Robert MacMillan lodged a complaint against BigPond in Victoria's Magistrates court in August last year, alleging the ISP breached its contract and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
The dispute centres on pricing policy Telstra applied to its broadband service early in 2002. MacMillian claimed that Telstra breached its contract with him when it altered pricing for its cable broadband service in late January, approximately 20 days after it was installed at his property.
MacMillan also accused Telstra of violating Victorian fair trading laws. He claimed the carrier was "clearly intending to increase prices" when it advertised the service and was therefore unlikely to honour the offer.
Macmillan, bound by confidentiality provisions of the settlement, couldn't discuss its terms in detail.
"What I can say is that I am 100 percent satisfied with the outcome," said Macmillan who immediately added a few words of praise for the ISP.
"At the end of the day BigPond does provide an excellent service".
Macmillan, though given plenty of moral support for his case by broadband enthusiasts, was given long-odds of successfully winning his case by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO).
It is unknown whether other BigPond cable customers who signed on to the service at the same time as Macmillan will now lodge similar legal claims against Telstra. Macmillan retained copies of material that he claimed constituted the service offer on Telstra's Web site.
Macmillan approached the TIO with his complaint last year. In August last year, the TIO, John Pinnock, said Macmillan's case was rejected by the regulator on the basis that he had relied on advertising to make his purchase decision, rather than reading terms and conditions attached to Telstra's contract.
"It's no argument to say 'I didn't read any terms and conditions', you only have to think about it for a moment to realise that the advertising could not possibly constitute the whole of the contract," said Pinnock in August.
Macmillan today was sharply critical of the TIO today describing their efforts in investigating his complaint as "useless".
MacMillan argued that argued that Telstra was contractually bound to adhere to pricing it originally offered prior to changing it in January 29. According to Macmillan, at no time did Telstra ever "flag" the availability of terms and conditions for the service offered to him in the original Web promotion outlining its offer.
"[Telstra] made the offer of service for a period at a cost and all I wanted was the service for the period at the cost -- they're really struggling to get their heads round that," said MacMillan.
The TIO also said that Macmillan's case had little hope of succeeding as provisions of the Telecommunications Act dictate Telstra's Standard Form of Agreement (SFOA) would apply by default in the absence specific service terms and conditions.
However the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) advised Macmillan that SFOAs did not apply to Internet services.
While the TIO chose not to pursue statutory action against Telstra, Pinnock was critical of marketing practices used broadly in the telecommunications industry. He said consumers sometimes could not distinguish between advertisements and contract terms contained in marketing material used to lure consumers to a service.
"One of the things that [the TIO] is upset about is that people are often given advertising and then they're given a summary document, but they're still not given the terms and conditions," he said.
Telstra today failed to respond to ZDNet Australia's requests for comment on the settlement in time for publication.
The TIO really needs to lift its game. Not everyone has the time or inclination to take a matter like this as far as Mr McMillan has and he should be commended. I am constantly amazed at the lack of GRUNT that the TIO is willing to display in matters like this and I wonder who they are there for. Would like to see a reply to this article from them. Perhaps something for ZDNet to follow up.