Plus marks and low points

coreservers · Jul 30, 2009, 08:43:36

I've been with IDnet for just under 2 weeks.

So far my much publicised, migration (or non migration) largely due to BT incompetence, and mistakes at the exchange. however it;s still not right, and my IDnet experience is still less than happy.
I've asked for a loan router, just to make sure it's not mine, as I already spent £40 on one, and cant afford to spend "on the off chance" it could be that.

This is my experience ups and downs so far

positives
1:- Ordering, straightforward.
2:- Staff friendly knowledgable and generally helpful
3:- download rates not too bad considering the low throughput at present.
4:- very good and helpful forums, that IDnet staff activeley read.

Negatives
1:- 1 week offline. Still not totaly resolved
2:- dying ip profile
3:- Phone still not transferred despite being ordered at the same time.
4:- Support seemed to be swamped, and complaints seem to be rapidly rising.

These are just my opinions as a new customer, I'll stick it out, largely because I've had much, much worse service from a number of other companies. But BT seem to be walking over IDnet just now. They are very good at promising the earth, but if they dont feel like it, they wont do it.

Hope it gets better

Rik · Jul 30, 2009, 08:45:58

So do we, Core. BT are in a position to kill the businesses of smaller ISPs, and Ofcom doesn't seem in the least bit bothered.

coreservers · Jul 30, 2009, 08:50:40

ofcom are a toothless friend to the telecoms industry. we as customers matter not to them, as they state, they will not investigate individual cases. very convenient for the larger companies. As it is often the case that a small investigation leads to the house of cards theory. The MP's expenses case is one such example. It started as a small newspaper story into 1 Mp and look what happened. If ofcom, were to look into teh small cases they'd discover BT's ineptitude, and bullying tactics, that are clearly in breach of ofcom regs.

Rik · Jul 30, 2009, 08:51:29

Which, let's be frank, they'd rather not.

talos · Jul 30, 2009, 11:10:17

Unfortunately until BT loose the monopoly of the wires, it will ever be the same

We have an urgent need for massive investment in fiber optics, rolled out across the country, but who is going to stump up the cash

Rik · Jul 30, 2009, 11:16:37

Us, Bob, one way or another.

talos · Jul 30, 2009, 13:18:36

Oh! so true.

Gary · Jul 30, 2009, 13:28:40

Maybe they should tax heavy users for the money to invest in fibre, not popular but if you want it, pay for it. The government/BT sure wont and then people who don't use it or rarely use it will not have to stump up the cash so much. Why should people who have no PC who do not use the net (yes there are some) have to pay for others pleasure in a market where its still not a requirement to actually need it.

dujas · Jul 30, 2009, 15:42:37

What would you define as a heavy user? Personal or business? Really the method they used to raise the tax is irrelevant, the point is, BT will provide fibre to 40% of UK homes, how much further they are willing to go beyond that percentage is dependant on the government, either via incentives or subsidies.

But I'm guessing whichever government is in power after the 2010 elections will just fudge the issue to avoid making a decision. They'll be too busy trying to maintain some semblance of popularity whilst they slash funding of essential services, to justify giving money to BT just so people can download 'stuff' faster.

Rik · Jul 30, 2009, 15:44:13

I think you're right there. Whatever may be popular now, when the spending cuts come, and the tax increases bite, investment in broadband will be off the political agenda for years.