@CHRIS.... Employ MORE people to answer the phones

[#1]

@Chris
I think all except one poster here fully understand the position you are in Chris.
We all also know you are a good guy - keep doing your best within whatever constraints on that the new management impose.

[#2]

I think that sums things up nicely. In IT speak 3 years is more than a generation and 6 years over two generations.
I suggest the thread has run its course and should be locked.

[#3]

@ Estragon.... and who would that one person be? 
@Spraxyt

Yes indeedy... two generations and it`s got worse, not better as promised....
therefore,... lock this thread, and shut me up....

.best way to stop complaints.... make sure there isn`t cause to complain...
not shut the complainant(s) up by locking them out....

[#4]

Despite your protestations, you have made a huge number of extremely personal unfair and unkind statements about an individual member of Plusnet staff who over many years has worked tirelessly to help us all.
There was no need whatsoever for any of that. I include the frankly idiotic Subject. No sensible person could imagine Chris could "Employ MORE people to answer the phones".
You have got more and more offensive and started shouting and using markup to increase the font size. I find this frankly disgusting.
All your posts in this thread could have referred in any of many ways to Plusnet senior management and their failings. Picking on and yelling at one member of staff for things said in good faith many years ago because that's what the senior management were telling him is just kiddie tantrums.
Nearly every point you make about Plusnet failings is valid. Just leave Chris out of it. He isn't the only one who has to do what his employer tells him, either at Plusnet or in any other employment. I suggest if you wish to continue complaining you start a new topic and leave the personalities out of it. You may get some agreement.
As it is, no-one is listening to any valid points - they're just sick of your attitude.

[#5]

I have made several mentions, that this is not a personal attack on Chris.... Chris was the messenger that delivered the messsage.... "Give us some time.... we`ll get there".... therefore it is only right that I should use him as the messenger  in the reverse situation...
I do not doubt that Chris has worked hard over the years,.... if he had not, then he would not be in the job now....
You are welcome to your personal opinion of me, and of how I present the thread, and indeed the title of it.... which, you will, perhaps, not have realised, is a reference to a previous thread that I started 6 years ago.... (you obviously missed the linky to that in one of my previous posts)...
I am sure that if the moderators, or indeed, plusnet staff, had any concerns that my posting was, as you are inferring, a personal attack, etc.., they would have taken some action, either with the thread being locked, before it got this far, or action against me, in the form of a personal warning..... (  neither of which have happened, ....  ) 
If you are sick of my attitude, then I suggest you desist from reading and comment on this thread, as you are hijacking it for a personal attack on me, which is also taking the thread off topic.
I stand by everything I have said in my posts, and will complain when I feel it necessary..... I also give praise too, when I feel something has gone well with me.  which kind of negates your term "attitude" in respect of your opinion of me....

[#6]

Quote from: Estragon

As it is, no-one is listening to any valid points - they're just sick of your attitude.

I don't believe you speak on my behalf.

[#7]

Quote from: shutter

[snipped] If I was to be on a busroute, that said.... "get on this bus,...... and we`ll get you there" ( i.e. the destination on the service board)... and the driver was called Chris.. then when it didn`t "get me there".. I would be complaining to Chris, about it... not to John the cleaner, or Fred the advertising man.... [/snipped]

TBH I think you'd get shorter shrift from the driver, whatever was his name. Politely, of course, he'd tell you to contact his head office.
Like it or not, IMHO our mods should be proactive and lock this thread.

[#8]

I broadly agree with Estragon. I also think this thread is ripe for locking and chucking away the key.
I can also recomend this to selected members of this forum:
http://www.bachflower.com/rescue-remedy-information/

[#9]

But no-one has even tried blaming the long call waiting times on the unacceptably high number of faults on BT Openreach's crumbling infrastructure yet.

[#10]

Er, um, now let me think about this
I suppose it's possible that 50% of the calls could be due to their crumbling infrastructure or failure to find and fix such faults, it'll certainly be a large %. Maybe the other 50% or so, are due to failed orders of which we know a significant number are due to Openreach's system cancelling them and Plusnet not being aware, or doing nothing about it if they are as they don't appear to be telling customers, if posts on this forum are anything to go by

[#11]

@Anotherone - can't argue with any of that.

[#12]

Quote from: ejs

But no-one has even tried blaming the long call waiting times on the unacceptably high number of faults on BT Openreach's crumbling infrastructure yet.

If by the 'BT infrastructure' you are referring to the old copper cable stock, you do have a point.  But if you are trying to include the BT Provisioning and Faults platforms then you are way off beam.  The provisioning failures between BT and PN are almost certainly on the Plusnet side.
M

[#13]

Quote from: MauriceC

The provisioning failures between BT and PN are almost certainly on the Plusnet side.

But I thought they had a new provisioning system
In the posts where I've seen it mentioned, Plusnet have been "unaware" that an order was cancelled. It should never happen. IF there's an issue with an order, for whatever reason, whether it be a Plusnet error or an a problem the other end, the order should not even get accepted by the BT system in the first place.

Quote from: MauriceC

If by the 'BT infrastructure' you are referring to the old copper cable stock, you do have a point.

In a lot of cases it's likely to be Aluminium rather than copper

[#14]

I sympathise with Shutter in his attempt to make Plusnet live up to their claims - both the ones made in their advertising and the ones made on these forums by Plusnet Staff.
Like Shutter, I do not blame Chris. He is a messenger promulagating the information given him by management but it is helpful that Shutter has been able to provide a specific reference to an occasion when the "give us time - we are improving" phrase has been used as it avoids the possible response of "who us - na - not us govnor" and demonstrates the time over which that response has been used. I can anacdotally tell of an occasion when J****H took me to task for doubting him when he used a very similar response to my moaning. J*****H was quite senior in the Plusnet hierarchy and probably had good intentions but even he could not defeat the bean counters.
I do think it is reasonable having highlighted a specific instance of the phrase in use to ask the person who made it to explain or comment. So I do not accept the "Lets not be nasty to Chris" attitude of some on here. Asking for an explanation/comment is not being nasty - it is only reasonable. I am aware that Chris has replied. It was not very adequate but it was probably all that could be said in the circumstances.
On the other hand, I think the war is lost, Plusnet are now BT's cheap and cheerful brand and getting any sensible level of customer service from them is a forlorn hope. My contract is a monthly contract and the first time my broadband plays up, I am off to AAISP who I believe will answer the phone, will do their best to put the fault right and who I do trust enough to commit to a contract for a fibre install. Six years ago, I would have trusted Plusnet to accept a long term contract but not any more. They have lost the war to retain me as a long term customer and it is down to their management's inability to honour any of management's promises.

[#15]

Quote from: Anotherone

But I thought they had a new provisioning system In the posts where I've seen it mentioned, Plusnet have been "unaware" that an order was cancelled. It should never happen. IF there's an issue with an order, for whatever reason, whether it be a Plusnet error or an a problem the other end, the order should not even get accepted by the BT system in the first place.

I think there may be some misunderstanding of how the BT (and many other Telco) provisioning systems work. One (or more) IT services collaborate to take and validate an order;  This order is then passed to the provisioning engine to validate available equipment and circuits before passing on the order to allocate engineering resource etc.
Now if there is some problem with the data passed to provisioning such that it cannot be processed to completion, then the transaction is rejected  back to the order processing engine for correction and resubmission.  Note this is not necessarily a synchronous transaction but is normally quite a short delay.  It is up to the Ordering system to recognise the rejection and organise for the correction to be made.  In the BT back office services this requirement is usually passed back to the originating agent work queue within a small number of seconds.  I believe the terminology of the order being 'cancelled' is within the remit of the Plusnet kit and this is where the changes need to be made to make the system effective.
Last I heard, the new Plusnet provisioning system was still 'in test'
I have simplified the detail to try and show that the BT system is fine and works as designed.  The major difference comes in the money spent on back office services?  E.g.  EE is reported as having spent £15M refitting their back office after major problems last year compared with Plusnet £?

Quote from: MauriceC

If by the 'BT infrastructure' you are referring to the old copper cable stock, you do have a point.

Quote from: Anotherone

In a lot of cases it's likely to be Aluminium rather than copper

OK.  Perhaps I should have stuck with the generic 'cabling infrastructure'   

NOTE:  It is now some years since I worked on BT,  Telewest and NTL back office systems but I'm still in touch with colleagues.  Any errors are due to memory fade.