Reactivation process

[ic]

I should have realised much sooner that this is why they're wanting 'requests for extra bandwidth' in writing - without any mention of their abritrary disconnections.

Its a legal con, that they're currently doing - and they're covering their own asses against any future actions. 'Disconnections? What disconnections? These are just requests for extra bandwidth!'

I would change this to something like. "I therefore make payment under protest and with full reservation of my rights." But then what do I know, I am not a lawyer!

In pure legalese - and bear in mind I'm a layman - the previous paragraphs referring clearly to the disconnections as being the real reason, and the reference to these being 'arbitrary' and drawing attention to Ibursts choosing to require a so-called 'request for extra bandwidth' for the return of Internet Access - is almost shouting about the clear illegality of their actions and this submitted request, but doing it in quiet legal-style language and tone. A Judge would like the fax, in other words

Ok, officially a long post with the quotes, but I think WBS' purpose of requiring the faxing a letter is to legally cover WBS' rear end, and they might try and use it in court if sued - claiming that it was a sort of admission of guilt on the customer's part, thereby opening up the possibility that WBS might counter sue for the amount GBs that customers used before their accounts were suspended. Just a thought, so be careful about the wording...

Paying is like admitting guilt yes. Pay WBS and you are admiting that you are wrong and WBS is right. For what it is worth, I'm DAMM glad I didn't go the WBS route - although they modem fees is enough already to put me off it for good.

Sorry to hear about all the troubles, but good luck - it makes for good reading

Sorry Savage - you snuck that in there, basically what Savage said...

 

[LoneGunman]

halicon - ask your lawyer friend what he/she charges for an initial consult, followed by what practical steps can be taken to legally force the issue.

Currently IBurst are clearly 'hiding' - committing nothing in writing - hiding behind verbal assurances by paid helpdesk employees, and (as we've argued back n forth elsewhere) to my mind, requesting a fraudulently misrepresentative document from customers, in order to reconnect them - disguised as 'buying more bandwidth'.

The 'going to their offices' approach and just sitting there, means they can request you leave, and after refusal, they just get SABC security from downstairs, to escort you off the premises - with nothing tangibly gained.

This situation NEEDS a lawyer to be appraised of exactly how IBurst are operating, and then to suggest steps (and their costs and likely outcomes) that can be taken to force IBurst to 'behave' as they should.
Right now, they're having fun with the confusion, and are continuing doing whatever it is they're doing, without any regard to their customers..

As long as there's no legal leverage, they would seem to be planning to carry on this extortion and disconnect policy.

If this is their plan, then we all need to know clearly, once and for all, that this is their game plan. Then we can decide whether to 'fight' or walk away..

Currently they're hiding and benefitting from the confusion. So at least a lawyer might be of use to clear away the smokescreen and force IBurst to commit to stating their policy from here on..ne?

 

[Chronos]

So when do they disconnect you?

Okay, when exactly do they disconnect you? I hit my cap on Tuesday, am now on 3.9GB's an my downloads, mail (incoming smtp), HTTP etc. is all working perfectly fine just a lot slower (obviously the 64kbps cap)

As for disconnections I get disconnected once a day, sometimes in extreme cases three times but thats rare.

 

[slimothy]

once you are over 100% of your original allowance, so assuming you are on a 3Gb account, when you hit 6Gb upload and download

 

[LoneGunman]

Chronos - this is the problem - I dont think any of us know for certain when or how or if the disconnection stuff is to occur in future. Too many different hearsay stories, and not one 'final word' from IBurst Management to clarify it.

EDIT: slimothy - who says this? And where's it written down?

 

[Chronos]

Maybe it was some dumb persons last-second idea and it happened...and it shouldnt have.

 

[JasonH]

Re-Activation took forever!!

Yesterday...

3.30 - I call him ..it will be done in 1hr
4.30 - Call again...wait 15-30 Mins..
5.10 - Call Shaun Green, I get connected right away..

 

[ic]

once you are over 100% of your original allowance, so assuming you are on a 3Gb account, when you hit 6Gb upload and download

The way I interpret the wording of the above [that a lot of forumites have posted all over], is that once you reach 100% usage of your original allowance [i.e. the default being 3GB], then...account suspension email after already suspended .

Do you guys not mean something like: "once you have exceeded your original allowance by a further 100%"?

 

[rebel]

That's correct ic.

 

[slimothy]

yes by a further 100%, you dont get suspended as you hit say 3GB you get suspended when you hit 6GB, although it didn't work like that either because people got waay over 6GB but apparantly that was thier rule, anyone who exceeded a further 100% of thier allowance was suspended and will get suspended if it happens in the future

 

[ic]

yes by a further 100%, you dont get suspended as you hit say 3GB you get suspended when you hit 6GB, although it didn't work like that either because people got waay over 6GB but apparantly that was thier rule, anyone who exceeded a further 100% of thier allowance was suspended and will get suspended if it happens in the future

Yep, ok, but we all know that WBS invented that rule a few days back bcos it suited their scapegoat agenda.

I just wanted to find out what forumites understood by the 100% thing, might be less confusing to just say 2 * full_speed_package_quota (I'm sure that can be abbreviated somehow)...