![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ihug is supposed to be in lower case :)
I think ihug is usually though to be 3rd largest ISP behind Telecom and Telstra. Also it is probably a Subsidiary rather than a private company.- SimonLyall 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is a usage meter not a suitable link? It is relavant and it is free. Everyone needs to watch their usage otherwise they get capped. "What should be linked to: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" from WP:EL. WP 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There'd be no ihug without the rare few that stay longer than a year.
Wonder how long http://northnet.net.nz/stuff/cornflakes.wav would last in the article before Lyall edited it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.131.1 ( talk) 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Whilst the call centre may have had a reasonable high turnover, as most callcentres do, the back office staff was as stable as any other company. - lowkey
Quote: "Before 2000 Ihug was New Zealand's largest ISP but as other ISPs began offering flat rate services, many customers opted to transfer to those providers, particularly Xtra."
The reason I dropped ihug as my ISP was not just because of its ongoing connection problems and a lax attitude towards remedying them but especially because of its atrocious customer service. Slow connections speeds were a secondary problem compared to just getting a connection in the first place. Of the many people I know who moved away from ihug these are the main reasons cited, rather than better competition from outside providers. So the claims of the article will need to be verified since they seem to clash with reality. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This article may help to prove part of what I have said: Complaint made against internet provider iHug upheld [1]
121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the article's date of 2006 date is relevant to the fact that ihug had atrocious customer service. I'm citing the article because it is to hand, and supports my point about ihug's poor service ethics. Ihug had poor communication with their customers which created a lot of negative externalities to be dealt with in my case. I wasn't alone, hence people left en-masse. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
SimonLyall, your defensiveness may or may not be valid. This is the talk page regarding the content of the article, and for the sake of balance I consider it valid to make the points I have because I feel the article is disingenuous. You have just made some points that have been overlooked in the article, i.e. "During that period the company went though 3 ownerships, several mangement changes, periods when it has busy signals and when it didn't." It is no wonder then that this company was erratic and these internal issues seem to have impacted upon its service. Surely the points you have just made may be reasons for its decline, rather than simply that competitors existed?
The justifications for the bad service may be understandable. Perhaps the most conscientious poeple couldn't do better under the circumstances. And yet the reality remains that all of those justifiable, understandable circumstances resulted in bad service, and the bad service is why customers left.
I certainly have no issue with your point that the quality of service from our telecommunications companies in NZ in general leave a lot to be desired. My "broadband" connection is often logjammed at certain times of the day and when it operates normally is only twice the speed of dial-up. Sometimes I feel like i'm in a third world country. Ihug was simply worse than the others in the relative (poor) scheme of things. The brand has gone - need I say any more.
121.73.7.84 ( talk) 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ihug is supposed to be in lower case :)
I think ihug is usually though to be 3rd largest ISP behind Telecom and Telstra. Also it is probably a Subsidiary rather than a private company.- SimonLyall 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is a usage meter not a suitable link? It is relavant and it is free. Everyone needs to watch their usage otherwise they get capped. "What should be linked to: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" from WP:EL. WP 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There'd be no ihug without the rare few that stay longer than a year.
Wonder how long http://northnet.net.nz/stuff/cornflakes.wav would last in the article before Lyall edited it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.131.1 ( talk) 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Whilst the call centre may have had a reasonable high turnover, as most callcentres do, the back office staff was as stable as any other company. - lowkey
Quote: "Before 2000 Ihug was New Zealand's largest ISP but as other ISPs began offering flat rate services, many customers opted to transfer to those providers, particularly Xtra."
The reason I dropped ihug as my ISP was not just because of its ongoing connection problems and a lax attitude towards remedying them but especially because of its atrocious customer service. Slow connections speeds were a secondary problem compared to just getting a connection in the first place. Of the many people I know who moved away from ihug these are the main reasons cited, rather than better competition from outside providers. So the claims of the article will need to be verified since they seem to clash with reality. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This article may help to prove part of what I have said: Complaint made against internet provider iHug upheld [1]
121.73.7.84 ( talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the article's date of 2006 date is relevant to the fact that ihug had atrocious customer service. I'm citing the article because it is to hand, and supports my point about ihug's poor service ethics. Ihug had poor communication with their customers which created a lot of negative externalities to be dealt with in my case. I wasn't alone, hence people left en-masse. 121.73.7.84 ( talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
SimonLyall, your defensiveness may or may not be valid. This is the talk page regarding the content of the article, and for the sake of balance I consider it valid to make the points I have because I feel the article is disingenuous. You have just made some points that have been overlooked in the article, i.e. "During that period the company went though 3 ownerships, several mangement changes, periods when it has busy signals and when it didn't." It is no wonder then that this company was erratic and these internal issues seem to have impacted upon its service. Surely the points you have just made may be reasons for its decline, rather than simply that competitors existed?
The justifications for the bad service may be understandable. Perhaps the most conscientious poeple couldn't do better under the circumstances. And yet the reality remains that all of those justifiable, understandable circumstances resulted in bad service, and the bad service is why customers left.
I certainly have no issue with your point that the quality of service from our telecommunications companies in NZ in general leave a lot to be desired. My "broadband" connection is often logjammed at certain times of the day and when it operates normally is only twice the speed of dial-up. Sometimes I feel like i'm in a third world country. Ihug was simply worse than the others in the relative (poor) scheme of things. The brand has gone - need I say any more.
121.73.7.84 ( talk) 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)