Plusnet ban users for complaining

Paul K · 24-08-2005, 13:16

Saw this on another forum and thought I would bring it to everyones attention here:

Quote:

UK ISP, Plusnet, have terminated the service of two of their Broadband Users for asking too many questions and taking up too much Customer Support time on their portal Discussion Forums.

Early last year, Plusnet, an ISP with nearly 200,000 subscribers, decided to cut its prices for all of it's Broadband Products, but it decided not to inform it's existing customers of the move. An implication which has meant thousands of customers are now paying almost twice as much for the same service.

Within the last month they have begun packet shaping P2P transfers for users of it's 'Premier' service. A service sold and described as a 'clean' connection. They also recently introduced severe throttling of customers using more than 150Gb/month. Throttling which gives users on a 2Mb service, just 70kbps, and a throttle that is permenant.

As a result of this, Plusnet have recently been receiving a large number of Customer complaints, both privately, and through their publically accessible member discussion forums.

Wade Woverly,20 from Leeds (and known as Wadev159), recently stared a thread in the Plusnet Member Discussion Forums challenging Plusnet on a number of Customer Service Issues - one of which was this fact that countless customers were paying a premium for the same connection. In the thread he mentioned he was assisting Trading Standards with an investigation into the legality of Plusnet's Terms and Conditions and the recent changes they have imposed on the service.

Yesterday afternoon he received a telephone call from Plusnet stating that if he didn't stop posting comments about Plusnet in their forums, they would terminate his entire ADSL connection and not just his forum access. The reason they gave was that he was using up too many Customer Services resources.

Neil Armstrong, Head of Marketing at Plusnet commented "Our comms team is there to serve all our customers, not to be drained by one unreasonably demanding customer."

More info in a thread here that I found on google:
Linky
Wonder if NTL have ever thought of using that excuse

Stuart · 24-08-2005, 13:17

People think NTL is bad..

Mind you, Bulldog could well end up doing that..

**Chris** · 24-08-2005, 13:25

Quote:

They also recently introduced severe throttling of customers using more than 150Gb/month.

150Gb!! What would you have to be doing with your connection to use that amount?

Sorry, but my sympathies are with Plusnet here. Even on an 'uncapped' service, that cannot possibly be regarded as fair use.

Paul K · 24-08-2005, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Quote:

They also recently introduced severe throttling of customers using more than 150Gb/month.

150Gb!! What would you have to be doing with your connection to use that amount?

Sorry, but my sympathies are with Plusnet here. Even on an 'uncapped' service, that cannot possibly be regarded as fair use.

The same thing as a few NTL users that are members here

Why offer uncapped if you are going to complain when people use excessive amounts of bandwidth? 150Gb may be abusive but if you advertise an uncapped service then you should expect a small percentage of your users to abuse the service. Banning people for complaining to CS/ demanding explanations for the change in service conditions is not exactly good customer relations.

**Chris** · 24-08-2005, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

The same thing as a few NTL users that are members here

Why offer uncapped if you are going to complain when people use excessive amounts of bandwidth? 150Gb may be abusive but if you advertise an uncapped service then you should expect a small percentage of your users to abuse the service. Banning people for complaining to CS/ demanding explanations for the change in service conditions is not exactly good customer relations.

Expecting that people will abuse something is not the same as tolerating it when they do - and they are not offering something that is simply uncapped, they are offering something that is uncapped but subject to reasonable use.

And it seems to me like this user was threatened with a ban from the forum and his ADSL service for spamming and harassment. Based on that article I still think Plusnet are better off without him. If I thought my ISP was taking steps to prevent a small minority of people from hogging all the bandwidth and CS resources, thus preventing me having my share, then I would see that as very good PR.

Ignition · 24-08-2005, 14:21

Fair play to them for having the balls to do this, I can think of at least one member of this forum who should have had the same done to him some time ago.

jtwn · 24-08-2005, 14:27

Errr, the guy was removed for too much discussion not for how much he downloaded..

Its ridiculous, but I guess plusnet is just another BT wholesale ISP, and operates partially on good opinions from people; so maybe they feel covering up him is for the good

But to chuck him off aswell...thats pathetic.

**Chris** · 24-08-2005, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtwn

Errr, the guy was removed for too much discussion not for how much he downloaded..

Its ridiculous, but I guess plusnet is just another BT wholesale ISP, and operates partially on good opinions from people; so maybe they feel covering up him is for the good

But to chuck him off aswell...thats pathetic.

He was removed for spamming the forum in protest at having his service throttled - and his service was throttled because he was thrashing it constantly, undoubtedly to the detriment of other, more considerat users. Good riddance to him.

We remove spammers and abusers from this forum on a regular basis. You can only put up with so much crap before deciding enough's enough.

Gareth · 24-08-2005, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

We remove spammers and abusers from this forum on a regular basis. You can only put up with so much crap before deciding enough's enough.

But CF is a public forum not an ISP, and you don't charge people to use CF. Removing spammers from CF is a completely different thing to cancelling a user's 'paid-for' service because they're being vocal when complaining about something.

Chris W · 24-08-2005, 15:55

I agree- should have been banned from the forums, but not necessarily disconnected.

I do wonder though, if the guy was so unhappy with the service why has he not just gone to another ISP!?

**Chris** · 24-08-2005, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

But CF is a public forum not an ISP, and you don't charge people to use CF. Removing spammers from CF is a completely different thing to cancelling a user's 'paid-for' service because they're being vocal when complaining about something.

It appears he was being more than vocal. It sounds more like harrassment. I still think the ISP was within its rights, both legally and morally, to give him the boot!

orangebird · 24-08-2005, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris W

I agree- should have been banned from the forums, but not necessarily disconnected.

I do wonder though, if the guy was so unhappy with the service why has he not just gone to another ISP!?

A question I often ask about customers and their respective ISPs...

Stuart · 24-08-2005, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

But CF is a public forum not an ISP, and you don't charge people to use CF. Removing spammers from CF is a completely different thing to cancelling a user's 'paid-for' service because they're being vocal when complaining about something.

It appears he was being more than vocal. It sounds more like harrassment. I still think the ISP was within its rights, both legally and morally, to give him the boot!

If he was harrassing the ISP's staff, I am glad they gave him the boot..

MetaWraith · 24-08-2005, 17:05

How come none of the above discussion was in respect of this section of the original post.

Quote:

Early last year, Plusnet, an ISP with nearly 200,000 subscribers, decided to cut its prices for all of it's Broadband Products, but it decided not to inform it's existing customers of the move. An implication which has meant thousands of customers are now paying almost twice as much for the same service

The discussion instead seems to focus on the spamming and removal of service.

Yes I agree Plusnet were within their rights to suspend him etc, but surely not informing customers of a price reduction is the larger offense here.

Chrysalis · 25-08-2005, 00:17

Plusnet have serious problems, right now I would rate them as 2nd worst above NTL. They are refusing to upgrade their core capacity, which after many months of shaping their heavy users remains full during peak times so in this case regardless of heavy users plusnet are oversubscribed. The variable pricing thing is dodgy to say the least, and their attempt at censoring him only underlines how low they have gone to satisfy greedy shareholders. They probably lose the cost of a BT central 622mbit pipe in revenue in the next 12 months due to bad publicity and cancellations.