ADSL2 (Powertel) CPE - Back to Base Alarm

From ExeWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Complaint Case Studies > ADSL2 (Powertel) CPE - Back to Base Alarm

Case Study

Product: Powertel ADSL2 service

Location: Adelaide


Exetel can only investigate to rule in or rule our the actuality of the DSL infrastructure which is between the local exchange, cabling in public land and then cabling to the network boundary point, which is normally just outside of a customers premises for single dwellings (or similar) or to the main distribution frame (MDF) for multi dwellings (or similar).


ADSL2 service was provisioned 27/07/2007


31 Jul 2007 22:51:42 - Customer lodged fault 31/7/07 (after hours) to state they had no dial tone from 27/7/07 to 31/7/07 and that Telstra Retail had been dispatched to fix that issue, however they could not get DSL sync.


01 Aug 2007 10:57:13 - Reported issue is lodged with our DSL wholesale supplier

01 Aug 2007 10:59:34 - Exetel formally responds to customer to state we have lodged the reported issue to our supplier.

Exetel also explains the usual steps to rule in or out usual culprits within premises.

The troubleshooting explanation is rudimentary and usually takes no more then 15 minutes at best.


01 Aug 2007 15:09:57 - We are formally advised by our wholesale DSL supplier the DSL service is within specifications and they see no abnormalities between the exchange and to the network boundary point but they intend to send a technician to check 2/8/07 because of the advised dial tone fault that existed 27/7/07 to 31/7/07


02 Aug 2007 16:50:38 - We are advised a technician was dispatched and he attended to some jumpering at the local exchange. Then using his own equipment, he could gain sync at the exchange and at the c-pairs/network boundary point. We are advised this reported issue is within the customers privately owned and maintain equipment or the premises. Exetel auto calls the customer to advise and to troubleshoot her own premises, and localised setup.


10 Aug 2007 11:26:43 – Customer e-mails in and insists the problem to be Exetel's fault


10 Aug 2007 11:47:52 - Reported issue is lodged

10 Aug 2007 11:48:15 - Exetel formally responds to advise we are happy to log the reported issue again.

10 Aug 2007 12:27:29 - Our DSL wholesale supplier advises they are happy to send a technician to the field to check the actuality of the infrastructure between the local exchange and network boundary point, however if no fault is found a incorrect call out fee of $220 applies if no fault of the infrastructure is found

10 Aug 2007 13:13:23 - Customer is not answering their phone

10 Aug 2007 13:54:54 - Customer is still not answering their phone, case to close in 48 hours if no response received from customer


13 Aug 2007 14:54:18 – Customer e-mails in to say DSL does not work, and that they just want a connection

13 Aug 2007 15:03:29 - Exetel formally replies with troubleshooting tips and explanations, and that if they'd like us to log their reported issue, they must do so by our automated phone fault reporting facility


17 Aug 2007 09:45:43 - Voice mail left regarding a complaint lodged with an alternate dispute resolution scheme

17 Aug 2007 09:51:04 - Exetel in receipt of formal complaint lodged by the customer to an alternate dispute resolution scheme

17 Aug 2007 09:57:02 – Exetel listen to customers complaint voice message, that states they are 'unhappy at how they've been treated'.

17 Aug 2007 10:45:35 – Exetel complaints person contacts customers on their mobile, to listen to what they had to say.

- Customer believes explanations by staff of the reported fault being resolved is 'untrue'.

- Customer 'does not believe' the reported issue has been fixed.

- Exetel complaints person explains that the DSL infrastructure has been investigated and it is deemed to been within specifications and no fault has been found

- Exetel complaints person scrutinises customers equipment setup and customers premises and listens to what they have to say about that

- Exetel complaints person is advised by the customer they have 4 phone sockets in their premises and 1 of those is attached to a supposedly 'decommissioned' back to base alarm system, and they have been promised by the back to base alarm system company it has been unplugged/isolated and it shouldn't be a problem.

- Exetel complaints persons asks if the modem works on another DSL enabled line and the customer informs they took their modem to a friends place and it gains sync there

- Customer also states their friend has plugged their modem into 3 phone sockets in their premises and their modem does not gain sync. This is clearly indicating an issue at the customers premises.

- Exetel complaints person re-iterates that the back to base alarms system could well be the culprit and insists this be checked and ruled out

- Exetel complaints person re-iterates that the DSL infrastructure has been ruled out (as advised to them prior) and that the customer has ruled out their modem too and that we need to rule in or rule out the customers premises, specifically the setup and hardware of the customers back to base alarm system

- The customer says she will speak to her friend who is an electrician to help her over the weekend


20 Aug 2007 17:14:37 - Customers says they will plug their modem into the phone socket near the back to base alarm system. Exetel complaints person commits to call them the next day to seek how that progressed


21 Aug 2007 08:48:57 - Exetel complaints person see's the customer online and that they've been authenticated for 10 hours and 47 minutes and calls the customer to enquire.

Mon Aug 20 21:59:50 2007 : Auth: Login OK: [[removed]] (from client 1-gpr-55clar-syd port 1400)

LNS-A : 1181 38097 55616 [removed], Vi2.3079 est 10:47:20 1400

21 Aug 2007 08:52:24 - Customer calls back and says they plugged the modem into the phone socket next to the back to base alarm system and it gained sync


The customer insisted the reported issues was not attended to Exetel, despite the facts that clearly demonstrates to the contrary.

Exetel had provided facilities for the customer to contact us and to report an issue, which they did multiple of times.

Exetel had attended to the reported issues and we maintained in contact with the customer to advise, and where they were uncontactable we sent an automated call to advise them.

The customer denied we assisted them outright and was confronted/offended when we attempted to explain the infrastructure has been investigated and checked and no fault was evident and that it is highly likely to be an issue within the customers responsibility.

The customer did not like that and felt we had treated them unfairly as in their opinion we have not fixed their reported issue.

The customer proceeded to lodge a compliant with an alternate dispute resolution scheme

Exetel maintains that we are technically and physically unable to ever assist a customer for issues of their privately owned & maintained equipment or for any issues to do with their premises.

On this occasion the customers back to base alarm system setup was the ultimate culprit and in hindsight if the customer had listened to our explanations to rule it in or out in the first instance this matter would never had progressed to the point it did.

Resources used which was 100% preventable

> 3 reported issues lodged by the customer

> 4 mobile phone calls greater then 15 minutes each by Exetel to the customer

> Alternate dispute resolution schemes fee's bourne by Exetel

> Customer seeking help of friends over 3 weeks