Poor customer service from Plusnet and deadlock between SKY and Plusnet
Indeed, it seems totally clear that there is no LLU aspect to this situation at all.
Quote from: gphancock It didn't make sense in any capacity why the LLU exemption with the MAC would apply.
Of course some people in Sky may be assuming there is and causing confusion (or worse).
Indeed so. I didn't think it would apply from the conversations I had with SKY and Plusnet but I had never directly asked the question. As I had not asked that question, I did not feel I had the right to question Ofcom when they raised the LLU issue. They are the specialists in this area so who am I to question their advice? 
It was actually Ofcom who mentioned LLU and not SKY. If they read or taken sufficient notes, I think it would have been obvious to the "experts" that LLU didn't apply.
It was actually Ofcom who mentioned LLU and not SKY. If they read or taken sufficient notes, I think it would have been obvious to the "experts" that LLU didn't apply.
Quote from: gphancock Thanks again for the feedback. I know this case must be pretty frustrating for you all, as well. Chris P, you must be looking forward to the weekend
I'm moving house this weekend so not a relaxing weekend
Thank you for the opportunity to reply, that's really helpful
Poor you That doesn't sound very relaxing.
Anyway, I have good news. I have a new MAC from SKY. Hopefully, this should mean there is progress in my migration to Plusnet. All I ask now is for all parties to co-operate and BT Wholesale not to cancel the order this time
Chris P - Please check your PM for further info.
That doesn't sound very relaxing. Anyway, I have good news. I have a new MAC from SKY.
Hopefully, this should mean there is progress in my migration to Plusnet. All I ask now is for all parties to co-operate and BT Wholesale not to cancel the order this time Chris P - Please check your PM for further info.
Popped by to check up after getting your PM..
Really happy you got your MAC.. and i am sure a lot of people following this here are pleased about this for you!
Lets hope everything goes smoothly!
Does this mean I still need to keep fingers, toes & everything crossed for the next week or so? Best had.. to be on the safe side
Really happy you got your MAC.. and i am sure a lot of people following this here are pleased about this for you!
Lets hope everything goes smoothly!
Does this mean I still need to keep fingers, toes & everything crossed for the next week or so? Best had.. to be on the safe side
The order's been placed and we're all set for next Thursday
I've been keeping an eye on the order - you can never be too thorough!
I've been keeping an eye on the order - you can never be too thorough!
Quote from: gphancock ... and BT Wholesale not to cancel the order this time
This thread is a very sorry saga which points to serious issues with a complex end to end process which does not appear to be designed to deliver "end to end recovery" in the event of a failure somewhere prior to full completion. What's more the industry rules do not appear capable of addressing such failures out-side of the rules / process. Yet again the body for managing such issues - Ofcom - have shown that they are incapable of managing anything more complex than making a pot of tea.
What is evident here is that there needs to changes to the end to process management. Where the end to end process fails part way through (at least) one of the following remedial courses of action need to be available...
1. The MAC code used to start the process which failed should not be invalidated and be capable of being reused - in short the whole process should be rolled back through all systems such that it appears that it never happened
2. A MAC code used in a process which results in failure should immediately also "time expire" thereby negating part-condition (c) in A1.11 below - however I guess that if said MAC does not successfully "hit" BTOR / BTw's systems then such expiry might be problematic
3. At the point where the process failed, the cause of the failure should be capable of being addressed such that the process can continue from the "last point of success" through to full completion without the need to fully restart / request a new MAC
4. Until such time as a service transfer request reaches full completion, the loosing provider should be responsible for providing full customer support on all matters until such time as their TAG has been successfully removed from the service and the ownership of the asset has been removed from them to at least the infrastructure owner
In short the user should see no change until such time as an end to end success state has been attained.
I guess that this is too much like common sense for Ofcom to take it on board and make it happen.
@DCT would this user's experience have been any different with the planned improvements in the new provisioning service? I suspect / fear not for if the failure occurred in systems external to PN, unless something like suggestion (1) above can be applied, the poor end user is going to be left to ask the loosing supplier for a new MAC...who can / will miss-apply the rules so as to be unhelpful.
Quote from: gphancock Returning to the information you have provided, Ofcom are seemingly siding with SKY on the basis of this section:
Refusal to issue a MAC
A1.11 The Communications Provider shall only refuse to issue a MAC to their End-User if:
(a) the Communications Provider has, by taking reasonable steps, been unable to validate the identity of the person requesting the MAC as the End-User;
(b)the Broadband Service contract has already been terminated;
(c) a MAC which is still within its MAC validity period has already been requested and issued by the Communications Provider in relation to the Broadband Service; and
(d) the Communications Provider has already submitted a Cease Request for the Broadband Service; and
(e) the Communications Provider is unable to obtain a MAC from a Broadband Network Communications Provider.
and it would appear that (d) applies according to SKY/Ofcom, although, Plusnet and the wholesalers disagree.
Note that the above (as I read "and") requires (c) and (d) and (e) to be true to refuse to provide a MAC - (d) alone is not valid. PN and the Wholesaler are quite correct here - if a cease had been submitted by SKY there should have been something already in progress to remove their TAG and nowhere in this thread have I seen a suggestion that BTOR were not capable of issuing a new MAC to SKY... unless on BTOR's system the MAC used in the "failed" attempt was still within its validity period (see part condition (c) above).
However if the loosing supplier is allowed to terminate the contract for service without completing the removal of their identifiers on the assets, then they are also able to "hide" behind condition (b) leaving the end user no recourse to a resolution. The only reason I can see for not permitting a MAC code to be reused in the event of failure is the very remote possibility of two new providers both being asked to take over the same service at the same time... which is even more bonkers than this user's predicament!
This is not a "within" PN issue, rather it is an issue which the industry as a whole needs to study and work out how it will in future change its behaviour so that the failure of its own processes does not leave end users with the problem of attaining resolution. PN's hands have been tied by the processes which seek to prevent "slamming". SKY have taken the stance that the service provision from then has ended and have not accepted that the termination and release of assets process has not fully and successfully completed. And in the middle of it all, once again, Ofcom have proven that they are not up to dealing with the big players in the industry - SKY and BT.
Hi Townman,
Good to see you about the place again!
As previous, I'l pick bits out of your response and I'l quote from it as it's easier to read that way, I think.
When the planned improvements do come, we will be made aware, much sooner that such orders have been cancelled. This would allow us more time to grab the MAC Code and resubmit the order before the MAC Code expires.
That said, depending on how far the order progressed will depend on whether or not the MAC Code can be used again. For some reason, sometimes, if an order has got to a certain point and then cancels the MAC Code shows as being 'used' which isn't great - especially if this happens within the first week. If this does happen the End User would have to wait 3 weeks before getting a new one!
We have have no visibility as to which point this would happen so it's a little tricky to track down unfortunately. In better circumstances, we can re-use the same MAC Code and get the order placed again without too many issues. The Provisioning Project will definitely help us react much quicker to such situations.
As you say, it's difficult to tell - only Sky would be able to confirm this though, I would imagine.
Good to see you about the place again!
As previous, I'l pick bits out of your response and I'l quote from it as it's easier to read that way, I think.
Quote @DCT would this user's experience have been any different with the planned improvements in the new provisioning service? I suspect / fear not for if the failure occurred in systems external to PN, unless something like suggestion (1) above can be applied, the poor end user is going to be left to ask the loosing supplier for a new MAC...who can / will miss-apply the rules so as to be unhelpful.
When the planned improvements do come, we will be made aware, much sooner that such orders have been cancelled. This would allow us more time to grab the MAC Code and resubmit the order before the MAC Code expires.
That said, depending on how far the order progressed will depend on whether or not the MAC Code can be used again. For some reason, sometimes, if an order has got to a certain point and then cancels the MAC Code shows as being 'used' which isn't great - especially if this happens within the first week. If this does happen the End User would have to wait 3 weeks before getting a new one!
We have have no visibility as to which point this would happen so it's a little tricky to track down unfortunately. In better circumstances, we can re-use the same MAC Code and get the order placed again without too many issues. The Provisioning Project will definitely help us react much quicker to such situations.
Quote N and the Wholesaler are quite correct here - if a cease had been submitted by SKY there should have been something already in progress to remove their TAG and nowhere in this thread have I seen a suggestion that BTOR were not capable of issuing a new MAC to SKY
As you say, it's difficult to tell - only Sky would be able to confirm this though, I would imagine.
Hi Chris,
In replying I'll follow your style...
Yes having got the business closed down, it is good to have more time to be back in here... though you might not like some of the hard and difficult questions raised.
I think you state the problem well in a nutshell; up to a point in the process there is only so much that PN can do better. If it goes wrong "outside of PN's control" then the existing MAC code is useless and the way the INDUSTRY has things set up, it still has a (useless) lifetime until it expires. Whilst there is an UNEXPIRED MAC used (but failed and useless) it is simply not possible to get a new (useful) MAC.
It is as though the industry rules were designed to deliberately frustrate the migrating user in circumstances where things go wrong (remember the rules - if it can go wrong it will go wrong) there will a dead-lock period where no one can do anything because the gate-keeper's systems (BTw / BTOR) are in stalemate. The MAC they issued to the loosing supplier has not expired - that MAC has been used by the acquiring supplier but the process failed in BTw / BTOR's systems and cannot be used again. BTw / BTOR will not issue a new MAC to the loosing supplier until the old one has expired.
I think it is plain to see that BTw / BTOR are ultimately the culprits in all of this - they implement the rules, their systems are not up to delivering the business and as hard as you have tried here Chris, there is no effective escalation - out of process - remedial resolution route. PN's TV adverts tell us we should not settle for poor service - so why then is Andy (a BT plant?) allowing Wholesale and Openreach to get away with providing such poor service ultimately to PN customers?
Many months ago we were asked what should be the new CEO's top priorities... we have yet to hear of any response... as noted elsewhere on these forums, a much firmer hand on the throats of BTw and BTOR is essential to improving the PN customer experience.
Cheers,
Kevin
In replying I'll follow your style...
Quote from: Chris Good to see you about the place again!
Yes having got the business closed down, it is good to have more time to be back in here... though you might not like some of the hard and difficult questions raised.
Quote from: Chris ...depending on how far the order progressed will depend on whether or not the MAC Code can be used again. For some reason, sometimes, if an order has got to a certain point and then cancels the MAC Code shows as being 'used' which isn't great...
I think you state the problem well in a nutshell; up to a point in the process there is only so much that PN can do better. If it goes wrong "outside of PN's control" then the existing MAC code is useless and the way the INDUSTRY has things set up, it still has a (useless) lifetime until it expires. Whilst there is an UNEXPIRED MAC used (but failed and useless) it is simply not possible to get a new (useful) MAC.
It is as though the industry rules were designed to deliberately frustrate the migrating user in circumstances where things go wrong (remember the rules - if it can go wrong it will go wrong) there will a dead-lock period where no one can do anything because the gate-keeper's systems (BTw / BTOR) are in stalemate. The MAC they issued to the loosing supplier has not expired - that MAC has been used by the acquiring supplier but the process failed in BTw / BTOR's systems and cannot be used again. BTw / BTOR will not issue a new MAC to the loosing supplier until the old one has expired.
I think it is plain to see that BTw / BTOR are ultimately the culprits in all of this - they implement the rules, their systems are not up to delivering the business and as hard as you have tried here Chris, there is no effective escalation - out of process - remedial resolution route. PN's TV adverts tell us we should not settle for poor service - so why then is Andy (a BT plant?) allowing Wholesale and Openreach to get away with providing such poor service ultimately to PN customers?
Many months ago we were asked what should be the new CEO's top priorities... we have yet to hear of any response... as noted elsewhere on these forums, a much firmer hand on the throats of BTw and BTOR is essential to improving the PN customer experience.
Cheers,
Kevin
@gphancock - The order has completed, I've updated all the necessary details on your account so you should now be able to connect