jacksonwalsh

We have been using Teamviewer as our remote support tool on LGFL 2.0 since April, but suddently last Thursday it all stopped working and comes up with " Not ready. Please check your connection." Nothing has changed on our Network so I am wondering if Atomwide has finally decided to block this.. Is any other LGFL school experiencing this?

These all sounds very frightening. Not that I was not already alarmed by the other restrictions I knew they intend to impose. We are in a more difficult situation as the cable route has not even been agreed. The proposed route is a No no as this would cause damage to a £35k structure and Virgin has refused to look into alternative routes. So this looks like we could end up paying for a service which cannot be delivered as there is no wires to convey it. It does appear as one big con. I can imagine what my users would do to me if their daily routine was disrupted as above at switch over. Scary stuff.

I have looked at the contract in details and all the promotion material that they sent out when asking schools to sign up. All I can see is mention of how the infrastructure will be put in place. No details of services apart from a listing and what schools would have had to typically pay if bought separately. And this list is actulally a listing of services that was available on LGfL 1.0. So was it not safe to assume that that Broadband will be a direct replacement of LGfL 1.0? It appears to me all schools signed for was for Broadnabd to their school and LGfL 2.0 is now making up how they would like to administer the rest of the services as they go along. This is really not good for my school. I will keep you posted, when I hear from them.

We have not even agreed the cable route in our case and are unlikely to agree as they have failed to make contact to discuss the route despite several attempts from our side. Depending on how they handle the situaton, they could end up having more and more schools pull out of it. The wise thing would be to allow those who have worked out for themselves that the proposed service is not fit for purpose to leave, but if the court has to force them to let certain schools leave, thenany school they had previously denied this could actually have a case for compensation and more. These are my thought, but I don't know for sure.

I will go over not necessarily the contract, but the other documents which detailed the services (the what and how). I am pretty sure if they had made the information about all these restrictions available, I and probably agood number of schools (would not have signed up). So it is either, they withheld vital information or they promised a service to replace our current service without fully understanding what their future service will entail. I have had a chat with my Head and we will be prepared to go to court for this one. We are clearly unhappy about what they are trying to do and the fact that we signed up a year ago when we had not known what we know now should be immaterial. We could have well have signed on a blank paper (and they could be asking for our heads now), would the judge rule in their favour!? Not sure. I think we have good grounds but cannot disclose it here. Drop me a PM and we can discuss further. Sorry, I do not wnat to let the cat out of the bag as I'm sure Brian Durrant is part of this thread (maybe not, as they don't seem to care about what we think). I think schools that feel the same way should join together and get out of this contract. If it is not good for you, it is not good. If it is about providing a service, then I expect them to understnd this, but if it is about them squeezing money out of schools at all cost, then I can see us going to court over this simple matter.

I attended the NC course last week and sat there thinking we have been mis-sold. I will be writing to the Chief Executive regarding the way they have approached this. The whole bunch of services included in their provision makes me think they are unaware of how schools operated under previous suppliers. We signed up for the service because we were interested in using the web filtering but now it seems we cannot, since we have our own firewall. LGfL 2.0 wants Admin staff to enter details of student/staff into SIMS and then this to be updated to their system to create a USO account! That is all very interesting! So our domain user accounts will now have to be created by Atomwide using their pan-London database? And all these just so that users can suffer even more restriction when trying to gain remote access to the school network. No equipment has been delivered or installed on our site so we are sure to pull out of this big brother system. It all sounds very good to certain schools when they hear of secure e-mail, secure storage, digital signage, IP telephony, etc. But for schools who have had these services for more than 10 years now, this is one major disruption especially when you are told you have to make changes to your Network in order to benefit from these services. We spent the course going over how to create mailboxes on @lgflmail.org (as if there are still schools who do not already have their own e-mail addresses and domain associated with their school name). How do you communicate to your staff that their e-mail addresses will now be @lgflmail.org? Makes no sense to me How about the ADSynch which promises to redesign your AD for you! So policies developed over 10 years will have to be re-applied. This service was clearly not for us and details should have been made available last March when they were harrassing people to sign up. Anyone got ideas of alternative ISPs? Shaun _dark_Lord - have you heard from the Chief Executive? Are they likely to shift in their position and allow schools who are used to a certain degree of autonomy to decide how secure they want their network and what remote access utilities they wish to use? This 'one size fits all approach' simply will not work for us. So I quit!