Protection against slamming?

Does Plusnet have any plans to help protect customers from slamming that can occur with the new migrations process?

What I would like is an option in the control panel that would stop any migration?

This could be combined with when you go to the member area an alert would be displayed that would ask you to confirm the migration? If this is NOT pressed it would default to not allowing the migration?

At a minimum I would expect several emails to all my registered email addresses and SMS to my mobile to alert me that something is going on?

Thanks

Have you seen the discussion in this thread? Which starts with a link to the AAISP policy.

Have you also read this guide to how the process works and the compulsory safeguards?

I feel a setting in the Member Centre that simply blocks the migration would be a good idea, and that is all that is required. The problem with that however is if you forget to unset it before ordering from your new supplier you would have to start all over again.

I'm not sure what your "combined with" paragraph is trying to say. Particularly the circumstances in which you would receive such an alert.

Re the multiple emails and text messages, on top of the letters (or possibly email to your specified notification email address) you should be receiving from both ISPs very early in the process, are you sure you don't want a personal visit from a member of staff to let you know?

You are aware that you get posted a letter as a notification from PlusNet if someone is trying to migrate your line. This puts a 10 day pause in the process to give you time to complain and get the move cancelled.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I feel a setting in the Member Centre that simply blocks the migration would be a good idea, and that is all that is required.

I would hope under the new system, the losing ISP has absolutely no power to block transfers, be it at the customer's request or otherwise. Notification letters + a mandatory 14 day waiting period would seem all that is necessary.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 21-Jun-15 22:31:52)

The new system is designed that the losing ISP has full power to block transfers. It relies on that power.

Just as they can stop a line transfer now. And we do see people on here getting invalid line move notifications due to a simple clerical error elsewhere and a wrong number being entered. A typo is sufficient.

However instead of the user having the power and comfort feeling of having set a No-migration marker, it requires the customer to receive at least one of the two notifications of the forthcoming migration and contact them to stop it. Plenty of people take out-of-the country trips of more than 14 days. Even a fourteen night holiday involves 15 days, when on return you aren't looking for emails or bothering with a huge pile of mail a neighbour has kindly built for you.

Users do not always see notifications. We both know that. 99.9% of the time, they do. But 0.1% of Andrew's 9 million is 9 thousand.

Plus - your post doesn't make sense. If the losing ISP can't block it at the customer's request, what's the point of the notification letters. Particularly theirs?

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 21-Jun-15 23:18:35)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The new system is designed that the losing ISP has full power to block transfers. It relies on that power.

I think you have more faith in ISPs not to incorrectly block wanted migrations than I do.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Plus - your post doesn't make sense. If the losing ISP can't block it at the customer's request, what's the point of the notification letters. Particularly theirs?

That's an explicit request to cancel a migration, as opposed to some kind of flag on the system to automatically reject migrations at the first instance.

I replied to "I would hope under the new system, the losing ISP has absolutely no power to block transfers, be it at the customer's request or otherwise."

It appears that isn't what you meant.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I replied to "I would hope under the new system, the losing ISP has absolutely no power to block transfers, be it at the customer's request or otherwise."

It appears that isn't what you meant.

To clarify, I was meaning on an ongoing customer-requested flag-based system as opposed to the current gaining-provider led system whereby a customer can explicitly block a transfer by contacting the losing ISP after a letter is received during the 14-day window (which I have no issue with).

If they are around to get the letter.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

If they are around to get the letter.

Broadband slamming is rare. I'm happy to be corrected on this point if there is evidence to the contrary, but I for one have not seen it.

Given that it's rare, the likelihood of it happening to someone is also rare, and the likelihood of it happening whilst the customer has not read their post or emails for 14 days is even more rare.

To me, the much greater risk is introducing a system whereby an ISP can "accidentally" set a flag to automatically block a customer from migrating, but obviously we are not going to agree on this point.