MegaPath

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/03/11) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. The Customer signed a 3-year contract with MegaPath on 1/8/13 which is due to expire on 1/8/16. The Customer cancelled his account early...

on 1/26/2015. The Company provided Customer with a cancellation credit and the Customer was only billed for half of the Early Termination Fees (ETF) due and owed. The Company has found no justification in the Customer account history to waive Early Termination Fees for disconnection. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/03/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Megapath took over for Covad. We don't agree or recall signing up with Megapath. We did not change service to Megapath. We did them a favor by simply staying with the service that we had been using for years. If Megapath can provide a signed contract as they allege on 1/8/13, then we will agree to pay $100.00 for an ETF to resolve this issue. Again, we have no recollection of signing anything with Megapath.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/04/15) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint. The Customer's email capability was originally shutdown because the volume of daily outgoing emails violated the Terms of Service and activated the Spam Abuse Protocol. The Customer...

was informed of this, and was instructed on how to reset her password to re-start email services. Multiple trouble tickets were then closed because the tickets addressed the same issue, and the Customer had received instructions on how to resolve the issue. The Customer's request for credit is inappropriate because email is not a billed service; therefore, there were no fees paid for email to credit back to the account. The Company considers this matter closed with the Revdex.com.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2014/04/17) */
This situation has not been resolved, and we would appreciate your continued attempts to do so.
Our vendor seems to discount their responsibility as an email provider because they roll the price for email into their other charges. They fail to acknowledge that their complimentary email service serves to attract and widen their customer base. More importantly, a dysfunctional email system such as the one Megapath runs infects customers' ability to access links and other information sent by email but accessed by internet, many of which require rapid response. Email is essential for any business today; therefore, we maintain that they shirked their responsibility and caused us tremendous problems, regardless of specific charges on an invoice.
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2014/04/22) */
The Company has received the Customer's response and again, respectfully disagrees that any credit is due. If the email outage had been caused by a service disruption or error on the Company's part, then if appropriate under the Service Level Agreement (SLAs), the Customer could seek an SLA credit. However, in this instance, the outage was initially caused by the Customer's actions, which violated the Terms of Service and activated Spam Abuse Protocols. MegaPath informed the Customer of the block and violation, and then advised the Customer on how to reinstate her email service. The secondary part of the outage was due to the Customer's failure to reinstate the email service. Therefore, any prolonged outage in this situation was not due to action or inaction on the part of the Company, and therefore, SLA credits are not appropriate in this situation. The Company considers this matter closed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/02/07) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint. The Customer maintains that she had no service for 6 months; however, the last trouble ticket submitted by the Customer was closed after her service was restored. The Customer was...

advised in a phone call on July 18, 2013 that verbal cancellations were not accepted and that she needed to cancel through the online customer portal. There is no evidence that the Customer tried to cancel her service through the customer portal, therefore, she is responsible for the charges on the account. The Company considers this matter closed with the Revdex.com.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/02/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I also want to point out that the long list of complaints filed against this company seem to follow this very pattern. Extremely aggressive billing while extremely poor service. Months of no service and zero attempts by Megapath to repair service.
There is no MIDDLE GROUND when a company does not provide the service they sell.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/04/16) */
Received response via email:
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. The Voice ETF was waived on the March 2015 invoice and a credit was issued for the Cable ETF in the amount...

of $342.00. The Customer's account will reflect a $0.00 balance, account closed. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/05/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This company states as evidenced above that a credit of 342 dollars has been made to my account and that my account will reflect a 0.00 balance.
I just picked up their invoice deducting 342 dollars from a total of 1299.00 pre-emptive charges for cancelling services with them.
I cancelled services with them because of wrong identification of my order, almost one and a half month of business lost because they could not get the fax and telephone going because the modem is the smallest modem I have ever seen. Then after the delay they wanted me to pay more for the right zize modem.
Their sales team agreed that they failed dismally but the sharks in the financial department will not let go.
THERE IS NO 0.00 BALANCE IN MY ACCOUNT!!! THEY ARE WANTING 971.00 DOLLARS TO BE PAID TO THEM FOR WHAT??!!!. BREACHING THEIR CONTRACT AND UNASHAMEDLY TELLING LIES TO THE BUSINESS BUREAU THAT THEY CONSIDER MY ACCOUNT CLOSED .
THEY ARE STILL DEMANDING PAYMENT FOR 971.00 DOLLARS. DISGUSTING!!!
Final Business Response /* (4000, 19, 2015/07/13) */
NOTICE TO CONSUMER: This is a final response from the business.
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account further. An ETF credit in the amount of $12,719.08 was credited on the February invoice, a credit in the amount of $342.00 was credited on the April invoice and additional credits in the amount of $38.27 should post to the July invoice. All credits were made to the Voice services only. The remaining balance is a reflection of the ETF and Late fees due for Cable. The Company considers this matter closed.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Contract Administrator
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 21, 2015/07/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am not understanding the 12, 719/- credit megapath issued to my account for what??.
The bills megapath is sending me they say is because of late fees and ETF charges??!! Really!!!.
Cable charges for what?!!! Failing to install the cable properly in the first place. Because of a tiny modem. Megapath was asked to discontinue their services because their internet failed, fax and telephone failed & they refused to replace their tiny modem. The 342 dollars they credited me is payment.fora whole months service of Internet not provided and installation fees for telephone and fax not provided.
Now after all this they Hv the shamelessness to demand ETF charges & late fees!!??. For what?? There is no binding contract between us when they breached their own contract by failing to provide services.
How about paying me for a whole month's lack of service in my office and the business I lost.
Please take a look at the rat sized modem megapath was trying to use to provide services instead of giving me the right modem that Cox did.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/06/23) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint. When the Customer's number was ported, it triggered a change in our system and all assigned phone lines began billing. There was no indication in the Customer's contract that he...

should be receiving a free phone seat so per the Customer's request, the second seat was cancelled and credits totaling $300.60 were given for charges incurred since the line began billing in November. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/06/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
While the only resolution with the company was to terminate the line. They keep referring to a contract which doe snot exist. We signed a contract almost 10 years ago with he original IP5280. since then like with all phone companies when you make changes - i.e. add or delete lines no new contract were offered of signed. MegaPath has certainly never offered a contract with our services . This is nothing more than the company not wanting to honor what has been done for years. The contract would be the last several years of bills with the line at no charge

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/15) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint. The Customer initially had a lineshare product, which required the use of the existing landline voice line (which also was used to provide the DSL). When the Customer notified...

MegaPath of the move, and during subsequent contacts with the Customer, MegaPath informed the Customer that due to the lineshare product, he would need to move the landline to the new location before we could move their DSL service to the new location. In lieu of this, MegaPath offered the Customer an option to order a dedicated line instead, which was available at a slightly higher price but would let them avoid moving the landline. The Customer agreed to the new product, ordered on July 25, and set for a timely installation. However, the Customer cancelled his service before the installation. MegaPath has processed the Customer's cancellation request and the Customer's account is closed. The Company considers this matter closed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/10/06) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and reviewed the history of trouble tickets on the account. On July 25, 2014, the Customer requested a speed upgrade from EoC 10.0 to 25.0. The Company attempted to perform this...

upgrade, but extensive interior wiring work was needed at the Customer's site, which proved to be cost prohibitive. The Company identified the system issues that prevented the Customer's upgrade service order from being terminated and caused connectivity issues for the Customer in short discrete intervals. The Company found alternative channels to cancel the upgrade order. The Customer's SLA terms dictate that credit be given after outages of 4 hours or more, and although there were no reported outages of more than one hour, the Company gave the Customer a Customer Satisfaction credit for 1 month's charges. The Company considers this matter closed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/06/06) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's response. The Early Termination Fee Schedule that was in effect at the time the Customer signed his contract is posted on the company website, and the contract advises reading that Schedule...

prior to signing the contract. The salesperson involved with his account stated that no guarantee of reduced ETFs was promised. The account is currently active, but if it is closed, the ETF will be applied per the terms of the contract. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2014/06/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The response that Megapath has sent to Revdex.com is flawed and cannot be accepted as, in my opinion, it distorts reality both through its statements and its omissions.
I will explain in line with the Text.
Megapath Statement: The Company has investigated the Customer's response. The Early Termination Fee Schedule that was in effect at the time the Customer signed his contract is posted on the company website, and the contract advises reading that Schedule prior to signing the contract.
Reality: The Early Termination Fee Schedule which was valid at the time I have signed the contract is not the The Early Termination Fee Schedule that Megapath tried to apply to me. In fact, it doubled the ETF on the schedule posted on the web (without sending any notice to customers).
Specifically, at the time I decided to terminate the contract, the ETF posted on the web was already increased to the full amount owed until the expiration of the contract.(In approximate numbers, at the time I decided to terminate the contract which was in November 2013, that meant $4000.00 as opposed to $2000.00 under the contract terms a year before).
I signed the contract with Megapath AFTER I have carefully checked the The Early Termination Fee Schedule that was in effect at that time and posted on the web but not mentioned in dollars and cents on the paper. Since it was an item of concern, as explained in my previous notes, I secured its conditions in writing from the sales person who sold me the contract. It is my understanding that Megapath is legally bound by contract law to respect it.
Megapath Statement: The salesperson involved with his account stated that no guarantee of reduced ETFs was promised.
Reality: The salesperson did not offer a guarantee of reduced ETFs, it offered a guarantee of the ETFs which were in force at the time I have signed the contract.
As such I did not ask for any favor but I am asking Megapath to respect the contractual terms agreed upon.
Megapath Statement: The account is currently active, but if it is closed, the ETF will be applied per the terms of the contract. The Company considers this matter closed.
Reality: Megapath has avoided to state clearly what are the contractual terms it abides to, as it is has the capability of changing the information on the website and then use it to justify its actions. The root of the issue is that the Early Termination Fee Schedule are posted on the company web site thus subject to unilateral change but are not mentioned in dollars and cents in the contract papers (only as web links) -- thus the reason I secured the written explanation from the sales person. This business practice should be cease as it is flawed. The ETF should be included in dollars and cents in the written contract that is received by the customer.
Additionally, since I did not use the Megapath service since September 2013 (which can easily be checked) and since my first attempt to terminate the contract was made in November 2013 -- when I was prepared to pay in full the termination fees according to the terms of the contract and even more, since Megapath has avoided constantly to discuss the issue despite the tickets I have opened, it is fair that my contract should be terminated with the date of the first ticket opened for the purpose of terminating the contract Nove 2013 and the ETF to be calculated based on the terms of the contract as it was signed and specified in writing by the sales person. This would be half of the amount owed until the contract termination, calculated from the date the termination was initiated. Goes without saying that the payments that I made since the date mentioned above should be credited toward the ETF.
I understand that Megapath desires to keep the issue at a very vague level as its approach avoid respecting its contracts at the cost of their customers, may become a serious liability. In my case, I believe that the first step to take is for Megapath to state clearly, in no equivocal terms what are its intentions with my account in terms of termination date and charge. I want the issue closed as well and I believe that my requests are reasonable.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/10/14) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. The Company will credit the Customer the fees related to the installation charges within two billing cycles. The Company considers this...

matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 8, 2015/10/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/10/29) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint. The Customer contacted us on two occasions about his speed issues, but both issues required further troubleshooting and he did not respond to our attempts to follow-up with him to...

correct the issues. Per our Service Level Agreement, the Customer can upgrade, downgrade or cancel service within 30 days with no penalty. The Customer did not cancel his service until four months after installation; therefore, he is responsible for the outstanding balance of monthly charges incurred and the Early Termination Fee. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/10/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The company is wrong and is lying. I contacted the company at least six times. I talked to accounts payable each time I called and told them I would not be paying until they gave me the service I had signed up for. I was told each time they understood. That they created only two tickets is a separate matter and in no way is an indication of the number of times I called. I agreed to going through the process of setting up a second ticket when it became clear the first one wasn't being solved. I did not see the point of having them create any further tickets considering the first two had done no good, but did not stop calling them. I will not pay for service that was never provided, regardless of their 30 day nonsense. THEY NEVER PROVIDED THE GUARANTEED SERVICE. I gave them ample time to provide the service guaranteed by the contract and finally cancelled due to lack of performance.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/19) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. Several teams worked extensively with the Customer to resolve the phone issues. The phone issues were determined to be caused by the...

active ALG (application-level gateway) on the Customer's modem. The Customer was advised to contact their ISP provider to have the ALG disabled on their modem or request a new modem that has ALG that can be disabled. The Customer was made aware that voice services will continue to be unreliable with active ALG on the modem. The Customer was issued a credit for the downtime and issues that they experienced. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/05/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This is a bogas response because on X-XX-XXXX they had two techs in my office working on the equipment and a tech in their office in Seattle and they specfic determined it was not the ALG in my modem but in fact that it is in their service coming to me the customer. They have not contacted me since even though I have made several attempts to reach them to see what they were going to ** about the situation as they are costing me huge amounts of money from lost business because of the phone service. As far as the credit is concerned they gave me a month off the bill for six months now without service. If you cannot resolve this issue with them then I will have to pursue this further in the courts.
Thank you for the response even though it was a bunch of bull.If you review your other complaints against the company you will see they continue to use the same excuse, it is the customers equipment even though the customer tells them up front exactly what type of equipment they have and are assured that their service will work off of that equipment. It is my opinion as well as several other merchants that I have talked with that their sales people have been taught to defraud the public and ** not care.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/03/12) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. The Customer reported a service issue with his phones, which after testing was determined to be an ALG or a LAN issue. The Customer is...

responsible for Customer's LAN because the Company does not have any devices on site, except for phones. The Customer was informed that the phones would be temporarily provisioned on a test server until the ALG was removed from the modem and that Customer would continue to experience issues while on the test server. The service issue is LAN related and needs to be remedied by the Customer. The Company informed Customer that disconnection/termination requests need to be made in writing. The Company did not receive a written request from Customer for termination or cancellation of service. The Company has found no justification in the Customer account history to waive an Early Termination Fee for disconnection. The Company considers this matter closed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2014/08/29) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint. We have reached out directly to the Customer, and brought in our Escalations Team to get his issues resolved. As of August 22, 2014, the Customer's service was running properly with...

only intermittent instances of poor call quality. We will continue to work with the Customer to get examples of these calls so that we can identify and correct any remaining problems. The Company considers this matter closed with the Revdex.com, but a dedicated Escalations team will continue to work with the Customer until all issues are resolved.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2014/09/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 6, 2014/02/25) */
Please cancel this complaint. I was able to resolve the issue with the vendor.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2015/08/24) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. After a technician visited the Customer's site, it was determined that the site would require extensive inside wiring for services, which...

is the Customer's responsibility. The Customer received several email notifications from the Company's Provisioning team with an estimated quote to complete the extensive inside wiring upon approval from the Customer. The Customer informed the Company that they were exploring wiring options with a third party. The Company was not contacted to confirm that the extensive inside wiring work was completed. The Customer then cancelled their service before the end of their contract term, therefore incurring Early Termination charges. The Company has found no justification in the Customer account history to waive an Early Termination Fee for disconnection. The Company considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2015/09/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
MegaPath's response is without merit for several reasons.
First, MegaPath insinuates that I have the responsibility under the contract to pay to have my house rewired in order to accommodate MegaPath equipment. This is not what the contract states. What the contract actually states, under Note 3 on page 4 of the service agreement, is that any costs incurred by me in having rewiring services performed are not the responsibility of MegaPath. This is a non-issue as I have not requested MegaPath to pay to rewire my home; instead, I opted to not purchase its services and MegaPath never provided me services.
Second, because MegaPath never provided me services, I should not be billed for those services. In fact, under MegaPath's own policy, I never even had a final contract with MegaPath under which they could rightfully bill me. The service agreement states that "This Service Order need only be executed by Subscriber. MegaPath may accept or decline the Order as provided herein. MegaPath's provisioning of the Service shall indicate it's acceptance of the order." The parties ** not dispute that MegaPath did not provide services. Thus, MegaPath did not satisfy conditions set forth in its own policy to show acceptance, and without acceptance there is no contract. Nor did MegaPath give any other indication that I would be liable for payment prior to sending me its first bill for services that were never provided.
Third, Section III(E)(2) of the Fee Schedule indicates that when a circuit cannot function during installation, I have the right to reject the circuit without a cancellation or early termination fee. I was never giving the option to accept or reject a circuit under this provision, as the circuit was never even installed, and therefore never tested. Pursuant to this provision, the billing start date does not begin until the customer has accepted the circuit after installation. Again, no installation took place, and the circuit was not tested. Therefore, no billing start date accruedhence my surprise at receiving a bill for this circuit.
Fourth, MegaPath's Fee Schedule states that Early Termination fees apply "if you decide to terminate or cancel an installed circuit or service before the Term is complete." In this instance, no installation occurred. From this language, it is obvious that my situation is not one that is subject to early termination fees.
Finally, MegaPath claims to offer a 30-Day Satisfaction Guarantee. This policy reads that "if, during the first thirty (30) calendar days after installation, you notify MegaPath that you are not satisfied with MegaPath's Internet Service . . . and request that your service be discontinued, we will terminate your Service Order and relieve you from the remaining term of your service commitment." Again, the 30-Day trial period accrues after installation occursin my case, there was no installation. Nonetheless, when I spoke with a representative in Billing at MegaPath, I was told that I should have cancelled within 30 Days of the technician arriving at my home. This is in contradiction to MegaPath's written policy, because installation was not completed when the technician came to my home.
In sum, MegaPath never provided me services, and acknowledged in its reply that it never provided me services, as I would need to perform extensive rewiring for it to ** so. The technician never installed a circuit in my home through which I could receive services. The provision of these services is required to finalize the service agreement between myself and MegaPath, as MegaPath accepts the agreement by providing services. Without services, no contract exists between MegaPath and me. Even if a contract existed, it would fail for lack of consideration because I have received no services from Megapath.
For the reasons set forth above, should be resolved by MegaPath and the collection agency dismissing any remaining charges from my account and closing same.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 20, 2015/10/27) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. The Company's field service technician completed installation at the Customer's site. It was determined that the site would also require EIW (Extensive Inside Wiring), which is the responsibility of the Customer to complete. The Services were activated when it was confirmed that the local carrier delivered the loop for the circuit. The Company's Provisioning team provided an estimated quote if the Customer wanted the Company to perform any of the additional EIW work. The Company followed up with the Customer on several occasions about the EIW. The Customer informed the Company that they were exploring wiring options through a third party. All charges are valid, as the Company terms and conditions specifically state that EIW is the responsibility of the Customer and the Company starts to bill once the loop for the circuit is confirmed at the site. The Company has found no justification in the Customer account history to waive any fees. The Company considers this matter closed.
Pg 12 of the Fee Schedule and Services Exhibit:
Section E. Terms and Conditions for Installation of Specific Broadband Services
1. Installation

and
Pg 13 of the Fee Schedule and Services Exhibit:
Section E. Terms and Conditions for Installation of Specific Broadband Services
2. Circuit Acceptance

Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 23, 2015/11/16) */
MegaPath's response is a contradiction to the section of their Fee Schedule and Services they are trying to use as their defense.
Pg 13 of the Fee Schedule and Services Exhibit:
Section E. Terms and Conditions for Installation of Specific Broadband Services
2. Circuit Acceptance
This section states "Delivery of any circuit with Provider installation is completed by a MegaPath-contracted technician who installs any internal wiring required, connects the CPE, and tests the entire circuit to ensure its proper operation. If the circuit functions at the speed originally ordered by Subscriber, then Subscriber is deemed to have accepted this circuit when the MegaPath-contracted technician completes his or her test (billing start date)."
The contracted technician did NOT install any internal wiring. In their response, MegaPath acknowledges that there was no internal wiring installed because my house needed "Extensive Inside Wiring". Therefore, installation was not complete/finalized allowing for the start of the billing date.
Furthermore, there's failure of consideration - there were no services received from MegaPath; thus, the fees are not due.
Show original message

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/01/29) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. On November 14, 2014, the Company issued Customer a credit for the October and November invoices. Customer was contacted to request credit...

card information which would give customer an immediate refund. Customer chose the option for a refund check. The Company's records indicate that a refund check in the amount of $193.34 was issued to Customer on January 6, 2015 and cashed by Customer on January 21, 2015. The Company considers this matter closed.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/10/23) */
The Company has investigated the Customer's complaint and researched the history of the account. The Customer had 2 trouble tickets opened that were addressed over the history of the account. Several duplicate tickets were opened on one...

day and one ticket was submitted but the Customer did not respond to requests for additional information and it was closed. Our agents assisted the Customer with the first ticket, including having the Customer make adjustments to its equipment and reaching out to the equipment vendor. After the second ticket, we issued a customer satisfaction credit to compensate the Customer for the delay in solving the issue. However, the Customer did not respond to our attempts to follow-up on the ticket and it was closed. The Company considers this matter closed.