@landfisher - thanks for your posts, and for setting the precedent. In my case, I'm happy to be fair about things - but I also expect fair treatment in return. Though I have in the past had to quote the Sale of Goods Act to a car dealership that didn't want to honour a warranty claim (6 days after purchase, drive shaft popped because a recall item hadn't been done)... so I'm very familiar with the "fair usage" part of the Act.
Right now, for me, I have the 5Ghz issue, as posted above. If PN can resolve it within a sufficient time, allowing for their other workload etc, fine. I mean, 2.4Ghz works and my downstream is no more than 7Mbps on ADSL. 5Ghz is only of any use within the house, between devices (but I do transfer large files inside the house quite regularly).
If that fails, I'll go down the route of buying my own router, and passing the invoice to PN due to the ongoing, well known issues on their router (and their chosen path of "apply the fix for anyone that complains"). But I will be buying a more expensive DrayTek router. PN may or may not cover the whole cost of that, but the DrayTek has features I'd like above & beyond those of the BT router. Being fair about it, I think it's only reasonable that PN at least pay me the same as they have someone else. They'll find it very difficult to refuse to cover me ~£50 given the evidence that they've already paid someone else, and I'm happy to accept that rather than the ~£300 that the DrayTek Vigor will cost.
