Tiscali - NEVER EVER EVER

They are a scam. If they think your traffic is too much they cut your
service. In they Fair Usage Policy they claim they will send two warnings
before they reduce your bandwidth. NOT TRUE. And after you spend ages on
paid customer support they ask to send a mail to
(E-Mail Removed) and this is what happens next:

Undeliverable: FUP Warning1

Your message
To: (E-Mail Removed)
Subject: FUP Warning1
Sent: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:07:08 -0000
did not reach the following recipient(s):
(E-Mail Removed) on Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:08:20 -0000
Unable to deliver the message due to a communications failure
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=us;a=
;p=uk.worldonline.c;l=WOLBDC0701042008PZQ5AH9X
MSEXCH:IMS:uk.worldonline.com:wolukexc:WOLBDC 0x80040C02 (00050311)
Maximum receipt headers exceeded (possible mail loop).


Stay away from them at all cost. All the money I sent on their customer
support line is more than what I would have paid for the most expensive ISP
in the UK.


NS

"Name Surname" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:459d814d$(E-Mail Removed)...
> They are a scam. If they think your traffic is too much they cut your
> service. In they Fair Usage Policy they claim they will send two warnings
> before they reduce your bandwidth. NOT TRUE. And after you spend ages on
> paid customer support they ask to send a mail to
> (E-Mail Removed) and this is what happens next:
>
> Undeliverable: FUP Warning1
>
> Your message
> To: (E-Mail Removed)
> Subject: FUP Warning1
> Sent: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:07:08 -0000
> did not reach the following recipient(s):
> (E-Mail Removed) on Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:08:20 -0000
> Unable to deliver the message due to a communications failure
> The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=us;a=
> ;p=uk.worldonline.c;l=WOLBDC0701042008PZQ5AH9X
> MSEXCH:IMS:uk.worldonline.com:wolukexc:WOLBDC 0x80040C02 (00050311)
> Maximum receipt headers exceeded (possible mail loop).
>
>
> Stay away from them at all cost. All the money I sent on their customer
> support line is more than what I would have paid for the most expensive
> ISP in the UK.
>
>
> NS
>
You have the right to reply by email, you can also email the technical
support people. I did it when I had the first warning. It isn't a scam,
you are told when you sign up that large downloads are not allowed between 6
and 11pm. I think that's fair as they don't care what you do at any other
time. At least they make it clear to all customers and you ticked the box
to say you agreed to the terms and conditions. Why did you do that if you
didn't?
My argument with Tiscali was that they were running software that detected
P2P "port" use and not the actual data transfer. So for me leaving Limewire
running and downloading 10MB I got a warning. Tiscali later admitted they
were wrong and would look at this to prevent further errors. They contacted
the software manufacturer to have it out with them. Following my complaints
and reply to a warning I was given two months at half price.
It's all down to your approach. Learn to be more civilised instead of
shouting that big mouth off and you might not feel so victimised.
I will be transferring from Tiscali after 12months as I will be going with
NTL. I do like the 8Mbps Tiscali as I am very close to the exchange. You
only get what you pay for too. You will find all ISPs are as bad as each
other.

On 5 Jan 2007, "Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

A Tiscali user wrote:

>> Undeliverable: FUP Warning1
>>
>> Your message
>> To: (E-Mail Removed)
>> Subject: FUP Warning1
>> Sent: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:07:08 -0000
>> did not reach the following recipient(s):
>> (E-Mail Removed) on Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:08:20 -0000
>> Unable to deliver the message due to a communications failure
>> The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=us;a=
>> ;p=uk.worldonline.c;l=WOLBDC0701042008PZQ5AH9X
>> MSEXCH:IMS:uk.worldonline.com:wolukexc:WOLBDC 0x80040C02 (00050311)
>> Maximum receipt headers exceeded (possible mail loop).

I found their mail servers incredibly slow when attempting to check if mail
to that mail address would work... You could also try sending to their
(E-Mail Removed) address (try "error when mailing broadband CS"
as the subject line, and copy in the error report - it looks like some
internal mail forwarding error/loop from the message above).

>> Stay away from them at all cost. All the money I sent on their customer
>> support line is more than what I would have paid for the most expensive
>> ISP in the UK.

So what is their customer support number? An 0870 or some premium rate?

>You have the right to reply by email, you can also email the technical
>support people. I did it when I had the first warning. It isn't a scam,

perhaps you can post the mail address for the tech support team you used?

Bill wrote:

> You only get what you pay for too.
Agreed


> You will find all ISPs are as bad as each
> other.

Tend to disagree with you.
I have used Tiscali, Idnet, and Entanet. My experience was that Tiscali
were about the worst ISP for just about everything.

John DH

"Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:459db10f$(E-Mail Removed)...

> My argument with Tiscali was that they were running software that detected
> P2P "port" use and not the actual data transfer. So for me leaving
Limewire
> running and downloading 10MB I got a warning.

Hi Bill,

So have Tiscali actually sorted out the error of their ways and stopped
victimising users for leaving a P2P port open and not actually transfering
any data? I think not, because I had the same problem as you and recently
and had a fair use warning about using my connection between 6pm and 11pm
for P2P etc, when in actual fact I dont transfer and P2P data between the
hours of 6pm and 11pm.

If they are so good, why have they not yet sorted out such a simple and
obvious problem. Why do they continually send out FUP warnings to users who
are keeping to their terms and conditions?

I have been hounded by Tiscali for months and have received 3 FUP warnings
to date when I am not actually doing anything wrong. Sure, I do leave the
P2P software (uTorrent) running between 6pm and 11pm, but it is scheduled to
not transfer any data between 5.30pm and midnight.

So who do I contact to sort this mess out then Bill? I look forward to your
response and hopefully and end to my constant worry about Tiscali hounding
me.

If you prefer to discuss this further by email, I am quite happy to do so,
after your initial response in this group.

Tony

> So have Tiscali actually sorted out the error of their ways and stopped
> victimising users for leaving a P2P port open and not actually transfering
> any data? I think not, because I had the same problem as you and recently
> and had a fair use warning about using my connection between 6pm and 11pm
> for P2P etc, when in actual fact I dont transfer and P2P data between the
> hours of 6pm and 11pm.

Not knowing P2P that well, does it use UDP or TCP? If it uses TCP then
leaving a connection open is not unlike making a telephone call and then
leaving the phones at either end off the hook. You won't be using bandwidth
(good) but you are using valuable resources on their network (bad). That's
not a justification for their tactics rather its pointing out that just
having a connection is using up something - and yes, TCP socket shortages
can be a real pain for a large ISP.

Paul DS.

Name Surname wrote:

> They are a scam. If they think your traffic is too much they cut your
> service. In they Fair Usage Policy they claim they will send two warnings
> before they reduce your bandwidth. NOT TRUE.

In what way is it not true ?

Graham

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:03:34 -0000, Paul D.Smith wrote:
> Not knowing P2P that well, does it use UDP or TCP? If it uses TCP then
> leaving a connection open is not unlike making a telephone call and then
> leaving the phones at either end off the hook. You won't be using bandwidth
> (good) but you are using valuable resources on their network (bad).

No, if you are not sending data, the TCP connection is not using any
resources on their core network (it's only using resources on both ends of
the connections). This is because routers only care about IP packets and
don't have to understand UDP or TCP at all.

Of course, if they are trying to do something clever or nasty by using
stateful inspection, open TCP connections might use up resources there, but
that's their own problem then.


> That's
> not a justification for their tactics rather its pointing out that just
> having a connection is using up something - and yes, TCP socket shortages
> can be a real pain for a large ISP.

It's not a problem in the core network - it might be a problem if they are
trying to run transparent proxies or stateful firewalls, though (or maybe
for some of their servers).


Christof

--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org

Well Bill must be honoured as being Tiscali's one satisfied customer.

I have been a customer of several ISP's over the last few years
(personal and business) and i have never had the displeasure of
dealing with such an awful organisation. The reason why i switched to
them was due to a home move and i could not get broadband via cable at
my new home. Their deals looked like the the best value so i signed
up.

In November last year i received a FUP warning saying my useage was
extremely high (not using p2p but xbox 360 downloads), I questioned
this and was assured that a mistake had been made and that the warning
would be withdrawn. A second warning was received 3 weeks later, i had
hardly used the PC but again had downloaded a couple of demos using
the Xbox 360 and again I was told that the warnings were in error. So
i thought that was that......

2 weeks ago i downloaded a few albums using ITunes. I also rebuilt my
system and downloaded a couple of service packs. Nothing huge or
unfair to other users? Wrong, last monday i received another mail
telling me that i was now having my bandwidth throttled during peak
times (6pm to 11pm) because i was not adhearing to the FUP. I sent
them a mail that morning explaining the history and received an
automated response telling me a reply could take up to 3 working days.
I waited and during those 3 days noted that my bandwidth was dropping
to less than 100kbps during the day. So on Thursday i called them and
was informed that there was a fault at the exchange which was
resulting in the lack of bandwidth. I also asked about my query
regading why i had been put on the FUP limitations and they said they
would also get back to me on that. Monday morning and still nothing so
i sent another mail to the FUP team.

This morning at 9.15 i checked the bandwidth and i was getting a whole
19kbps, less than half a poor dial up speed. I again telephoned tech
support and was told it was due to me being in breach of the FUP. I
asked about the exchange fault and was told there wasnt one. I
protested that the FUP limit comes into play during peak times and
this was 9.15 in the morning but was told because i was in the FUP bad
boy class they couldnt do anything about it. The FUP team do not have
a contact number, you have to mail them and await a reply which never
comes.

Avoid this bunch of cowboys like the plague. Customer service is a
joke. I have now had to put up with broadband at dial up speed or less
for 8 days and the only thing i can do to try and get it resolved is
keep mailing a team who do not respond. Tech support do not know the
FUP rules, they simply say that because of high usage my bandwidth is
throttled 24/7 and they themselves do not have a number for the FUP
team even if they could understand the companys T&C's.....

I have today requested a MAC code.