On 19/12/09 13:47, Dave Sones wrote: > /If that's their business model, then I can only say it's complete crap. > But, if they do aim to let the problem customers flounder until they > give up and leave, they should let them do that; not keep taking their > money until the contract expires. That's tantamount to theft.
Just to be clear, I do 100% agree with this. If it helps, even with decent support it has just taken us more than 6 months to get a slow throughput issue resolved due to BT incompetence (and when I say slow, 150kbps was typical - now it's resolved they're getting 6.5Mbps). That's based on us putting constant pressure (and running endless diagnostic tests) and passing all the information upstream via our provider (Enta) who we only talk to at a technically competent level, and them passing things upstream to BT to fail to do anything with (the customer was getting a sync speed of 7-8Mbps but low throughput, and BT only care about the sync speed so kept dropping it). The fault was finally shown to be a capacity issue at the BT exchange and they were eventually forced to fix it. But like I said, it took 6 months and it I work out what my time cost over that period against the profit margin on the ADSL line it's enough to make you give up supplying ADSL altogether! I don't want to be seen as a CPW defender; I defend their *right* to charge low prices and deliver crap support, but I still think the business model stinks. This is much like I defend the BNP's right to free speech in order that I can disagree with what they say. And I'm not trying to take the moral "you get what you pay for, tough!" high ground either - as a consumer I make the same choices and get stung occasionally, and by and large the occasional sting still makes the strategy a winner overall for me. What Dave needs is a good way to escape CPW's clutches. Depending on the length of service remaining, is it cost effective to set up alternative provision (on a new line) and just stop paying CPW, and see them in court if they decide to pursue it? Given the cost of a new line install and all the hassle, I guess not. I'd still be very tempted to cancel the direct debit, if only to give you a different attack point (their credit control dept won't even pretend to try to fix your problems, but might be able to escalate your query to someone who can in order to get the money in - credit control depts usually have more clout that tech support and you can always keep them sweet by paying off the debt by BACS every so often if they're about to disconnect you.). It is all very much more difficult because 2Mbps is considered acceptable, however you were originally sold a like-for-like transfer from Pipex and it hasn't been delivered so I would focus on that mis-sell. Maybe even pursue a small claims court case against them for the money you've already paid them (eg if they're charging you £30/month on a 24-month contract make a claim for 24*£30 = £720 and any other legitimate costs involved in buying yourself out of the contract due to the initial mis-sell). They'd likely settle out of court. -- Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0844 251 1450 Registered in England (0456 0902) @ 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG _______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
