How to get an online merchant’s attention when they just screwed you on your order

I got screwed out of a name brand card when I ordered an mp3 player from “”. Like most small online shops, they have very poor customer service and are extremely slow to respond to email, especially complaints. I ordered a NEX IA mp3 player along with a 512mb CF card. The card pictured was a Lexar 12x card, which is very highly rated, so that was the card I expected to receive, and I expected to receive a new one. What they sent me was an off-brand card. So far I’ve had about 5-6 email exchanges with them over the last month asking them to refund my money (they said they would replace the off-brand card with a refurb Lexar, but not a new one). They still won’t accept a refund. Here’s the last coorespondence I sent, which I thought was blog-worthy.. 🙂

Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:30:41 -0500

From: Service

To: Robert Rose

Subject: Re: Order Update

We are sorry that you feel that way. We were in the process of changing over

cards and by the time we got to your order, we’d run out of the 12x cards.

So we didn’t think you’d mind getting a 16x Dane-elec card with a lifetime

warranty as opposed to the 12x Lexar card with a 90 day warranty. You

actually got a faster card with a longer warranty, so I really don’t

understand what the problem is. If you really want a 12x Lexar card with a

90 day warranty, just send back the 16x Dane-Elec card with a lifetime

warranty back to us and we’ll try to see if lexar can get us a 12x card in

the meantime. It’s really unfortunate that you had to go to such lengths to

hurt our company, when you actually got an upgraded order from what you had

originally ordered. We’ll try to work with you on this, I just hope you

understand what you have and maybe will consider retracting your letter from

the Better Business Bureau. Thank you and we’ll be looking to hear from you

on what you’d like us to do. Thank you.


Zack Gehan

—– Original Message —–

From: “Robert Rose”

To: “Service”

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 7:22 PM

Subject: Re: Order Update


> I’m sorry it took you so long to respond, I just sent a letter of

> complaint to the Better Business Bureau.


> -robert

Say NO to the Oregon “Super DMCA,” SB 655

The Oregon legislature is considering a new law that would make the most harmless and commonly used Internet access practices illegal. It’s called SB 655. Although not explicitly stated by the law, it implies that the following would all be illegal: NAT, firewalling, sharing your Internet connection with your neighbor, or any other technique that could mask the origin of the Internet traffic. The law is based on model legislation from the MPAA and that broadband group (who’s name I can’t recall) that is made up of AOL Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T Broadband, etc. Write your representative NOW if you live in Oregon.

I’ve been cooresponding back and forth with Senator Starr’s staff, the state Senator “sponsoring” the bill. Here’s the last email I wrote:

Internet access is a utility service like water or power, and should be regulated as one. I hope that if Oregon adopts legislation related to consumer Internet access that the legislators treat Internet access as metered service; consumer’s pay for the volume of Internet access that they use, and are not regulated on what they can or can’t do with it.

If you agree that Internet access is a utility like “water and sewer� services you buy from your city:

• You would pay a flat-fee for “Internet connection,� plus an additional charge for the amount of Internet access that you use, measured in gigabits per month. Under SB 655, Internet Service Providers (ISP) would have no reason to sell Internet access in this manner.

• You would not be regulated on what you do with your Internet connection. Like water you buy from the city, where you are free to bottle the water and sell it to your neighbors, you should be able to do the same with your Internet connection. “Dasani� water by the Coca-cola Corporation is nothing more than bottled city water—If water was their Internet connection, under SB 655 what they are doing would be criminal offense.

• The amount of data from the Internet that you can download into your home is fixed, as it is today. Just like water and sewage services the amount of water you can “download� into your house is fixed by the pipe that comes into your house. If you choose to re-sell some of your water to your neighbor you are only hurting yourself by lowering your water pressure—the same goes for an Internet connection. Under SB 655, sharing a water hose with your neighbor would be a criminal offense.

The MPAA and the Broadband Providers Group are trying to make Internet access regulated like cable-TV. This is wrong because unlike cable-TV where you have a “fixed� amount of incoming data and no control over the content, with an Internet connection you have a variable amount of data and full control over the content.

I believe that law that controls what a consumer can or can not do with their Internet connection infringes on basic consumer rights and free speech. The government has no place telling me what I can or can not do with my Internet connection.