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.