A lighter moment

Just thought as everyone else is reporting doom and gloom I'd share my good fortune thus far with PlusNet. I signed up in November last year to BB+. Spoken to Customer services on 3 opccasions, all to do with setting things up, was answered promptly and calls were dealt with swiftly, clearly and pleasantly. Got moved to MAX with no problem (on a usb modem) connection only dropped during the upgrade, I happily get between 3-4 Mb consistently. No LLU in my area so not got that problem. Haven't lost any of my email. Only mild irritation being the portal and webmail sometimes acting like the river Ankh from the Discworld novels, or being down. I'm starting to feel like the luckiest PlusNet customer!

I am also happy with my Plusnet account, very stable, no lost e-mails etc.

You need to be aware that the majority of apparent complainants on this forum are not even customers of Plusnet but have some kind of hidden agenda or are on some kind of personal crusade to massage their ego, trying to appear knowledgeable when in fact they dish out incorrect advice.

I asked you earlier but perhaps it slipped through those special observation skills of yours but what is the hidden agenda?

Lorentzia, good news indeed. I hope PN offer everyone the same good service.

I'm very happy with my Plusnet connection too. I moved to Eclipse back in May as I felt Plusnet were taking the mikey with my Max upgrade (I had been a customer for over 6 years and my upgrade kept being delayed). After 3 months I had had enough of the very poor support (no response to some tickets for over a month) and slow speeds I received, so I moved back to Plusnet. My peak time speeds have doubled despite BT managing to slow my connection because I get some odd disconnections during peak time. I have also had fairly quick responses from CSC.

Whatever mate... does that explain why Plusnet's RSS service status feed is probably the most busy feed on my rss reader? Does that explain why their customer forums are inundated with complaints? Does that explain why the usergroup forums are the same?

In reply to:

---

I asked you earlier but perhaps it slipped through those special observation skills of yours but what is the hidden agenda?

---

You did not 'ask me earlier', and I am becoming tiresome of your sarcasm and personal digs directed towards myself. You are taking comments I made in one thread out of context and have now referred to that thread in two seperate threads on different subjects.

I obviously hit a raw nerve, get over it.

Let's not hijack this good news thread, however and for clarity, I certainly didn't start getting personal or sarcastic until you chose to direct insults in my direction a few times even though I was professional towards you.

Anyway, here is a straight question - what is the hidden agenda that you have claimed in "this" thread? Feel free to reply to it via a new thread.

Dear lord, you need a better feed collection.

Ok ok, break it up, for little things like feeling a bit put out by what the other person says there's always freak chat, excellent for venting off steam at the end of a stressful day and when your PC, router, USB hub and ISP are getting you down. I don't mind the highjacking of the thread as and when it inevitably will, so long as you don't mind me being a happy cheery person with a large pinch of salt, spending a fortune on cigarettes and coffee because my PC is a right pain in the bottom, the three best things on it are, Firefox, this browser works best for my needs, Windows Live Messenger, keeps me closer to my b/f, and my internet connection that make these programmes work the way they were designed to...on the internet!!

Absolutely no problem or complaint from me. I really am happy that you are happy. At the end of the day it is only an Internet connection and when we pay for it is nice to be able to use it. I am not sure you are the only one with a good connection with PN because I do believe there must be many happy customers and yet a lot of unhappy ones. What matters though is that your connection works and allows you to smoke and use the Internet. Get chatting to your boyfriend, have a smoke and a drink.

tbh i never really ahd any trouble with my connection from Plusnet, just their antics that made me leave - think some people call it principles

Got to say this is an informative forum, with all the problems people have been suffering I know all about LLUs, MACs, what routers do, why, how and what to look for! I joined AG in February and have learned so very much, so for all who are having problems, thanks for sharing them, I have learned from you what to do if anything untoward arises, and I hope you get your problems sorted out soon.

It's understandable to leave something you disagree with, but I'm afraid that's Capitalism for you, it's all about selling and making a profit, just remember, the customer is always right, when the company says so!

What did it for me (the final straw) was the change in T and C's last year (about this time)

I had signed up to an unlimited service, (despite the cries that this was a mistake for a few weeks), when they changed the new packages from

Edited by soundsystem (Sat 02-Sep-06 22:06:39)

Seems a little underhanded at times, I do agree, but as I don't use much of my monthly allowance things like throttles and caps have never been an issue for me, I get what I wanted. I don't know if he was right but my dad said that ISPs only are any good to the people that only require what is actually being sold, we can all find an ISP to suit us regardless of their alleged advertising spiel

"but as I don't use much of my monthly allowance things like throttles and caps have never been an issue for me"

nor me my average use is below 5gb per month in fact lower than 3gb most, but if went to an eat all you can for a tenner restaurant, and they stopped serving me after my starter, then you can see my point.

I can but if that's all you eat then nothing has been lost for you

yeh but the day i went to the restaurant i was starving and could have eaten all of it, because after all that was what i was entitled to

And that's when you take your business elsewhere, what I'm trying to do is get the middle ground, just because one's eyes can be bigger than their stomachs doesn't mean they should complain about not being able to get food they can't eat, you see what I'm getting at?

I think sometimes there is some confusion as to what the word unlimited means. Unlimited can be used truthfully as your connection TIME is unlimited. However, I think some people choose to interpret unlimited as unlimited download.

Agreed George, however unlimited in my eyes, means if i use 5gb a month or 100gb a month i should not have my speeds crippled, timed out, managed etc.

I appreciate things aren't ideal and personnally the fact i cant download unlimited amounts don't really bother me, like i said its a principle thing.

At the time i asked Unlimited was unlimited and now only in the last 12 months have ISPs argued the new definition of unlimited

But surely this is the problem - People are interpreting unlimited to mean what they want it to mean rather than what's it's meant to mean if you get my drift.

Hi

I allways assumed that unlimited meant unlimited downloads , to me Broadband was meant to be allways on connection so different from dial/up where there was often Unlimeted time online advertised by isps ,
so if i was to see or be told that my connection was unlimeted useing broadband then i would exspect unlimeted data transfer, i cant see what else unlimeted would mean with a allways on connection..?

thanks

As you can have unlimited, 2GB limit 5GB limits etc etc, it would be stupid to think this could mean time on line. Unless you think 2GB 5GB etc is a measure of time.

If you read this page of posts carefully, and follow the links in my posts, you will find out exactly what PlusNet meant by "Unlimited".

Simon

Hi

Excactly this is what i was getting at ,

I know with dial up there was unlimted time online , but with a llways on connection then that should not apply , hench why unlimeted d/ls would be the case

thanks

yes I agree with what you say about an aways on connection.

There's a hint in the table at the foot of this page - from only a year ago.

Simon

George

Unlimited could be construed as leaving your pc on 24 hours downloading all those Linux distros. Or it could mean 100gb a month, however i think really you are missing my point. Being throttled or brought to a snails pace (as was the case) by about the 30gb mark iirc is definitley not unlimited.

Or there is the unlimited that ISP's use, either way, the new definition of unlimited is here to stay, although at the time of my signup and asking of the Plusnet staff re this, they were using the first definition, ie the one we couldn't misunderstand.

No. there is no confusion as to what the word "UNLIMITED" means.

If Plusnet ar any other ISP didn't intend the universal meaning then the should have made that clear.

The fact is to gain market share they where very happy to let you assume the universal meaning which, suited them down to the ground. Of course, it no longer suits them and they then commenced to redefine the word. Further, they tried to make us believe that, that was always the case.

The trouble with this type of marketing is that it can come back and bite you.

Edited by Nervous (Sun 03-Sep-06 10:38:15)

In reply to:

---

there is no confusion as to what the word "UNLIMITED" means.

---

Well the Advertising Standards Authority don't agree with you for a start

Oh no! I must be wrong then.

Well the word "unlimited" has no meaning to me unless I know that context.

Context is everything...but rarely clearly defined, and marketing is only too aware of the general perception of the meaning and plays on that.

In reply to:

---

there is no confusion as to what the word "UNLIMITED" means.

---

Thats why they should use the same as data centres do when selling bandwidth for servers they use
" Unmetered "

Well I suppose they could argue that your download limit is unlimited even if it is at a lower speed when you reach a certain amount.

I think one needs to use a bit of grey matter when it comes to sales offers. It stands to reason that if you see something advertised for free it's not going to be free and if something is advertised as unlimited it's not going to be completely unlimited because both the above cost money to provide and no company is going to give anything away for nothing and stay in business.

Zen has thousands of customers, including me, on a genuinely unlimited account - albeit it is no longer offered to new customers; and PlusNet themselves did once offer a genuinely unlimited Premier product. So it's not as if "unlimited" has always meant "limited", even in ISP-speak.

The onus is on the ISP to clarify up-front what they really mean by their terminology. The consumer, even now, can be easily misled - especially newbies.

Simon

Thanks Sadoldman.

I wish I had your clarity of speaking.

>>>>>>>>Zen has thousands of customers, including me, on a genuinely unlimited account

But in the context of a 50:1 service.

So even there it has network limits so "unlimited" needs to be taken in that context as contention can kick in and "limit" your speed.

In reply to:

---

But in the context of a 50:1 service.

---

I thought all these had been removed ?

Plusnet claimed BT no longer does this and this it is down to the ISP to manage its network.

unlimited adj 1 not limited or restricted :- Chambers

Yep but many use

unlimited*


with a very small * somewhere that leads to all sorts of restrictions etc.

To continue on Lorentzia's lighter note, it's interesting to return to the analogy with an "eat-all-you-want" restaurant.

I have good friends who run something like this in Spain, they describe it as:
"un restaurante que ofrece un buffet libre"*, i.e. a "free buffet" but no one would be idiot enough to take this as a literal meaning, in terms of price, nor assume you can load up a lorry and remove all the stock; however it does genuinely mean all you can eat. The quality is unique and the fixed price is reasonably low.
It also tends to mean all the time you want, for a meal - on any one night there's a very low turnaround, as people come in groups on the whole and make an evening of it, often spinning things out until well into the early hours, and no one dreams of booting them out. It's been like this for years and is very popular locally (not on a tourist route) - so the "churn rate" is low.

Only open part-time, as they have a farm to run, and makes a good living - incredibly hard work mind you

In this context no one misinterprets the word 'libre', nor insists on a literal meaning ... but could we now advertise a 'free buffet' here, in a similar context, and expect a sensible response? 'Unlimited' doesn't work either - there is a definite limit on the dishes on offer, but "all-you-can-eat" is an amazingly clumsy term. In some ways it seems English - or rather the American - language, has got into a deep hole around the terms "freedom" and "free", I would guess because in no small part it has suited influential marketing gurus to encourage this confusion for years; not just in selling goods, but obviously politics too.

Which puts many thoughtful people in a dilemma: on the one hand opposed to pedantic idiocies, where clearly the context contradicts a literal interpretation, and on the other being anxious to "reclaim the streets" as it were: to insist on precise meanings for some Very Important Words, in this or any other language.

Language will always evolve but should hopefully become richer, not poorer.

I'm not a Plusnet customer (ex-Metronet) - but I've also learned a lot from some of the stroppier threads on Adslguide, over several years ...


*Quienes Somos

Edited by s_h (Sun 03-Sep-06 14:51:11)

A very well written post, I'm not sure though that an "all-you-can-eat" ISP would work though, there are those that use far too much and the internet version of the obese eaters who would make a field day of one of those virtual buffets. I remember a film once with a very large man in it who kept eating until he could eat no more, I can't remember if he had to eat a roast person or if he was cooked, but it just sprang to mind when thinking of the "obese" internet users. H'mm could we change these people into extra bandwidth me wonders??

so there is a limit then

dont quote me cos i don't do maths, if my connection was unlimited downloading and i left it on for a month and downloaded 1tb fo data, without any throttling.

On the other hand, if my connection is unlimited and throttled, then i would only download 500mb. Therefore it is not unlimited, it is a controlled Unlimited connection.

My figures are hypothetical but my end result is the same - my interpretation of unlimited and an ISP interpretation

over 50 years of life, gives you that clarity

>>>>>>>dont quote me cos i don't do maths, if my connection was unlimited downloading and i left it on for a month and downloaded 1tb fo data, without any throttling.

I don't do difficult sums neither, but why stick at 1TB why not 100TB, or a 1000TB if you are talking unlimited. You don't because there are limits, it can only be genuinely unlimited in defined terms, and those terms define the limits of what is unlimited. That is why the term can often be useless.

Strewth! ....met myself coming back there, that's what age does.

In reply to:

---

I don't do difficult sums neither, but why stick at 1TB why not 100TB, or a 1000TB if you are talking unlimited. You don't because there are limits, it can only be genuinely unlimited in defined terms, and those terms define the limits of what is unlimited. That is why the term can often be useless

---

And the answer is According to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, researchers from a pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings constructed the second greatest computer in all of time and space, Deep Thought, to calculate the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. After seven and a half million years of pondering the question, Deep Thought provides the answer: "forty-two." The reaction:

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is.

I am 54. Worrying I think!

>>>>>I am 54.

That's the thing with this site.......full of darned kids!!

ummm edited - double post

Edited by soundsystem (Mon 04-Sep-06 12:36:11)

"full of darned kids!! "

obviously you remember Scooby Doo Don

In reply to:

---

obviously you remember Scooby Doo Don

---

Remember,! he IS Scooby Doo


Edit: Perhaps I shouldn`t have posted that it could be construed as a personal attack

Edited by wingco1 (Mon 04-Sep-06 12:54:05)

Not wishing to degrade this refeshing post further. When I subscribed to a 3rd party news service and was told I had unlimited download I expected that to mean I could download as much as I want, not as fast as I want.
As for my opinion re the Plusnet experience. My 3 year experience has been good. My upgrade to MAX could have gone better but even that would have been better if I hadnt had a phone line problem while it was happening. I was also dissapointed when we lost the plusnet newsfeed but I can even understand the logic of that. My connection is rock solid so CS experience is limited to three calls in three years. I have raised tickets but mainly they were how do I questions.

Everything has its price though and when the option of very cheap SKY broadband comes to my area (a year they say) I may be temted. By then I will see what reputation they have.

Nah he remembers Moses coming down the mountain ;-)

Ian

Don probably carved the commandments

I still have in my Plusnet folder in OE the full version of the email below. I don't think even George could mis-interpret this statement:

On 27/08/2004 @ 01:53 Mr xx xx wrote:
>2Mb Premier Package.

>Does this offer:

Unlimited downloads?


======== PlusNet Reply Below ========

Dear Mr xx xx,

You can download as much as you like with our Premier accounts.

True and that was applicable in 2004. Since then we have had a change to the t & c's (Sept 05 iirc) which would render the contents of that email no longer valid.

I dont think anyone can argue that PlusNet did offer "unlimited" products in 2004.

And it was typically limited by the line-rate to 512 Kb/s in those days...

Now that certainly wasn't true for me. Until I was asked to leave, I pulled down a pretty solid 2Mb, day and night. Only when PN started traffic shaping did the speeds drop.

But they brought in restrictions on downloading BEFORE those Sept 2005 changes in T&C's. So were those changes illegal, Mark, because the T&C's were not changed?

What would have happened to a customer's contract had they signed up in Dec '05 - could PN unilaterally give them notice in Sept '06 that they were changing the Ts&Cs or would they be bound to honour the contract until at least Dec '06? What do you think, as I am not seeking a legal opinion?

I was referring the the basic ADSL package as a comparison to the current 8 Mb/s package - it was clearly possible to get the higher rate by paying extra. Also, I tried to find out when everyone on the basic account was given 2 Mb/s - not sure but it looks like the second half of 2004?
Most of the issues (BBP, FUP, SUP, etc.) had their roots in that roll-out of higher and higher speeds on the low cost accounts - hence my point that when most people had 512 Kb/s there wasn't an obvious problem and PN were able to support 'unlimited'.

Yes. I'm fairly sure that the T&Cs state that they can be amended by giving notice - hence why people were able to get out of the contracts early by not agreeing to the changes during the notice period.

In light of that, someone who gets a significant changes to the terms during their contract may not be oblidged to fulfill all their side of the contract.

Could the customer have rejected the changes and forced PN to honour the contract for the remainder instead?

I don't think that they can do that, this is why..

If you don't agree to the changes then they would cancel your contract rather than let you have your original contract.

They won't even let you have the ability to keep your Plus.net email account because they won't migrate you down to a PAYG account because that falls under the same T's and C's... Plus.net will say that you cannot pick and choose what you want from the T's and C's.

In reply to:

---

If you don't agree to the changes then they would cancel your contract rather than let you have your original contract.

---

Would it also therefore be true if reversed i.e. you gave them 14 days notice of your unilateral decision and intention to pay them a reduced amount of

Edited by rsharma (Tue 05-Sep-06 12:08:53)

IANAL but isn't it a case that as Plus.net are the vendor in this they can change the terms and conditions because you have to agree to theirs and not the other way round?

Since when do people quote their own terms and conditions when signing up for an ISP? I don't remember teling the Plus.net sales person that I wanted this term and condition added to my contract with them which would be in my favour. If this was the case then the ISP legal department would be a very busy place.

I think that if I were to do what you suggested I would be advised to go and take a long walk, hence why I said that Plus.net wouldn't allow people to cherry pick the T's and C's.

Of course there are different circumstances where changing the T's and C's would apply in real life e.g. if someone who had an outstanding mortgage with a bank suddenly found out that they were being made redundant they could approach the bank in question and ask them to defer mortgage repayments or ask them renegotiate the mortgage as it is in their best interests that the borrower pays them back rather than go through something serious like bankruptcy.

In reply to:

---

IANAL but isn't it a case that as Plus.net are the vendor in this they can change the terms and conditions because you have to agree to theirs and not the other way round?

---

No.

It is true it is a contract "drawn up by them" but it becomes a contract binding on both parties equally for the duration of the contracted term and in equal measure. Therefore, you are not abiding by "their contract" but rather "to the contract" and the company is forced to do the same.

This is also why consumer protection laws are in place - the consumer does not negotiate contracts with companies and is in a weaker position since they have little or no choice in relation to specific Terms or clauses within the contract whereas a business will either negotiate the contract or will have financial resources to seek legal help prior to formation of contract.

PN are bound to the contract as much as you are to it, breach by either side will occur irrespective of who initiates change since it can not be forced on the other party simply by giving notice. We don't need to complicate things.

A contract is nothing more than a promise to do/supply something, in a certain way/date, for a defined payment and for an agreed period but entered into writing to cover eventualities, rights and duties. For one to try and change/amend it would mean a break of promise unless it is done by notification and voluntary agreement of the other(s) involved. Failure to carry out the promise gives one the ability for either enforcement of the promise or payment for breaking it through legal means.

Edited by rsharma (Tue 05-Sep-06 12:45:18)

I need to add something. PN's contract states that they will give notice if changes are made to the detriment of the consumer but this raises a few issues:

Who will determine whether a change is to the detriment of the user?
What happens if PN do not accept it is a detriment but the consumer does?

The other provision in the contract stipulates that if the changes are rejected that PN can bring to an end of the contract and without mention of damages. This in turn would be a matter needing to be challenged in court to decide whether it was fair or whether you could force PN to provide the contracted for service for the remainder of the period. You could probably successfully argue that this Term was unfair, defeats the object of forming a contract and that it is available only to one party (the ISP) and hence an unfair advantage over the consumer.

Just a few things to consider but since this is just general debate it is good to examine these issues.

If you announced the intention to change the contact, and they reject and cancel it, you're still liable for what you originally agreeded to, including the minimum 12 month term.

So why are PN not bound to the contract they agreed to for the same duration?

Could it be that PN are bound to it too and can't change the contract either?

My point - a company does not have higher rights to amend the contract any more than an individual can change the contract by giving notice. Some people seem to think that only the consumer is bound to the contract terms i.e. we are agreeing to abide by their rules and this couldn't be further from the truth.

I think the fact that you have accepted a contract which allows one party to change the T&C's giving a period of notice and if that is not acceptable for the contract to be ended, means they can do it. there is nothing to say that customers can give notice to change. This may be deemed to be an unfair contract, but it would be decided in court. I do think that there might be mileage in the compensation if the T&C's are changed and are not acceptable to the customer, again it would have to be tested in court.

Just a matter of fact. It was earlier said that if you reject T&C's, then you are not allowed a PAYG account. Strange because I kept one and I left rejecting those T&C's so avoiding certain payments they would have been entitled to receive.

In reply to:

---

I think the fact that you have accepted a contract which allows one party to change the T&C's giving a period of notice and if that is not acceptable for the contract to be ended, means they can do it.

---

I have not said that and nor do I agree with it.

What I do admit is that variation clauses are frequently used and lay down the requirements for this to take place. Insertion of such a clause or any other clause/Term does not automatically make it legal and yet to challenge the validity of it would require either mediation, regulatory body review or in court. This is the variation clause in PN's Ts&Cs:

In reply to:

---

24. How this Agreement can be changed

We may change this Agreement, including our Charges, at any time. We will give you at least 14 days notice of any changes before they take effect. You may not change any term of this Agreement. As explained in clause 23, you can end this Agreement by giving us immediate notice in this 14 day period if we increase our Charges or change the Conditions of this Agreement to your detriment.

---

The reason why they are allowed to do this is because the customer can simply migrate away to another provider and because PN won't hold them to any remainder of the contract term. PN have not given notice of change of contract that should IMO have occurred with the introduction of LLU and nor did they do so when they reduced the limits across the board in April 06. The reason for the latter was claimed on the basis that the SUP and AUP were not part of the Ts&Cs, then it was part of it but not detrimental and finally that the hours for peak time were reduced hence no detriment. It is the PN way.

However and what would be interesting is if someone refused the changes and demanded PN provide the contracted for service for the remainder of the duration.

I assume that is purely to underline your position, because I never suggested that you had said it or that you agreed with it, just top be clear all round.

But if I agree that clauses can be changed as part of teh contract which I either accept or leave the contract, this may be deemed unfair, in which case there is no contract in teh first place. But agreeing to operate like that does not, INHO, mean that the person or company who does change the contract clauses will not be responsible for compensation if the other party leaves the contract and suffers loss thereby.

Thanks.

In reply to:

---

But if I agree that clauses can be changed as part of teh contract which I either accept or leave the contract, this may be deemed unfair, in which case there is no contract in teh first place.

---

That is not totally correct.

If it is established that a contract is in operation and if a Term is deemed unfair then the contract continues albeit with the particular Term having been struck out (as though it never existed), unless the unfair Term goes to the heart of an existing contract in which case the whole contract is considered void. Very simplified because it becomes much more complicated.

I (we) have gone on such a tangent to the subject matter of this thread that I will have to stop posting to it now.

Back on topic for you all.

The PN has always had a clause that they can manage the network in a way they see fit for the benefit of their customers. This clause gives them the right to impose the limits because without them the network would of reached saturation point and virtually all internet activity would of been next to impossible.

Point 1 - Too much discretion in the hands of PN without any defined limits or measures but even if we accept they have this right

Point 2 - They would still need to issue a notice when the SUP/AUP are reduced i.e. detriment to the customer because they are part of the Ts&Cs and the same binds PN to give notice

Point 3 - Just because it is in the contract does not mean it is either enforceable or fair

Is relation to point 1 - we need to ask what it is that is for the benefit of the customer. Can it be that an ISP can cram on more users than their advertised contention ratio for instance and in doing so they impact the service since even a previously normal user becomes a problem? I can understand if 1 person or even 100 people are using too many resources and an ISP dealing with it but you have to bear in mind the points I raise above.