Talk:ihug

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

ihug is supposed to be in lower case :)

Yes and no. Originally ihug was in lower case but at points they moved to having a capital "I". Later on the tended to use the lower case "I". Offical documents either use "ihug" , "Ihug" or "IHUG" . Sometimes external parties (iinet even) will use "iHug" although I've never seen the company itself use that. Part of the problem was the branding people were a little slack and didn't actively enforce usage especially by the media. I pretty much decided not to change it hear since it is close enough, also since ihug got bought by iiNet the article might even be redundant. - SimonLyall 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd largest

I think ihug is usually though to be 3rd largest ISP behind Telecom and Telstra. Also it is probably a Subsidiary rather than a private company.- SimonLyall 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why no usage meter?

Why is a usage meter not a suitable link? It is relavant and it is free. Everyone needs to watch their usage otherwise they get capped. "What should be linked to: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" from WP:EL. WP 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usage meter is really only useful for (some) customers of ihug which is a tiny fraction of the people reading this article. The site doesn't contain any meaning ful relivant content about ihug, just a piece of (very new) software that might be of use to some customer's of the company. - SimonLyall 10:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ihug Staff

There'd be no ihug without the rare few that stay longer than a year.

Wonder how long http://northnet.net.nz/stuff/cornflakes.wav would last in the article before Lyall edited it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.131.1 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the call centre may have had a reasonable high turnover, as most callcentres do, the back office staff was as stable as any other company. - lowkey

Reason for decline

Quote: "Before 2000 Ihug was New Zealand's largest ISP but as other ISPs began offering flat rate services, many customers opted to transfer to those providers, particularly Xtra."

The reason I dropped ihug as my ISP was not just because of its ongoing connection problems and a lax attitude towards remedying them but especially because of its atrocious customer service. Slow connections speeds were a secondary problem compared to just getting a connection in the first place. Of the many people I know who moved away from ihug these are the main reasons cited, rather than better competition from outside providers. So the claims of the article will need to be verified since they seem to clash with reality. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article may help to prove part of what I have said: Complaint made against internet provider iHug upheld [1]

121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section is talking about just after 2000. Before that if people wanted a flat rate account ihug was pretty much their only choice so people stuck with it despite slow speeds, or whatever else. Between 94 and 98 for example people would take hours of continuous dialling to get in, really slow downloads speeds and then get kicked after 3 hours. The ONLY reason they put up with that was that they would have spent a lot more with any other provider. Would you moved away from ihug if your only option was a $5/hour account elsewhere? Note also that the article you cite is from 2006 - SimonLyall (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article's date of 2006 date is relevant to the fact that ihug had atrocious customer service. I'm citing the article because it is to hand, and supports my point about ihug's poor service ethics. Ihug had poor communication with their customers which created a lot of negative externalities to be dealt with in my case. I wasn't alone, hence people left en-masse. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a long period here (say 1998 - 2006 ). During that period the company went though 3 ownerships, several mangement changes, periods when it has busy signals and when it didn't. Multiple turnovers in the helpdesk nd from a 100% dialup (being the only flat-rate ISP) to just one of many DSL-selling ISPs. So exactly which dates did it have bad customer service and customer's left en-mass? Was it 1998? 2000? 2006? . Seriously we need some decent references. The case above is an advertising complaint, I believe Telecom had been stung for several over the years as have other ISPs. Nothing about bas customer service there. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimonLyall, your defensiveness may or may not be valid. This is the talk page regarding the content of the article, and for the sake of balance I consider it valid to make the points I have because I feel the article is disingenuous. You have just made some points that have been overlooked in the article, i.e. "During that period the company went though 3 ownerships, several mangement changes, periods when it has busy signals and when it didn't." It is no wonder then that this company was erratic and these internal issues seem to have impacted upon its service. Surely the points you have just made may be reasons for its decline, rather than simply that competitors existed?

The justifications for the bad service may be understandable. Perhaps the most conscientious poeple couldn't do better under the circumstances. And yet the reality remains that all of those justifiable, understandable circumstances resulted in bad service, and the bad service is why customers left.

I certainly have no issue with your point that the quality of service from our telecommunications companies in NZ in general leave a lot to be desired. My "broadband" connection is often logjammed at certain times of the day and when it operates normally is only twice the speed of dial-up. Sometimes I feel like i'm in a third world country. Ihug was simply worse than the others in the relative (poor) scheme of things. The brand has gone - need I say any more.

121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]