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.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

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

Exactly.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

See my 11:21 reply to warweezil.

I think you mean your reply to bobble_bob.

Fixed, thanks.

Re a universal MAC, it already applied on broadband to nearly all ISPs. Extending it to phones, yes I could see that being contentious due to system amendment being needed, but that's what all regulation is at heart. Most of the work has been done however with the MAC system so it would have needed relatively little work to extend it. It wouldn't be a completely new system.

I think removal of the need to contact the losing ISP is more about stopping the forced exposure to retention pressures. They've covered that by banning it during the fortnight of the new system. They could have done the same with the automated MAC.

Hi Bob.

I was talking specifically about AAISP's 'safeguard' and my view that it is a terrible idea. I think maybe you thought I was referring to your universal-MAC idea, because it can get confusing which post you have received a reply to. If that's possible, please try reading it again. I would welcome your thoughts about specifically that.

Under the old system, I thought there was no requirement for LLU to use a MAC and in full LLU I thought they didn't use one? Therefore anyone with LLU available at their exchange was vulnerable to slamming, and in an unprotected way. It was so confusing that I may be wrong? I for one can give my consumer feedback that I am so glad for the new system and its simplicity and universality. I think there are good enough safeguards against rare events, and the customer now has a requirement to be migrated using best-practice (no more surprise cease fees and long loss of service hopefully)

In the early days of LLU, quite a lot of phone lines when people didn't realise they went with the LLU broadband. These days, I don't know, for either phone and broadband together of separately. How many of the 9 million frequent broadband forums on any site, not just this one? Particularly simple lines.

Zero is ideal. A few is huge stress for those affected if the move goes through, and very unpleasant even if they manage to prevent it.

The new system will undoubtedly work reasonably well, as did the last. Many users are clearly unhappy about the new one - I have seen far more against than for it, and I don't disbelieve AAISP when they say their customers have expressed concern over potential slamming or error.

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

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

Another thought.

They may well be, unhappy, (or not - depending on how reliable what you read was). However, they would have no grounds for that, as it is entirely up to the customer whether or not they use the facility.

Surely any advance in user control of their connections would be supported by Ofcom? [cough]

Of course, they aren't really a consumer protection setup. They are a competition regulator, which is not the same thing.

I don't see why it is terrible. The customer is under no pressure to set it to safety.

If my ISP, or any I join, offered it I think I would set it. Why not? What would you do?

Would this be considered slamming:

Years ago i was with ADSL24. Got an email one day saying they're going to up my usage limit and reduced my monthly bill. Great i thought. I emailed James (who was incharge at the time) and after a few emails back and forth found out they were transferring users onto SMPF TTB LLU where possible, thus were able to offer more usage and lower costs. Didnt bother me personally, but by the time we had the email the LLU order was already placed and in progress

Some people didnt want to be put onto LLU, but were never given the choice as to move or not. If it wasnt for me emailing James and getting the details, i wouldnt have known i was going onto LLU

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

Would this be considered slamming:

Years ago i was with ADSL24. Got an email one day saying they're going to up my usage limit and reduced my monthly bill. Great i thought. I emailed James (who was incharge at the time) and after a few emails back and forth found out they were transferring users onto SMPF TTB LLU where possible, thus were able to offer more usage and lower costs. Didnt bother me personally, but by the time we had the email the LLU order was already placed and in progress

Some people didnt want to be put onto LLU, but were never given the choice as to move or not. If it wasnt for me emailing James and getting the details, i wouldnt have known i was going onto LLU

I don't believe that would be slamming. Your contract is with the ISP. Which wholesale service(s) they use to provide your service is up to them unless there is a term of the contract requiring them to use a particular means of delivery.

To give another example, I have a line that has Zen FTTC and Zen voice service. It started out as FTTC provided using BT Wholesale WBMC and voice service provided using BT WLR3. The FTTC service has now changed to Openreach GEA-FTTC using Zen's backhaul. If Zen decide to put voice line cards in their MSANs, there is nothing stopping Zen from changing the voice service from BT WLR3 to Zen voice service using MPF.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

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

It's will gonna to happen. The hacker or whoever hated the person will slammed abused the telephone/broadband migration abused.

I better watch this out! I agree with AAISP to put on the control panel to stop anti slamming.

English may well not be your first language, but the above is just jibberish.

Yes and no. If I had sought specific information that my broadband service would be provided by a particular wholesaler or mechanism, then transferring the service to a different wholesaler could be interpreted as breaching the implied terms on which I entered into the contract. In such cases, the ISP should offer the option of breaking the contract if I do not wish to transfer.

The substantive issue is fixed line phone numbers. Some of us are unwilling to accept any possibility of losing a longstanding phone number. Regulatory practice assumes that these are, in effect, the property of the person to whom the number is allocated. However, ISPs cannot guarantee that a phone number can transfer between different LLU operators or LLU and non-LLU operators. Whatever an LLU wholesaler may claim about future transfers these are promises that they may not be able or have no incentive to honour in future. So such promises are worthless. There is no obligation on a provider to accept the transfer of an existing phone number, though the losing provider must permit the user to transfer if another provider will accept it.

Of course, the solution is to have separate broadband and fixed contracts but the whole thrust of the business is to bundle these together so many people may get caught out.

In reply to a post by professor973:

English may well not be your first language, but the above is just jibberish.

I don't care what u think. If u don't like it. U know where the door are.

Maybe rather than ranting back a quick rephrase as it is possible people may not have understood what you posted

But your substantive issue didn't arise with the person David was replying to. It was an SMPF transfer with ADSL24 so the phone wasn't affected, and it was only a monthly broadband contract as well, so the move to LLU didn't matter either.

From what i remember at the time, customers were annoyed at being moved to LLU without consent as it would mean they had to pay more to migrate back to BT if they wished

Ive been on LLU and never looked back though

Exactly. I am sure nobody understood the post and there are spell-checkers and dictionaries. i would have thought he would care more how he is judged, but it seems not. As for the reply, it's all I have come to expect from his sort. Enough from me methinks.

Yes, I know where the door is and am happy to treat you as you deserve until we are both sent through it.

I understood!
FWIW spell checkers will only check the spelling which looks fine to me.
Here let me help, but it's pretty simple really!

It's will gonna to happen. The hacker or whoever hated the person will slammed abused the telephone/broadband migration abused.
I better watch this out! I agree with AAISP to put on the control panel to stop anti slamming.

"This will happen. A hacker or someone that hates the person will use this to slam/abuse the telephone/broadband connection.
I had better watch out! I agree with AAISP that putting a control panel option to stop slamming is a good idea".

You will get the notification letter which gives you the chance and as ISP MUST record details of the order and any consent to migrate tracing back to the 'hacker' becomes easier.

As it was SMPF LLU there was nothing to pay to go back to BT

Panel to "stop anti slamming" ??

The problem is, we have a system of rules now which all ISPs should follow, it's no good ISPs trying to usurp them. I think it would be terrible if Plusnet, TalkTalk, BT, Sky, the reseller down the street, all started to implement this system. You call it a 'safeguard' system, I call it an "anti-migration" system and it is a breach of Ofcom regulation in my opinion.

You say "the customer is under no pressure to set it to safety" - I may equally say "the customer is under no pressure to give consent to the gaining provider". You are presuming the anti-migration system works perfectly 100% of the time. I can also play that game then, and presume the migration system works perfectly 100% of the time, and question why would you then need the anti-migration system in the first place.

We all know that in reality, ISPs make mistakes all the time, especially when it comes to accounts, portals, updating, records. We may think if something is selected on a system, the consequence follows perfectly in all linked systems of the ISP. But I can show you countless examples where a product is selected, the bill does not follow. Heck, I can even show you a bill that says "Free caller ID: £0, then charge for caller ID in the next line"! I can point to systems which don't update but are meant to automatically update and haven't been fixed in years with customers suffering. I can show you lots of examples where a request is made to do or undo something in writing or over the phone, and it is not done, sometimes there is no record of it being asked. And so on and so on.

So just as a mistake can be made resulting in slamming, a mistake can be made resulting in anti-migration. Just as deliberate slamming can occur due to the obvious incentive for the gaining provider, so can deliberate anti-migration occur as there is an incentive for the losing provider. Just as imposters or hackers can cause slamming, so can imposters or hackers cause anti-migration.

The losing provider says they have a record of consent to never migrate. The gaining provider says they have a more recent record of consent to migrate. The losing provider with their little system is presuming their consent is better and takes precedence than the gaining provider's consent when they have no right to do so at that stage. They should instead follow the rules as intended, not presume they can sneak around them because they think they are superior to other ISPs, that defeats the system.

If an undesired migration takes place the customer is screwed.

If a desired migration fails due to the user forgetting to clear the "Do not migrate" flag, it loses the user at most a fortnight and possibly only two days, and is entirely their own fault.

If a desired migration fails due to the losing ISP's incompetence or dishonesty then the sanctions available to Ofcom will be exactly the same as those they have with their new system should anything untoward happen. Still a fortnight or less lost, at no real cost.

There's nothing not to like about giving the consumer control of their own connection.

In reply to a post by gah789:

Yes and no. If I had sought specific information that my broadband service would be provided by a particular wholesaler or mechanism, then transferring the service to a different wholesaler could be interpreted as breaching the implied terms on which I entered into the contract. In such cases, the ISP should offer the option of breaking the contract if I do not wish to transfer.

The courts do not readily imply terms into contracts. Merely seeking information about a current wholesale arrangements prior to entering into a contract does not necessarily make ongoing provision of service using that wholesaler a term of the contract. Indeed, I would argue that it cannot be said that it was in the mind of the service provider at the time of contract formation that some past enquiry about how service was provided should become an explicit term of the contract.

The general position is that the terms of a contract are what an independent third party believes the parties agreed on at the time of contract formation. If you want a specific term in the agreement, you should make it an explicit part of the agreement reached.

In reply to a post by gah789:

The substantive issue is fixed line phone numbers. Some of us are unwilling to accept any possibility of losing a longstanding phone number. Regulatory practice assumes that these are, in effect, the property of the person to whom the number is allocated. However, ISPs cannot guarantee that a phone number can transfer between different LLU operators or LLU and non-LLU operators. Whatever an LLU wholesaler may claim about future transfers these are promises that they may not be able or have no incentive to honour in future. So such promises are worthless. There is no obligation on a provider to accept the transfer of an existing phone number, though the losing provider must permit the user to transfer if another provider will accept it.

Of course, the solution is to have separate broadband and fixed contracts but the whole thrust of the business is to bundle these together so many people may get caught out.

I think possible loss of phone numbers is no greater or less a risk under these rules than under the previous migration regime. The change here is to do with the system that migrates end user's physical connections and associated numbers between retail providers. Unless I have missed something, there is no change in the freedom of the retail provider to change the wholesale provider(s) used to deliver the service.

I would expect a retail provider to be forbidden from forcing a customer into renumbering unless that renumbering was technically unavoidable (such as closure, deallocation or renumbering of the entire numbering block in question) or the customer had breached the contract - and that a court would be willing to entertain the possibility there is an implied term to that extent. I would argue that retail providers accept any future restrictions on the selection of wholesale provider because of the customer's number when they agree to accept a port in.


We'd be rather annoyed if we lost either of our numbers, though this is unlikely as they both were originally issued by BT - one in 1981 and the other in the mid 1990s. BT issued numbers tend to be the most portable.

They should and can certainly be issued quickly. I had to chase Coms for my MAC (was told to email, got no reply so phoned up). After i phoned saying i had emailed and got nothing, it was issued within 5 minutes.

Now in that instance i can see why changing the rules is better. No customer should have to chase the losing ISP for their MAC code.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

There's nothing not to like about giving the consumer control of their own connection.

All well and good until some "system error" at an ISP "accidentally" blocks a customer's desire to migrate. Plenty of fun then for the customer wishing to migrate to get this "system error" fixed.

If a desired migration fails due to a failure in the anti-migration system it can be just as big a screw-up for the customer as the other way round. A lot can happen in a fortnight: their £100 Sainsbury's voucher offer can expire, their ISP can suddenly withdraw their 40/20 package and replace it with 40/2, their Quidco cashback can be rejected and not reinstated due to the manual re-order, they may be forced to suffer with a broken or poorly performing product for yet another two weeks. And so on. (I could play your game and just brush off an undesired migration too, it's the user's own fault for signing up drunk to Sky isn't it? and even if he was in the Arctic and got slammed at the same time, it's only a fortnight on a service he doesnt want till it gets switched back, same as the other way round, so no big deal....)

You miss the whole point too. Ofcom have no specific regulation dealing with this 'anti-migration' system, so how can they deal with ISPs or instances where they do something wrong with that system. That means permitting the system in the first place, along with defining and accepting what they should and shouldn't do with that system. This does not exist, so ISPs should not be inventing systems that usurp the rules. The consent lies with the gaining provider, and once gained due process should follow.

Exactly. How many times would you have try again till it is "fixed". Did you also know there is 60 days notice to remove BBISP's consent for anti-migration, it's in the small print. That's the beauty of inventing your own rules against the system

It wouldn't surprise me if WLR3-based providers have whipped up this "slam-phobia" to maintain control over their customers' ability to migrate. After all, most people don't even use WLR3 (and therefore aren't subject to the MAC process) and slamming does not seem to be an issue. And of course MPF providers could always slam WLR3 connections anyway.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 21-Jun-15 23:18:14)

So you are saying AAISP, the only ISP I'm aware of implementing this user-controlled block, are lying that it is because of customer disquiet?

Re MPF suppliers slamming WLR3 lines, that's precisely why I say Ofcom have got this the wrong way round.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So you are saying AAISP, the only ISP I'm aware of implementing this user-controlled block, are lying that it is because of customer disquiet?

Maybe, I have no way of saying either way. And if it really is from customer disquiet, there seems to be no basis for their fears in recent years.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Re MPF suppliers slamming WLR3 lines, that's precisely why I say Ofcom have got this the wrong way round.

The new system has been tested extensively on MPF migrations, no issues.

That's what I thought about MPF being able to slam WLR3 under the old system anyway, thanks for confirming.

I would much rather have a tightly-regulated system with a proven track record than an unregulated system invented to block migrations which relies on an ISP not making mistakes with an account/portal/note/customer service.

I would be hard pushed to find a new first bill I setup in recent years that ever matched what was ordered or promised. What's the betting that "anti-migration enabled" would appear accidentally, tucked away somewhere on a new account. Or when you click to remove it, it never works, you ring up to sort and before you know it, you're on to retentions since the Ofcom reaction-save regulation does not apply yet in the process. Or a million other scenarios, yuck.

It's nearly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard - let's create a anti-migration system that we know can fail in order to combat a migration system in case it fails. By introducing the system you open every single customer up to all its failures and risks, including those who never consented to it, and in the face of the regulator who never wanted it, where is customer choice then.

Edited by deleted (Sun 21-Jun-15 23:49:13)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So you are saying AAISP, the only ISP I'm aware of implementing this user-controlled block, are lying that it is because of customer disquiet?

Maybe, I have no way of saying either way.

You said:-

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It wouldn't surprise me if WLR3-based providers have whipped up this "slam-phobia" to maintain control over their customers' ability to migrate.

That's rather close to calling AAISP liars.

You are getting more and more heated, and inventing more and more fanciful situations that simply are not going to occur.

Errors will occur whatever system there is. Most of what you describe in this and some earlier posts would rapidly become evident, particularly if the Retentions ploy were used.

It is a simple addition to ISP systems. It is highly unlikely that any could have more than a couple of fails before it was fixed.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

That's what I thought about MPF being able to slam WLR3 under the old system anyway, thanks for confirming.

Yes. In fact for some time now the vast majority of migrations have been under the gaining-provider led system.

MPF -> MPF: gaining-provider led
MPF -> WLR3: gaining-provider led
WLR3 -> MPF: gaining-provider led
WLR3 -> WLR3: MAC system

But apparently applying this system for WLR3 -> WLR3 migrations is a huge issue for some reason (likely mostly amongst the MPF-phobes)

You keep missing the whole point. Try to get it, I'll attempt one last time. I'm as cool as a cucumber right now btw

It doesn't matter what becomes evident because such a system is unregulated. Hence I can invent things as fanciful as I like, tongue-in-cheek, and so can any ISP who chooses to go against the regulated system, that's the whole point.

The risk of things going wrong is far greater than slamming. Your dream that no ISP makes repeat account errors more than a couple of times is ridiculous. From a Plusnet customer and one who frequents forums, it is hilarious - so many things that should be simple are broken and never fixed for years. Funnily enough, one is an important migration requirement (and now a regulated one). It is frequently wrong and complained about, cancellation charges on a portal. This is despite the products and contract dates being correct, that is pretty simple to get right too, a 5 year old could program the code in 2 minutes. Still not fixed by Plusnet despite years of failures.

[joke - as I'm off to bed]
In the specific case of Plusnet, it's obvious that under the new system either as gaining or losing ISP their system will fail to send out the notifications. As gaining ISP there's also the possibility they won't notify the losing ISP, so no notification from them will be triggered.

All other ISP's, barring AAISP who have this errant addition so will consistently screw things up, will have smooth-running processes for all time.
[/joke - and g.nite :)]

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 00:38:25)

There is a tiny % risk of not posting a letter causing a slam.
There is a 100% risk of an account error enabling anti-migration causing a block.
See the difference there.

You're the one insisting that the new migration system will keep failing due to ISPs and result in slams, but at the same claiming any anti-migration system would work perfectly due to ISPs and never result in an unwanted block. Joke's on you I would say.

We have a regulated gaining-provider led system. It is madness to add an unregulated losing-provider led system that usurps it, under the pretence that these two wrongs somehow make a right.

Nope. I'm not saying anything of the kind. Your risk comparison is also rubbish, But explaining why needs a less tired brain.

I and some others are saying we would like a block facility for our own peace of mind. We may be misguided - only time will tell.

You are the one insisting the new system is completely fool-proof. We shall see.

There isn't really any possible resolution of our opposing views at this point.

It does of course mean in your case that the generally considered best ISP in the country is now not available to you or those you advise.

I shall now turn this iPad off, along with the bedside light .

Out of interest how does the gaining ISP know who the losing ISP is? Says the gaining ISP will work with the losing ISP to migrate you over seamlessly and obviously the losing ISP will send you a letter confirming migration. Is there a tag on your line that identifies who you're with?

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

Out of interest how does the gaining ISP know who the losing ISP is?

In the case of pure WLR3 migrations, BT Wholesale probably informs them.

In cases involving MPF, probably Openreach informs them.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I and some others are saying we would like a block facility for our own peace of mind. We may be misguided - only time will tell.

Time has told, gaining-provider led has been around for 10 years, and your WLR3 line has been "vulnerable" for all that time.

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

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

Well!

Having now read the whole of General Condition 22, (see this post), it looks as though the only basis AAISP could have for their blocking flag is this:-

A1.3 Before using Cancel Other in cases of Slamming and/or Failure to Cancel, the Losing Provider shall take reasonable steps to establish that Slamming and/or Failure to Cancel has actually taken place.

from Page 96 or 17, depending whether you look at the full or extract document.

However it clearly doesn't fall within the criteria for an automatic "Cancel other" of the migration. The most they could do would be to inform the customer that they have the flag set.

Even then, it's irrelevant. They can't cancel the migration even if the customer confirms the flag and that they don't want to migrate, unless the gaining ISP has failed to cancel it when directed by the user to do so. (There are a few other criteria very unlikely to be relevant). The only normal cancellation is via the (non-)gaining ISP.

In effect, the flag doesn't work.
_{Edited to change the page numbers.}

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 21:21:37)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Having now read the whole of General Condition 22, (see this post), it looks as though the only basis AAISP could have for their blocking flag is this:-

A1.3 Before using Cancel Other in cases of Slamming and/or Failure to Cancel, the Losing Provider shall take reasonable steps to establish that Slamming and/or Failure to Cancel has actually taken place.

from Page 89.

They way I read that, in a confirmed case of slamming, the customer is under no obligation to contact the gaining ISP and the losing ISP can cancel the transfer.

AAISP most likely will automatically issue a "Cancel Other" if the customer sets a flag in their control panel, which most likely contravenes these Ofcom regulations.

I think you are basically saying what I did following the part you quote . Read A1.2 as well.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 18:44:47)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think you are basically saying what I did following the part you quote . Read A1.2 as well.

I had a hard time working out what point you were trying to make. If you say there is not problem with the regulations because slamming is a valid reason for the losing ISP to cancel the migration, then we are both in agreement.

[chuckle]
Yes.

The point I was making was that the flag couldn't work. That's why my post became convoluted. It wasn't talking about the regulations themselves, but showing how they made the flag unable to do what AAISP say it does.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The point I was making was that the flag couldn't work. That's why my post became convoluted. It wasn't talking about the regulations themselves, but showing how they made the flag unable to do what AAISP say it does.

Ah I see. In fact I'm not sure there is a flag at wholesale level, looks like a bit of code at AAISP's end that auto-cancels migrations as soon as they are received, depending on the setting in the customer control panel. Whilst it may do the job, I'm not sure it's allowable under the regulations.

Exactly. There isn't, no doubt about that.

I've just reread the full AAISP description. I had forgotten, and by the look of things everyone else discussing it either did so or never read it in the first place from my original link, what they actually do.

They send an email that the request has been received. It is unclear what happens if the customer doesn't respond, for whatever reason. The implication is this passive response will be taken as positive affirmance of the "No migration". That isn't acceptable within the regulations.

Of course, we don't know what would be said within the email. We need an AAISP customer to do a dummy run.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 23:04:58)