cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

For PlusNet's consideration

N/A

For PlusNet's consideration

As all information and opinions on PlusNet's recent actions is a bit chaotic, I have speculatively summarised it thus:

---
My opinion, for your information:

17 September 2005

PlusNet, having previously advised customers that they had no "fair user policy" (therefore no fixed limits), have suddenly and without warning changed some PlusNet users' service (whom PlusNet regard as an insignificant minority) to a forced maximum of 67kbps, close to dial-up speeds, because of a "sustainable user policy" which has has appeared and been applied RETROSPECTIVELY and without any notice.

It can take days to sort out, for exceeding usage limits nobody (possibly not even PlusNet) were actually aware of at the time. I repeat: NO ADVANCE NOTICE GIVEN BEFORE SPEEDS ARE TURNED BACK TO THE "DARK AGES" AND WHO KNOWS WHEN AND WHERE (OR WHY) THEY'LL DO IT AGAIN. Next time the usage limit might be 30gb, or 20, or 5...

Oh, and the quality customer services seems to have deteriorated at the moment...

Cheesy

Apart from that, they're okay... but can you trust them?
----

Could someone at PlusNet please advise me of any inaccuracies, as informatively as possible and quoting from the Terms and Conditions and any Emails where necessary to maximise elucidation.

Many thanks. Cheesy
30 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: For PlusNet's consideration

Quote
PlusNet, having previously advised customers that they had no "fair user policy" (therefore no fixed limits)


That is not correct. PlusNet have always had a fair use policy which is mentioned in all of the T&C since PN started. You can read them all via the legal link at the bottom of every page.

What they have not done until now is specify the figures 'officially' of what they deem to be unfair usage and what will happen if someone exceeded those figures.

Quote
have suddenly and without warning changed some PlusNet users' service (whom PlusNet regard as an insignificant minority) to a forced maximum of 67kbps, close to dial-up speeds, because of a "sustainable user policy" which has has appeared and been applied RETROSPECTIVELY and without any notice.


That is also not completely true. Last month they sent a warning email to a small number of heavy users warning them of their high usage and asking them to reduce their usage or migrate out. Those who refused to reduce their usage were put on a reduced speed connection. That action had a lot of discussion in this forum and on ADSLguide. That discussion also included information about the uage limits that caused the warning to be sent and about the possible limits being imposed, and a lot of speculation about what they would be. Thus it was clear to anyone reading the discussions that PN were clamping down on the heavy users and considering imposing limits so it was not introduced 'without warning' to alot of those who would be directly affected.
N/A

Re: For PlusNet's consideration

Thanks for the feedback Peter.

Quote

PlusNet have always had a fair use policy which is mentioned in all of the T&C since PN started. You can read them all via the legal link at the bottom of every page.


I have an email from the middle of June:

"None of our packages have a fair usage policy in place.
Regards,

<Name removed>
PlusNet Customer Support"

Also, whilst the T&C probably state concerns over network integrity they did not state any fixed limits.

Quote

Last month they sent a warning email to a small number of heavy users warning them of their high usage and asking them to reduce their usage or migrate out.


I have no record of such an email, otherwise I would have taken the advice!
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,877
Thanks: 1
Registered: 05-04-2007

For PlusNet's consideration

It was only sent to those using upwards of 150GB
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: For PlusNet's consideration

Quote

I have an email from the middle of June:

"None of our packages have a fair usage policy in place.
Regards,

<Name removed>
PlusNet Customer Support"


That information is wrong. PN have always had a fair usage policy which is included in the T&C. I suspect the CS agent may be confused with the FUP that was to be introoduced in june but got canned. However he T&C fair use still applies.

Quote
Also, whilst the T&C probably state concerns over network integrity they did not state any fixed limits.


WHich is what I said earlier. Only now have they stated what is fair and what is not.

Quote
Quote

Last month they sent a warning email to a small number of heavy users warning them of their high usage and asking them to reduce their usage or migrate out.


I have no record of such an email, otherwise I would have taken the advice!


Probably because you had not used over 150GB in each of the preceeding 3 months.
N/A

Re: For PlusNet's consideration

Thanks again Peter, I appreciate it.

Quote
PN have always had a fair usage policy which is included in the T&C. I suspect the CS agent may be confused with the FUP that was to be introoduced in june but got canned. However he T&C fair use still applies.


So, I may have been misinformed at that time if you can quote me the relevant piece from the original T&C (I did a quick search, and couldn't find anything - I am prepared to be accurately corrected).

Quote
WHich is what I said earlier. Only now have they stated what is fair and what is not


Yes, but are the figures in the new T&C? again I didn't see the figures. And my main point is that it has been retrospective going back to before notification of new T&C date, let alone before their implemenation

Quote

Probably because you had not used over 150GB in each of the preceeding 3 months.


Now that's interesting, are you saying anyone now on 67kbps should have got a warning first?
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

For PlusNet's consideration

None of the T&C have stated any figures including the current one because it always leaves room for PN to decide what they should be at any given time. All it does state (I am paraphrasing here) is PN may take action against you including, but not restricted to, terminating your contract if your usage has a detrimental affect on others. It has always been up to PN to define / decide when that occurs.

As PN have pulled all the previous T&C versions (No idea why, previous versions have always been linked from the current one until now), I cannot quote the relevant section numbers that applied when you got the CS reply you quoted. But as far as I know the fair usage policy has not actually changed from previous versions.

Quote
Now that's interesting, are you saying anyone now on 67kbps should have got a warning first?


No. The previous warnings were a separate exercise and the offending customers were given 14 days to comply (reducing their usage) or their speed would be limited. They wre also offered the chance to leave without fulfilling any contractual obligations (just like the current one does).

This new managed connection is a new and separate activity using a lower figure that the previous action had plus an additional limit on peak time downloading.
N/A

For PlusNet's consideration

Quote
None of the T&C have stated any figures including the current one because it always leaves room for PN to decide what they should be at any given time. All it does state (I am paraphrasing here) is PN may take action against you including, but not restricted to, terminating your contract if your usage has a detrimental affect on others. It has always been up to PN to define / decide when that occurs.


Interesting again Peter, it still doesn't really make my original opinion untrue though does it? I mean from a customers point of view.

Quote
As PN have pulled all the previous T&C versions (No idea why, previous versions have always been linked from the current one until now), I cannot quote the relevant section numbers that applied when you got the CS reply you quoted.


As a gesture of amiability I've put them here http://rapidshare.de/files/5225611/PLUSNET_OLD_T_C.txt.html Cheesy


Quote
Now that's interesting, are you saying anyone now on 67kbps should have got a warning first?
Quote
No. The previous warnings were a separate exercise and the offending customers were given 14 days to comply (reducing their usage) or their speed would be limited. They wre also offered the chance to leave without fulfilling any contractual obligations (just like the current one does).


Okay, but don't you agree that those on 67kbps should have received a warning first? after all, it would have avoided all the righteous indignation now being expressed by many people.

Quote
This new managed connection


I also believe a 'managed' contention is a change of service, and therefore advance notice should have been given. (i.e. it's an indefinite service change to a maximim 67kbps, rather than a naturally occuring shared contention), but I thinks that may be wide open to arguement so forget I mentioned it Smiley
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

For PlusNet's consideration

Plusnet state their contention is 30:1 for premier. 67Kbs is 1/30th of a normal 2Mbs connection so they are still supplying a service within the bounds of the product limits.

Broadband is always sold on the basis of a contended service, whether that is due to natural contention or imposed makes no difference.

Item 6.1.1 of Annex 1 - the acceptable use policy covers this. Again as no specific limits are stated in the T&C, PN can change or set them as they see fit and changing them does not mean the T&C have changed.
painswck
Grafter
Posts: 449
Registered: 30-07-2007

For PlusNet's consideration

Peter stop talking like a complete drone.

Talking of 'contention' when it is being selectively applied is not contention at all (independent of what you think of PluNets re-definition of the word).

Cut the crap, it is throttling pure and simple.
N/A

For PlusNet's consideration

Quote
Plusnet state their contention is 30:1 for premier. 67Kbs is 1/30th of a normal 2Mbs connection so they are still supplying a service within the bounds of the product limits.

Broadband is always sold on the basis of a contended service, whether that is due to natural contention or imposed makes no difference.

Item 6.1.1 of Annex 1 - the acceptable use policy covers this. Again as no specific limits are stated in the T&C, PN can change or set them as they see fit and changing them does not mean the T&C have changed.


Sorry Peter, but PlusNet's own guide to contention say's it's sharing the bandwidth, not having the minimum bandwidth imposed 24/7.
http://portal.plus.net/support/adsl/contention_guide.shtml
"What is contention?
When you connect to the internet using ADSL broadband technology you are in effect sharing the connection infrastructure with other users"

And you haven't answered the questions in my previous post, nor proved my original statement untrue, but I appreciate your effort.
N/A

For PlusNet's consideration

Rather than cloud the real issue by quoting contention ratios and trying to justify this by saying that Plusnet are still delivering a legal service within the bounderies of paragraph x subsection y line z of their terms and conditions the point here is one of fairness and morality which seems to escape Plusnet completely.
I downloaded 150 gig per month twice in the past three months and 30 gig of that was in their newly revealed peak times. I didn't do this to try to drag the system down or to have detremental effect on other customers, I did this because when I signed up Plusnet sold me a 2mb uncapped premier service so I had no reason to believe using it as such would cause a problem.
If using my connection to this level was causing a problem all Plusnet had to do was send me a mail letting me know and I would have moderated my useasge to accomodate, after all, I don't NEED 150gig a month, I just took it as it was there.
Instead of this the first I know is when Plusnet send me a mail telling me that because I had used my connection to this level they had dropped my connection from 2mb to 67k and would keep it that way for a month. I rang their customer services twice and in both cases their advisers were not aware of this Sustainable useage policy as both of them told me that the new limits were to be found in the new terms & conditions which were sent out in late August, this is quite incorrect.
As for this "raise a ticket and get it lifted" rubbish, I did that on Thursday evening and am still on 67k.
The real point here is not the sustainable useage policy itself, that's fair enough and whether it should or should not be in place will produce a balanced arguement between fors and againsts. What will never produce a balanced arguement is the way Plusnet have decided to implement it by producing one day and then punishing all customers of overstepped the newly drawn lines over the past three months.
That is what makes me angry and in my opinion this is totaly unfair. I want to see a reply from anybody within the Plusnet group defend the implentation of this policy in the way they have and make it sound reasonable.
No warnings; no E-mailing out of the sustainable usage policy; no way over the past three months to check peak time useage even though we had no indication that it had any significance; just YOUR SERVICE HAS BEEN CUT TO 67k.
Please, somebody from Plusnet try to justify how this was implemented - if you can.
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,878
Registered: 04-04-2007

For PlusNet's consideration

hinkley,

Please refrain from making personal statements. Peter isn't expressing his opinion or trying to justify anything. He is simply providing the information that the Original Poster requested.

Chris
N/A

For PlusNet's consideration

Quote
hinkley,

Please refrain from making personal statements


Are you serious? :?
I think you'll find my original post was a personal statement...

Quote
Peter isn't expressing his opinion or trying to justify anything. He is simply providing the information that the Original Poster requested.


Well, IMO though I appreciate that Peter has attempted to do what PlusNet are unable (or unwilling) to do, there does seem to be an attempt to justify PlusNets treatment of it's customers but not a thorough and comprehensive dicreditation of my original statement, in the meantime other bewildered Cheesy PlusNet 'victims' are welcome to post, surely?
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,878
Registered: 04-04-2007

For PlusNet's consideration

beansontoast,

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about any of your posts. You have been given the answers to the questions you have raised and if you need any further clarification from PlusNet I would suggest you raise it via Contact Us.

Chris