SAYNOTO0870.COM - BT charges

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

SAYNOTO0870.COM <---- Back to main website

NEW: MOBILE PHONE DEAL COMPARISONS
CHECK OUT OUR NEW MOBILE PHONE DEAL COMPARISON SERVICE. GET THE BEST DEAL ON A NEW PHONE

SAYNOTO0870.COM › Main Forum › Geographical Numbers Chat › BT charges

(Moderators: CJT-80, DaveM, Dave, bbb_uk, Forum Admin)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4

BT charges (Read 55,156 times)

darkstar

Newbie

Offline

Posts: 49
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #30 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 2:25pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 2:18pm:

darkstar wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 2:13pm:

Yeah well complaints has always been my thing to deal with wherever I worked in the past (and as that included McD's Im good at it Wink

), i like to help people.
As for me and my partner, Im 26 and shes 21. She has both Cystic Fibrosis and Muscular Dystrophy. Fun eh.

But Im considering getting a job in Waterstones, like you say you can be more personal. And no Call handling Time targets.

Edit: I dindt think you used BT. So why did you have to deal with them? If you odnt mind me asking.

Sorry to hear about your partner. Its just not fair for anyone to have all those afflictions at such a young age.

So far as Waterstones is concerned don't forget they are a big faceless corporate. They probably have targets for the number of books the store shifts each month, although its hard to see how that could be linked to individual employees. Aren't there any small independent bookstores still or antiquarian bookstores?

Both are genetic, so she has had them all her life. Wink

But thanks for the words anyhow.

The only bookstores near me are Waterstones and WHSmiths, and the Waterstones has a better selection so I want in there. The only independant bookstore has a very....select group of over 18s who visit it. So I can live without that!

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #31 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:23pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 12:36pm:

But Ofcom has many former BT employees in its ranks with BT pensions and has many employees who go back to BT having learned how to get what they want from the regulator.

NGMsGhost you appear to view every employee of every company you disagree with as taking on the views of that company as a whole. Any company is driven by the decisions/views of its senior management and not by being able to employ enough people (lower down the chain) who agree with the company's why and wherefores of doing things. It is these people who you are saying put their views to Ofcom and not call centre workers like darkstar.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 12:36pm:

It wasn't based on original Ofcom research independently gathered (and most of that is rigged to suit Ofcom's politically spun objectives anyway).

And your views are no different. You frequently introduce political critism into the topic rather than looking at positive ways that the system could/should be improved.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 12:36pm:

The UK has a very expensive entrenched fixed line operator with very high operating costs and deriving a lot of its cashflow and income from line rental. To challenge that might bring the whole thing tumbling down and a BT breakup with separation of network ownership from phone call provision. That might bring real pain in the short term but in the long run might bring far greater benefits if the total lack of competition in line rental with everyone simply following the BT leader was brought to an end.

Of course, breaking it all up is good in such a network. That was what was done with the railways with fatal consquences. The engineers (remember them, who actually keep it working) could see it coming, but outsourcing and fragmentation means each bit has to chase its own targets. Or more to the point, been seen to be efficient. That means that the perception of what's happening overules actually having a safer railway network because it's more expensive. The same thing appears to be happening in telecoms but it's not lives at stake but the quality of service and the innovation that is suffering, such as taking longer to fix faults at the same time as putting prices up.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 12:36pm:

There is a huge range of standing charge options on gas and electricity because it is properly competitive and there isn't on phone calls in BT only line areas. Surely you can see that must be something to worry about? Undecided

Yes, but the gas network is operated by one entity. Electricity is the same company in one area, but with different suppliers.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 12:36pm:

Since you have policy based views on things you are clearly doing completely the wrong job. The only people who last in customer call centres long term just want a nice simple job where they don't have to think too much about anything and where they never challenge the official company line. Cry

So all those companies who have moved or are moving call centres to India are full of people who believe in it? Do the office staff who have gone to India to train them, knowing that when they come back their job might well have gone as a result really embrace the company's direction? Of course not!!!

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 2:05pm:

Dave wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 1:56pm:

It could take days to get a phone line working again when it goes faulty. It's a real backwards-step and good service should be the first and foremost principal.

Transco come out in just one hour 24 hours a day for any gas problem of even modest concern (like a gas regulator I had fail in fully open position the night before I was going on holiday). BT frequently already take several days to fix things and don't work Saturday afternoon, Sundays or Bank Holidays usually unless thousands of customers are affected by the fault in question.

Firstly, with gas and electricity there are obvious safety issues that mean that they must be dealt with straight away. With gas and electricity you connect to one supply, pipe or cable. With the telephone every subscriber must have their own pair back to the exchange. Therefore, a fault that affects you will usually not affect your neighbours. I'm not saying it's any less important though.

What it means is that the fault is more difficult to find as it could be anywhere. This is especially true with intermittent faults. How many times have you heard of a gas pipe with an intermittent leak?

You appear not to take into consideration how the system is engineered and what implications this might have on how it should be structured. You are more interested in behaving like a member of upper-management who has lost touch with what the job entails at the sharp end.

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #32 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:23pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 2:05pm:

As long as an adequate Service Level Agreement is in place as well as suitable large penalties for not hitting the relevant targets all should be well. It is the lack of adequate fines and powers given to most UK regulators that leads to things going down hill. And company directors should go to prison if their gross negligence leads to people being killed.

And this quote just emphasises what I said in my last paragraph. "Service Level Agreements" and fines are simply like big sticks you beat organisations in because you believe it will do as you want.

I remember when Arriva Trains Northern operated my local train line. The recorded announcer was forever "sorry" that the train was delayed. They were £2 million for "poor performance". To this day I would not do business with Arriva unless I had to such as if a bus service is operated by it.

But how does money out of the system help? How is this positive? At the end of the day, companies will have a tendancy to put up prices rather than lowering them.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 2:13pm:

I wasn't talking about mobiles but only about fixed line phone calls. There is far more choice available in mobiles including Pay As You Go with no line rental and very cheap off peak rates. I only spend about £20 a year on calls on my mobile phone.

There should be far more variety on fixed line rental structures than there is. The current set up is blatantly a cartel with everyone playing follow the BT leader.

Choice means everything, what rubbish!

Why would I want to choose which hospital I go to? A choice on medical care should be based on medical reasoning. As I am not medically qualified, it is a choice I cannot make because the two (or more) choices look the same to me. Step in the marketeers who have no medical qualifications but can spin it to make it look good. I would rather my decision of anything be based on fact than perception else it defeats the who concept and the only beneficeries are those who are offering the choice because they can offer a lower rate service whilst purporting to be "the best". If I go down to the furniture store and choose something, my choice is based on the physical properties and the looks of the product. With telecoms, BT operates the network anyway, so the choice of the services of the network and those that operate it is made anyway.

So the 'choice' is which advertising material looks the best, all designed by people who have no understanding of the technical workings of their business. And how much are we all paying to have all these different offices of different telcos operating independantly? How is this better than BT as a whole?

I thought that the original reason was to provide a cheaper, better and more efficient service to the consumer...

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #33 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:39pm

Dave are you by any chance a Socialist Worker or even a Member of the Communist party? I am a disillusioned Conservative who sees many, many faults in the market system (usually associated with monopolies and cartels) but found even more with nationalised industries. Do you know how long it took to get a phone line in the days of the GPO which you seem to view with rose tinted spectacles.

The market system can work if there is tough regulation and above all where customers have a choice. Where there is a private monopoly or a cartel that is a near monopoly high prices and bad service usually follow. The reason the current fines do not work is because they are not nearly high enough. They need to be hundreds of millions in some cases and contracts need to be terminated with penalties if the company does not perform or deliver the service.

Perhaps you could lay your cards on the table and tell us if you think there should only be one airline in the UK with 1970s price levels in real terms and only one make of car in one colour (that would be fair after all wouldn't it as no one would be any better off than anyone else). Your comments that people should not be able to choose the hospital they use I find very worrying. Real old style socialist rationing. So if someone knows a hospital has a very high death rate on the operation in question they should still be forced to go there should they? Shocked

I have always respected your knowledge of telecoms. But I do find what now emerges to be apparently your personal politics to be distinctly alarming.

<div style=

IP Logged

NGMsGhost Supreme Member Offline The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b r /> Posts: 2,720 Surrey, United Kingdom Gender:	Re: BT charges Reply #34 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:41pm Dave wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:23pm: With telecoms, BT operates the network anyway, so the choice of the services of the network and those that operate it is made anyway. Ever heard of fully unbundled LLU?
Back to top	<div style= IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #35 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:01pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

There are many critical comments about Labour by you, but not critial of Conservatives, I would not know this. Did you prefer the Thatcher years then?

I will be the first person to say that comments I made in the above posts are somewhat 'idealistic' and at one extreme. But the other extreme is to say break it up and fragment it because that is always better isn't always the best either. But when I see that the competition that was supposedly introduced for our benefits is really just benefiting private investors at our expense, I do wonder what sort of telephone service we would have had it been left as a public utility.

The same thing is happening with the Royal Mail. It's network can be likened to the telecoms network whereby there must be a post box every so often and where deliveries must be made everywhere. Then by the same token it must compete with the Virgin Medias who take the rich pickings.

At the end of the day, the reason we are here is the same. I do not expect there to be one make, model and colour of car no. That's an extreme example of which you seem to be at the other end of the scale at times. I like to balance things out! I also repeat what I've just said about the fact that what is now BT started out as a public utility and compare that to the motor industry which didn't.

It is also worth looking at internet service providers which, like mobile telephones, have always been operated in a competitive way because that's how it's been done since day 1.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

The market system can work if there is tough regulation and above all where customers have a choice. Where there is a private monopoly or a cartel that is a near monopoly high prices and bad service usually follow. …

But the key thing here is that BT as it currently is is the network infrastructure in this country. It has not become a big monopoly because of poor regulation, or greed, but because it was a public utility. It is poor regulation and planning that has left us in the current state we are in today.

So the exercise of privatisation and introducing competition hasn't achieved what were the original objectives. That is not to say that it would not work if operated differently. But this puts me in mind of the thing you said about speed cameras:
Dave wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2007 at 7:01pm:

Similarly, speed cameras generate that much revenue for the government that it must be a sizeable chunk of the Chancellor's budget. This is wrong as the point of a speed camera is to stop people breaking the speed limit. Therefore the 'fines' are not working. This is not to say that speed cameras should be scrapped, per se.

And your response...
NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2007 at 7:09pm:

Yes it is because more and more money making civil liberty infrining Big Brother speed cameras enforcing speed limits that aren't sensibly set don't stop accidents from happening and contrary to the New Labour lies peddled most accidents have very little to do with absolute speed. Most of it is down to poor road design and reckless and careless driving.

So what you're saying is that if a certain solution does not work is that it is wrong through and through and not because the way it has been implemented is wrong?

My statement was not based on my knowledge of certain locations or situations that speed cameras are worthwhile, but by the fact that I know little about road design. Similarly, the argument of scrapping the BBC licence fee so often surrounds the fact that what is currently on the BBC is not to one's taste, but avoids considering what will happen if revenue from advertising is the driving force of one of the nation's principal broadcasters. The fact that the current system may or may not be the best way of running things is also not discussed often enough.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 3:39pm:

… Your comments that people should not be able to choose the hospital they use I find very worrying. Real old style socialist rationing. So if someone knows a hospital has a very high death rate on the operation in question they should still be forced to go there should they? Shocked

Perhaps the hospital example is an extreme one, but your principal is based on the fact that you see that the 'system' allows for hospitals that have high death rates, for example. It also means that the all important statistics which are published must have graphs on death rates. The fact that statistics can be engineered to show or not show what one wants means that I don't see what basis they are for choosing hospital.

Also, by choosing you are introducing competition and therefore the possibility that one hospital could close because of this. The thing is that we don't want hospitals to purport that they are 'better' than their neighbouring ones, or better than any others within the country for that matter, but that they are the best they can be.

« Last Edit: Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:03pm by Dave »

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #36 - Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:40pm

Dave,

I can't quite work out your own position really.

You seem to imply you are a non political person and rather disapprove of politics and politicians but then all your actual beliefs seem to be what I would call Old Labour. That is that you think it would be much fairer for the State to only operate one telco, one hospital system, one school system and so on and for the state to decide when you will get these services. I think they tried a system like that in the Soviet Union but general reports were that it didn't work too well. Roll Eyes

I agree the way the rail network was broken up hasn't worked that brilliantly but actually there haven't really been any more serious train crashes than there were under British Rail. Its just that when there is a crash various militant rail trade unionists are very fast to suggest it must be due to privatisation. And this incident with the Virgin train and the previous one some years ago also with the missing locking bar on the points are worrying but begin to look more like a poor points design issue than necessarily lazy and totally useless contractors.

There is a balance to be struck. I would have private competition but with very tough regulation and intervention if companies are behaving like cartels or are recklessly negligent despite previous attempts to suggest they improve their processes. On hosiptals having an NHS is a reasonable thing to do but if a hospital is really bad people should be allowed to avoid it as that will force it to improve and employ new management. Under the old system you had to go and have the opearation and if you died because the hospital was not very good at what it did well then tough luck.

Most of the problems with 084/7 come from bad regulation failing to force full price disclosure at point of sale and an appalling regulator never doing anything to explaing its totally inexplicable national telephone number plan. Businesses will generally compete properly given a proper regulatory framework.

Well there we are. We will perhaps have to agree to disagree on some of the issues.

<div style=

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #37 - Mar 1^st, 2007 at 8:41am

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:40pm:

You seem to imply you are a non political person and rather disapprove of politics and politicians but then all your actual beliefs seem to be what I would call Old Labour. That is that you think it would be much fairer for the State to only operate one telco, one hospital system, one school system and so on and for the state to decide when you will get these services. I think they tried a system like that in the Soviet Union but general reports were that it didn't work too well. Roll Eyes

What I'm after is a solution to the problem. How they are described from a political perspective is irrelevant.

As I said, it's probably idealistic that a single state owned telco would work. Although I do wonder how it would have worked if private telcos had built the network. They would surely all like to have covered the urban areas leaving rural areas to someone else.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, there's nothing to distinguish between different providers, thus what's the point in such a choice? The differences come with extras such as caller display and anonymous call rejection which we are charged an arm and a leg for. The price differential is that small that it's not worth changing. A telephone service is a telephone service.

Perhaps when telephone services provide extras like TV services aswell, then there will be a variation between them. Indeed, why must we pay for a PSTN service even if we only want a broadband connection? Fair enough, some line rental is fine, but the telephone service should be separate just as broadband is.

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:40pm:

There is a balance to be struck. I would have private competition but with very tough regulation and intervention if companies are behaving like cartels or are recklessly negligent despite previous attempts to suggest they improve their processes.

At present Ofcom would have us believe that competition is flourishing, but the reality appears to be that they are all much of a muchness. NTL even admitted that it was raising its price of line rental to match that of its rivals. What sort of industry is this?

I think that the way in which the price of internet access has come down shows how the competition has worked fine there. But with telephones the scales are over to one side because of the power of BT.

But what I can't understand is the attitude of people who expect that BT would roll over and accept that it is going to loose customers as competition takes hold. That is an inevitable fact, but how many businesses operate with the strategy that they will allow competitors to take away their business? And how can this go down well with shareholders?

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:40pm:

Most of the problems with 084/7 come from bad regulation failing to force full price disclosure at point of sale and an appalling regulator never doing anything to explaing its totally inexplicable national telephone number plan. Businesses will generally compete properly given a proper regulatory framework.

And this is a big big industry as we know. But this is how the UK's privatised telecoms industry carries on. The costs of calling these numbers are anti-competitive and, assuming that a caller doesn't avoid them by using alternatives and calls the 084/087 number provided by the company they are calling, they will probably pay more than any savings that can be made by switching provider. What I'm saying is that I think that the 084/087 charges puts any price differential well and truely in the shade. So what's the point in it???

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #38 - Mar 1^st, 2007 at 12:16pm

Dave,

I'm with nearly all of what you said in your last post but don't agree with you that politics is not a relevant issue as the growth of 084/7 is almost directly dependent on the despicable, far too large and heavily politically influenced regulator Ofcom, which does not act on a neutral basis to promote proper price competition but instead engages in emperors new clothes style competition where it pretends customers transferring to WLR means there is more competition in the market place but in reality customers have only moved for cheaper call prices and not because there was any better deal on line rental. In gas and electricity there is only one company maintaining each network to the customer's door (Transco for gas or several large regional electricity companies like EDF Energy) but the 20+ companies you can choose who sell you the gas or electricity supplied via those single supply networks seem to be able to afford to offer deals that have no standing charge with a slightly higher price per unit for all units or a standing charge paid by much higher initial units followed by subsequent lower priced units once you hit a certain threshold or you can have a conventional standing charge and lowest price per unit. The tariffs without a standing charge are likely to suit you on any supply where you only use a very smaller number of units per year like a separate garage supply or a little used country cottage. Such a tariff for phone would also be perfect for somone who only needed their phone line to take a broadband service.

It seems quite wrong that I have to pay BT for a Customer Discount Scheme (Option 1) with lower call prices than their old Standard rates to subsidise cheaper prices for those customers who do route calls with them. The old BT Standard Rate line rental of £28.50 per quarter was blatantly the real actual cost of providing a phone line while still being profitable for BT. Now I have to £33 a quarter to cross subsidise BT to have cheaper calls for their customers On Options 2 and 3 in particular and also on Option 1 so they won't move to competitors.

The behaviour of BT's rivals on line rental since BT's line rental price and minimum charge price increase proves that BT does still have massive Significant Market Power and thus it should not be allowed to set its own prices. Especially when its reaction to being allowed to change its own prices is to raise them between 10% and 20% on calls and line rental for everyone except those who make all their calls with BT using BT Option 2 and 3. This is not fair when we have to still use the BT line to get broadband, even if we want to use Voip for all our calls.

There is a lot of moaning now about bank charges but the banks were up front about those charges and there was considerable variation between banks. Yet there is almost no variation on line rental or 084/7 call prices worth billions a year and the telesoms regulator thinks it is fine for some reason (mainly in my view because it means lots of profits for business). But I'm quite sure that the OFT and the Competition Commission wouldn't think it was fine at all if they controlled regulation of this industry in terms of fair competition and pricing instead of Ofcom.

The only solution to Ofcom seems to be to close it down because it is hugely expensive and represents the worst sort of New Labour political spin in claiming constantly to serve the UK Citizen Consumer while actually working against their interests and to help telco interests night and day. The minutes of those despicable NTS focus group meetings that Ofcom holds tells us everything one needs to know about which side Ofcom is really on and who Ofcom thinks are its real masters. And of course the Telcos directly fund Ofcom instead of funding for it coming out of taxation as it does for the OFT and the Competition Commission. Since Ofcom sees the Telcos and Broadcasting Cos as its main customers and clearly does not see consumers in that light that is apparently why it bends over backwards to be helpful to them and largely treats consumers as third rate citizens it only has to pay lip service towards.

This is not an issue about whether privatisation works. It is really an issue about a totally failed regulator that should be either broken up into more relevant parts or hugely reformed. Its Chief Executive also needs to be someone with a pro consumer agenda (as per OFT and Competition Commission) and not someone with a pro big business agenda.

<div style=

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #39 - Mar 1^st, 2007 at 4:04pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 12:16pm:

…And of course the Telcos directly fund Ofcom instead of funding for it coming out of taxation as it does for the OFT and the Competition Commission. Since Ofcom sees the Telcos and Broadcasting Cos as its main customers and clearly does not see consumers in that light that is apparently why it bends over backwards to be helpful to them and largely treats consumers as third rate citizens it only has to pay lip service towards.

I was not aware that the telcos pay for Ofcom. Who decides what the size of the Ofcom budget will be and how much each telco will contribute?

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #40 - Mar 1^st, 2007 at 5:23pm

Dave wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 4:04pm:

I was not aware that the telcos pay for Ofcom. Who decides what the size of the Ofcom budget will be and how much each telco will contribute?

See www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/03/nr_20060331

Quote:

Ofcom is funded by payments from broadcasting licensees and communications providers as well as from payments for the management of the UK radio spectrum. In its Tariff Tables for April 2006-March 2007, published today, Ofcom sets out an overview of the fees due from industry for the coming financial year.

Operating costs are allocated to each sector according to the extent of work proposed for that sector in 2006/7. The per-sector costs are then divided between regulated companies according to a number of factors including relevant company revenue. Details of individual company fees are not disclosed.

Ofcom’s proposed work programme is set out in its Annual Plan, which was published in draft for consultation on 14 th December 2005. The final version of the Annual Plan will be published on 4th April 2006.

Key points include:

* For the third successive year and in line with its commitment to be an RPI-x regulator, Ofcom will operate under a budget which is lower in real terms than the operating budget for the previous year. At £129.5m the operating budget for 2006/7 will be 5% lower in real terms than the operating budget for 2005/6 and 12.6% lower than the budget for 2004/5.
* Greater efficiency savings and the rephasing of some projects means that Ofcom expects to complete its work for 2005/6 £3.5m under budget. Those efficiency savings will be remitted back to industry – in line with Sections 38 and 347 of the Communications Act 2003 – in the form of reductions in regulatory fees for 2006/7.

« Last Edit: Mar 1^st, 2007 at 5:24pm by NGMsGhost »

<div style=

IP Logged

bbb_uk

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 2,041

Re: BT charges
Reply #41 - Mar 1^st, 2007 at 7:24pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 12:16pm:

It seems quite wrong that I have to pay BT for a Customer Discount Scheme (Option 1) with lower call prices than their old Standard rates to subsidise cheaper prices for those customers who do route calls with them. The old BT Standard Rate line rental of £28.50 per quarter was blatantly the real actual cost of providing a phone line while still being profitable for BT. Now I have to £33 a quarter to cross subsidise BT to have cheaper calls for their customers On Options 2 and 3 in particular and also on Option 1 so they won't move to competitors.

The behaviour of BT's rivals on line rental since BT's line rental price and minimum charge price increase proves that BT does still have massive Significant Market Power and thus it should not be allowed to set its own prices. Especially when its reaction to being allowed to change its own prices is to raise them between 10% and 20% on calls and line rental for everyone except those who make all their calls with BT using BT Option 2 and 3. This is not fair when we have to still use the BT line to get broadband, even if we want to use Voip for all our calls.

I agree at this point.

Quote:

There is a lot of moaning now about bank charges but the banks were up front about those charges and there was considerable variation between banks. Yet there is almost no variation on line rental or 084/7 call prices worth billions a year and the telesoms regulator thinks it is fine for some reason (mainly in my view because it means lots of profits for business).

I also agree with this.

Quote:

The only solution to Ofcom seems to be to close it down because it is hugely expensive and represents the worst sort of New Labour political spin in claiming constantly to serve the UK Citizen Consumer while actually working against their interests and to help telco interests night and day.

The problem existed however even when it was Oftel (smaller).

Quote:

And of course the Telcos directly fund Ofcom instead of funding for it coming out of taxation as it does for the OFT and the Competition Commission. Since Ofcom sees the Telcos and Broadcasting Cos as its main customers and clearly does not see consumers in that light that is apparently why it bends over backwards to be helpful to them and largely treats consumers as third rate citizens it only has to pay lip service towards.

I knew Teleco's fund Ofcom but I wasn't aware of whether it's gov funded via our tax.

IP Logged

darkstar

Newbie

Offline

Posts: 49
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #42 - Mar 1^st, 2007 at 10:15pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 1^st, 2007 at 12:16pm:

The old BT Standard Rate line rental of £28.50 per quarter was blatantly the real actual cost of providing a phone line while still being profitable for BT. Now I have to £33 a quarter to cross subsidise BT to have cheaper calls for their customers On Options 2 and 3 in particular and also on Option 1 so they won't move to competitors..

I heard a word called inflation today. And someone mentioned a pay rise. Tongue

IP Logged

Dave

Global Moderator

Offline

Posts: 9,902
Yorkshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #43 - Mar 2^nd, 2007 at 4:27pm

NGMsGhost wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 5:40pm:

Dave,

I can't quite work out your own position really.

Going back to the previous discussion on privatisation and competition in the telecoms market, in a nutshell I cannot see how it is 'choice'. To me, it's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. At the end of the day it's not like a car, for example, where the consumer has choice and going up the chain, the vehicle manufacturer has choice of what parts to use and so on and so forth.

For those who just want a telephone line, the difference between most telcos is just a pound or two at most. But the whole point of competition is really to compete with BT. And how do you connect to these competitors, through BT. That's either using BT Wholesale or LLU (local loop unbundling) whereby you use BT's copper wires back to its exchange where the other telco installs its equipment.

So in reality this choice leaves you paying BT for part of the service. What's more, if there is a break in service, it is not necessarily to do with your own telco and could be a BT fault. This introduces buck-passing, something which we are familiar with in the railway industry. It means that people's perception of whether one telco is any good or not is distorted.

It's a similar situation with ISPs, for example, when people may decide to change because their connection is not working. Of course there are many reasons why this may be the case and it may be due to their own equipment like the router or wireless connection.

So factors which are out of the non-BT telco's control affect how its customers perceive it, namely BT's part of the circuit.

With electricity it's one company that operates the network at various stages (i.e. national and local level). Electricity usually either works or it doesn't. Telephone faults are quite often intermittent which naturally means they tend to be harder to trace. No amount of "service level agreements" or potential 'fines' for late repairs will make such faults easier to find.

Thus, a "customer satisfaction survey" is quite meaningless after such a fault. A question such as "Do you think that the time it took BT to repair the fault and got your service working again is acceptable?" is a preposterous one. I have no idea of the fault so I cannot comment. I don't doubt that having explained the problem to the engineer that what he tried what he considered to be the most likely cause. The question should therefore be "Do you think that the time it took from reporting the fault to the engineer's first visit is acceptable?"

Perhaps the fairest way to operate the system is to have the local loop operated by a separate company to BT so that we have a similar setup to the electricity and gas networks. I'm not sure what other implications this has as I've not considered them. There may be more disadvantages than advantages that I haven't thought of.

I know we now have Openreach, but that's still part of BT and thus the choice of moving away from BT isn't really that.

« Last Edit: Mar 2^nd, 2007 at 4:57pm by Dave »

IP Logged

jrawle

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 708
Didcot, Oxfordshire
Gender: male

Re: BT charges
Reply #44 - Mar 15^th, 2007 at 10:08pm

I've heard rumours that BT are introducing a £5 charge for people terminating their service with BT. However, I can't find reference to this on BT's website, and I've long since recycled my "BT Update". The only reference to a £5 I could find is for people cancelling during their minimum contract period (who also have to pay off the full contract - which, funnily enough, is what I thought you had to do anyway).

Can anyone confirm whether there is a £5 charge for all customers who leave BT? Anyone still have the Update magazine handy?

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4

SAYNOTO0870.COM › Main Forum › Geographical Numbers Chat

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

(Moderators: CJT-80, DaveM, Dave, bbb_uk, Forum Admin)