In message <
20150513.09...@twoplaces.co.uk>, Simon Turner
[]
>> t'other way round, they implied at the time [of telling me I was on FAM]
>> that it was a reward for my already-by-then loyalty, rather than to keep
>> me with them (though it had that effect).
>
>OK, that makes sense; like the "loyalty" discounts that (some) mobile
>phone companies give you if you or a family member sign up for another
>service with them, I suspect the real intent is to tie you in to the
>supplier more tightly, thereby ensuring future loyalty. It worked with
>you! 8-)
In effect, I sort of threatened (all those years ago) to defect to
Freeserve.
>
>Nonetheless, I have always thought "Dial Loyalty" an odd name for a
>package that is/was offered to Demon customers who were moving their
>connectivity away from Demon, and which ostensibly only allowed them to
Yes, I thought that was odd too!
>retain their e-mail addresses; why not call is "Mail Loyalty" or
>similar? Why use the word "Dial" at all -- unless my hunch is right,
>and this package really *is* the same FAM dialup package that some
>dialup customers were offered in the Freeserve days (as a reward for
>past loyalty / inducement for future loyalty), and they just stopped
>mentioning, or silently removed, the dialup access part?
Seems quite likely.
>
>> >Doubtless we'll never know the truth. I don't suppose you've got any
>> >old invoices that might shed any light on the precise name(s) of your
>> >package over the years, have you?
>>
>> I probably have, but am not sure where! However, in (electronic)
>> communications with them right up to one on 2015-4-23 (my birthday
>> FWIW), they've ended with "Details concerning this email have been added
>> to the notes on your Demon account.". At some point soon, I'm almost
>> certainly going to do a FOI request for a copy of those notes; they
>> should make fascinating reading!
>
>That would indeed make interesting reading.
>
>Note that what you're talking about is a "subject access request" under
>the Data Protection Act, rather than a FOI request under the Freedom of
>Information Act (which only applies to public authorities).
>
>
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information/
>
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/official-information/
Thanks for that. I had a feeling it wasn't quite right. Also, IIRR the
data protection act now covers _all_ data, not just electronically-held,
so if they've got anything on vellum or parchment I'm still entitled ...
They're not making it easy: they're saying I must _write_ and ask.
Though as that was when I was still saying FOI, it _could_ be different
- but I doubt it.
Something I got from them today still had the "this has been added to
the notes on your account" text.
>
>[...]
>> If I have been migrated to Namesco (it certainly looks like the website
>> has), I've had no contact from them. Whatever information DeThusVod may
>> or may not have given them about contact information for me, they could
>> have done so via email, so that's no excuse.
>
>An interesting point; but they don't know an explicit address for you
>(only your hostname.dcu domain), and I suspect nobody at Namesco is even
>aware of the concept of postmaster addresses -- they may well believe
>that, in the absence of an explicit e-mail address or other contact
>details for you, they have no means of getting in touch.
Well, if they'd sent to _anything_ @
soft255.demon.co.uk I'd have got
it, but as you say, maybe they haven't realised ...
However. I spoke to them (Nabiscuit) this morning, and got an
interesting piece of information: they had my email address as G6JPG,
which is correct, @ sos255, which isn't. And makes it fairly obvious
that some part of the transfer of data has been via voice transfer: I
didn't think they could have been any more incompetent, but that beggars
belief!
>
>We both know they are wrong, but I wonder what percentage of people with
>a domain actually *receive* mail sent to a role address like postmaster?
>Pretty small, I'd wager.
You may be right. Since I actually _use_ the ability to put anything I
like before the @ sign, I collect all such email (I don't get much spam
- between 0 and 30 or so a day, I'd say average about 8-10), but I'm
sure plenty of folks don't.
[]
>> I haven't heard from Namesco, and it's now 11 May ...
>
>And you likely never will, unless you contact them and explain who you
>are. Modulo the implicit postmaster e-mail address mentioned above,
>they almost certainly have no details about you whatsoever.
Well, after clearing up the email address, I now _have_ heard from them
- and can see that they'd created earlier "tickets" (to use PlusNet's
term for something similar); worryingly, they'd been closed due to
inactivity. But anyway: I've now been into the famous control panel, got
the venerable WS_FTP working with my relocated website, etcetera. The
only thing showing as due is "hosting", 4.99/month due on 1 June; I've
put in a new ticket asking for clarification. After dire tales from here
about them never reading much, I numbered my points, and both started
and ended the ticket with "this enquiry contains six questions - I have
numbered them"; we'll see.
>
>> ... but I _did_ get the letter (about web hosting etc.).
>
>Which is odd, and says a lot about how incredibly inept Demon/Vodafone's
>handling of this should-and-could-have-been-straightforward migration
>has been.
Indeed. With hindsight, they'd probably have had less trouble if they'd
migrated the various customer types separately.
>
>> >> a) AFAIAC, _nothing_ was provided "free".
>> >> b) this contravenes the "same or lower".
>> >
>> >Indeed. I think Demon/Vodafone have redefined "free" to mean "anything
>> >that didn't have its own specific invoiced-for line item"; in their
>>
>> I don't think they ought to be able to do that, though I suspect I can't
>> afford sufficient lawyers to prove it.
>
>Quite.
)-:.
[]
>> As I said, I do understand forwarding, which doesn't require storage
>> (except very briefly); it was the difference between "email addresses"
>> and "mailboxes" (both of which imply a storage requirement, or do to me)
>> that I was [and am happy to remain (-:!] hazy about.
>
>Ah, I see; sorry. A different tiny screed: as well as forwarding, which
>needs no (persistent) storage at all, a system like the intY one allows
>an arbitrary number of addresses to be associated with a single mailbox:
>one primary, plus any number of secondary "aliases", mail for which also
>gets stored in that single mailbox. (You may not be aware of this,
>having not used the mail admin portal.)
OK, I'm hanging on by a thread, but got that: primary email plus
infinite aliases ...
>
>This, I suspect, is what Namesco's package gives you: 10 "email
>accounts" (i.e. mailboxes, each with its own username and password for
>access) and unlimited "email addresses" (each one of which must either
>have a forwarding rule, or be an "alias" for one of the 10 mailboxes).
... but now gone again. Not sure how that differs from one plus infinity
as above - other than maybe being able to set up ten different
forwardings.
>
>> Anyway: nothing from "Leif" today, on either of the subjects he'd
>> promised a day or less - the "two years or what" and "how are Namesco
>> going to contact" (or about anything else for that matter) - so he's
>> definitely going to get a call tomorrow. With a recorder running.
No positive. I rang at 11:2x on 11 or 12 May to ask why Leif hadn't got
back. I got Harish Shivalingam, who wasn't too sympathetic (granted, I
wasn't being too nice by this point). I rang again at 9:11 "this" (13
May) morning, and got a heavily accented person; I asked her why I
hadn't heard back from Leif, and was told her boss Mr. Tanbir would call
back in an hour (~11:20). I rang again at about 11:45 to say the
obvious, and was told "after 1"; I rang again about 1:15 to say I had a
meeting at 1:30, so could they call later, and arranged that he'd
definitely call about 17:00. Of course, he didn't.
>
>I'd be interested to know what you find out.
Nothing, as you can see. I must say that now Nabiscuit communication has
started to flow, and looks moderately hopeful, I've lost a lot of the
will to keep pursuing "Demon" (though I probably will pursue the
"subject access request", though not with urgency). Assuming, of course,
Nabiscuit turn out to be not as hopeless.
>
>For my part, Demon/Vodafone finally rang me back, almost a fortnight
>after my enquiry about what exactly I was getting for my TAM and what
>options there might be for reducing the cost; but I was briefly out at
>the time, so all I got was an almost incomprehensibly thickly-accented
>voicemail message suggesting that I ring their support number. 8-/
>
Yes, it seems to be a choice between: "Demon", moderately quick answer
but with a heavy accent (and unable to answer much), and: Nabisco, quite
cheerful and English-speaking, but up to 15 minutes' wait if you call in
the middle of the day.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If it jams - force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.