RE: Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!

["Timothy Morris" <timothy.morris@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Harrison [mailto:mark.harrison@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 February 2001 12:31
> To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!
>
>
> The "Surf 24x7" product that's advertised with the tag line
"surf
> around the
> clock at a fixed rate" ???
>
That can certainly be considered mis-leading information :), and I think it
fair to say that PlusNet probably have a case to answer to - but I would
imagine that if it ever came to court their liability would be limited to a
refund of a few months subscription together with free mail and url
forwarding for a limited period.

What really pisses me off is the 'Anne Robinson' approach to this problem.
I
bet if (as Mark has done with Demon), you'd (or whoever signed up with
them)
phoned them up and explained how you wanted to use the account they would
not have taken your money.

As to Callum's assertion that high bandwidth users will be kicked off BT's
ignite service they would be quite within their rights. BTs SIN329 clearly
states on page 7 that IPStream (ADSL) is intended for 'burst' traffic, and
the products "are not suitable for End Users who require continuous
bit-rate, full-bandwidth services". Why do you think that they also
sell the
non-contended BTCentral product as well at a significantly higher cost? As
to competition LLU has started (on an emergency basis) as far as DSL is
concerned, which can only be a good thing for all concerned

With all of these offerings they are fine if used as intended. When a
minority sign up expecting to get something for nothing, and in doing so
reduce service levels for the majority, what do you think should be done?

I am looking at this from both sides of the fence, as I work as a
consultant
to a new venture 'wireless ISP' bidding for a licence in the UK.

Tim.