A well-known operator has not mastered the Internet and is threatening me with legal action
Dear Mr. Editor,
In response to the sent press inquiry regarding the provision of Internet access services to the Client, Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. kindly informs that all reports and complaints submitted by subscribers are handled with due diligence, based on applicable law, provisions of the concluded contract, regulations for the provision of services, as well as in accordance with the operator’s internal procedures.
At the same time, we would like to point out that Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. is obliged to comply with telecommunications secrecy and personal data protection regulations. Due to the above, the operator is not entitled to provide, in response to a press inquiry, detailed information regarding an individual contract, subscriber data or detailed operational data assigned to a specific installation. To the extent possible, we present below a general position regarding the submitted questions.
Ad. 1. Why has the operator been unable to fix the problem with the service for several months, even though the problem was confirmed during technician visits?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. informs that in the course of handling customer requests, diagnostic activities were undertaken, including both remote analysis and service activities at the point of service provision.
Based on the technical measurements carried out, including measurements carried out by technicians using independent measuring devices, no irregularities in the operation of the operator’s infrastructure or parameters deviating from the technological standards applicable to the DOCSIS 3.1 network were found. The service parameters remained consistent with the terms of the contract and the regulations for the provision of services.
The operator emphasizes that not all difficulties reported by subscribers must result from reasons attributable to the operator. Potential disruptions may also result from independent factors, such as: configuration of subscriber’s end devices, local network (LAN/Wi-Fi), intermediary devices, as well as the functioning of external websites over which the operator has no influence.
Ad. 2. Why does the operator deny the customer access to information?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. firmly emphasizes that the allegation of denial of access to information is untrue and completely groundless.
The subscriber received full information at all times regarding reported problems, diagnostic activities undertaken and the course of the complaint procedure. The Operator fulfills its information obligations fully in accordance with applicable law and the provisions of the contract and regulations for the provision of services.
Moreover, all documents regulating the principles of service provision, including regulations, price lists and instructions, are publicly available on the operator’s official channels, which provides subscribers with unlimited access to the necessary information.
Claims about the refusal to provide information are completely inconsistent with the facts and misleading. The Operator operates transparently, reliably and in accordance with applicable law.
Ad. 3. Why does the operator refuse to contact the customer by phone and communicate only by e-mail?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. unequivocally rejects the allegation that it refused to allow the subscriber to contact the subscriber by telephone or limited communication only to electronic correspondence. This claim is completely false and baseless.
The Operator provides subscribers with the possibility of telephone contact via the existing Customer Service hotline, as well as electronic contact. In technical, disputed or complaint matters, communication may also be conducted in writing or electronically to ensure precise and complete transmission of information and to record documentation for evidentiary purposes.
In no case does such a procedure constitute a refusal to contact us by telephone, but is a standard market practice aimed at correct and reliable handling of the case.
Ad. 4. Why did the operator change its position on the matter several times, sometimes claiming that there was a problem, sometimes that it did not exist, and other times pointing to the subscriber?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. indicates that the assessment of technical applications each time requires analysis based on data available at a given stage of the proceedings, including measurement and diagnostic results.
In the case of telecommunications services, the operator’s final position cannot be based solely on the customer’s notification, but must include technical verification. Possible differences in the content of messages transmitted during the case may result from the extension of diagnostics and analysis of subsequent elements of the network environment.
The Operator emphasizes that each time the information provided resulted from current technical data and was not arbitrary or contradictory.
Ad. 5. Why does the operator refuse further visits from technicians, and if he agrees, then only for a fee?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. strongly emphasizes that the claim about the refusal to carry out technical visits is completely unfounded and inconsistent with the actual course of the case.
The operator undertook all service activities provided for in the procedures, including technical visits, in accordance with the needs reported by the subscriber. However, in accordance with the provisions of the contract and the regulations for the provision of services, in situations where the report of a technical problem is not the fault of the operator or concerns devices, installations or infrastructure belonging to the subscriber, the operator is obliged to inform about the possibility of charging a fee for a service visit.
This action does not constitute a refusal to provide services or a restriction of access to the website, but results from applicable legal provisions and market standards aimed at preventing unjustified interventions. The subscriber’s claims of denial are therefore completely untrue and misleading.
Ad. 6. Why does the operator refuse to allow the subscriber to terminate the contract by mutual consent?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. clearly rejects the allegation that it denied the subscriber the possibility of terminating the contract by mutual consent. The above claim is false and baseless.
The Operator accepts and considers each request to terminate the contract by mutual consent of the parties individually, taking into account the provisions of the contract, the regulations for the provision of services and applicable legal provisions. Termination of the contract by mutual consent of the parties requires the consent of both parties to the legal relationship; the operator’s lack of consent to the proposed terms does not mean a refusal to accept the application or a violation of the subscriber’s rights.
At the same time, the operator emphasizes that the subscriber is entitled to all legal remedies provided for by law and contract provisions, including complaint rights. To date, we have not received a request to terminate the contract by mutual consent.
Ad. 7. Why would technicians be dismissive, fail to show up for appointments, refuse to prepare reports, or provide information that is inconsistent with reality?
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. does not have any information confirming the allegations regarding incorrect behavior of technicians or actions contrary to the operator’s procedures. The company did not receive any complaints regarding the course of service visits.
The operator ensures that technical staff and entities providing service services are obliged to comply with customer service standards and procedures applicable at the operator. Any reports regarding service quality may be analyzed as part of internal control procedures.
At the same time, the operator indicates that the course of service visits and activities undertaken are recorded in internal systems in accordance with applicable procedures.
Summary
Multimedia Capital One sp. z o. o. indicates that the customer’s reports were each time carefully analyzed, and the operator undertook diagnostic and service activities to verify the reported problems.
Based on the measurements performed and available technical data, no irregularities were detected on the part of the operator’s infrastructure, and the service parameters remained consistent with the conditions arising from the contract and the regulations for the provision of services.
The operator remains open to further diagnostic activities under applicable procedures, aimed at clarifying any doubts reported by the customer.
