+Net Unfair

>It was stated that we needed to see a significant useage change in the
> levels of bandwidth transfer and some customers while reducing still
> stayed in the very top percentile of the list.

Above from +Net employee on ADSL guide forum.

Ah ha! I said that this would be a problem if percentages were being
used and not proper figures. Your statement means that some got
penalised because others reduced their figures too.

This is PATENTLY UNFAIR!!! How the heck do you expect your customers
to know where they lie if they don't have access to the full customer
base data and O level maths???
--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

Dr Teeth wrote:

>>It was stated that we needed to see a significant useage change in the
>> levels of bandwidth transfer and some customers while reducing still
>> stayed in the very top percentile of the list.
>
> Above from +Net employee on ADSL guide forum.
>
> Ah ha! I said that this would be a problem if percentages were being
> used and not proper figures. Your statement means that some got
> penalised because others reduced their figures too.

It also, ironically, confirms that the naughty pipe will contain people
downloading *less* than some of those outside it (assuming those who
claim to have been on target for less than 100GB/month usage, but will
still be moved, are telling the truth).

I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
arrangements for just a dozen or so people.


higgy.

> I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
> relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
> weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
> percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
> efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
> itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
> arrangements for just a dozen or so people.

Bingo!

I know around 10 people who are due to be moved and every single one of them
reduced their usage to WELL below the 100GB you seem to be quoting. If they
had carried on for a full month their figures would have been around 25-40GB
a month.

This apparently wasnt enough for Plusnet. I think what has happened is that
all the people who got the initial email have made a effort to reduce their
usage. Plusnet have seen this and simply decided to use their previous
figures when deciding who should be moved. Like you said, would it be worth
them doing this for a handful of users?

There's one guy on the ADSLGuide site that said he was in Hospital and didnt
use his connection yet still got moved over!

Cheddar wrote:
>> I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
>> relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
>> weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
>> percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
>> efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
>> itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
>> arrangements for just a dozen or so people.
>
> Bingo!
>
> I know around 10 people who are due to be moved and every single one
> of them reduced their usage to WELL below the 100GB you seem to be
> quoting. If they had carried on for a full month their figures would
> have been around 25-40GB a month.
>
> This apparently wasnt enough for Plusnet. I think what has happened
> is that all the people who got the initial email have made a effort
> to reduce their usage. Plusnet have seen this and simply decided to
> use their previous figures when deciding who should be moved. Like
> you said, would it be worth them doing this for a handful of users?
>
> There's one guy on the ADSLGuide site that said he was in Hospital
> and didnt use his connection yet still got moved over!

between getting the email and yesterday, i downloaded a total of about 28GB.
the week before i was near 49GB, yet i'm still being moved.

i get the distinct impression i was going to be moved, regardless of my new
downloading habit.

looks like they have won as i have asked for a MAC number and plan on
looking for an ISP which isn't underhanded.

> i get the distinct impression i was going to be moved, regardless of my
> new
> downloading habit.
>
> looks like they have won as i have asked for a MAC number and plan on
> looking for an ISP which isn't underhanded.

I'm going to stick it out for a few weeks. If my connection isn't crippled
then I will stay till the new year (And then move to Pipex), if not then
i'll find another ISP straight away.

Hi There

I did answer this and simply this was a response to some one who had asked
me a question about their useage. Some customers had vast useage and while
they may reduce this still leaves them using a huge amount of data transfer
which is unsustainable.
--
With Regards,

Stewart,
--
| Stewart Norriss Broadband Solutions For
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
+ ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -----
"higgy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41a8a8ca$0$44156$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dr Teeth wrote:
>
>>>It was stated that we needed to see a significant useage change in the
>>> levels of bandwidth transfer and some customers while reducing still
>>> stayed in the very top percentile of the list.
>>
>> Above from +Net employee on ADSL guide forum.
>>
>> Ah ha! I said that this would be a problem if percentages were being
>> used and not proper figures. Your statement means that some got
>> penalised because others reduced their figures too.
>
> It also, ironically, confirms that the naughty pipe will contain people
> downloading *less* than some of those outside it (assuming those who
> claim to have been on target for less than 100GB/month usage, but will
> still be moved, are telling the truth).
>
> I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
> relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
> weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
> percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
> efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
> itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
> arrangements for just a dozen or so people.
>
>
> higgy.

Hi There

We were being straight I assure you and this was taken from amuch longer
posting that I made. Those that have reduced thier useage to a sustainable
level and have actually altered their useage pattern would not be moved.
Secondly we are happy to look into this for people and come and answer
questions which is why I am the rest of the team are here to help. The goal
was never to move people anyway as I am sure that you can understand from
our point of view it would have saved us much time if we had not had to do
this at all.

--
With Regards,

Stewart,
--
| Stewart Norriss Broadband Solutions For
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
+ ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -----
"higgy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41a8a8ca$0$44156$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dr Teeth wrote:
>
>>>It was stated that we needed to see a significant useage change in the
>>> levels of bandwidth transfer and some customers while reducing still
>>> stayed in the very top percentile of the list.
>>
>> Above from +Net employee on ADSL guide forum.
>>
>> Ah ha! I said that this would be a problem if percentages were being
>> used and not proper figures. Your statement means that some got
>> penalised because others reduced their figures too.
>
> It also, ironically, confirms that the naughty pipe will contain people
> downloading *less* than some of those outside it (assuming those who
> claim to have been on target for less than 100GB/month usage, but will
> still be moved, are telling the truth).
>
> I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
> relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
> weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
> percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
> efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
> itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
> arrangements for just a dozen or so people.
>
>
> higgy.

Hi There

If indeed there is someone that has been in hospiltal and the connection has
not been used I must have missed it and I apologise, if you post the thread
I will have a look and see what has happened here.

--
With Regards,

Stewart,
--
| Stewart Norriss Broadband Solutions For
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
+ ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -----
"Cheddar" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41a8b093$0$33637$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
>> relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
>> weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
>> percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
>> efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
>> itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
>> arrangements for just a dozen or so people.
>
> Bingo!
>
> I know around 10 people who are due to be moved and every single one of
> them reduced their usage to WELL below the 100GB you seem to be quoting.
> If they had carried on for a full month their figures would have been
> around 25-40GB a month.
>
> This apparently wasnt enough for Plusnet. I think what has happened is
> that all the people who got the initial email have made a effort to reduce
> their usage. Plusnet have seen this and simply decided to use their
> previous figures when deciding who should be moved. Like you said, would
> it be worth them doing this for a handful of users?
>
> There's one guy on the ADSLGuide site that said he was in Hospital and
> didnt use his connection yet still got moved over!
>

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:34:53 -0000, "Stewart Norriss"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Those that have reduced thier useage to a sustainable
>level and have actually altered their useage pattern would not be moved.

Unless you give them a chance, how do you know that any reduction in
bandwidth usage is sustainable or not? This is not s defensible
position from what you have said.

>Secondly we are happy to look into this for people and come and answer
>questions which is why I am the rest of the team are here to help.

The presence of you all is much appreciated.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:51:27 -0000, "Cheddar" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> I was moving towards accepting PlusNets arguments (particularly in
>> relation to not setting a specific cap), but now it seems they really
>> weren't being straight with people. It looks very much like a certain
>> percentage of people were always going to be moved, regardless of the
>> efforts they made to change - possibly to sustain the very experiment
>> itself, as I assume it wouldn't have been worthwhile to make separate
>> arrangements for just a dozen or so people.
>
>Bingo!
>
>I know around 10 people who are due to be moved and every single one of them
>reduced their usage to WELL below the 100GB you seem to be quoting. If they
>had carried on for a full month their figures would have been around 25-40GB
>a month.
>
>This apparently wasnt enough for Plusnet. I think what has happened is that
>all the people who got the initial email have made a effort to reduce their
>usage. Plusnet have seen this and simply decided to use their previous
>figures when deciding who should be moved. Like you said, would it be worth
>them doing this for a handful of users?
>


>There's one guy on the ADSLGuide site that said he was in Hospital and didnt
>use his connection yet still got moved over!
>
LOL. Just shows u what a bunch of liars these peeps are.