Quote:

Of course, that means it costs you more in a shorter month!!

Last year was a leap year, and when they refunded or charged part month/quarter, they divided by 365 instead of 366!!!! I think it was talked about on MoneySavingExpert, but I can't find the thread.

This is from The BT Price List:
Quote:


They state that they bill per quarter not per calendar month. By definition, each quarter has the same number of days (including part days). That is 91.25 days in a normal (365 day) year and 91.5 days in a leap year.

So, I think that means that the BTPL is wrong!

Edit: BT Update says that these changes will have effect from 1 April.

It appears that the 're-monopolisation' of telecommunications is not just something that is happening in Rip-Off Britain. These telcos really do not like giving up the cosy income they have become used to, and will find any method to maintain it - ie 0870, early morning 'peak time' etc etc. Here is an article from the USA. It might not be quite the same thing, but you can see the common thread!

"Is Big Telecom Out Of Control

By Preston Gralla  - Networking Pipeline

Imagine a world in which there was only one telephone company. A world in which government passed laws to curb telecom competition. A world in which...hold on a minute! That's the world we used to live in before the breakup of Ma Bell. No worry about going back to those days, is there?

Unfortunately, the new world of telecommunications is starting to look suspiciously like the bad old days of Ma Bell. Telecom companies are gobbling up each other up so fast, it's hard to know how many will be left after the feeding frenzy.

At the same time, telecom and cable companies (which are increasingly one and the same) have pulled the strings of politicos to ban cities, towns and states from providing free WiFi and other telecommunications services.

All of this is bad for consumers and bad for business. The reason is very simple. It means less choice. Let's take the big telecom fish gobbling up the little telecom fish first. When Verizon or Qwest or whoever is the telecom choice du jour ends up buying MCI, it means that there's one less company looking for your business, one less company willing to provide better services at lower prices in order to get you as a customer. This is especially important because SBC, is in the midst of buying AT&T.

What should be done? The Justice Department should look very closely at whoever buys MCI, with an eye towards stopping the deal if it proves to be too anti-competitive.

As for the telecom companies pulling the strings of politicians to outlaw municipalities from providing services like free WiFi, that's one of the most outrageous special interest giveaways I've heard of in some time. If a town or city wants to provide a telecom service, and its taxpayers agree, more power to them. It certainly shouldn't be made illegal, especially at a time when there are a shrinking number of big telecom companies from which cities and towns can choose.

To a certain extent, the telecom competition we've seen in the last few years has led to a sort of golden age of choice, where advanced services are being offered at increasingly lower prices. Let's make sure that continues by watching out for anti-competitive mergers, and not allowing the telecom companies to put politicians in their back pockets."

Does all that sound cynically familiar?

Quote:


So if BT diverts the calls to your mobile due to a fault who pays the call forward cost?  The subscriber or BT?

As to the cuts in compensation paid if you don't take up a divert these are outrageous when BT has about the highest standing charge of any utility for what is blatantly the cheapest service (out of gas, water, electicity and phone) to deliver.  I'm sure 35p a day compensation compared to the old compensation of £10 or so a day or so will really motivate BT to get off its arse and fix your fault.  What's behin the change?  Is BT about to axe 1,000 engineers or something?

Why is this change necessary when the cost of BT line rental keeps going up and not down in real terms?  Why did BT previously have to pay compensation that gave them an incentive to fix the fault and not any more.  Is it because Mr Stephen Carter or someone else at OfCon (for instance Mr Snoozing Non Confrontationally) has just enjoyed a particularly good lunch at a 5 start London restaurant with somone senior at BT?

Why is BT allowed to further ramp up its profit margin on line rental while still being allowed to prevent customers who only want an ADSL connection from going on the Light User Scheme or InContact Plus.  Is it because OfCon is only on the side of the telecoms industry it is meant to control?  Did OfCon even have to sign off this latest anticustomer change in BT's terms & conditions?

Quote:


If a childminder or a nanny looked after children as poorly as Ofcom looks after telecoms industry regulation they would have long been sent to prison for an extended jail term.

OfcoN will maintain that BT is now subject to greater competition so that less regulation is required.  But if BT is subject to greater competition then why can I not take line rental on my country exchange from any other phone company than BT and still have a full choice of prefix using telecoms call carriers?  Also why is BT Wholesale allowed to charge its competitors far more for network services (call waiting, caller display , call diversion) than it charges for those same services to BT Retail?

And why does the cost of my already unreasonably expensive PSTN phone line rental continue to rise in real terms year after year and not fall?

Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread