iBurst Accounts Suspended Without Warning

Why exactly is this happening?

I'm new on this forum, and obviously don't know the full story. Why is wbs disconnecting subscribers accounts? what is it all for and about? Can someone explain? thanks ;)
 
because wbs couldnt manage their bandwidth, and people abused the situation ;) hehe, so they have run out of bandwidth. Also, their bandwidth management software SUCKS
 
OK thanks Pan, was a bit confused with all these people posting "forms" to reinstate their accounts. Was thinking "what the hell??" hehe :)
 
i think the term "run out" refers to over subscribing - i.e. not enough bandwidth for all subscribers....something that a 200:1 setup (like wbs has - i stand to be corrected on this one). so yeah...i think iburst has run out of bandwidth..

anyway...anyone having issues with https today? cant even log into my banking
 
nerdbc: yeah, everyone almost, after a 20 min wait i got through to them. phone and speak to dylan
 
Candygurl: quick explanation -
IBurst have cut off people when they shouldnt have, and asked them to 'ask for extra bandwidth' in writing - in order to get their service back.
So the form letter is to maybe help people tell IBurst 'Here is a payment - and although you say its for more bandwidth - its actually to get my service back' - something IBurst I think, are hoping no one puts in writing to them, as its then proof that IBurst cut off people in the first place.
They're being legally sneaky, basically. So its just a way of being sneaky back :)
 
pan they didn't run out of bandwith, they merly wanted to extort money to make sure they don't run at a loss this month.
 
So now what is the excuse with WBS considering all the bandwidth hogs are gone!?!?!?!?

being 200:1 only means less bandwidth to go around per second, not that it is actually finished, so they had no reason to disconnect "hogs" due to their inability to manage a network!.
 
er... cansygurl most of the people cut off abused the system due to the fault of wbs and their advertising. this cutting off of 'abusers' improved the service for me and many others. now the loosers are jumping up and down like little sheep with the herder trying to do something, what i am not sure, but it certainly beats days of our lives.
 
LoneGunman, are you not just a tad paranoid?? (kidding) :) I actually don't have any problems with mine, except for .. Yes, theres always a 'but' or 'except for' .. IRC! I can't stay connected on it, other than that, all seems to work alrightish ;)
 
i love sneaky-ness. it keeps things interesting... btw, I want a butler that can change my socks without me knowing... wait, wbs already did that... they turned off an already paid in full, semi-loyal 6 month old client's internet access without him knowing.

amazing
 
Candygurl, I'm TOTALLY paranoid :)
But I'm also aware that from a legal point of view:

We all paid for a service.

X of us got disconnected. and told very clearly to put in writing, a totally untrue, incorrect and misleading 'request', in order to get that Service back.

So its not paranoid at all, to point this out, and to formulate a proper truthful legally acceptable request which shows the facts of the situation.

Why would a Company ask for people to 'request extra bandwidth' - when they know it is actually for 'Reconnection of Internet Services'?

That's misleading, dishonest, incorrect, and suggestive of the fact that the Company is aware that it is operating outside of the Law.
 
So when they disconnected people, did they not inform them that it was being cut off? did they just up and cut their service or what?
 
Candygurl:
yes, they cut off services. Sent emails AFTER this fact informing users of this, and telling them that they have abused the bandwidth.

Then asked cut off customers IN WRITING, to 'request and pay for more bandwidth' - in order to get the Service back.
(Which is not the correct or honest description of what this Company is asking for)
 
LoneGunman said:
Candygurl, I'm TOTALLY paranoid :)
But I'm also aware that from a legal point of view:

We all paid for a service.

X of us got disconnected. and told very clearly to put in writing, a totally untrue, incorrect and misleading 'request', in order to get that Service back.

So its not paranoid at all, to point this out, and to formulate a proper truthful legally acceptable request which shows the facts of the situation.

Why would a Company ask for people to 'request extra bandwidth' - when they know it is actually for 'Reconnection of Internet Services'?

That's misleading, dishonest, incorrect, and suggestive of the fact that the Company is aware that it is operating outside of the Law.
Click to expand...

Well from what I understand, the reason they were disconnected is because they used up their allowed bandwidth, so it does make a little bit of sense that the subscriber should apply for more, since they used up what was their supposed "allowed" bandwidth. But I do see what you're saying ;)
 
Candygurl - part of the Service, was that:
The Company said 'have x as an amount to download, then we slow your service, and you can download freely for the rest of the time on a slower service.'

Then they decided to change this - despite contracts agreeing to this, and their advertising. They just cut off customers who were doing what IBurst said they could do, from the start.

This in combo with their misleading request for Customers to 'ask for more bandwidth' - suggests that they clearly are aware of their unlawful behaviour.
 
My understanding of it is like a prepaid account .. You have a certain amount of money you can use a month, and no one is stopping you from making only one call a day, but when that money is used up, its gone. You then need to go buy another card. Is it not like that?
 
Candygirl go read up on what they promised user and THEN talk! We all know what was offered to us after we used our 3 Gigs without needing to buy more!
 
LoneGunman said:
Candygurl - part of the Service, was that:
The Company said 'have x as an amount to download, then we slow your service, and you can download freely for the rest of the time on a slower service.'

Then they decided to change this - despite contracts agreeing to this, and their advertising.

This in combo with their misleading request for Customers to 'ask for more bandwidth' - suggests that they clearly are aware of their unlawful behaviour.
Click to expand...

OH! so you mean they actually cut the subscribers off TOTALLY?! Didn't drop them to 64k??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X