Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would also debate whether that kind of capping can be applied to a service and it still be properly called a business service. If you look at ADSL capping this kind of limit only applies to the low end home consumer oriented deals and even then they are often more generous.
Joe said:What made you leave Aramiska? Was it the cost?
Interesting that you were told 3GB a month - as I said I was told 1GB a month for 500/1 and 2GB a month for 500/4. Mind you then they have this stupid thing about slowing down your connection if you exceed that. Perhaps 3GB a month is where they stop your connection altogether.
The problem with all this is that they applied these limits after many people had joined the service - so they essentially changed the terms of service. If they'd said these limits existed up front then we could've opted not to join if it was a issue. But they didn't do that. I daresay there is some small print somewhere that says they can change the terms of service - but I don't think that this makes it any more palatable!
I would also debate whether that kind of capping can be applied to a service and it still be properly called a business service. If you look at ADSL capping this kind of limit only applies to the low end home consumer oriented deals and even then they are often more generous.
It could well be different limits apply to satellite bandwidth but that's no excuse to describe it as a business service. If it genuinely can't be provided at this cost/setup they should rename it a home/consumer connection and offer a more expensive package with a proper bandwidth allowance as a business service.
IMO anyway
Web Buddy said:Any clause in a contract that says they can change the terms of the contract at anytime and without notice and without permiting you to cancel the contract would break the Unfair Terms and Contract Directive. In general that directive permits favorable changes to be made but any significant adverse change would not be permited.
Unfortunatly as with much of UK consumer law there is no effective enforcement of it. Your only real means of getting redress is the Small Claims Court
Its alls usefull especially if a number of people take them to the Small Claims Court to get the Local Press interested. In general companies don't like the adverse press it will get them.
turnkey said:On the 500/1 system, there was a capped applied at a total of 6gb per 4 week period at which point the user's speed was slowed to 20KBytes/sec between 8am-11pm ... between 11pm-8am no caps were applied. Once 8gb in a 4 week period was exceed you were capped to 8KBytes per sec, again the cap was removed between 11pm-8am. In any 4 week period if you dropped back to the accepted levels the cap was removed.
When these changes were first brought in a letter was sent to billing address notifying them of these changes and as per the terms and conditions you could cancel the contract at that point. Obviously it is unclear why you did not receive this letter (perhaps it is somewhere with your red reminder too!)
I cannot comment on the outages that you experienced without further details and copies of the logs at that point in time, to see why outages were occurring.
BT have now migrated across to IntelSat. The migration took approximately one month and all customers were contacted by telephone to arrange the best install date/time for them. The actual migration work at the customer's site took around 1-3 hours depending on the work that needed to be done to complete the migration.
All warranties for all hardware (which by the way is all brand new!) at the customer sites have been reset to one year.
Also as the migration inevitably changed the IP addresses allocated to the customer, a portion of the DNS team were set aside for the express purpose of updating DNS records as quickly as possible to minimise any downtime for customers hosting (for example) their own SMTP server.