I have an ADSL2+ line straight into the exchange (Exchange Only Line) so it's a great quality line (22.4M sync), but with no option to get FTTC.
I was an O2 broadband customer, bought over by Sky, so I had Sky broadband only, and line rental with the Post Office (which I was happy with).
I've just moved from Sky to the Post Office and have gone from 20Meg to 10Meg download speed.
I use it for VPN to work plus general internet access, but VPN access is now very poor. I was aware their reputation is not great, but my experience with the Post Office (phone line) had been OK up to this point.
I thought with such a good line there was no way speeds could be this low, but it appears that the Post Office are capping the speed of the line with an unnecessarily large noise margin, meaning that a third of the available bandwidth is left unused.
On the Post Office "go-live" date (should that be "go-slow"?), the router stats changed from:
Broadband Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 22440 kbps 1283 kbps
Line Attenuation 14.0 dB 8.8 dB
Noise Margin 6.1 dB 7.7 dB
to:
Broadband Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 14968 kbps 1020 kbps
Line Attenuation 16.0 dB 6.7 dB
Noise Margin 12.1 dB 14.14 dB
The Post Office "tech" support claimed there were no caps on speed and that this is as fast as their equipment could go, but it looks to me that either the speed is capped or the required noise margin is set high. Sky tech support had access to these line stats and could change the line profile, but the Post Office claim they have no access to these numbers and can't make any changes. Does anyone know if that's true? Is Talk-Talk capping what it provides to the Post Office, or is it the Post Office capping what they provide to their customers? This doesn't seem to be line profiling starting off slow then increasing over time - they claimed they don't do that. There's been no increase in speed over the last week.
Either way my line speed appears to be capped, which seems contrary to their terms and conditions, but I only got flat denials from the Post Office. They also denied this is sub-standard or half-speed broadband, which is I feel should be undeniable from the evidence I have (18 months of continuous router logs and stats before the change, backing up the figures above).
When I discussed cancellation with them due the the unacceptably poor performance, I was then told that the cooling-off period expired before the "go-live" date, and that the cancellation fees are three time what I would otherwise pay over the full length of the 18 month contract.
I got what seemed to be a standard response from the retentions people to wait 10 days to see if the speed improves, but they couldn't tell me what might change in those 10 days to allow that to happen. In reality that seems unlikely to happen if they won't even admit it's currently capped.
I've obviously made a huge mistake here by moving, but I'm a bit shocked by the apparently intentional slow speed and the lock-in tactics of the contract.
It would cost me three times as much to get rid of this half-speed broadband than to keep it for 18 months (is that type of lock-in even legal?), but it's not even suitable for the VPN access I require (remote desktop and audio).
Any help or advice to get out of this mess without a large cancellation bill would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
JP
Edited by deleted (Fri 01-Dec-17 15:37:14)



Pages in this thread:
Print Thread
