AtNetPlus, Inc.

Here is the necessary information sent to me from Atnet to unblock by website and email operationsThis was sent after I paid their disputed chargesAgain they were not supplying me with this necessary information until I paid the disputed amountThis was not a remedy stated in their contract when monies are in dispute. Thank you,*** *** (See attachment) Here is a letter from atnet where the owner states that he will shut my site and system down unless I pay in fullMy major complaint is that he was holding my company hostage over the disputed amount which is not a remedy stated in their contract. Thank you,*** ***(See attachment) One last email explaining my position. Atnet changed all my passwords and access once I started working with themThey registered themselves as administrators or technicians therefore possessing all passwordsOnce our working relation soured they would not provide me with the necessary passwords needed to get into my domainOnce our relationship soured because of their poor service and performance I demanded that they turned over my passwords necessary to hire another company to complete what Atnet had promisedAtnet refused to turn over the necessary passwords that they possessed unless I paid in full the disputed amount that they wanted.Their contract that I originally did not state this as a remedy in collecting paymentTherefore I am disputing their full amount and asking for the refund of the monies to me by Atnet. Thank you,*** ***

Unfortunately, the client still doesn't have a clear understanding of what was happening.  We have already addressed this concerns in our complaint response and the facts haven't changed.His concerns, along with our response are below."Here is a letter from atnet where the owner states that he will shut my site and system down unless I pay in full. My major complaint is that he was holding my company hostage over the disputed amount which is not a remedy stated in their contract."     o    This letter was addressed in our previous response to the complaint.  Here is a copy of that portion of the response.  “The message dated April 5, 2018 was sent to the client after he had selected a new provider and had been given ample time to transfer his web site to their server as he said he intended to do.  He was not paying the web hosting invoice and we could not continue to host the web site without receiving payment.  We had given him all of the information and access needed to move the web site, but he still insisted that we provide services for free to move the web site to the new provider.  We offered to provide those services, but not for free.  Since we were not being paid for the web hosting, we considered it a courtesy to give him two more weeks to move the content before the hosting was turned off.  We felt this was a better alternative than turning it off immediately upon lack of payment as is the practice of most web hosting companies.”  We maintain our insistence that his site was not held hostage and he had every ability to move his site anywhere else long before and after this message was sent.  This is part of what contributed to our frustration with the situation.  We explained the circumstances in ways we thought were clear, and the client would then raise the same question or concern with no acknowledgement of the explanation that had already been provided.  "One last email explaining my position. Atnet changed all my passwords and access once I started working with them. They registered themselves as administrators or technicians therefore possessing all passwords. Once our working relation soured they would not provide me with the necessary passwords needed to get into my domain. Once our relationship soured because of their poor service and performance I demanded that they turned over my passwords necessary to hire another company to complete what Atnet had promised. Atnet refused to turn over the necessary passwords that they possessed unless I paid in full the disputed amount that they wanted."    •    This point was also addressed in the previous response.  We did not change all his passwords.  In addition, prior to the April 5th message being sent, we provided him with full access to his domain management account via an account where we don’t even have visibility to what the password is.  He is the only one with access to that account.  "Their contract that I originally did not state this as a remedy in collecting payment. Therefore I am disputing their full amount and asking for the refund of the monies to me by Atnet."•    We were requiring payment in full on past invoices before we could perform additional services, not in order to give him access to his domain name and the ability to move the site.  He already had access to everything he needed to move the site before the message was sent on April 5th.Unfortunately, the client does not understand many of the technology concepts involved in the process, and as a result of our being unsuccessful in helping him understand them, he is frustrated.  However, his lack of understanding of the factors in this situation and being frustrated by that does not mean that AtNetPlus held the site hostage or violated the terms of our agreement as he is suggesting.

Consumer provided copies of correspondence with business.Noted was:*Please note page #2 where I circled where the company owner stating his refusal to send information necessary to keep my E-mail running*Info released by AtNet after I paid disputed amount.*This is what they were withholding me

This response is regarding Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted].  I will address each issue in the client’s complaint by including his concern and our response below.   ·         “AtNetPlus also encouraged me to purchase a new computer system as well”...

o   The client has suggested several times that we coerced him into buying a new computer and this statement just stops short of stating that again.  The client called reporting a problem with his computer running slow.  We determined that the computer was over 7 years old, and due to the age of the machine, we recommended replacing it rather than investing more time and money into a computer past its expected life span.  The client decided to purchase a new computer based on that recommendation. ·         “During the course of these additional projects, the relationship between AtNetPlus and myself soured.” o   Yes, the relationship did sour.  The client had many questions about our recommendations for his web site and computer.  We spent several hours discussing these projects with him, along with what steps we were taking and why. He would frequently state that he understood what we were talking about and agreed with the suggestion, only to later come back and often ask the same questions and contradict what he had previously said he understood and agreed with.  I believe that was frustrating for both parties and contributed to the relationship souring. ·         “AtNetPlus replaced an employee who was working with me with another one who did not seem to be aware of the promises and representations made by the former_” o   One of the people he was working with on the web site project left AtNetPlus and we assigned another person to the project.  However, this employee completed their work on the website prior to leaving.  The website is still based on the same platform and has the same design and content it had when we launched our new version of it. The scope of the project was outlined in the project proposal, which the client accepted.  Both employees were strictly adhering to the scope outlined in the project agreement.  Both AtNetPlus employees communicated frustration to management regarding their difficulty in trying to explain what was included and excluded to the client.  Several times they would explain a process or concept to him, he would state that he understood and then later raise the same questions with no seeming recollection of the previous conversation.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that the client ever fully understood what was included and not included in the project.  The client signed off on the website launch and approved all changes. ·         “The computer installation did not go as plan and resulted in my business being charged additional sums of money despite the fact that I had already paid for four hours of work to install and configure the computer and was promised hardware suppport services for 3 years without additional charge.” o   This appears to be another case where the client does not understand what was quoted and delivered.  On the AtNetPlus quote number [redacted], which is attached for reference, the line item for the installation labor states four hours of estimated installation and configuration with actual time to be invoiced.  The typical computer install usually takes no longer than four hours.  However, when we arrived to perform the install the client asked us to give him instruction on basic computer usage including how to shutdown the computer, how to login to Windows, how to forward an email message, how to display images in HTML emails within Outlook, changing the font size, and how to save files in Microsoft Word and Excel.  In addition, he didn’t know his email password or his Microsoft Live ID account password, which we had to assist him in resetting in order to complete the setup. We don’t mind performing these tasks for our clients as we know not everyone has the same level of computer knowledge.  However, when we are performing the work on a time and materials basis, we do feel it is reasonable to charge for these services.  During this process, he was expressing significant frustration with our staff while trying to learn these things.  Since the quote mentioned that actual time would be billed and he was present when the time was being spent, it was reasonable for us to expect he knew he would be invoiced for the time.  When we invoiced him for the seven hours and fifteen minutes spent on these tasks, he complained and refused to pay the invoice.  After being unsuccessful in trying to explain to him why the charges were valid, we adjusted the invoice so that only four hours were billable and we wrote off the $438.75 in disputed labor charges as a loss.  Regarding the hardware support promised, that was promised on the quote and was in fact included with the Dell machine he was sold.  The warranty can be viewed by visiting the Dell Computer support page at https://support.dell.com and entering the service tag for the machine, which is [redacted].  Once there, you will see that the hardware warranty is valid until December 10, 2020, which is three years from the date of purchase. ·         “I also disputed the progress and efficacy of the optimization process (see attached e-mails).” o   I have reviewed the attached emails he included and the only references I see to optimization of the web site are references he makes to verbal conversations he says happened with our employees.  There is no information that supports his recollection of those conversations.  What I do know is I have talked to the former employee that he claims to have had these conversations with and she says that it is not how those conversations went.  Neither AtNetPlus or this employee would make a statement promising specific SEO results.  What was stated to the client, and communicated to him over and over again was that his previous web site had certain characteristics that were not SEO friendly.  Things like not being mobile responsive, not supporting SSL and not being keyword friendly.  In order to address these issues, we quoted a project to convert the web site to WordPress and implement a new design template while addressing these issues.  The quote did not include developing new content for the web site and did not include ongoing SEO optimization services, which are needed for any web site to obtain and maintain high search engine ranking.  The client struggled to understand this distinction and after our several attempts to explain it, he would state that he understood and was satisfied, only later to come back frustrated again stating that he didn’t understand. ·         “Subsequently, I also disputed the charges.” o   He disputed the charges for the computer work and the web project multiple times, and each time once it was explained, he would say he understood, agreed to pay the invoices, and then when the invoices were not paid as promised, he would raise the same questions all over again. A phone call with the client on Jan 19, 2018, was recorded and during that call he agreed that he was satisfied with the service and that he would pay the outstanding invoices that same day.  He did not.    ·         “Because of the manner in which he was treated to transfer the renewal of the registration and servicing of my domain name and website to a different company on March 27, 2018.” o   The client asked that the information regarding his domain names and web site content be released to a new provider as requested.  We were happy to cooperate and hand the client off to another provider in hopes they would have more success than we did with him.  The previous provider that handed the client off to us shared similar frustrations and had ceased all communications with the client due to similar difficulties.  The information we shared with the client and the new provider granted full control of the domain name and the web site content. ·         “Rather than complying with my wishes, AtNetPlus refused to transfer the domain name to the other company unless I paid the disputed amount in full.” o   This statement is untrue.  Immediately upon the request to involve a new provider, an account was created for the client in our domain name management platform that gave the client full control of their domain names, including the ability to transfer them to any other provider with no further involvement from AtNetPlus.  If the client was unfamiliar with what to do with this information, he could forward the information provided to him, and they would have the ability to do everything needed. ·         “On April 5, 2018, AtNetPlus sent another e-mail threatening to turn it off altogether if I did not pay the disputed charges in full.” o   The message dated April 5, 2018 was sent to the client after he had selected a new provider and had been given ample time to transfer his web site to their server as he said he intended to do.  He was not paying the web hosting invoice and we could not continue to host the web site without receiving payment.  We had given him all of the information and access needed to move the web site, but he still insisted that we provide services for free to move the web site to the new provider.  We offered to provide those services, but not for free.  Since we were not being paid for the web hosting, we considered it a courtesy to give him two more weeks to move the content before the hosting was turned off.  We felt this was a better alternative than turning it off immediately upon lack of payment as is the practice of most web hosting companies. ·         “This was done despite the fact that the contract I signed as well AtNetPlus's terms and conditions listed on its website do not give it the right to cancel my domain registration.” o   This is yet another case where he does not understand what was communicated.  At no point was his domain registration canceled or ever threatened to be cancelled.  We do not have the ability to cancel the domain registration term once the registration has been processed by the registrar. The only service that was discussed being cancelled was the web site hosting, due to nonpayment. ·         “Ultimately, to to prevent a disastrous event of the cancellation of my domain registration which was critical to my business, I paid the disputed amount in full.” o   As stated above he had ample time to move the web site to another provider, he had all of the information and access he needed to do so, and at no point was his domain registration ever at risk of being cancelled. ·         “Subsequently, I had to pay another company an additional $400.00 to perform the optimization services that I had paid AtNetPlus to perform.” o   I don’t know what services he paid the other company to perform, but we delivered all services as specified in the scope of the attached quote, and many additional services above and beyond what was quoted or invoiced in an unsuccessful attempt to make him happy. ·         “Together with the $576.00 that I disputed, I am is out of pocket $976.00 that I should have not have had to spend.” o   I don’t know what the $576.00 he is disputing is in reference to or how he arrived at that number.  We have already discounted our services in an attempt to resolve this situation and don’t feel any additional payment to him is necessary. ·         “I am extremely upset that AtNetPlus forced payment from me by threatening to cancel my domain name which would have effectively shut my business down.” o   We did not threaten to cancel his domain name, we can’t do that even if we wanted to.  The client had ample opportunity to move the web site to another provider and could have done so without payment of the disputed invoices.  Also, Jim L[redacted] sent an email on 4/19/2018 to the client that read, “Sorry I missed you.  I just left you a voicemail.  Please know that I will keep the site live as long as we are continuing to talk.  I am not trying to disrupt your business.  I will try and call you later but feel free to call me back at my office line.”  In that message we stated our intent was not to interrupt his business, but we needed him to continue communicating with us to get the invoices addressed and the issue resolved. ·         “Neither the quotes provided by AtNetPlus nor the terms of service listed on its website provided that it could effectively hold someone's business as hostage in this manner.” o   At no point was the client’s business held hostage and we resent that accusation. ·         “The terms and conditions clearly spelled our in its website development agreement and referenced in the quote set forth AtNetPlus' remedies in reprds to disputes over payment.  Extortion is not one of the remedies listed.” o   Our request for payment on outstanding invoices to be paid and requiring payment for additional services before providing assistance in moving the web site when all access and information required to move the web site had already been provided does not constitute extortion and is a false and reckless accusation.   In response to the client’s request for a refund, we feel that the client has already received services valued far in excess of what has been paid and feel that a refund is not appropriate.