New migration process - started today. Safeguard.

I for one am quite worried about the possibility of deliberate or accidental slamming with this new system. It can all complete within a fortnight, which doesn't leave much time if you are on holiday when it is triggered.

Whilst looking for something else I've just come across what AAISP are doing. They are letting you set a marker in your control panel to automatically cancel any migration request. More detail.

At the moment that seems a good idea to me. I wonder if any other ISPs are doing/considering the same.

Im sure i read Ofcom weren't happy with this idea

LOL
I'm sure most people who know how MACs worked aren't happy with this new system.

I think most would prefer it if that had been extended to phone lines as well, rather that the other way round, and made compulsory also for migrations to and from LLU. It was not making LLU MACs necessary that confused things and people.

I see no reason to doubt the reason AAISP give for introducing it. Customer unhappiness about the new system.

I understand the concerns over the new system, but some of those concerns were there in the old MAC system.

For example you say what happens if you're on holiday when an ISP tries to start a migration and you miss the letter. That could still have happened on the old system where an ISP could move you to LLU without a MAC and you be non the wiser

Until we see how the system will work in practice alot of the fears and worries of slamming are just that. Could turn out the system works better. Time will tell

Ofcom really need to get their act together. This new arrangement is wide open to abuse in the same way as fixed line migration used to be. Its a step backwards, and if a customer is happy with their current ISP then there can be no valid objection to them "locking" the account and preventing the customer being slammed as long as the customer is able to "unlock" the account as and when they want to. I think AAISP have this in place as they have an excellent reputation for providing a good quality of service, something that many of the bigger players in the "connectivity industry" fall very short of - and I include Openjoke in that

Ofcom really are becoming a bad joke that is unfit for purpose. so busy kicking ISP's when a lot of speed issues are down to the poor condition of BT's infrastructure, even where where line is 'sub prime" BT are allowed to ignore issues, I guess not investing in sorting out the local loop bad joints or cable that is past its prime in many places and trying to charge for the resultant SFI visits (the whole SFI scam is another area that needs investigation) is the preferred business model. The consumer is stuck in the sandwich between a wholesaler that isnt really interested in quality and ISP's who know that without a LOT of pushing Openreach would rather just hope the end using customer gives up, or drags it heels and makes life difficult for the end user with repeated visits looking for faults that are not present in the customers premises or equipment.. (attempting to charge for them inappropriately - which they can do without fear of penalty it seems)

Ofcom have their fingers in too many pies... it is time we had a proper regulator in this area, To keep both ISPs and BT in line, with the power to impose a real penalty where necessary. Its time for a new broom to sweep away the broken mess that is currently in place.

This sort of system seems a terrible idea to me. It just introduces the equal possibility of a losing provider deliberately or accidentally reverse-slamming/migration-blocking, without fundamentally following the new process. It sounds like a "we are not like them so don't need to follow rules, only the gaining provider can make mistakes or dabble in mischief" approach.

You could always be slammed under the old system, the new system only improves the situation because there is now a regulatory requirement for the gaining provider to prove a record of consent, and for notice with a wait period to be given. No system can never ever be perfect and cover against hypothetical worst-case scenarios I'm afraid.

Edited by deleted (Sun 21-Jun-15 11:16:17)

I did say in the post you replied to that the MAC system should have been extended to line rental, and made compulsory for LLU. That covers what worries you.

See my 11:21 reply to warweezil bobble_bob. The whole point of the MAC is that it provides proof of the user's wish to move.

Also, the five-day period for the losing ISP to deliver it had become unacceptable. It stems from pre-automation days, and should have been changed to at most 24 hours. For years many ISPs have been achieving under 30 minutes, and these days instantaneous both online and by phone.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 21-Jun-15 11:56:39)

And with 9 million previously not needing a MAC how many millions did we see get slammed?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

See my 11:21 reply to warweezil. The whole point of the MAC is that it provides proof of the user's wish to move.

Also, the five-day period for the losing ISP to deliver it had become unacceptable. It stems from pre-automation days, and should have been changed to at most 24 hours. For years many ISPs have been achieving under 30 minutes, and these days instantaneous both online and by phone.

I think you mean your reply to bobble_bob.

You are now talking about something entirely different to anything I wrote about. I was talking about AAISP's 'safeguard' and the new migration process. I thought that's what the thread was about, aren't we meant to stick to that or get a ticking off!

You now want to talk about your hypothetical idea of a universal MAC for phone and broadband system. I don't have much to say about that, I wouldn't mind it personally though that is quite a system to newly implement amongst all ISPs. In any case, Ofcom clearly do not want necessary contact with the losing provider, and have set out reasons for it, so that's that.