Ace Internet. Any Other Victims?

BexTech

Yes it is a bit of a mess at the moment.

I admit my first post you replied to, I hadn't constructed it very well in parts, and could lead to confusion, I apologise for that, it was early in the morning.

Yes, LLU could be good, but I can see ISPs cramming loads of customers onto a limited service, probably not cramming them all at the exchange side but once on their network further up the line and then hoping they all don't start a web-stream at the same time, or all decide to max out P2P.

What is happening is people want lower and lower prices, and then complain when they have restrictions.

I can however understand people being unhappy when they were paying a fair price for an unlimited service and then find that there will be restrictions, yet not get a discount for a restricted service.

When I was with Pipex, they weren't the cheapest, but they were very reliable, and although I'm not a heavy down-loader, I wanted to know that if I needed to download a Linux distribution or 3 I wouldn't have a problem, and I was happy to pay a premium for that, however when BT Wholesale changed the pricing Pipex had to introduce a FUP, otherwise they would sink, Pipex suddenly went from an excellent service to one where people weren't happy.

I switched to Telewest for broadband once they realised after a couple of years that I can get their service, even though I'd been telling them neighbours have the service, I pay a higher price for this than that of many other broadband suppliers, but it's reliable and I don't have to worry about restrictions.

If Telewest were to introduce a tariff that was cheaper but had restrictions, I would stay with the service I have, as I am happy to pay.

It was just a shame BT Wholesale didn't offer both a flat rate service and a usage based service.

normanmark

BexTech wrote:

What is happening is people want lower and lower prices, and then complain when they have restrictions.

There will never be an ideal, with broadband, you get what you pay for. Hence why you're seeing two-bit services from Orange & Talk Talk with their 'free' broadband. Wouldnt suprise me months down the line if it doesnt work they'll turn round & say 'well its free so you shouldnt be complaining'

BexTech wrote:

I can however understand people being unhappy when they were paying a fair price for an unlimited service and then find that there will be restrictions, yet not get a discount for a restricted service.

Well thats the ISP's issues, Wholesale give them a cost which is effective to them running their business. If they didnt like it, there is the LLU system to get their own customers on. Or if they want to go down the wholesale route then they have to accomodate. I dont see why wholesale should foot a bill just for ISP's customers. Seems a bit unfair to BT for them to fit a bandwidth bill when its being abused by users of various ISP's. I dont see that as unreasonable, i see that as business. Bet your bottom dollar if it was another company that was altering these rates it'd be more 'oh well thats business', but its BT so i guess its the old 'Well its about time etc'

GerardL

The orange deal is 18month min contract, 2Gb download limit and you've got to be on a £30pm package.

I've gone with discountadsl and I'm sticking put.

Fenris

Well, to go back to my original post, I contacted Trading Standards just to make absolutly certain that I am in the right vis-a-vis Ace's breach of contract. I am! According to Trading Standards:

If you made a contract with Ace on the basis that internet access and use would be unlimited, then this is the service you can expect. If Ace fail to provide the agreed service, then they are in breach of contract and you are entitled to claim your losses. This would normally amount to a refund of service charges (less an allowance for any good service you have received), plus the additional cost of obtaining the agreed service elsewhere for the agreed minimum term.

So there we are. Regardless of all the arguments about, "You get what you pay for" etc, etc, I've been right about Ace's breach all along. So, if anyone else is in a situation like this I strongly suggest contacting your local Trading Standards Office to get advice!

BexTech

Yes, it is breach of contract, I've never said it was otherwise, and can be used as a get out clause or claim compensation, trouble is the compensation will be very very little.

normanmark

Fenris wrote:

Well, to go back to my original post, I contacted Trading Standards just to make absolutly certain that I am in the right vis-a-vis Ace's breach of contract. I am! According to Trading Standards:



So there we are. Regardless of all the arguments about, "You get what you pay for" etc, etc, I've been right about Ace's breach all along. So, if anyone else is in a situation like this I strongly suggest contacting your local Trading Standards Office to get advice!

id double check your terms & conditions with Ace, can be found on their website & no doubt there will be a clause on there which will say 'we are entitled to change our terms of service etc etc'

most T&C's have that clause in there, double check before you jump in with two feet

Fenris

Well, according to Trading Standards Ace's website is littered with, "breaches of consumer law", so I don't think they're in much of a position to refuse a refund. Beside which, I don't want masses of cash from them, I simply want the money I paid refunded as they've failed to provide the service I paid for.

The Terms and Conditions really have very little to do with it; they can argue 'till they're blue in the face that their T&C's state they can change the service. The fact remains that they've NEVER provided the service for which I paid. They changed their policy on the day my "service" (and I use the term very lightly) went live.

No offence to the two previous posters, but I do think that Trading Standards know what they're talking about; if they say I can claim back my losses, then that's what I shall do. There are far too many people who're willing to just sit back and let things slide. If we all did that then these companies will forever be ripping people off. I for one am not about to be fleeced by yet another ISP who thinks they can walk all over "the little guy" by not providing the service that's been paid for!

normanmark

Fenris wrote:

The Terms and Conditions really have very little to do with it; they can argue 'till they're blue in the face that their T&C's state they can change the service. The fact remains that they've NEVER provided the service for which I paid. They changed their policy on the day my "service" (and I use the term very lightly) went live.

No offence to the two previous posters, but I do think that Trading Standards know what they're talking about; if they say I can claim back my losses, then that's what I shall do. There are far too many people who're willing to just sit back and let things slide. If we all did that then these companies will forever be ripping people off. I for one am not about to be fleeced by yet another ISP who thinks they can walk all over "the little guy" by not providing the service that's been paid for!

Have you checked your terms & conditions? Cos if you've agreed to a 12 month contract what ever is in them T&C's will apply. No matter what trading standards say, if they have a bit in the T&C's that says 'We can change our offers at any time at our descretion' then you're rubber ducked. Thats their legal bit for their get out clause

normanmark

http://www.ace-internet.co.uk/terms.html

9. Product Specifications

9.1 Ace Internet makes every effort to supply the goods and services as advertised but reserves the right to vary actual dimensions, specifications and quantities without prior notice

BexTech

Even with that clause you have the right to terminate your agreement, if your level of service you receive is lower than that that was previously provided, can't argue with the law.