Well I feel like a new born baby, no hair, no teeth and I think I just wet myself.

I don't approve of your personal comments nor in fact Simon's when indicating that front line staff are liars/involved in a conspiracy or somesuch. Just because they are not named does not mean it is not personal, it would be to me if I was front line staff and read some of the stuff, many of those emotive terms tend to make people take sides..

The personal stuff sure creates heat...but unfortunately little light.

The new packages are radically different with the long term lock-ins and without a doubt have had an adverse affect on some existing customers, more so when a mixed message emerges, and is no doubt a subject for comment and debate.

I am not so concerned myself over the 90 day release, those that signed up because of it will be aware of it I feel and will no doubt fight their case if they want to leave, (still don't understand the tick box opt in though). It is the users who are on the old legacy packages where it was free to jump about and want to change need to made fully aware of the new lock in...whether 12 or 18 months,...... know that monthly contracts are dead......as long as they know their options they can then make an informed decision.

The same terms should be offered to all customers who want to swap, not just those that know to raise a ticket, the concession to 12 months seems an ad hoc implmentation.

This information needs to be big and clear due to the radically changed nature of the packages compared to the old ones to prevent customers sleep walking into a new deal. My personal opinion is that either lock-in is a big ask just to swap packages and needs careful consideration in these fast changing times although I can understand those opting for the Market 3 £5.99 option.

I agree with your comments entirely. Not that the 90 day is a non-issue PN like any ISP need to sort their systems out to ensure that systems and staff automatically process customers correctly in 99.9+% of the time. (100% is never achieved) Add ons like the 90 day MBG should be properly integrated so that customers are correctly processed and all relevant information is available on screen at time of customer contact.

With regard to the tie in for existing customers this is the major issue for me. Customers out of minimum contract should be able to switch from legacy products to the new producs with NO contract length (ie maintain the 30 day notice period) where no hardware is required. 18 months for new customers is PNs choice if this reduces customer numbers then they will obviously re-think.

What we need is more matter of fact posting, not innuendo, libel and scaremongering. My own (admittedly over the top) comments are purely reactions to the inflammatory nature of previous posts not the issues themselves. The last thing this forum needs is dragging down once again to where PNs input becomes negligible again. Though from the nature of previous posts criticising reps and suggesting that for doing their job and clearing up problems not correctly dealt with within the proper channels they are whitewashing and covering up for an evil empire, that may be what some others want.

For some reason you seem to take any criticism of Plusnet as a personal affront, as do some others who post on here.

Customers have stated they have asked to leave under the 90 day guarantee, to be told they didn't opt in in the first place. People on BBYW were told they couldn't move to other BBYW packages. Some customers were told they could reduce the 18 months to 12 months if they raised a ticket.

None of the above is in the public domain. Customers who don't frequent forums are left in the dark. Would any of these concessions have arisen if people hadn't complained?.

Not at all.. The issues themselves are important... my issue is with the nature of the criticism and allegations therein. Read my posts again if you misunderstand. It may help.

I'm not going over old ground again. I suggest you address the messsage and not the messsenger, however difficult that may be for you.

Not difficult at all... I'm sure youll get the gist eventually..

PN like any ISP need to sort their systems out to ensure that systems and staff automatically process customers correctly
-----
How do you know that the complaints we have read about are systems errors? Is it a *fact* that there is no corporate strategy to mislead customers? I appreciate that you lean one way while I lean another but there are no *facts* to support your assertions about systems errors, therefore intentional deception is at least a possibility, isn't it?

So please, don't try to persuade us that your view of events is factual - because it isn't. Your "systems errors" may be what you believe or hope to be the case but that doesn't make them any more factual than a strategy to deceive.

AFAIK, there have been no posts by customers reporting that PlusNet, without prompting, gave them what they are entitled to have. But there have been a number of posts from customers who report great difficulty in obtaining their entitlement, even to the extreme of the agent involved threatening legal action against a customer who was merely claiming his rights.

So, until we hear from customers who have had no trouble getting their entitlement at the first time of asking - whether under the 90 day MBG scheme or the extended contract terms - the circumstantial evidence is pointing towards a PlusNet policy of disenfranchisement by deception and disinformation.

Simon

"How do you know that the complaints we have read about are systems errors?"

How do you know they are not.

"Is it a *fact* that there is no corporate strategy to mislead customers?"

You are the only person making that allegation - your evidence is? Is it therefore a fact that they are not.

"So please, don't try to persuade us that your view of events is factual - because it isn't. "

It is at least as factual as your tainted view - and certainly more realistic.

"the circumstantial evidence is pointing towards a PlusNet policy of disenfranchisement by deception and disinformation."

More inflammatory tosh from yourself... How many complainants 3? 4? customers let down by inadequate service or by a dark evil ISP?

Strange how PN came out third in TBBs stats for Large ISPs... After all they willfully mislead and con customers constantly dont they... Oh I forgot only in Cloud Simon Land.

It is at least as factual as your tainted view - and certainly more realistic.
-----
I don't know where you're getting "realistic" from. PlusNet have proven themselves over time to be capable of wilful customer disinformation so it is not unrealistic to believe that they may be at it again.
-----
"the circumstantial evidence is pointing towards a PlusNet policy of disenfranchisement by deception and disinformation."

More inflammatory tosh from yourself... How many complainants 3? 4? customers let down by inadequate service or by a dark evil ISP?
-----
How can this be inflammatory when you have just conceded that my view of events has as much basis in fact as yours? If it is inflammatory to raise the possibility of wilful deception, then it must also be inflammatory to attribute these incidents to "system errors". And the numbers, however many there are, add up to 100% -- until such time as any customers report getting automatic entitlement from first line PlusNet agents.
-----
Strange how PN came out third in TBBs stats for Large ISPs... After all they willfully mislead and con customers constantly dont they... Oh I forgot only in Cloud Simon Land.
-----
Sadly, it is likely that the majority of customers won't realise it if they are intentionally misled by PlusNet agents. Which is why discussions like these are important.

Simon