I think you misunderstood. When i Say restrict I mean to the 128k.

If people are regularly going over their quota of bandwidth then they are on the wrong package to begin with. Call me a cynic if you like but I think this is Plusnet's way of getting people to sign up for a new package.

They should rename BBYW to BBOW

Edited by deleted (Wed 10-Mar-10 11:49:56)

I don't know of anywhere where we say DTW will restrict rather than block usage, though as I've mentioned on BBYW you have fixed or flex usage also (choosing fixed *does* restrict you to 128k if you hit the usage allowance, but if you have fixed and DTW then DTW would take precedent, which is maybe where the problem occurred).

Thank you Mand. That does it for me.

Is there any chance that you could move one of my referral accounts back to the BBYW Option 1 with 10GB @ £9-99. She changed to Value a few months ago. A PM will be fine if you don't want to discuss it here.

You're a cynic.

Perhaps an increase in MAC requests may focus the company minds yet again.

An increase in MAC requests will only lead to an increase in the refusal to give out MAC codes via the internal ticket support system.

TT

In reply to a post by _TT_:

Perhaps an increase in MAC requests may focus the company minds yet again.

An increase in MAC requests will only lead to an increase in the refusal to give out MAC codes via the internal ticket support system.

TT

You can't get a MAC through the ticket system. You have to phone.

You can't get a MAC through the ticket system. You have to phone.

Oh yes you can. You've just got to know how to deal with them.

TT

You are joking Mand?

A quick scan on any forum here will show where an ISP has this model you often go over the limit and get stitched up. I suspect that Plusnet have realised the insanely low prices of £5.99 being offered for Broadband do not make for profit and sustainability (you'd think by now Plusnet would have learned this), and now need to "fix" the gap.

I don't know how many customers Plusnet have thesedays, but if you still had circa 200,000 and "only a small amount" (let's say just 2000 (1%) do, that's another £10K profit.

Let's say a more realistic figure of 4% (I think that would far more realistic as a guideline) that's a good £40K, just shy of half a million pound on the bottom line. Not bad for the cost of an e-mail broadcast and edit of a couple web pages.

Your own community forums and that of other ISPs in general doesn't share your view.

"regardless of the product the customer is on"

Chance would be a fine thing... Maybe if someone could take a look at ticket 32419866 (which has been awaiting a support team answer since 8pm Tuesday) then I might sometime be able to use a product...

If it has already been looked at, then could a potential customer get some feedback about it (before they give up and close it)?

I've seen one response from PN about this, suggesting that people would prefer to carry on without being interrupted. Personally, I'm with you, in thinking that most people would prefer the option of being asked what to do, ie whether they were willing to pay a further 5 quid or not.

At least (since they are fixing it) the traffic watch thing will in future allow someone to be speed-limited rather than completely blocked, but it raises the question that given the old choices of (a) Pay or (b) be blocked are to be replaced by the choices (a) Pay or (b) continue, at low speed

PN - there's really even more reason to ask what a customer wants to do, since the speed limit facility will be working... Bumping up the quota (and the cost as a result) for the user is just shooting yourself in the foot. It will be criticised a lot in the media as unfair on users (ignoring the fact some other ISPs charge less than a quid per GB).

Switching user to slower speed, and sending an e-mail explaiing how they can pay for an increase in quota would be fair to the users and (more important) seen to be fair, too.

Someone, somewhere, needs to push this up the decision making chain and get a U-Turn before it all goes live and gets users angry. It's blindingly obvious the proposed change is not going to be attractive to users.