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?