PlusNet downsize

So PlusNet finally admit that they have quietly decommissioned one of
their centrals in the summer. Good of them to finally let customers
know that they were running down the network. Explains a lot.

Stan

Stan The Man <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>So PlusNet finally admit that they have quietly decommissioned one of
>their centrals in the summer. Good of them to finally let customers
>know that they were running down the network. Explains a lot.

The service they provide is so shockingly poor it is surprising that
it got noticed at all.

JC

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Christie
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Stan The Man <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>So PlusNet finally admit that they have quietly decommissioned one of
>>their centrals in the summer. Good of them to finally let customers
>>know that they were running down the network. Explains a lot.
>
>The service they provide is so shockingly poor it is surprising that
>it got noticed at all.
>
It got noticed - you can't not notice a 20% reduction in bandwidth -
but customers were fobbed off with the usual stuff, ie blaming BT,
exchange contention, setup, street lights, Christmas lights...
everything except the real reason.

And they wonder why so many people refuse to believe a word they say...
Maybe it's possible that BT will force-feed them some ethics.

Stan

Stan The Man wrote:

> Maybe it's possible that BT will force-feed them some ethics.

Thanks! I had a good laugh at that one.

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:05:49 +0000, Stan The Man wrote in
<news:060120070005498870%(E-Mail Removed)>

> So PlusNet finally admit that they have quietly decommissioned one of
> their centrals in the summer. Good of them to finally let customers
> know that they were running down the network. Explains a lot.

Have you a source for this news?

"MikeT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ampza084fulp$.(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:05:49 +0000, Stan The Man wrote in
> <news:060120070005498870%(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>> So PlusNet finally admit that they have quietly decommissioned one of
>> their centrals in the summer. Good of them to finally let customers
>> know that they were running down the network. Explains a lot.
>
> Have you a source for this news?

http://usergroup.plus.net/forum/inde....html#msg51198

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:53:18 +0000, Stan The Man <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

[snip]
>And they wonder why so many people refuse to believe a word they say...
>Maybe it's possible that BT will force-feed them some ethics.
>
>Stan

I read that BT were offering 210p per share to buy Plusnet
--
No Spam

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:15:57 -0000, Second Stage Lensman wrote in
<news:459f84e5$0$27109$(E-Mail Removed)>

>>> So PlusNet finally admit that they have quietly decommissioned one of
>>> their centrals in the summer. Good of them to finally let customers
>>> know that they were running down the network. Explains a lot.
>>
>> Have you a source for this news?
>
> http://usergroup.plus.net/forum/inde....html#msg51198

Many thanks! The gist of that is with static customer numbers and moving
18,000 to Tiscali LLU connections there was some BT capacity released. By
dropping from 18 to 16x155 mbps, this equated to 16,000 customers. Not a
big deal IMHO if custommer numbers *were* static.

"No Spam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:53:18 +0000, Stan The Man <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>And they wonder why so many people refuse to believe a word they say...
>>Maybe it's possible that BT will force-feed them some ethics.
>>
>>Stan
>
> I read that BT were offering 210p per share to buy Plusnet
> --
> No Spam

BT has bought Plus Net according to the Daily Telegraph

Retired

"John Christie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> The service they provide is so shockingly poor it is surprising that
> it got noticed at all.

Is it? It is not poor from where I am.
According to information in the link provided further down the thread, it
was switched off back in July. So it takes 6 months for anyone to notice
it?? Obviously not a problem then otherwise people would have noticed
sooner.