To whom it may concern,I am sorry to hear of the issues that Ms [redacted] has had with our service as we strive to provide the best customer service along with a positive experience overall.Normally due to the circumstances we would not refund her charge for a couple of reasonsThe first reason is that the 30-day Money Back Guarantee is only for new customers and does not apply to returning customersMs [redacted] had our service in and in In she was ineligible for the 30-day Money Back Guarantee since she had already been a customer with us beforeThis was explained to her but in the end she was refunded the money anywaysSecondly, she was able to connect and was connected for over and a half hours, which would also make her ineligible for the 30-day Money Back GuaranteeDuring this time she did call our support for help but also refused to follow some support steps that are used to fix the type of issue that she was havingShe says that she was unaware of these policies that we have in place in our terms of service but these policies have been explained to her on other occasions, one of which I had personally explained to her in May of 2013.As a good faith effort, even though she does not qualify for a refund, I will refund the $9.95, but she will be unable to siand use our service in the future.I appreciate your timeThank you very much[redacted] ISP Support ManagerCopper.net, Inc.###-###-####
To whom it may concern: I’m sorry to hear that Mr [redacted] has not had a positive experience with our company as we strive to provide the best value to our customers possible Historically our Hispeed plan has always been $14.95, even before the Call Alert was an optionWhen we started offering the Call Alert plan in 2007, there was an additional charge for Call Alert of $for the Hispeed customers and $for customers on our Standard diservice ($9.95/month) Customers who had the Hispeed and the Call Alert were paying $total at that timeTo provide additional value to our Hispeed customers a few years ago, we bundled the Call Alert into the Hispeed service at no additional cost to the customer along with other extras, still keeping the price at $ The Call Alert was unfortunately discontinued this year; however since it was an added benefit to the plan and not part of the core charge, we are unable to lower the cost of the monthly serviceThe other benefits that still remain on his account are the Hispeed accelerator, extra email accounts, increased inbox space, and email archiving for all email accountsThe Hispeed and all of the email accounts and upgrades are valued over $if we were to charge for each service individually I hope this helps shed some light on why we are unable to provide Mr [redacted] with a lower priceWe will be glad to answer any other questions or concerns that he may have [redacted] ISP Support Manager Copper.net, Inc Phone: [redacted] Fax: [redacted] Email: [redacted]
260 Waverly Ave.Kenmore, NY 142173/23/15RevDex.com1169 Dublin Rd.Columbus, OH 43215Subject: Response to letter from the RevDex.com (BBB), with message from Copper.net,Inc.. (a.k.a. or formerly known as Basic ISP.net), dated 3/17/15. I expect, as well as it beingmy intent, that Copper.net management has the opportunity to read this letter.1 .) "I'm sorry to hear of the issues that Mr. [redacted] has had with our service."Sean Alberts should have been aware of the issues, prior to being contacted by the BBB, because Isent a letter specifically addressed to her/him regarding this matter, dated 2/9/15 - and of which youhave in your possession; the reason I addressed it to her/him, is because this individual had previouslycontacted me regarding completing a survey. I sent Sean Alberts an email on 2/19/15, inquiring ifhe/she had received it - the support section from Copper.net responded that they did dated 2/24/15.2.) "I have not attached it to this response since these responses are public and his personal informationis shared throughout the call."Did Sean Alberts intend this instead: "I have not attached it to this response since these responsesare private and his personal information is shared throughout the call?"3.) Whichever Sean Alberts meant to state, lets examine this segment; starting with "He spoke with [redacted] .. ." and ending with " . . .his phone company":I don't recall the specific wording of this conversation, that took place back in October of 2014, aspresented by Sean AIberts; point being, Copper.net, would need to produce a taped conversation betweenthis representative and myself and sent to me (copy to CD) - to prove their assertions and verify my voice.In addition, a "transcript" of the call would be unacceptable - because that could be altered.For that matter, even if Copper.net did have a legitimate taped conversation with me agreeing to theirterms of service as stated, the language in their original terms of service may be different from what theyhave posted currently, e.g., as stated in my letter to the BBB including photocopies of their software(dialer), dated 3/2/15.Their software shows that Copper.net altered their original w?ording in their (condensed) disclaimer,that they have attached to the dialer. Based on that fact, it is possible that this company may have alsoaltered the wording in their (detailed) terms of service as well - which would nullify part of that account,i-e., "...by signing up with our company, he is agreeing to our terms of service and that they are locatedon our website."Let alone the fact, that Copper.net misrepresented their statement in their letter of 2/13/15 to me(the Basic ISP name/logo are indicated on that letter), rega?rding their detailed terms of service, i.e.,"Furthermore, we also have this notice included in the smart dialer in order to additionally advise ourcustomers." No, the (detailed) terms of service that Copper.net stated in that letter is not included in thesmart dialer, but instead, a disclaimer that is a condensed (and altered) version.4.) "We did attempt to contact him numerous times to change his access number, but this had nothingto do with the charges on his phone as we were unaware of those until he returned contact with us."A) Questionable - "numerous"Aside from Copper.net personnel needing to present proof to back up this assertion, let's examinedifferent aspects of this choice of terminology:Tracy, representative of Copper.net (Agent #103), on 2/5/15, informed me that their companyunsuccessfully attempted to contact me by email on the 22nd of January and also by telephone - to informme to the effect, that the company is removing my access number/to choose another number.I have partially explained in prior correspondence, that I closed that particular (predominatelynon-business) email account; the last recorded activity for that AOL account, as told to me by arepresentative, was 1/20/15. C?opper.net was one of a few that were business-related on that account, ofwhich I had forgotten that it was on this account (not intending to offer as an excuse, stating a fact).However, after only one attempt of contacting a terminated email account, Copper.net personnelwould have most likely been informed by AO?L/their webmaster, that the account is no longer active orno such address exists (to that effect).I also explained in a prior letter, that with a dial-up internet connection, one cannot receive incomingphone calls; it is also possible, that I wasn't home when they called - for me to receive their call(s).However, "numerous" doesn't account for the fact of why they didn't try to contact me by phone onmore than one day; if they had tried (calling me on another day), they might have made contact.Aside from the postal mail method of conveying information that I will later (and again) address,I would think that if Copper.net management was so concerned about their customers, as they haverepeatedly attempted to portray in their ?correspondence with me and the BBB, that if they wereunsuccessful one day at communication, they would have attempted to contact me on another day witha preferred medium of their choice, e.g., by telephone.B) Questionable - "...but this had nothing to do with the charges on his phone bill, as we wereunaware of those until he returned contact with us."If what Sean Alberfs is saying is true, i.e., "...but this had nothing to do with the charges on the phonebill. ..", then why didn't [redacted] correct me/intervene during our conversation on 2/5/15, e.g., informingme that the telephone number she was ca?lling me about was not my current access munber (7169517799),but another that I ?had used in the past - after I had informed her that I couldn't understand (at that time),how my computer usage ended up dialing a Silver Creek, NY phone number repeatedly (a regional call forme, not a local call) and that there may be a glitch in the system (to that effect).I would also need a copy of this taped conversation on 2/5/15, between myself and Tracy, to get thepertinent facts regarding their assertion and to verify my voice.4.C) Clouding and/or skirting the issueRegardless of Sean Albert's account of entry "4.B", more importantly, upon Copper.net personnel(justifiably) contacting me to choose another number within the January 22d to January 25th time frame,I would have changed my (misrepresented) access number and the cost would have been limited to nomore than $114.00.Af?ter Copper.net personnel unsuccessfully attempted to contact me by email and phone, the next(logical) step to communicate, would be by postal mail - of which I believe the vast majority of reputablecompanies, would agree with. As I stated in prior correspondence, their representative, Tracy, stated inour conversation, that the reason they did not send me a letter (informing me to choose another number),is because they are a "green" company.I addressed t?his matter in prior correspondence, partially explaining to the e?ffect my (applicable)educational background in the biological and physical sciences and (applicable) work experience with theU.S. Forest Service in different disciplines and taking place in various locations -Arizona , Idaho andPennsylvania; i.e., in my strong opinion, engaging thoughtful conservation measures and for companieswho adopt a policy of reducing their postal mail output to occasional usage (when appropriate), is notgoing to harm the environment.As result of their misguided policy, the phone bill significantly increased - causing an unnecessaryfinancial cost to me, totaling $664.00 for those Silver Creek, NY regional calls (over the course of atwo-month bill period, copies of those bills are in your possession and with Copper.net) - as opposed tomy standard two-month bill amount of no more than $24.00.To concludeIn my last correspondence, I proposed a compromise that included two options - of which I thinkvery fair. The BBB is in possession of those details/figures and so is Copper.net, Inc.I stand by that proposal.If Sean Alberts is sincerely "sorry" for the issues I've experienced with her/his company's service,then back up that remorse by making (?justified) amends - otherwise, what is the true p?urpose of theapology? It can be easily perceived as only being offered, in order to give a positive impression to theRevDex.com.I affirm these statement to be the truth, so help me God.Very truly yours.Edward D. Caggiano
To whom it may concern,I am sorry to hear of the issues that Ms [redacted] has had with our service as we strive to provide the best customer service along with a positive experience overall.Normally due to the circumstances we would not refund her charge for a couple of reasonsThe first reason is that the 30-day Money Back Guarantee is only for new customers and does not apply to returning customersMs [redacted] had our service in and in In she was ineligible for the 30-day Money Back Guarantee since she had already been a customer with us beforeThis was explained to her but in the end she was refunded the money anywaysSecondly, she was able to connect and was connected for over and a half hours, which would also make her ineligible for the 30-day Money Back GuaranteeDuring this time she did call our support for help but also refused to follow some support steps that are used to fix the type of issue that she was havingShe says that she was unaware of these policies that we have in place in our terms of service but these policies have been explained to her on other occasions, one of which I had personally explained to her in May of 2013.As a good faith effort, even though she does not qualify for a refund, I will refund the $9.95, but she will be unable to siand use our service in the future.I appreciate your timeThank you very much[redacted] ISP Support ManagerCopper.net, Inc.###-###-####
To whom it may concern: I’m sorry to hear that Mr [redacted] has not had a positive experience with our company as we strive to provide the best value to our customers possible Historically our Hispeed plan has always been $14.95, even before the Call Alert was an optionWhen we started offering the Call Alert plan in 2007, there was an additional charge for Call Alert of $for the Hispeed customers and $for customers on our Standard diservice ($9.95/month) Customers who had the Hispeed and the Call Alert were paying $total at that timeTo provide additional value to our Hispeed customers a few years ago, we bundled the Call Alert into the Hispeed service at no additional cost to the customer along with other extras, still keeping the price at $ The Call Alert was unfortunately discontinued this year; however since it was an added benefit to the plan and not part of the core charge, we are unable to lower the cost of the monthly serviceThe other benefits that still remain on his account are the Hispeed accelerator, extra email accounts, increased inbox space, and email archiving for all email accountsThe Hispeed and all of the email accounts and upgrades are valued over $if we were to charge for each service individually I hope this helps shed some light on why we are unable to provide Mr [redacted] with a lower priceWe will be glad to answer any other questions or concerns that he may have [redacted] ISP Support Manager Copper.net, Inc Phone: [redacted] Fax: [redacted] Email: [redacted]
260 Waverly Ave.Kenmore, NY 142173/23/15RevDex.com1169 Dublin Rd.Columbus, OH 43215Subject: Response to letter from the RevDex.com (BBB), with message from Copper.net,Inc.. (a.k.a. or formerly known as Basic ISP.net), dated 3/17/15. I expect, as well as it beingmy intent, that Copper.net management has the opportunity to read this letter.1 .) "I'm sorry to hear of the issues that Mr. [redacted] has had with our service."Sean Alberts should have been aware of the issues, prior to being contacted by the BBB, because Isent a letter specifically addressed to her/him regarding this matter, dated 2/9/15 - and of which youhave in your possession; the reason I addressed it to her/him, is because this individual had previouslycontacted me regarding completing a survey. I sent Sean Alberts an email on 2/19/15, inquiring ifhe/she had received it - the support section from Copper.net responded that they did dated 2/24/15.2.) "I have not attached it to this response since these responses are public and his personal informationis shared throughout the call."Did Sean Alberts intend this instead: "I have not attached it to this response since these responsesare private and his personal information is shared throughout the call?"3.) Whichever Sean Alberts meant to state, lets examine this segment; starting with "He spoke with [redacted] .. ." and ending with " . . .his phone company":I don't recall the specific wording of this conversation, that took place back in October of 2014, aspresented by Sean AIberts; point being, Copper.net, would need to produce a taped conversation betweenthis representative and myself and sent to me (copy to CD) - to prove their assertions and verify my voice.In addition, a "transcript" of the call would be unacceptable - because that could be altered.For that matter, even if Copper.net did have a legitimate taped conversation with me agreeing to theirterms of service as stated, the language in their original terms of service may be different from what theyhave posted currently, e.g., as stated in my letter to the BBB including photocopies of their software(dialer), dated 3/2/15.Their software shows that Copper.net altered their original w?ording in their (condensed) disclaimer,that they have attached to the dialer. Based on that fact, it is possible that this company may have alsoaltered the wording in their (detailed) terms of service as well - which would nullify part of that account,i-e., "...by signing up with our company, he is agreeing to our terms of service and that they are locatedon our website."Let alone the fact, that Copper.net misrepresented their statement in their letter of 2/13/15 to me(the Basic ISP name/logo are indicated on that letter), rega?rding their detailed terms of service, i.e.,"Furthermore, we also have this notice included in the smart dialer in order to additionally advise ourcustomers." No, the (detailed) terms of service that Copper.net stated in that letter is not included in thesmart dialer, but instead, a disclaimer that is a condensed (and altered) version.4.) "We did attempt to contact him numerous times to change his access number, but this had nothingto do with the charges on his phone as we were unaware of those until he returned contact with us."A) Questionable - "numerous"Aside from Copper.net personnel needing to present proof to back up this assertion, let's examinedifferent aspects of this choice of terminology:Tracy, representative of Copper.net (Agent #103), on 2/5/15, informed me that their companyunsuccessfully attempted to contact me by email on the 22nd of January and also by telephone - to informme to the effect, that the company is removing my access number/to choose another number.I have partially explained in prior correspondence, that I closed that particular (predominatelynon-business) email account; the last recorded activity for that AOL account, as told to me by arepresentative, was 1/20/15. C?opper.net was one of a few that were business-related on that account, ofwhich I had forgotten that it was on this account (not intending to offer as an excuse, stating a fact).However, after only one attempt of contacting a terminated email account, Copper.net personnelwould have most likely been informed by AO?L/their webmaster, that the account is no longer active orno such address exists (to that effect).I also explained in a prior letter, that with a dial-up internet connection, one cannot receive incomingphone calls; it is also possible, that I wasn't home when they called - for me to receive their call(s).However, "numerous" doesn't account for the fact of why they didn't try to contact me by phone onmore than one day; if they had tried (calling me on another day), they might have made contact.Aside from the postal mail method of conveying information that I will later (and again) address,I would think that if Copper.net management was so concerned about their customers, as they haverepeatedly attempted to portray in their ?correspondence with me and the BBB, that if they wereunsuccessful one day at communication, they would have attempted to contact me on another day witha preferred medium of their choice, e.g., by telephone.B) Questionable - "...but this had nothing to do with the charges on his phone bill, as we wereunaware of those until he returned contact with us."If what Sean Alberfs is saying is true, i.e., "...but this had nothing to do with the charges on the phonebill. ..", then why didn't [redacted] correct me/intervene during our conversation on 2/5/15, e.g., informingme that the telephone number she was ca?lling me about was not my current access munber (7169517799),but another that I ?had used in the past - after I had informed her that I couldn't understand (at that time),how my computer usage ended up dialing a Silver Creek, NY phone number repeatedly (a regional call forme, not a local call) and that there may be a glitch in the system (to that effect).I would also need a copy of this taped conversation on 2/5/15, between myself and Tracy, to get thepertinent facts regarding their assertion and to verify my voice.4.C) Clouding and/or skirting the issueRegardless of Sean Albert's account of entry "4.B", more importantly, upon Copper.net personnel(justifiably) contacting me to choose another number within the January 22d to January 25th time frame,I would have changed my (misrepresented) access number and the cost would have been limited to nomore than $114.00.Af?ter Copper.net personnel unsuccessfully attempted to contact me by email and phone, the next(logical) step to communicate, would be by postal mail - of which I believe the vast majority of reputablecompanies, would agree with. As I stated in prior correspondence, their representative, Tracy, stated inour conversation, that the reason they did not send me a letter (informing me to choose another number),is because they are a "green" company.I addressed t?his matter in prior correspondence, partially explaining to the e?ffect my (applicable)educational background in the biological and physical sciences and (applicable) work experience with theU.S. Forest Service in different disciplines and taking place in various locations -Arizona , Idaho andPennsylvania; i.e., in my strong opinion, engaging thoughtful conservation measures and for companieswho adopt a policy of reducing their postal mail output to occasional usage (when appropriate), is notgoing to harm the environment.As result of their misguided policy, the phone bill significantly increased - causing an unnecessaryfinancial cost to me, totaling $664.00 for those Silver Creek, NY regional calls (over the course of atwo-month bill period, copies of those bills are in your possession and with Copper.net) - as opposed tomy standard two-month bill amount of no more than $24.00.To concludeIn my last correspondence, I proposed a compromise that included two options - of which I thinkvery fair. The BBB is in possession of those details/figures and so is Copper.net, Inc.I stand by that proposal.If Sean Alberts is sincerely "sorry" for the issues I've experienced with her/his company's service,then back up that remorse by making (?justified) amends - otherwise, what is the true p?urpose of theapology? It can be easily perceived as only being offered, in order to give a positive impression to theRevDex.com.I affirm these statement to be the truth, so help me God.Very truly yours.Edward D. Caggiano