Winding up Order – Netspeed

cranky 15 February 2009 21

Todays CT has a notice in the classifieds that a company listed as Digital Internet Wizards P.L. has applied in the NSW Supreme Court to have Bytecard Pty Ltd (T/a Netspeed Internet Communications), wound up.

The ACN for Netspeed given is the same as that listed on my Netspeed homepage.

Does anyone have any more info? Sounds like a petty squabble got out of hand to me.

Tags

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
21 Responses to Winding up Order – Netspeed
Filter
Order
stillflying stillflying 12:17 am 05 Feb 13

patrick_keogh said :

This all is really sad. Sad because this, together with other reports of disquiet by customers possibly signals the demise of what is now the main alternative ISP on the Transact network. Reduction in competition is seldom a good thing, but the M&A activities that we have seen have brought us to the point of only two significant ISPs and a couple of minnows. Now it appears possible that one of the two biggies is in difficulty.

For the record I signed on with Netspeed in 2002 and only left in 2012. All through that time I was both a supporter (recommending the technical service) and a critic (of the support). On several occasions I offered Brian professional advice as to how to address some of the main service management issues but this offer was never taken up. I don’t blame Brian personally: I don’t know what kind of pressures he has been under, but I do lament the opportunity to build a better ISP to “keep the custards honest”.

Ultimately I left because Netspeed was not responsive to my needs for better service and support. I’m now with Grapevine and it is early days: maybe the service is better or worse but only time will tell. I’m happy to pay more money for better service so I’m doing the former and hoping for the latter 😉

Don’t consider him a victim, I’m sure he’s got what was coming to him.

patrick_keogh patrick_keogh 9:55 pm 04 Feb 13

This all is really sad. Sad because this, together with other reports of disquiet by customers possibly signals the demise of what is now the main alternative ISP on the Transact network. Reduction in competition is seldom a good thing, but the M&A activities that we have seen have brought us to the point of only two significant ISPs and a couple of minnows. Now it appears possible that one of the two biggies is in difficulty.

For the record I signed on with Netspeed in 2002 and only left in 2012. All through that time I was both a supporter (recommending the technical service) and a critic (of the support). On several occasions I offered Brian professional advice as to how to address some of the main service management issues but this offer was never taken up. I don’t blame Brian personally: I don’t know what kind of pressures he has been under, but I do lament the opportunity to build a better ISP to “keep the custards honest”.

Ultimately I left because Netspeed was not responsive to my needs for better service and support. I’m now with Grapevine and it is early days: maybe the service is better or worse but only time will tell. I’m happy to pay more money for better service so I’m doing the former and hoping for the latter 😉

LSWCHP LSWCHP 8:12 pm 04 Feb 13

Wow…as I always tell my kids, nothing on the internet is ever forgotten. 🙂

stillflying stillflying 7:57 pm 04 Feb 13

For those who might be interested in knowing:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/100000-fine-for-abusive-netspeed-20130201-2dqkn.html

“A Canberra internet entrepreneur and the company he founded have been ordered to pay more than $100,000 in fines by the Federal Court.
The court found Bytecard – better known by its trading name NetSpeed – and company director Brian Andrew Morris breached their obligations as a telecommunications provider between 2006 and 2011.
The five breaches related to Bytecard’s failure to repay aggrieved customers a total of $2819.99 as directed by the industry watchdogs.

ACMA Chairman Chris Chapman. Photo: Supplied
The funds were reimbursed only after the Australian Communications and Media Authority began Federal Court proceedings last year.
Advertisement
Justice Lindsay Foster slapped Bytecard with a pecuniary penalty of $75,000.
Mr Morris was ordered to pay $37,500 and the Canberra company must also pay costs.
But the penalty was lower than that originally sought by ACMA.
Counsel for the authority submitted that Bytecard should pay $90,000 and Mr Morris should be penalised $45,000.
Justice Foster also ordered Bytecard to implement a compliance program and Mr Morris must attend a seminar with respect to his obligations.
In passing judgment, Justice Foster wrote that the contraventions were very serious.
”The provision of telecommunications services is a very important feature of modern society,” Justice Foster said
”There are many organisations involved in the provision of those services at various levels. The need for those organisations which deal directly with the public to behave in a manner which complies with relevant statutory provisions, the terms of their contracts and appropriate professional standards is obvious.”
The judge noted that while each of the breaches produced only a minor financial loss for each customer, there had been aggravating circumstances.
”Instead of approaching those complaints in an appropriate fashion, Bytecard and Mr Morris set upon a course of action which can only be described as a deliberate and flagrant non-compliance with Bytecard’s business and statutory obligations, overlain … with disrespectful and abusive language,” the judge wrote.
Justice Foster agreed with ACMA’s submissions that the repeatedly abusive approach adopted by Mr Morris demonstrated that the ”respondents’ contravening behaviour was persistent, deliberate, willful and contumelious”.
The judge said the penalty should send a strong message of deterrence to other telcos.
ACMA chairman Chris Chapman welcomed the decision.
Mr Chapman said the judgment was a reminder to telecommunication providers, no matter how big or small, that compliance was not negotiable.
”The ACMA commenced proceedings against Bytecard and its director in line with the undertaking it gave as part of the ACMA’s Reconnecting the Customer public inquiry that the ACMA will take regulatory action when required against non-compliant telecommunications companies,” Mr Chapman said.

Duke Duke 10:42 am 17 Feb 09

My only question for Brian would be ‘why doesn’t Netspeed answer their phones when my internet goes down?’ I’m not even given the opportunity to sit in an annoying queue – it’s as if they deliberately take the phone off the hook.

My own luddite theory about why my Netspeed goes down is that the system is not waterproof. At the slightest hint of dampness Netspeed no longer recognises my password or it will allow me to connect but not allow any pages to come up.

After any kind of evening storm I know i’m going to have internet trouble the next morning.

dvaey dvaey 10:05 am 17 Feb 09

We’ve been using netspeed for many years, and given the huge cost we’re paying ($100/month for uncapped), the service has been quite unreliable. Over the past 6 months or so, we have outages lasting > 4hrs maybe once a week, and intermittant outages almost everyday of various sorts. We’re trapped into our plan since TransACT forced us to pay for increased bandwidth capacity, but NetSpeed still bottles us down.

Also, as for post #6, the spam filter used to be great, but no longer works. I contact netspeed and was told that for an additional $2.50/month, they’ll put the spam filter back. Id rather just hit delete 80 times a day, than pay them yet an additional surcharge for a service which wasnt even 90% effective anyway.

As others have said, dont try and get support either, they dont like answering the phones and when they do they blame TransACT anyway, downtime never seems to be their fault somehow.

peterh peterh 12:20 pm 16 Feb 09

sorry, 3 post nutbag….

brian isn’t really visiting the forums, the post above is the same as the whirlpool one…..

C+P is a wonderful thing….

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1108345&p=14

peterh peterh 12:13 pm 16 Feb 09

Duke said :

Not sure if this comment is relevant to this issue, but we’ve been having some major internet difficulties here in Woden, our provider being Netspeed (using Transact).

Anyhoo, Transact says to call Netspeed whenever we have difficulties, but Netspeed won’t answer their telephone. Service generally resumes about the time i’m about to jump in my car and go beat on their office front door.

Sounds like something for peterh

If you have complaints about netspeed, visit whirlpool: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-threads.cfm?f=67 Brian is usually on and can answer your queries pretty promptly.

peterh peterh 12:08 pm 16 Feb 09

NetSpeed said :

Of course it is serious. I take any attempt at extortion seriously.

In this case it is Andrew Russell of Digital Internet Wizards, an ex employee, trying to extort money from my company to the tune of about $36,000 for what he claims is “computer rental” at the rate of $100.00 per day for a PC he claims he left behind when he quit.

See you in court on that one.

Brian Morris
Manager,
NetSpeed.

Brian, perhaps discretion is good for this one. There is a bit more to this than you mention, and until this is in court, you might like to stop throwing accusations around?

p1 p1 11:57 am 16 Feb 09

And he left it there a year before asking for some money?

dexi dexi 11:56 am 16 Feb 09

He should know better than trying to get money out of you Brain. What is Andrew a bit simple.

NetSpeed NetSpeed 11:45 am 16 Feb 09

Of course it is serious. I take any attempt at extortion seriously.

In this case it is Andrew Russell of Digital Internet Wizards, an ex employee, trying to extort money from my company to the tune of about $36,000 for what he claims is “computer rental” at the rate of $100.00 per day for a PC he claims he left behind when he quit.

See you in court on that one.

Brian Morris
Manager,
NetSpeed.

proofpositive proofpositive 2:38 am 16 Feb 09

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/classifieds.aspx?category_list=&pub_list=2&subclass_list=&keywords=Bytecard

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES No. 1190 of 2009 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR WINDING UP ORDER BYTECARD PTY LIMITED T/AS NETSPEED INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS ACN: 052 315 812 (1) A proceeding for the winding up of BYTECARD PTY LIMITED T/AS NETSPEED INTERNET COMMUNIATIONS ACN 052 315 812, was commenced by the Plaintiff, DIGITAL INTERNET WIZARDS PTY LTD ACN 112 430 583 on 21 January 2009 and will be heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales at 9;15am on 9 March 2009 at the Registrar’s Court, Court 7A, Level 7, Supreme Court, Queens Square, Sydney NSW 2000. Copies of documents filed may be obtained from the Plaintiff’s address for service. (2) The Plaintiff’s address for service is: Milne, Berry & Berger, Level 16, 383 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Ref: MG:DIG011-1578655 AG(3) Any person intending to appear at the hearing must file a Notice of Appearance, in accordance with the prescribed form, together with any Affidavit on which the person intends to rely, and serve a copy of the Notice and any Affidavit on the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s address for service at least three days before the date fixed for the hearing. Dated this 16 day ofFebruary 2009. The name of the Plaintiff’s Legal Practitioner is: Mittu Gopalan.

PUBLIC NOTICES AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES : BUSINESS NOTICES
15/02/2009 The Canberra Times

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 10:42 pm 15 Feb 09

I’ve recently converted to netspeed’s longreach wireless service. Very fast speeds compared to my copper offerings.

I’d hate to see me off the air cos of some fight with nothing to do with this service.

npl npl 9:47 pm 15 Feb 09

The Winding Up Order was actually filed on 21/01/2009 according to ASIC

old canberran old canberran 4:38 pm 15 Feb 09

I hope it’s just a rumour as I have been with them for 8 years since their Bega days as ACR. I also have a yearly top up account and their spam filter is great. I am sure that a statement would have been issued by the owner, Brian Morris, if there is a real problem.

monomania monomania 4:26 pm 15 Feb 09

johnboy said :

I had a very ugly experience with netspeed 6 or so years ago that ended up costing me hundreds of dollars.

I won’t be sorry to see them go.

Well I would. I pay yearly and I guess a lot of other people do as well so spare a thought for us.

harvyk1 harvyk1 4:24 pm 15 Feb 09

Yeah, I used to use them, they where pretty good, and cheap. I then wanted to use their longreach service and had no end of problems with the sign up process. Lucky it never went as far as installation unlike an unlucky friend of mine, who ended up with an internet service with approx 20% uptime.

my personal thoughts is that I won’t lose a wink of sleep over them going down

proofpositive proofpositive 1:12 pm 15 Feb 09

Given that Digital Internet Wizards is registered in Holt (according to ASIC) and the area around Kippax is hardly the Silicon Valley of Canberra I’d suggest that they are a small business that is owed a sum of money that was too big to pursue through the small claims court process, hence they are pursuing their available legal options.

I believe you can apply under law to have any company wound up if you have an outstanding debt that has failed to be paid after you have taken all the appropriate measures to ensure recovery. It is a legal mechanism to enforce payment of outstanding debts, the court may determine that the debtor entity is actually trading insolently and subsequently order administration or winding up – this would force payment of creditors through liquidation of goods and assets. Our course there is still the issue on whether a particular debt is genuine and that may come down to an interpretation of the applicable contracts entered into, tort law or the circumstances in each case.

johnboy johnboy 12:04 pm 15 Feb 09

I had a very ugly experience with netspeed 6 or so years ago that ended up costing me hundreds of dollars.

I won’t be sorry to see them go.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site