Hugh

My commiserations to those who have had bad/unacceptable levels of service, but it is my belief you are in the minority (doesn't help you much, I know).

If you look at a lot of the latest forums (traffic shaping, speed problems), quite a few of the issues have been resolved by helpful posters re proxy changes (big up to BillC) and stuff like ZA firewalls causing issues. It doesn't appear to be as black/white as sometimes is posted.

In the words of the late, great Robert Heinlein - "TANSTAAFL" - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

I've got an idea - why don't we do price based service levels (only meant as a joke, but you never know, someone might take it up).

Level 1a - paying standard prices - standard level of services
Level 1b - paying reduced price for a period of time, due to issues/problems - standard level of services

Level 2 - paying reduced prices due to threat of leaving - reduced level of service (your problem gets fixed after Level 1a & 1b) - this should be made clear to the customer at time of retention/haggling. You get a better deal, less responsiveness (with swings come roundabouts).

Basic economics - look after your full paying customers first

btw, I pay £52 pm for 4mb, Family Pack, and Talk Evenings and Weekends - I think this is a fair price. Others may not; they have options.

---------- Post added at 12:57 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

And that's the problem - 'free' as in quotes, or, 'free' as in you need to get a BT line installed and paid for, and you will have to pay for the Sky install as well.

Why do advertisers get away this this? It is either free or it isn't - just like someone can't be 'dead' - they are just dead.

Anyway, market economics - if people don't like the price, use other options. I have had reliable service at what I consider to be a fair price - why would I risk that for a couple of pounds per month?