business plan is $0 activation and monthly, and the only way we could afford to do this is if 10 services were ordered.
B) I don't see any problem with this. Yes it was our intention.
C) This needs to be addressed
D) As I said before our residential plans are still very competitive and suit small businesses.

Kind Regards,

Melanie

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:55 am
by BradM
Hi Melanie,

You didn't actually read my question in detail, and so you didn't get my point when replying to (A) and (B).

But someone apparently did notice that the web page was wrong (it was wrong all weekend) and has now set the monthly fee for the 10+ services plans back to zero, so the pricing now makes makes sense where it previously did not and my question is now redundant.

Regarding your suggestion "our residential plans are still very competitive and suit small businesses" ...
OK, fine in principle, but

(a) If businesses are allowed to apply for HSPA residential plans if they want to, then may I suggest that your web pages state this explicitly ?
I can't see any indication that this is the case for HSPA services.

(b) Could you indicate how a business could go about ordering a residential plan on your web site ?
I am looking at the residential HSPA order form on page https://www.exetel.com.au/hspa_order/re ... gent_code= and it starts off quite differently from the equivalent "corporate" and "business" order forms ( e.g. https://www.exetel.com.au/hspa_order/bu ... gent_code=) in that it does not have any provision for ordering in a business name; it assumes the service will be in a personal name.

Thanks,

Brad

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:15 pm
by ForumAdmin
BradM wrote:
(a) If businesses are allowed to apply for HSPA residential plans if they want to, then may I suggest that your web pages state this explicitly ?
I can't see any indication that this is the case for HSPA services.

(b) Could you indicate how a business could go about ordering a residential plan on your web site ?
I am looking at the residential HSPA order form on page https://www.exetel.com.au/hspa_order/re ... gent_code= and it starts off quite differently from the equivalent "corporate" and "business" order forms ( e.g. https://www.exetel.com.au/hspa_order/bu ... gent_code=) in that it does not have any provision for ordering in a business name; it assumes the service will be in a personal name.

Thanks,

Brad
We are in the process of modifying both the business and corporate sites relating to wireless broadband.

We will provide business 'versions' of the current retail oriented order forms with different plan numbers for business users.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:55 pm
by BradM
OK, thanks.

I have since noticed that, on business ADSL page http://www.exetel.com.au/business_plan_pricing_new.php there is a similar issue that it would be good to resolve.


The page says "Any business user can sign up for any residential ADSL plan if those plans meet their specific needs and those plan prices can be found here:"

This statement is ambiguous - it can be read two ways, and it should be clarified. The two possible readings are something like:

either
(a) "Any business user can sign up for ANY residential ADSL plan if they want to. Here is a link to some of those residential plans ..."
or
(b) "Any business user can sign up for a residential ADSL plan ONLY IF those plans can be found at this link..." (i.e. The ONLY residential plans businesses can sign up for are the ones shown on the linked page; businesses can NOT sign up for the entire range of residential plans which includes plans shown on other pages.")

I have read the web page statement many times and cannot see which of those interpretations is the one Exetel means to convey. It is essential to clarify this, and will save your support people time answering repetitive questions.


Regardless of the answer to the above, the question is still open as to how a business could ever sign up for any Exetel residential service, because the residential application forms all provide for applying in a personal name ONLY. There is no provision to specify a business name and ABN. I can't believe that Exetel hasn't encountered these questions many times. It should be clarified, too.

In the entire SOHO sector, there is a cross-over zone between residential services and business services. Many small businesses have services (telephone, internet) physically connected to a residential property, but the service is in the name of their business and needs to be that way. Suppliers need to issue invoices in the correct business name and ABN in order to comply with GST and other law. It gets grey when the service is billed in the name of an individual and then the individual's tax invoice is paid by another entity, their company; the tax invoice will have been issued by Exetel or such supplier in the name of a person, not the same legal entity as the business. This is a very common situation, and I'm surprised that Exetel hasn't got a universal way of dealing with it in the application forms.

Also, it must create a mess at the account level. If there is an Exetel account in the name of a business, and there is a need to add a residential service to the same account, can that be done ? (I haven't had the experience; it may be obvious to those who have.)

Thank you.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:37 pm
by ForumAdmin
We really don't want to encourage ANY business to use a residential service for business purposes.

That leads to the:

"because my service was down for two days I lost a squillion dollars" scenario.

NO business should be run on a residential grade service and by 'denying' the ability of an individual to put a service in a business name we avoid any such 'litigation'.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:34 pm
by stivk
I refer to the page on the Exetel web site titled "RECEIVING/NOT RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM EXETEL"
( https://www.exetel.com.au/members/infor ... _email.php )

This page allows customers to select from a list of advisory newsletters on various subjects that they can opt to receive. The page also states the following:

"All information will be sent to your main contact email unless you change the email address for any particular advice to go to another email address."

I attempted to opt-in/subscribe to all the newsletters by checking the boxes and, since I wanted to receive them at the main email address specified on my account, I left the input fields with the caption "Please Enter the email you want to sign up" blank.

Upon clicking the button "Subscribe to the Selected Newsletters" the screen shot back to the top for no apparent reason, and no action was taken.

After much retrying, prodding, poking, and not to mentioned frustration (I know, I just mentioned it), I discovered a message just above the caption "Please Enter the email you want to sign up" (which is off screen 'cause the page has shot to the top) which reads "Invalid Email!". The alternate email fields are blank for reasons I have stated but the page appears to insist that they are always filled. The page should naturally tolerate their omission as the previously quoted instruction implies it does.

It would also be nice if an error message must be displayed that it is visible.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:38 am
by ForumAdmin
stivk wrote:I refer to the page on the Exetel web site titled "RECEIVING/NOT RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM EXETEL"
( https://www.exetel.com.au/members/infor ... _email.php )

This page allows customers to select from a list of advisory newsletters on various subjects that they can opt to receive. The page also states the following:

"All information will be sent to your main contact email unless you change the email address for any particular advice to go to another email address."

I attempted to opt-in/subscribe to all the newsletters by checking the boxes and, since I wanted to receive them at the main email address specified on my account, I left the input fields with the caption "Please Enter the email you want to sign up" blank.

Upon clicking the button "Subscribe to the Selected Newsletters" the screen shot back to the top for no apparent reason, and no action was taken.

After much retrying, prodding, poking, and not to mentioned frustration (I know, I just mentioned it), I discovered a message just above the caption "Please Enter the email you want to sign up" (which is off screen 'cause the page has shot to the top) which reads "Invalid Email!". The alternate email fields are blank for reasons I have stated but the page appears to insist that they are always filled. The page should naturally tolerate their omission as the previously quoted instruction implies it does.

It would also be nice if an error message must be displayed that it is visible.
I've asked a sysadmin to reply.

Tens of thousands of customers have used this facility without a problem.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:22 pm
by CoreyPlover
Just reposting the statement from http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=306&t=34791 here as well:
Magnus wrote:This page http://www.exetel.com.au/residential-hspa-call.php lists the wm a plan as a 5 dollar data access charge while this page does not http://www.exetel.com.au/residential-hspa-pricing.php

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:00 pm
by flak
The ADSL2 Residential Online Order Form is linking to the Inclusions with ADSL1 (Added Value) Broadband Plans page.

Apart from the obvious ADSL2 linking to a ADSL1 page issue, the linked page states that the plans offer free SMS and email2fax, which I don't believe are offered for ADSL2 NF plans.

Re: Report Broken Links/Failed Web Functions Here

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:14 pm
by ForumAdmin
flak wrote:The ADSL2 Residential Online Order Form is linking to the Inclusions with ADSL1 (Added Value) Broadband Plans page.

Apart from the obvious ADSL2 linking to a ADSL1 page issue, the linked page states that the plans offer free SMS and email2fax, which I don't believe are offered for ADSL2 NF plans.
Thank you for pointing that out.

It will be fixed asap.