Hilariously dismal 'upgrade' offer

[#1]

There seems to be a conception that a human being is sending out these 'offers'. The simple fact is that there is a fault on the line, and the resultant low speed was being quoted when the system sent out this offer. It's not a BT plot to discredit Plusnet, just an unfortunate coincidence.

As I understand it there is only one FTTC product now and you will get the maximum speed that your line will support, up to 80Mbps.

If unhappy with a renewal offer I would always recommend ringing the Customer Options Team on 0800 013 2632 and talking to them.

[#2]

Baldrick1 said:

Moderator's note:
Repeating the complete previous post removed as it's contrary Forum rules

As the forum software seems to throw a wobbly at times, and fails to load a reply, I have quoted it above so I can answer,

I am well aware that a human doesn't send out these offers, but this is not the first time this has occurred.

I also know there is only one FTTC product.

[#3]

Where there is an existing connection and the system is generating an 'upgrade' offer it would seem that it is using the 'current line speed' as an estimate of speed, rather than the BTw estimates it would normally use for a 'new' connection. Now, in general, this is probably a more accurate estimate of likely speed since it is what the line is actually achieving and thus will be taking into account the individual line characteristics. However, if the line for some reason is under performing and has not been noticed or , as in the case here, a fault is present then the 'current line speed' will be incorrect and thus give 'daft' estimates.

[#4]

Just had a chat via Chat bot, with a question regards the new digital lines and phones, I was told Plus net are not going down the digital phone route.

Also a "new package deal", same cost much slower speed which the chatbot said would be the same.

How can 36Mb estimate be the same as 11-13 estimate. I a do know speeds are estimated and vary but Speed test consistently show 20 - 27Mb, not blistering but enough for me.

[#5]

---

@MisterW wrote:

Where there is an existing connection and the system is generating an 'upgrade' offer it would seem that it is using the 'current line speed' as an estimate of speed, rather than the BTw estimates it would normally use for a 'new' connection. Now, in general, this is probably a more accurate estimate of likely speed since it is what the line is actually achieving and thus will be taking into account the individual line characteristics. However, if the line for some reason is under performing and has not been noticed or , as in the case here, a fault is present then the 'current line speed' will be incorrect and thus give 'daft' estimates.

---

I wonder why the 'baseline' has been changed? To me, it smacks of 'let's fob the customer off with a load of rubbish, then we don't have to make any effort to resolve faults'.

[#6]

@jab1 

"To me, it smacks of 'let's fob the customer off with a load of rubbish, then we don't have to make any effort to resolve faults'."

Assuming that as @Baldrick1 said earlier, that these "offers" are being sent out automatically, then that would imply that the computer had been programmed to think like that.

Unless A.I. is being used.....  😬

[#7]

@Anonymous I understand what you are saying, and it is obvious how the computer is (re-)programmed, but my understanding has been, for the last 20+ years, that the defining reference point is the BTw report - not the 'current speed', which as has been pointed out, can be 'off' - by quite a bit, if there is a fault

[#8]

As far as I’m aware, it’s not the ‘current line speed’ profile our side that defines this, but the ‘observed speed’ shown on the supplier availability checker.

[#9]

@Gandalf Fair enough, but why had it been changed from the downstream line rate - and therefore the 'Hand back threshold' which I understood was the defining standard - if someone told me I could only get 6Mb/s on Fibre, I would tell them to go back to school/college. I am aware you have to follow 'company guidelines' in your replies.

[#10]

Thanks for the clarification @Gandalf 

@jab1 you're assuming that the observed speed is always going to be lower than the estimate from the Btw band. Not necessarily, on a well performing line that the DSLAM has adjusted to a 3db margin , it may well be higher. It's certainly a more accurate estimate , PROVIDING the line hasn't been banded or has an active fault

[#11]

No, @MisterW , I am not assuming that. I am questioning why Plusnet (and BT?) use that as the customers minimum speed when making them an offer, especially if it conveniently gets them off the hook for fixing faults.

As I said, until very recently, they quoted the minimum from an impacted line.

[#12]

Is that actually being quoted as the minimum speed ? It's being quoted as the estimated  but  when it's been queried on here AFAIK it's been stated that the MGALS from the BTW estimatescstill stands.

Agreed that it looks daft when the estimate is lower than the hand back, but that's just down to bad programming. Noone thought to to a sensibility check before spitting out the data...

[#13]

Fair enough - but it would put a lot of people off from thinking of placing an order. Must admit I would query it, but many others would take it as gospel.

Quite obviously no-one thought this through.

[#14]

Quite obviously no-one thought this through.

You're right, They obviously didn't consider the situation where a fault exists and the observed speed is artificially low

[#15]

Not sure if it helps the discussion I am currently on Unlimited Fibre extra, this is my upgrade offer

    

My observed download for speedtest cli is usually around Download: 74.39 Mbps / Upload: 17.06 Mbps on a wireless or wired device.