Gigafast restricted by Q mesh - refund

[Trottski70]

Sorry, among my clear deficiencies on technical knowledge, I also appear unable to figure out the quote function on this forum!!  The reply is to jamesn123

You may be absolutely right on the legal pov.  I have little experience of that but am still willing to explore if necessary.  For me, if you can see the moral problem with what's happened here then there are typically laws in place to protect consumers from unethical selling practices.  I believe this was immoral and i've been sold a pup.  I don't believe my expectations were incorrect or the fault here lies with me and not Sky, the law should look at that favourably if the law is designed to proetct against missselling.

I don't accept the point about ethernet speeds.  I know very few people who connect anything via ethernet now and Sky's ecpectations and governance should be in line with typical consumer behaviours.  We have nothing on ethernet.

[Anonymous]

@Trottski70   Excuse me if I am being dense here, but I fail to understand how you think Sky have acted unethically by providing you with a service that you are choosing not to optimise.

Your car analogy also doesn't work. You have been sold a charger and a hybrid car, chosen not to plug it in and charge it, and then complained that your MPG hasn't improved.

[jamesn123]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@Trottski70   Excuse me if I am being dense here, but I fail to understand how you think Sky have acted unethically by providing you with a service that you are choosing not to optimise.

---

I think the point that @Trottski70 is trying to make is that by them having both a broadband & TV service by Sky they essentially lost out on some possible WiFi speeds due to the older mesh technology built into the Sky Q system. 

[Trottski70]

TIGGY46

How have I "chosen not to use it?".  Like almost every household, our devices connect wirelessly not over ethernet.  It's not, AFAIA, 2002.  If we did connect over ethernet - which we do not want to - then we would have to have cables running 10-12 metres down the corridor of our bungalow or we'd have to run cables into the attic and then down trunking and along skirts, which would look rubbish.  All because Sky sold us something that we could not benefit from on when used via the primary modern form of device connectivity.  This situation was verified by the first engineer who visited just after install and by me to them on their phone lines, several times.  They were more than aware that we did not and could not use ethernet but did not fix the issue or allow to to downgrade the package.

Even if yoiu somehow think we are at fault for being too stupid to realise that we'd get knobbled by the Q mesh (we aren't) or that we should have cables run all over the house to combat the issue (we shouldn't), you surely cannot still believe it's ethical for Sky to have kept us trapped in at that payment rate for 17 more months, once they were clearly aware that we were not getting what we expected from the service?

[jamesn123]

---

@Trottski70 wrote:

Sorry, among my clear deficiencies on technical knowledge, I also appear unable to figure out the quote function on this forum!!  The reply is to jamesn123

You may be absolutely right on the legal pov.  I have little experience of that but am still willing to explore if necessary.  For me, if you can see the moral problem with what's happened here then there are typically laws in place to protect consumers from unethical selling practices.  I believe this was immoral and i've been sold a pup.  I don't believe my expectations were incorrect or the fault here lies with me and not Sky, the law should look at that favourably if the law is designed to proetct against missselling.

I don't accept the point about ethernet speeds.  I know very few people who connect anything via ethernet now and Sky's ecpectations and governance should be in line with typical consumer behaviours.  We have nothing on ethernet.

---

If its something you wish to explore of course you are free to do so, you may or may not get anywhere with it.

I would add that the whole Sky Max policy has been changed since anyway, as I said before you couldn't get the max hub while also having Q originally due to incompatibility which has now been solved by Sky. Therefore the situation/problem you had/have essentially wont be a thing anymore, that may be Sky's response to the matter. 

[Trottski70]

@Jamesn 

Appreciate that although that's a different narrative to what the last engineer said.  He said that the "fix" had been available for some time, he felt more than a year.

[FLC]

@Trottski70 

Quote is this icon:

Or you can simply tag someone with the "@" key, which will pop up a list of contributors to the thread.

[Trottski70]

---

@FLC wrote:

@Trottski70 

Quote is this icon:

Or you can simply tag someone with the "@" key, which will pop up a list of contributors to the thread.

---

Aha!!!  Gracias 🙂

[FLC]

@Trottski70 

Rather than the legal route, you may be better in the first instance raising a formal complaint with Sky. If you don't get a satisfactory response you can then move to arbitration. But you can only do that once either a deadlock letter has been issued or eight weeks have elapsed from the date of your complaint.

[Trottski70]

---

@FLC wrote:

@Trottski70 

Rather than the legal route, you may be better in the first instance raising a formal complaint with Sky. If you don't get a satisfactory response you can then move to arbitration. But you can only do that once either a deadlock letter has been issued or eight weeks have elapsed from the date of your complaint.

---

Thanks FLC and I have done just that.  Their appetitie to even engage on it, is conspicuous by it's abscence.  Pretty shonky as we've been a customer for 22 years and have a chock full TV package with them, with 23 months left to run.