Apologies for singling out one person in the subject, but this concerns 2CO and TomD is the helpful representative of the company here. And depending on the issues raised, it's probably of interest to other people here.

I am involved in running a usenet service. I believe that essentially a usenet service works little differently to a web hosting service, in that people are paying for a username and password to access their account, and the price of the account is mostly determined by how much bandwidth they want.

I know of at least one Usenet service that has been accepting 2CO for about 2 years or more. In fact I have even purchased an account myself with them, throught 2CO.

Since they used 2CO, and I have seen at least one other Usenet Service do so, we decided to finally go with 2CO ourselves, after reading the pros and cons here and elsewhere. Initially we used only E-Gold which, while useful for people who have it already, is not very good for people who don't. It's too inconvenient and inevitably loses potential sales, so we knew we needed to take CC.

Anyway, an account was set up with 2CO yesterday (26 January 2005). Then several hours later we received an email stating that the account had been closed because "we do not support this type of service".

I am writing this post because I can't understand this, and although we replied to the email, we have received no response. I think if an account can be closed within hours of it being created, a support question can be answered within the same timeframe.

I have read 2CO takes 3 days to reply to support questions, but there is no guarantee there will be any response at all, and I don't see the point in waiting three days to find out, especially close to a weekend.

Since the email said "we do not support this type of service" it has to be assumed that, as we do Usenet services, 2CO means they do not support Usenet services.

This however is patently not true. As I mentioned above, at least one service has operated for years and used 2CO for payment, the method I actually used to buy an account there.

So maybe it means 2CO don't supprt "this type" of service any more? But, as pointed out on the email we wrote back, it's not on the banned services list, and the Usenet service I refer to above still takes 2CO as their _only_ payment method.

Or maybe 2CO has some other reason for "not supporting" our site specifically? It's pretty clear what services our site offers - Usenet and free/pay email, (the email is through another 3rd party, that provides their own billing for paid accounts) - but maybe 2CO did not look at the site clearly, or didn't visit the site at all, and just based their opinion on the URL.

Or maybe 2CO visited the wrong site. The site is a .org, maybe they typed in a .com (a common mistake I think for typed in URL) and would get an entirely different site altogether, with content that WOULD, I imagine, be on most/all payment services banned list.

The site in question - our "offending" site - is, I think, in my profile.

I'd just like to know why this happened exactly, and if it was a mistake that 2CO didn't understand that the service we provided is a Usenet service (which is essentially a service providing bandwidth), based on a mixup/confusion about the domain name perhaps, which is a fair enough mistake.

Because it's absolutely not the case that 2CO does not support the type service that we provide.

Hi Helter-Skelter,

You are correct, the reviewer was incorrect. IRC chat type servers are not allowed.

When he reviewed your site, the following is what he interpreted as you providing IRC chat services, rather than usenet services for newsgroups:

"AK47.org is the ideal way to discuss, debate, chat and learn, as well as share and download...."

Your account has been reactivated, and please accept my apologies. If you have any problems with logging back on, please email me directly.

The $49.00 setup fee you paid for the 2CO account has been refunded for your inconvenience.

Hi, thanks.

I did receive a couple of emails about this and wondered if it was just a coincidence/reply to the email sent to 2CO yesterday or a result of the post here. The power of WHT.

Thanks for the explanation of what the misunderstanding was. We may actually change that line you quoted, especially if chat gives the the wrong impression. "Chat" is meant in the same way that people can chat on boards like this, and that line was meant as a quick description of the versatility of usenet.

I was going to reply to the email and ask about the fee, but since you mentioned it, just to clarify/confirm, you're saying it's been refunded and won't be charged for again?

Thanks again for the response, and helping to resolve this problem.

That's great, helter skelter. :)

Good for you TomD. :)

Yes, the setup fee has been "waived".

Your email would have been responded to, as a regular course of business. New account responses go direct to the person that shut the account down, not into a queue. I don't like that process. I prefer not to have the "same eyes" be the only contact, or the only answer point.

It will be changed.

Yeah I guess if there's a query then a "second opinion" can either spot/correct a mistake, or verify/confirm a decision when it's been made correctly.

I appreciate your help in fixing this, and the waiving of the fee too.

Cheers.

Kudos to TomD :gthumb: