RE: Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!

[Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@xxxxxxx>]

****************************************************************************
Kingfisher plc
Registered Office: North West House, 119 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5PX
Registered in England, Number 1664812

This e-mail is only intended for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and
may contain confidential information.  Unless stated to the contrary, any
opinions or comments are personal to the writer and do not represent the
official view of the company.  If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message
from your system.  Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or
disclose its contents to any other person.  Thank you for your
co-operation.
****************************************************************************

> 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 think that providers should tell the truth, and not advertise products
they can't deliver.

Can you think of one other area of business where providers regularly
promise things they can't deliver, then claim that people are "abusing
their
service" and cut them off with no warning.

Where I came in - This is not a question about whether PlusNet have acted
in
the best interests of the majority of their customers and shareholders
(they
have!), but whether PlusNet have breached the Advertising Standards...

Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Morris [mailto:timothy.morris@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:51 PM
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Kicked Off PlusNet NOW!!




> -----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.