Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Pipex broadband

0 views
Skip to first unread message

ma...@ems-fife.co.uk

unread,
Dec 13, 2006, 3:25:22 AM12/13/06
to
I have had Pipex Max for two months.During that time I have a lot of
problems getting connected.When I click the Pipex icon and dial it will
come up and say connected at anything between 4.1 and 8.1 Mbs.However
when I try to bring up a bookmarked page nothing happens and eventually
I get the unavailable message.If I close the connection and try to
reconnect it fails and I get error messages 721 and 718 saying "remote
computer failed to respond" or "did not respond in time"
Pipex have been chasing BT on this for several weeks(I`ve stopped the
direct debit until it`s fixed) but we`re getting nowhere.It is always
in the evening,it`s 99% good during the day.I can go whole evenings
unable to connect.
Apart from dumping Pipex anybody got any suggestions?
Mark.

Eeyore

unread,
Dec 13, 2006, 4:12:26 AM12/13/06
to

ma...@ems-fife.co.uk wrote:

> I`ve stopped the direct debit until it`s fixed

That's almost certainly likely to backfire on you.

Graham

Rõbstėr

unread,
Dec 13, 2006, 11:52:07 AM12/13/06
to
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:457FC3FA...@hotmail.com:

>
>
> ma...@ems-fife.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I`ve stopped the direct debit until it`s fixed
>
> That's almost certainly likely to backfire on you.

Why?

Peter Crosland

unread,
Dec 13, 2006, 2:22:11 PM12/13/06
to
>>> I`ve stopped the direct debit until it`s fixed
>>
>> That's almost certainly likely to backfire on you.
>
> Why?

Probably because stopping a direct debit cancels it completely AFAIK. It has
to be set up again from scatch if you wish to start it again.Also the OP has
a contract with the ISP to pay by DD.

Peter Crosland


ma...@ems-fife.co.uk

unread,
Dec 13, 2006, 3:50:39 PM12/13/06
to

So far a lot of negativity and no helpful answers.As regards the DD,the
contract is that Pipex supplies a service to me and I pay Pipex for
that.As so far the service has not been delivered as contracted for I
have no obligation to pay them.They have accepted that although at
first they wanted me to keep paying and they would compensate me
later.There was obviously a bit more to the conversation but that was
the basic outcome.
To be more positive has anyone any ideas about the actual problem?
Mark.

Peter Crosland

unread,
Dec 13, 2006, 5:44:42 PM12/13/06
to

Sorry if you don't like what has been said but it happens to be true. The
fact that Pipex may have breached the contract does not automatically allow
you to breach your side of it.For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying
that is the case but in order to be certain one would need to see the
contract in detail to be sure. In any case breaching your side of the
contract certainly weakens your position rather than strengthened it.

Peter Crosland


kráftéé

unread,
Dec 14, 2006, 3:49:48 PM12/14/06
to

Sounds as if it's an SNR problem, try disconnecting the bell wire in
your master socket, that's if you've got any extensions...


ForeverArsenal

unread,
Dec 15, 2006, 3:35:46 PM12/15/06
to
"kráftéé" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
news:elsddc$6g1$1...@news.datemas.de...

> ma...@ems-fife.co.uk wrote:
>>>
> Sounds as if it's an SNR problem, try disconnecting the bell wire in your
> master socket, that's if you've got any extensions...


Sorry to butt in one someone else's tread but I seen the above
statement re bell before (ie disconnect it),if you do this then
will phones still ring when you get a incoming call .
Confused !

Barry.


kráftéé

unread,
Dec 16, 2006, 3:24:44 PM12/16/06
to

They certainly will as each filter will generate the ringing signal


Silk

unread,
Dec 18, 2006, 3:32:05 PM12/18/06
to
Peter Crosland wrote:

> Sorry if you don't like what has been said but it happens to be true. The
> fact that Pipex may have breached the contract does not automatically allow
> you to breach your side of it.For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying
> that is the case but in order to be certain one would need to see the
> contract in detail to be sure. In any case breaching your side of the
> contract certainly weakens your position rather than strengthened it.

That may or may not be the case in law, but in my experience possession
is 9 10th.

Once the DD has gone through it's almost impossible to get it back from
a large company.

ForeverArsenal

unread,
Dec 18, 2006, 6:56:41 PM12/18/06
to
>> ForeverArsenal wrote

>> Sorry to butt in one someone else's tread but I seen the above
>> statement re bell before (ie disconnect it),if you do this then
>> will phones still ring when you get a incoming call .
>> Confused !
>>
>> Barry.
--
>> "kráftéé" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:elsddc$6g1$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>
> They certainly will as each filter will generate the ringing signal

Hi> "kráftéé"
Many thanks for the reply,sorry taken day or two to answer.

So would it help disconnecting the ring bell in all cases ?? ie
improve things.
I don't have any particular problems with plusnet unlike some
but only manage about 2 meg dowload -would be nice to get
bit more :-0
Barry
>


Colin Wilson

unread,
Dec 18, 2006, 7:40:42 PM12/18/06
to
> Once the DD has gone through it's almost impossible to get it back from
> a large company.

I thought under the direct debit guarantee scheme you got it back from
the bank - retrieving it from the company was *their* problem

dennis@home

unread,
Dec 19, 2006, 3:40:26 AM12/19/06
to

"Colin Wilson" <vo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ff14569d...@news.individual.net...

That is correct.
Far safer than cash and easy to cancel (especially if you bank online).
The banks don't have a problem getting it back.. no company is going to last
long if the banks suspend their accounts.


Marc

unread,
Dec 30, 2006, 1:45:53 PM12/30/06
to
ma...@ems-fife.co.uk wrote:
> So far a lot of negativity and no helpful answers.As regards the DD,the
> contract is that Pipex supplies a service to me and I pay Pipex for
> that.As so far the service has not been delivered as contracted for I
> have no obligation to pay them.They have accepted that although at
> first they wanted me to keep paying and they would compensate me
> later.There was obviously a bit more to the conversation but that was
> the basic outcome.
> To be more positive has anyone any ideas about the actual problem?
> Mark.
>

Read your contract - if its anything like the one Demon, AOL and every
other ISP I've used it will say somewhere the they don't actually need
to provide you with a service.


--
Marc
For contact information, please see my web site: http://www.iMarc.co.uk/

Mike

unread,
Dec 31, 2006, 4:52:38 PM12/31/06
to
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:45:53 +0000, Marc
<manictruth-ng@NO_SPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>ma...@ems-fife.co.uk wrote:
>> So far a lot of negativity and no helpful answers.As regards the DD,the
>> contract is that Pipex supplies a service to me and I pay Pipex for
>> that.As so far the service has not been delivered as contracted for I
>> have no obligation to pay them.They have accepted that although at
>> first they wanted me to keep paying and they would compensate me
>> later.There was obviously a bit more to the conversation but that was
>> the basic outcome.
>> To be more positive has anyone any ideas about the actual problem?
>> Mark.
>>
>
>Read your contract - if its anything like the one Demon, AOL and every
>other ISP I've used it will say somewhere the they don't actually need
>to provide you with a service.

Which is very clearly an unfair contract term.

A judge would have no hesitation in awarding against any company
attempting to charge and not provide service regardless of any
contract terms to the contrary.


--

0 new messages