What are Andrews and Arnold like ?

I've been reading through the various posts here about
crap customer service, and people having limits placed
on their BB account without them consenting to it.

I'm thinking of going with A+A. Are they any good ?

What I'm looking for is:

a. No mandatory payment by DD. I want to pay in advance
for a year, by BACS or cheque.
b. Cost is not particularly important. 20..40 pounds per
month is OK.
c. No formal limitation on traffic, but I accept that an
"reasonable use" may be part of the conditions. E.g, if my
usage goes abouve 30G a month, I expect them to send me
a nice email first.
d. Speed is not at all important. (I'd be happy with
56K speeds). What is important is the always-on aspect
e. Contactable on a normal geog number
f. *NO* 24h support; office hours only.
g. No compulsion to use "their" mail servers, web proxies,
or whatever
h. Ability to use a (light traffic) server for incoming
mail or proprietary applications (home automation for example)
i. No limitation on ports for OG and IG traffic
j. Staff who actually speak English and know what they're talking
about.

Richard [in SE13]

On 17 May 2005 11:44, "Jet Morgan" wrote:

>I'm thinking of going with A+A. Are they any good ?
>What I'm looking for is:
>j. Staff who actually speak English and know what they're talking
>about.

I've no doubt they will meet that requirement. Check posts in the
group uk.net.provders.aaisp for some of the other parts. As for a
high traffic account, expect to pay dearly if you will be using it in
the day, but otherwise, to check on many other points, ring them to get
the full story, and establish (j) for yourself :-) Peter M.


--
Plus.Net <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4>
I recommend them and save some cash.

With a guarantee allowing new users to migrate if they're unhappy!

Peter M wrote:
> On 17 May 2005 11:44, "Jet Morgan" wrote:
>
>
>>I'm thinking of going with A+A. Are they any good ?
>>What I'm looking for is:
>>j. Staff who actually speak English and know what they're talking
>>about.
>
>
> I've no doubt they will meet that requirement. Check posts in the
> group uk.net.provders.aaisp for some of the other parts. As for a
> high traffic account, expect to pay dearly if you will be using it in
> the day, but otherwise, to check on many other points, ring them to get
> the full story, and establish (j) for yourself :-) Peter M.

Jet,

You can also chat to staff and customers on IRC:
irc://irc.nixhelp.org/A&A if you like...

(We cover all the points you make, allthough the tarrifs are usage
based, see the website for more details)

Andrew Hearn, Senior Support Engineer
Andrews & Arnold Ltd 01344 400999

In article <d6chto$u1l$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (Jet Morgan) wrote:

> I've been reading through the various posts here about
> crap customer service, and people having limits placed
> on their BB account without them consenting to it.
>
> I'm thinking of going with A+A. Are they any good ?

No longer with them for purely financial reasons.

I would recommend Andrews & Arnold over and above every other supplier
in the UK.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

https://www.flextel.ltd.uk/cgi-bin/s...h?page=A119302

On 17 May 2005 11:44, "Jet Morgan" wrote:

>b. Cost is not particularly important. 20..40 pounds per month is OK.
>c. No formal limitation on traffic, but I accept that an "reasonable
> use" may be part of the conditions. E.g, if my usage goes abouve
> 30G a month, I expect them to send me a nice email first.

Seen late on this afternoon, from Metronet (likely to be on website soon)

" For example, the 2Mbps PAYGoS2000 package which previously had a
minimum monthly cost of 47 pounds inc. vat and came with 20,000MB
of usage now costs just 27.99 pounds inc. vat and comes with a
whopping 150,000MB of monthly data usage as standard."

That's on a 20:1 contention service. Just a thought. It's on a par with
the A+A 2000 kbps service, which has a daytime limit for traffic of 3 GB
a month (and would be easy to exceed just playing radio, in my case).

--
runbox.com - 1000 MB of mail storage and 100 MB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>

well they have been around for years and it is run by sandra and adrian
kennard, who for some unknown reason calls himself a reverend
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

from what i know and the peeps i know who use the service they seem pretty
reliable although the stability of the company looks rather shaky at times
according to the lates reports.
"Peter M" <us-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0rpk815kic60v30386h5k46q4f5nni293e@212.159.2. 86...
> On 17 May 2005 11:44, "Jet Morgan" wrote:
>
>>b. Cost is not particularly important. 20..40 pounds per month is OK.
>>c. No formal limitation on traffic, but I accept that an "reasonable
>> use" may be part of the conditions. E.g, if my usage goes abouve
>> 30G a month, I expect them to send me a nice email first.
>
> Seen late on this afternoon, from Metronet (likely to be on website soon)
>
> " For example, the 2Mbps PAYGoS2000 package which previously had a
> minimum monthly cost of 47 pounds inc. vat and came with 20,000MB
> of usage now costs just 27.99 pounds inc. vat and comes with a
> whopping 150,000MB of monthly data usage as standard."
>
> That's on a 20:1 contention service. Just a thought. It's on a par with
> the A+A 2000 kbps service, which has a daytime limit for traffic of 3 GB
> a month (and would be easy to exceed just playing radio, in my case).
>
> --
> runbox.com - 1000 MB of mail storage and 100 MB for files...
> 30 day free trial... <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>

Stefan Kaniuk wrote:

> although the stability of the company looks rather shaky at times
> according to the lates reports.

Which latest reports are those then?

well thats for me to know and you to find out now isnt it?.
"Wireless Reader" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Stefan Kaniuk wrote:
>
>> although the stability of the company looks rather shaky at times
>> according to the lates reports.
>
> Which latest reports are those then?

Stefan Kaniuk wrote:

> adrian kennard, who for some unknown reason calls himself a reverend

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....eb5d320fc82d01

hmmm interseting thankyou, and his company has got a high risk credit rating
as well.
"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:428b68e3$0$39057$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Stefan Kaniuk wrote:
>
>> adrian kennard, who for some unknown reason calls himself a reverend
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....eb5d320fc82d01