Quote:


I agree entirely, Dave, but here is the rub. It is precisely because BT is frantically trying to hang on to market share that it has grabbed the NGN scam with both hands - and is obviously hanging on for dear life! I wonder how many expensive lunches or "exploratory" all-paid trips to "investigate telecommunications structures" in suitably exotic and far-off sunny climes have been handed out (and no doubt taken gleefully!) to Ofcom regulators recently? After all, we wouldn't want those nasty regulators to take away the trough, would we?

Of course, it is a dilemma because BT is a private company. However, there comes a point when ethics come into play. Yes, I know - there aren't many in business these days. The paradox is that as a private company, BT is required to increase shareholder value. On the other hand, consumers expect a level playing field - and Parliament obviously intended to ensure they got one. That - presumably - is why Ofcom was set up. The problem is, when the regulator is completely subsumed by the incumbent it is supposed to be regulating, the whole process breaks down.

I own shares in a major telco (no - not BT!) and so I know the dilemma that is faced. I am also a consumer and hate being ripped off. There should be a happy medium. That is the crux of the NGN scam. That is what the regulator is supposed to achieve. Currently, there is no happy medium. It is entirely one sided - and totally anti-consumer. I guess that's why we are all here!

All I am trying to say is that it might be worth emphasising these issues to Ofcom in any consultation document.  At least if Ofcom recognise that we realise what their game is, they might just finally bite the bullet and do something about it.

Quote:


Sonny a good idea I would say.

Go ahead and do it is my answer.  And if anyone else wants to do the same to The Daily Telegraph in their own words then so much the better.

Yes, they really did give ICSTIS a hard time - would that we could get them to do the same thing for 0870 and Ofcom!!

Yes I agree

Hi NGM,

There appeared to be some problem with the forum and I was ejected and became an ex-member. I thought intially that I might have posted something which a moderator had thought to be too contentious and had thus been zapped. But it might have had something to do with me making a load of continuous fatuous posts to attempt to avoid being downgraded, since it seems the new threshold may be 500? However Daniel appears to have sorted it now so I am afraid you will have to put up with me again as an ex-member restored. (I did not lose my PW.)

Dorf,

I would not support you making fatuous posts purely to reach the magic 500 now required to become a Supreme Member of the forum.  In fact I would wholeheartedly support a moderator removing any such posts with no genuine content.

One has to accept the fact that with the increased popularity of the forum that the stakes have been raised and that only a few of us will therefore be accorded this mighty honour.




But being serious Dorf if you keep posting two or three posts a day then in just over two weeks time you should be with us in the Supreme Member camp.  Although speaking as one of them it does not seem to be a particularly great or overwhelming honour.

On the password matter I believe I am right in saying that you have mislaid them in the past and my thought was that surely you could overcome this by always changing your password in your member profile to one that you could easily remember?

Hi NGM,

You say "fortunately for them..". Who is them? I do not understand.

I do have a memorable password for my log-in. I cannot think what you can mean?!

You are right - my PMs are all back to front now. That really is a bit weird. Is this a result of the new SW?

NGM, I have also now noticed that, checking on a number of caches, I have been further downgraded in the reinstatement of membership, and have lost a count of about 10 or 11 posts since being ejected from membership and made into an ex-member.

So I have even further to go now!