VirginMedia Broadband Price Increase

[altheim]

I have just had an email informing me that my VirginMedia broadband M
service is going to cost me an extra £3.25 per month from May, which
equates
to approximately a 20% price increase. This is made up of a £2.00 price
increase, plus a £1.25 service charge for sending me a monthly bill!. It
also says that I am to receive an upgrade to the 10Mb service, which I
have
not requested, and do not require. By enforcing this price increase on
the majority of their customers, who probably like me do not want or
require an upgrade, they are effectively penalising us for wanting a
basic service for emails and web browsing, and this is not on. I shall be
contacting customer services to strongly complain about this extortion,
and I hope others will do the same.

Hmm. I've just been advised that the TV component (we have the XL
package) is going up by a quid; but none of the other components of my
deal are affected. Except they are reducing by 2.75 GBP my 'loyalty
discount', which I negotiated a few months ago with the retentions
department. That seems a totally bizarre method of increasing the overall
amount they are charging me; you'd think almost designed to make me see
red and pull my account? And I might just do that...

From their pov, if the loyalty discount you negotiated is unprofitable
for them, allowing you to "pull the account" may be preferable to keeping
your custom. Letting a customer escape is not something that businesses
would normally do but the present financial climate is not normal and their
survival might be more important.

I hear that ITV, for that very same reason, are considering moving
some, or all, of their channels to Sky.

A couple of questions spring to mind: was a time period specified and
did you get the agreement in writing - on paper and not just email - or
was it just word of mouth?

[Arfa Daily]

Post by altheim

I have just had an email informing me that my VirginMedia broadband M
service is going to cost me an extra £3.25 per month from May, which
equates
to approximately a 20% price increase. This is made up of a £2.00 price
increase, plus a £1.25 service charge for sending me a monthly bill!. It
also says that I am to receive an upgrade to the 10Mb service, which I
have
not requested, and do not require. By enforcing this price increase on
the majority of their customers, who probably like me do not want or
require an upgrade, they are effectively penalising us for wanting a
basic service for emails and web browsing, and this is not on. I shall
be contacting customer services to strongly complain about this
extortion, and I hope others will do the same.

Hmm. I've just been advised that the TV component (we have the XL
package) is going up by a quid; but none of the other components of my
deal are affected. Except they are reducing by 2.75 GBP my 'loyalty
discount', which I negotiated a few months ago with the retentions
department. That seems a totally bizarre method of increasing the
overall amount they are charging me; you'd think almost designed to make
me see red and pull my account? And I might just do that...

From their pov, if the loyalty discount you negotiated is unprofitable
for them, allowing you to "pull the account" may be preferable to keeping
your custom. Letting a customer escape is not something that businesses
would normally do but the present financial climate is not normal and their
survival might be more important.

I have a broadband-only service from Virgin. It was originally taken out
with NTL. When they first started their broadband, it was not available as a
separate option. After a while, they got the idea that it would be better to
sell just broadband to people that wanted it that way, rather than not have
them as any kind of customer. Over the years, I have been pretty happy with
the level of service and automatic speed upgrades - which are *way* beyond
anything that competing technologies can offer - and have stuck with them.

When Virgin took over, it all changed. The prices for a broadband-only
service have crept up, and it is now possible to get a deal including TV and
phone, for less than I am paying for my fast broadband service. They are
forever writing to me and calling me to try to get me to convert. Thing is,
I don't want their TV or phone. If I had, I would have taken them, or
upgraded to a package with them, on my own.

I like the broadband service that I have with them, and don't want to
downgrade to a BT-level one. I suppose that I could convert to a package,
and just not use the additional services, but it is annoying that to get a
decent price, without having to get on the phone to their cancellations
department and have a rant and 'negotiate' a deal of dubious long-term
validity, I would have to change the simple service that I have, and have
always had ...

Arfa

[Bob Mannix]

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by altheim

I have just had an email informing me that my VirginMedia broadband M
service is going to cost me an extra £3.25 per month from May, which
equates
to approximately a 20% price increase. This is made up of a £2.00 price
increase, plus a £1.25 service charge for sending me a monthly bill!. It
also says that I am to receive an upgrade to the 10Mb service, which I
have
not requested, and do not require. By enforcing this price increase on
the majority of their customers, who probably like me do not want or
require an upgrade, they are effectively penalising us for wanting a
basic service for emails and web browsing, and this is not on. I shall
be contacting customer services to strongly complain about this
extortion, and I hope others will do the same.

Hmm. I've just been advised that the TV component (we have the XL
package) is going up by a quid; but none of the other components of my
deal are affected. Except they are reducing by 2.75 GBP my 'loyalty
discount', which I negotiated a few months ago with the retentions
department. That seems a totally bizarre method of increasing the
overall amount they are charging me; you'd think almost designed to make
me see red and pull my account? And I might just do that...

From their pov, if the loyalty discount you negotiated is unprofitable
for them, allowing you to "pull the account" may be preferable to keeping
your custom. Letting a customer escape is not something that businesses
would normally do but the present financial climate is not normal and their
survival might be more important.

I have a broadband-only service from Virgin. It was originally taken out
with NTL. When they first started their broadband, it was not available as
a separate option. After a while, they got the idea that it would be
better to sell just broadband to people that wanted it that way, rather
than not have them as any kind of customer. Over the years, I have been
pretty happy with the level of service and automatic speed upgrades -
which are *way* beyond anything that competing technologies can offer -
and have stuck with them.
When Virgin took over, it all changed. The prices for a broadband-only
service have crept up, and it is now possible to get a deal including TV
and phone, for less than I am paying for my fast broadband service. They
are forever writing to me and calling me to try to get me to convert.
Thing is, I don't want their TV or phone. If I had, I would have taken
them, or upgraded to a package with them, on my own.
I like the broadband service that I have with them, and don't want to
downgrade to a BT-level one. I suppose that I could convert to a package,
and just not use the additional services, but it is annoying that to get a
decent price, without having to get on the phone to their cancellations
department and have a rant and 'negotiate' a deal of dubious long-term
validity, I would have to change the simple service that I have, and have
always had ...
Arfa

Fortunately it coincided with a house move and sh*te Freeview for me so
changing from broadband only to broadband +TV (and then, on a subsequect
move) to B/band +TV + phone made sense - as you say, a competitive package!
I too have had excellent service from them. You could revisit whether you
want their phone or whatever, I guess - there's no point paying and *not*
using them, after all!

[Rob]

Post by Bob Mannix

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by altheim

I have just had an email informing me that my VirginMedia broadband M
service is going to cost me an extra £3.25 per month from May, which
equates
to approximately a 20% price increase. This is made up of a £2.00 price
increase, plus a £1.25 service charge for sending me a monthly bill!. It
also says that I am to receive an upgrade to the 10Mb service, which I
have
not requested, and do not require. By enforcing this price increase on
the majority of their customers, who probably like me do not want or
require an upgrade, they are effectively penalising us for wanting a
basic service for emails and web browsing, and this is not on. I shall
be contacting customer services to strongly complain about this
extortion, and I hope others will do the same.

Hmm. I've just been advised that the TV component (we have the XL
package) is going up by a quid; but none of the other components of my
deal are affected. Except they are reducing by 2.75 GBP my 'loyalty
discount', which I negotiated a few months ago with the retentions
department. That seems a totally bizarre method of increasing the
overall amount they are charging me; you'd think almost designed to make
me see red and pull my account? And I might just do that...

From their pov, if the loyalty discount you negotiated is unprofitable
for them, allowing you to "pull the account" may be preferable to keeping
your custom. Letting a customer escape is not something that businesses
would normally do but the present financial climate is not normal and their
survival might be more important.

I have a broadband-only service from Virgin. It was originally taken out
with NTL. When they first started their broadband, it was not available as
a separate option. After a while, they got the idea that it would be
better to sell just broadband to people that wanted it that way, rather
than not have them as any kind of customer. Over the years, I have been
pretty happy with the level of service and automatic speed upgrades -
which are *way* beyond anything that competing technologies can offer -
and have stuck with them.
When Virgin took over, it all changed. The prices for a broadband-only
service have crept up, and it is now possible to get a deal including TV
and phone, for less than I am paying for my fast broadband service. They
are forever writing to me and calling me to try to get me to convert.
Thing is, I don't want their TV or phone. If I had, I would have taken
them, or upgraded to a package with them, on my own.
I like the broadband service that I have with them, and don't want to
downgrade to a BT-level one. I suppose that I could convert to a package,
and just not use the additional services, but it is annoying that to get a
decent price, without having to get on the phone to their cancellations
department and have a rant and 'negotiate' a deal of dubious long-term
validity, I would have to change the simple service that I have, and have
always had ...
Arfa

Fortunately it coincided with a house move and sh*te Freeview for me so
changing from broadband only to broadband +TV (and then, on a subsequect
move) to B/band +TV + phone made sense - as you say, a competitive package!
I too have had excellent service from them. You could revisit whether you
want their phone or whatever, I guess - there's no point paying and *not*
using them, after all!

Same here. The only fly/ointment has been certain telephone calls -
probably to mobiles (I haven't paid that much attention). They bump up
the bill, but I seem to pay less for the entire package (10Mb, phone,
TV) than I paid just for a BT phone.

Rob

[Arfa Daily]

Post by Bob Mannix

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by altheim

I have just had an email informing me that my VirginMedia broadband M
service is going to cost me an extra £3.25 per month from May, which
equates
to approximately a 20% price increase. This is made up of a £2.00 price
increase, plus a £1.25 service charge for sending me a monthly bill!. It
also says that I am to receive an upgrade to the 10Mb service, which I
have
not requested, and do not require. By enforcing this price increase on
the majority of their customers, who probably like me do not want or
require an upgrade, they are effectively penalising us for wanting a
basic service for emails and web browsing, and this is not on. I shall
be contacting customer services to strongly complain about this
extortion, and I hope others will do the same.

Hmm. I've just been advised that the TV component (we have the XL
package) is going up by a quid; but none of the other components of my
deal are affected. Except they are reducing by 2.75 GBP my 'loyalty
discount', which I negotiated a few months ago with the retentions
department. That seems a totally bizarre method of increasing the
overall amount they are charging me; you'd think almost designed to
make me see red and pull my account? And I might just do that...

From their pov, if the loyalty discount you negotiated is unprofitable
for them, allowing you to "pull the account" may be preferable to keeping
your custom. Letting a customer escape is not something that businesses
would normally do but the present financial climate is not normal and their
survival might be more important.

I have a broadband-only service from Virgin. It was originally taken out
with NTL. When they first started their broadband, it was not available
as a separate option. After a while, they got the idea that it would be
better to sell just broadband to people that wanted it that way, rather
than not have them as any kind of customer. Over the years, I have been
pretty happy with the level of service and automatic speed upgrades -
which are *way* beyond anything that competing technologies can offer -
and have stuck with them.
When Virgin took over, it all changed. The prices for a broadband-only
service have crept up, and it is now possible to get a deal including TV
and phone, for less than I am paying for my fast broadband service. They
are forever writing to me and calling me to try to get me to convert.
Thing is, I don't want their TV or phone. If I had, I would have taken
them, or upgraded to a package with them, on my own.
I like the broadband service that I have with them, and don't want to
downgrade to a BT-level one. I suppose that I could convert to a package,
and just not use the additional services, but it is annoying that to get
a decent price, without having to get on the phone to their cancellations
department and have a rant and 'negotiate' a deal of dubious long-term
validity, I would have to change the simple service that I have, and have
always had ...
Arfa

Fortunately it coincided with a house move and sh*te Freeview for me so
changing from broadband only to broadband +TV (and then, on a subsequect
move) to B/band +TV + phone made sense - as you say, a competitive
package! I too have had excellent service from them. You could revisit
whether you want their phone or whatever, I guess - there's no point
paying and *not* using them, after all!
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Thing is Bob, I get a good deal right now on my BT. A long time ago, when
they were trying to sell package deals, they rang me and said that for the
amount I was using the phone (a lot) they could do me a much better deal on
one of their 'include it all' packages, where you pay a fixed amount per
month, and then all calls are free any time of the day - mobiles excepted of
course. It was originally called Option 3 I think, and I'm not sure that
they even do it as a new product any more, but they continue to service my
account, on that basis. On top of the base cost, I then pay a few quid
(literally) for the extra services such as caller ID and alternate number /
different ring. I am very happy with my service, and have had the same
number forever, so I really have no need of Virgin's telephone service. For
my TV requirements, I use a mix of analogue off-air (until that's gone of
course), digital off-air, and satellite, with some internet on occasion as
well. It's a big house, and I've got all of this little lot tricked up into
a fairly elaborate trunk distribution system that allows anything to be
watched anywhere. This system would not lend itself to being fed by a Virgin
STB.

So that's the thing. I *really* don't need their other services.

Arfa

[Vernon]

Post by Arfa Daily
I have a broadband-only service from Virgin. It was originally taken out
with NTL. When they first started their broadband, it was not available as
a separate option. After a while, they got the idea that it would be
better to sell just broadband to people that wanted it that way, rather
than not have them as any kind of customer. Over the years, I have been
pretty happy with the level of service and automatic speed upgrades -
which are *way* beyond anything that competing technologies can offer -
and have stuck with them.
When Virgin took over, it all changed. The prices for a broadband-only
service have crept up, and it is now possible to get a deal including TV
and phone, for less than I am paying for my fast broadband service. They
are forever writing to me and calling me to try to get me to convert.
Thing is, I don't want their TV or phone. If I had, I would have taken
them, or upgraded to a package with them, on my own.
I like the broadband service that I have with them, and don't want to
downgrade to a BT-level one. I suppose that I could convert to a package,
and just not use the additional services, but it is annoying that to get a
decent price, without having to get on the phone to their cancellations
department and have a rant and 'negotiate' a deal of dubious long-term
validity, I would have to change the simple service that I have, and have
always had ...
Arfa

We also had broadband only, then one day I had a call from Virgin offering a
phone line, "no thanks - got one from BT".

Well he insisted if I had a phone line I would save money each month, fair
enough, chap turned up, installed socket where i asked, next bill came and
indeed had a discount of IIRC £7 now well over a year later I am still
saving money, and I have never even plugged a phone into the socket!

[Lobster]

Post by Vernon

Post by Arfa Daily
I have a broadband-only service from Virgin. It was originally taken out
with NTL. When they first started their broadband, it was not
available as a separate option. After a while, they got the idea that
it would be better to sell just broadband to people that wanted it
that way, rather than not have them as any kind of customer. Over the
years, I have been pretty happy with the level of service and
automatic speed upgrades - which are *way* beyond anything that
competing technologies can offer - and have stuck with them.
When Virgin took over, it all changed. The prices for a broadband-only
service have crept up, and it is now possible to get a deal including
TV and phone, for less than I am paying for my fast broadband service.
They are forever writing to me and calling me to try to get me to
convert. Thing is, I don't want their TV or phone. If I had, I would
have taken them, or upgraded to a package with them, on my own.
I like the broadband service that I have with them, and don't want to
downgrade to a BT-level one. I suppose that I could convert to a
package, and just not use the additional services, but it is annoying
that to get a decent price, without having to get on the phone to
their cancellations department and have a rant and 'negotiate' a deal
of dubious long-term validity, I would have to change the simple
service that I have, and have always had ...
Arfa

We also had broadband only, then one day I had a call from Virgin
offering a phone line, "no thanks - got one from BT".
Well he insisted if I had a phone line I would save money each month,
fair enough, chap turned up, installed socket where i asked, next bill
came and indeed had a discount of IIRC £7 now well over a year later I
am still saving money, and I have never even plugged a phone into the
socket!

What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

David

[r***@ntlworld.com]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

[Lobster]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

David

[Arfa Daily]

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?
David

Do you happen to know if Virgin do BT number porting ? I get the feeling
that they don't, as all of the people I know who have a Virgin phone, seem
to have a completely different number from the series of BT numbers which
serve my village. Having had my BT number for 35 years - so everyone,
including all my business contacts, know it - I would not like to have to
change, so if I were to take a 'package' to save money on my (wanted)
broadband, by taking an unwanted phone, I think that my socket would
probably just sit there unused, as well ...

Arfa

[Lobster]

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Do you happen to know if Virgin do BT number porting ?

Yes, they do for sure.

David

[tony sayer]

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?
David

Do you happen to know if Virgin do BT number porting ? I get the feeling
that they don't, as all of the people I know who have a Virgin phone, seem
to have a completely different number from the series of BT numbers which
serve my village. Having had my BT number for 35 years - so everyone,
including all my business contacts, know it - I would not like to have to
change, so if I were to take a 'package' to save money on my (wanted)
broadband, by taking an unwanted phone, I think that my socket would
probably just sit there unused, as well ...
Arfa

We did that sometime ago from ntl to BT so I presume it still can be
done..

[Dave]

Post by Arfa Daily
Do you happen to know if Virgin do BT number porting ? I get the feeling
that they don't, as all of the people I know who have a Virgin phone, seem
to have a completely different number from the series of BT numbers which
serve my village.

Yes, you can transfer your BT number to Virgin, just tell Virgin that you
want to do that and they will do all the leg work.
One word of warning though, DON'T cancel yout BT account before arranging
the new account with Virgin.
If you do, you will loose your BT number.
Just contact Virgin and they will transfer the number for you AND they will
cancel your BT account at the same time.
I'm going through exactly that situation right now, and we've been with BT
for more than 45 years.

Wavey Dave

[r***@ntlworld.com]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:25:42 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Because in my opinion BT and GPO before them have always provided me
with good service never tried to over charge me bills have always been
correct and have never in the last fifty+ years have I picked up the
phone and found it not to be working .
Has people say if something is working don't try to fix it if BT are
ever able to provide the Internet speeds that Virgin provide then it
will be Virgin that gets dumped not BT .

[tony sayer]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:25:42 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Because in my opinion BT and GPO before them have always provided me
with good service never tried to over charge me bills have always been
correct and have never in the last fifty+ years have I picked up the
phone and found it not to be working .
Has people say if something is working don't try to fix it if BT are
ever able to provide the Internet speeds that Virgin provide then it
will be Virgin that gets dumped not BT .

Someone there who deals with telecoms very infrequently...

.. A lucky person indeed;)....

BTW if Virgin we're not around do you think that BT would have been
bothered to improve anything other then what Ofcom might want them to
do?..

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by tony sayer

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:25:42 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Because in my opinion BT and GPO before them have always provided me
with good service never tried to over charge me bills have always been
correct and have never in the last fifty+ years have I picked up the
phone and found it not to be working .
Has people say if something is working don't try to fix it if BT are
ever able to provide the Internet speeds that Virgin provide then it
will be Virgin that gets dumped not BT .

Someone there who deals with telecoms very infrequently...
.. A lucky person indeed;)....
BTW if Virgin we're not around do you think that BT would have been
bothered to improve anything other then what Ofcom might want them to
do?..

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

[Bob Eager]

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!

If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "

http://aa.nu/broadband.html

[r***@ntlworld.com]

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

[Bob Eager]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

A predictable response.

[r***@ntlworld.com]

Post by Bob Eager

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

A predictable response.

None the less a truthful one .

[Bob Eager]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

A predictable response.

None the less a truthful one .

No, a subjective one.

I posted the reply to give some useful information, not to get into a
pissing contest about ISPs, and people who have an axe to grind. Unless
you're an ex customer, you can't judge whether it's worth it or not.

[r***@ntlworld.com]

Post by Bob Eager

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

A predictable response.

None the less a truthful one .

No, a subjective one.
I posted the reply to give some useful information, not to get into a
pissing contest about ISPs, and people who have an axe to grind. Unless
you're an ex customer, you can't judge whether it's worth it or not.

A predictable response.

[Dave Liquorice]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

OK so £17.57 a month isn't the cheapest but it's not overly expensive and
at least they are open about what you get for your money. No endless * # !
against almost every "fact" in the marketing material.

The basic BT deal is £15.85/month but that has a 10GB monthly limit that
includes all down *and* upload 24/7. The AA basic is 101GB (100GB off
peak, 1GB peak (download only), peak being (M-F 0900-1800) and you are
totally unmetered 0200 to 0600 should 100GB the rest of the time not be
enough.

On BT 15GB (soon to be 20GB), total up and down/month is £20.54/month.
"Unlimited" on BT is £24.46/month. I can't find out from their web site if
"unlimited" really does mean I can fill the connection, up and down 24/7,
and not incur any extra charges or any service restriction.

Oh and with BT you are tied in for 12 months minimum or 18 months if you
take the "price reduction" for the first three months. AA just have a 30
notice period. AA also know how and where to kick BT to get faults sorted
rather than bounce you about between "customer service" departments that
insist a fault has been fixed when it hasn't or only partially.

When you start looking properly buying broadband is no where near as
simple as it first appears. Yes I am an AA customer but only a customer
I'm not getting any kick back.

[Kráftéé]

"Dave Liquorice" <***@howhill.com> wrote in message news:***@srv1.howhill.net
| On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:18 GMT, ***@ntlworld.com wrote:
|
| > AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are
| > very expensive they can afford to offer the above considering
| > what they are charging their customers .
|
| OK so £17.57 a month isn't the cheapest but it's not overly
| expensive and at least they are open about what you get for your
| money. No endless * # ! against almost every "fact" in the
| marketing material.
|
| The basic BT deal is £15.85/month but that has a 10GB monthly limit
| that includes all down *and* upload 24/7. The AA basic is 101GB
| (100GB off peak, 1GB peak (download only), peak being (M-F
| 0900-1800) and you are totally unmetered 0200 to 0600 should 100GB
| the rest of the time not be enough.
|
| On BT 15GB (soon to be 20GB), total up and down/month is
| £20.54/month. "Unlimited" on BT is £24.46/month. I can't find out
| from their web site if "unlimited" really does mean I can fill the
| connection, up and down 24/7, and not incur any extra charges or
| any service restriction.
|
| Oh and with BT you are tied in for 12 months minimum or 18 months
| if you take the "price reduction" for the first three months. AA
| just have a 30 notice period. AA also know how and where to kick BT
| to get faults sorted rather than bounce you about between "customer
| service" departments that insist a fault has been fixed when it
| hasn't or only partially.
|
| When you start looking properly buying broadband is no where near as
| simple as it first appears. Yes I am an AA customer but only a
| customer I'm not getting any kick back.

Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about it...

[Dave Liquorice]

Post by Kráftéé
Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about it...

Who BT or A&A?

Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit failure and
then they open and honest about it. Unlike other ISPs who say "Problem?
What problem? We have no problem." With teletubbies who are stuck in
Scripty Land and don't understand if you start to say I can ping X but not
Y, or traceroute stops at... or there is no DNS.

[Kráftéé]

"Dave Liquorice" <***@howhill.com> wrote in message news:***@srv1.howhill.net
| On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:06:18 -0000, Kr ft wrote:
|
| > Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
| > recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about
| > it...
|
| Who BT or A&A?
|
| Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit
| failure and then they open and honest about it. Unlike other ISPs
| who say "Problem? What problem? We have no problem." With
| teletubbies who are stuck in Scripty Land and don't understand if
| you start to say I can ping X but not Y, or traceroute stops at...
| or there is no DNS.

They have appeared retisent when there has been thru put issues in the
past even when provided with ping traces showing where the bottleneck
is...

[Fastmoggy]

Post by Kráftéé
|
| > Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
| > recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about
| > it...
|
| Who BT or A&A?
|
| Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit
| failure and then they open and honest about it. Unlike other ISPs
| who say "Problem? What problem? We have no problem." With
| teletubbies who are stuck in Scripty Land and don't understand if
| you start to say I can ping X but not Y, or traceroute stops at...
| or there is no DNS.
They have appeared retisent when there has been thru put issues in the
past even when provided with ping traces showing where the bottleneck
is...

Oh No...don't tell THEM about pings! just because they can ping you they
think everything's alright ( see page whatever of prompt cards) I had a
simple problem with THEIR modem but they wouldn't acknowledge it until i
asked for someone who understood English!

[Kráftéé]

"Fastmoggy" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gsFyl.241019$***@newsfe20.ams2
| "Kráftéé" <***@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
| news:***@bt.com...
| > "Dave Liquorice" <***@howhill.com> wrote in message
| > news:***@srv1.howhill.net
| > | On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:06:18 -0000, Kr ft wrote:
| > |
| > | > Hope you don't get any thru put issues, they're not great at
| > | > recognising the problem & even worse at doing something about
| > | > it...
| > |
| > | Who BT or A&A?
| > |
| > | Never had a problem with A&A, with the exception of major kit
| > | failure and then they open and honest about it. Unlike other
| > | ISPs who say "Problem? What problem? We have no problem." With
| > | teletubbies who are stuck in Scripty Land and don't understand
| > | if you start to say I can ping X but not Y, or traceroute stops
| > | at... or there is no DNS.
| >
| > They have appeared retisent when there has been thru put issues
| > in the past even when provided with ping traces showing where the
| > bottleneck is...
| >
| Oh No...don't tell THEM about pings! just because they can ping you
| they think everything's alright ( see page whatever of prompt
| cards) I had a simple problem with THEIR modem but they wouldn't
| acknowledge it until i asked for someone who understood English!

But surely you wanted someone who could talk catish

[Arfa Daily]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

OK so £17.57 a month isn't the cheapest but it's not overly expensive and
at least they are open about what you get for your money. No endless * # !
against almost every "fact" in the marketing material.

The basic BT deal is £15.85/month but that has a 10GB monthly limit that
includes all down *and* upload 24/7. The AA basic is 101GB (100GB off
peak, 1GB peak (download only), peak being (M-F 0900-1800) and you are
totally unmetered 0200 to 0600 should 100GB the rest of the time not be
enough.

On BT 15GB (soon to be 20GB), total up and down/month is £20.54/month.
"Unlimited" on BT is £24.46/month. I can't find out from their web site if
"unlimited" really does mean I can fill the connection, up and down 24/7,
and not incur any extra charges or any service restriction.

Oh and with BT you are tied in for 12 months minimum or 18 months if you
take the "price reduction" for the first three months. AA just have a 30
notice period. AA also know how and where to kick BT to get faults sorted
rather than bounce you about between "customer service" departments that
insist a fault has been fixed when it hasn't or only partially.

When you start looking properly buying broadband is no where near as
simple as it first appears. Yes I am an AA customer but only a customer
I'm not getting any kick back.
--
Cheers
Dave.

Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL" offerings
AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair useage policy' which in
my opinion, rather flies in the face of using the word "unlimited" ...

That said, my connection on Virgin is very heavily used, and they have never
tried to invoke any kind of temporary cap.

Arfa

[Dave Liquorice]

Post by Arfa Daily
Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL" offerings
AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair useage policy' which
in my opinion, rather flies in the face of using the word "unlimited"

Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I could
find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away from "without
limit".

[Kráftéé]

"Dave Liquorice" <***@howhill.com> wrote in message news:***@srv1.howhill.net
| On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
|
| > Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| > offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| > useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| > using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".

Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).

I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..

Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.

[Arfa Daily]

Post by Kráftéé
|
| > Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| > offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| > useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| > using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".
Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).
I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..
Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.

Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He then
just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)

Arfa

[Clive George]

Post by Arfa Daily
Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He
then just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)

How often have you had to do that?

[Arfa Daily]

Post by Clive George

Post by Arfa Daily
Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He
then just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down
to street cab level. :-)

How often have you had to do that?

On average perhaps once a year or 18 months over the however-many I've had
it now - since NTL put the cable into my village, when the g'ment was having
that big 'let's cable up the whole country' thing anyway, so I dunno - going
on 10 years, I should think. He has sorted out one dud modem, one modem
upgrade, one dud power supply, which interestingly caused a substantial
reduction in speed, and a fault at my tap in the street cab, that I can
remember. There has been a couple of occasions when I've reported problems
to him that have turned out to be 'global' on the village's trunk, which is
where his connections to internal technical people come in useful, both for
knowing what the problem is, and for getting it sorted in short order.

All in all, I think it has given me a pretty good service in terms of what
it has provided to my house, if being a little on the expensive side now.
Whether I would have thought the same if I had had to fight with a foreign
call centre on the few occasions that I have had trouble, I really don't
know.

What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some bright
spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more depending on your
supply speed or useage. That really would knock the cost of a VMBB
connection firmly on the head ...

Arfa

[Stuart Noble]

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some bright
spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more depending on your
supply speed or useage. That really would knock the cost of a VMBB
connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get
up my nose though.

[altheim]

Post by Stuart Noble

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

[Stuart Noble]

Post by altheim

Post by Stuart Noble

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

I'd rather have a pay-per-view system. Wouldn't cost me anything

[Kráftéé]

"altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:veqdnb_t3-***@bt.com
| "Stuart Noble" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| >
| >> What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start
| >> taxing internet supply as they have said they will, because
| >> doubtless some bright spark will then work out that they can
| >> hammer you for more depending on your supply speed or useage.
| >> That really would knock the cost of a VMBB connection firmly on
| >> the head ...
| >>
| >
| > As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain.
| > Being charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen
| > to, does get up my nose though.
|
| I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
| irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
| via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying
| for
| a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes
| set-top boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like
| Windows
| Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be
| liable even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

You try explaining that to some of the dullards on the groups. Had a
complete froup gang up on me because I stated that a student in digs
with a DVD player attacthed to a TV would require a licence even if
the tuner was detuned & no aeriel present. Isn't it funny how the
noise level tends to rise as they insist that they are right & the law
is wrong...

Never mind it helped to pass the time for a few nights & I don't
bother with the froup any more as they do appear to be up each others
crack....

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by altheim

Post by Stuart Noble

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).

No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

Post by altheim
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. For VCR's, making sure it's
not tuned in to any stations and it has no easy way to connect up
an aerial would usually be a defense, unless the detector van
actually picked up the intermediate frequency from your set.
(I sat through weeks of these cases end-to-end, waiting each time
for a case to come up where a local vandal had damaged my car.
Fortunately, I found them quite entertaining, particularly where
someone tried to defend themselves, never successfully.)

[Kráftéé]

"Andrew Gabriel" <***@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:49cd303f$0$513$***@news.aaisp.net.uk

Here we go let the bun fight start:----

| In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
| only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.

Incorrect as the VCR has an inbuilt TV tuner, now if you had just a
video player (es there were some available not so many years ago)that
would be another matter, exactly the same as todays DVD players.
Except, what would you play it thru.


| However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
| courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
| have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
| apparatus if you are found with it. For VCR's, making sure it's
| not tuned in to any stations and it has no easy way to connect up
| an aerial would usually be a defense, unless the detector van
| actually picked up the intermediate frequency from your set.

You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence. Even today in theory you can be
arrested for the ownership of certain other radio receivers as well,
although this generally gets ignored as the really interesting stuff
is now, under most circumstances,encrypted.

| (I sat through weeks of these cases end-to-end, waiting each time
| for a case to come up where a local vandal had damaged my car.
| Fortunately, I found them quite entertaining, particularly where
| someone tried to defend themselves, never successfully.)

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by Kráftéé
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

[altheim]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Kráftéé
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

OK, Here it is:

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."

Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

[tony sayer]

Post by altheim

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Kráftéé
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

No mention of wireless telephony but telegraphy could mean digital...

suppose a wi-fi point could be construed a wireless telegraph
transmitter;))..

The old 1949 act has been updated since..

[Dave Liquorice]

Post by tony sayer

Post by altheim
"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General,

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

It's clear enough but what are the definitions of the words "station" and
phrase "wireless telegraphy"?

IMHO "station" is referring to a "transmitting station" or anything
designed to transmit and "wireless telegraphy" the transfer, without
wires, of "information". On the latter point ISTR that case law has moved
car radar speed detectors out of the scope of the WTA because no
"information" was received by the detector.

Post by tony sayer
suppose a wi-fi point could be construed a wireless telegraph
transmitter;))..

They are and they are licenced under a type approval/general licence.

AFAIK there is only one bit of "wireless" equipment that is an offence to
sell or posses and that is in band (Band IV and V) video senders.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by Dave Liquorice

Post by tony sayer

Post by altheim
"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General,

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

It's clear enough but what are the definitions of the words "station" and
phrase "wireless telegraphy"?
IMHO "station" is referring to a "transmitting station" or anything
designed to transmit and "wireless telegraphy" the transfer, without
wires,

That's right. The "any apparatus" covers receivers too.

[tony sayer]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Dave Liquorice

Post by tony sayer

Post by altheim
"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General,

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..

It's clear enough but what are the definitions of the words "station" and
phrase "wireless telegraphy"?
IMHO "station" is referring to a "transmitting station" or anything
designed to transmit and "wireless telegraphy" the transfer, without
wires,

That's right. The "any apparatus" covers receivers too.

So strictly speaking for that bit of "Apparatus" then you need a licence
issued by the Postmaster General..

Shirley he'll be redundant too what with the rise of e-mail;!...

[altheim]

Post by tony sayer

Post by altheim

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Kráftéé
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

Thats not too well written after a receiver is equipment for wireless
telegraphy..
No mention of wireless telephony but telegraphy could mean digital...

Yes, and if you wanted to be really pedantic you could argue
that cable is not wireless. The Act of 1949 has, as you rightly
point out, been updated - 1998 I think - but only to add a few
extra clauses relating to payment, penalties etc. It has not
altered anything in the first paragraph.

Post by tony sayer
suppose a wi-fi point could be construed a wireless telegraph
transmitter;))..
The old 1949 act has been updated since..

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by altheim

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Kráftéé
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"

If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.

[Kráftéé]

"Andrew Gabriel" <***@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:49ce0b81$0$513$***@news.aaisp.net.uk
| In article <***@bt.com>,
| "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> writes:
| >
| > "Andrew Gabriel" <***@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:49cd4900$0$513$***@news.aaisp.net.uk...
| >> In article <***@bt.com>,
| >> "Kráftéé" <***@b&e-cottee.me.uk> writes:
| >>> You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't
| >>> specify whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any
| >>> receiver, not the use of, which requires a licence.
| >>
| >> Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're
| >> 100% wrong. Actually, you only have to read the very first
| >> sentence of it.
| >>
| >
| > OK, Here it is:
| >
| > "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless
| > telegraphy or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy
| > except under the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by
| > the Postmaster General, and any person who establishes or uses
| > any station for wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any
| > apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under and in accordance
| > with such a licence
| > shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
| >
| > Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
| > "install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?
|
| You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"
|
| If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
| videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
| and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.
|
| --
| Andrew Gabriel
| [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Sorry your VCR _recorder_ could land you in deep shit. Now if you had
spent less & bought a video player that is a completely different
kettle of fish.

[Clive George]

Post by Kráftéé
Sorry your VCR _recorder_ could land you in deep shit. Now if you had
spent less & bought a video player that is a completely different
kettle of fish.

Peculiarly, it's almost certainly spent more and bought a video player.

[Kráftéé]

"Clive George" <***@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:FoOdne8tvrm1ylPUnZ2dnUVZ8o-***@posted.plusnet
| "Kráftéé" <***@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
| news:***@bt.com...
|
| > Sorry your VCR _recorder_ could land you in deep shit. Now if
| > you had spent less & bought a video player that is a completely
| > different kettle of fish.
|
| Peculiarly, it's almost certainly spent more and bought a video
| player.

Not when I last saw them in the shops

[altheim]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by altheim

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by Kráftéé
You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not the use
of, which requires a licence.

Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100% wrong.
Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of it.

"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"
If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.

If you owned a video cassette player - as opposed to a video
cassette recorder - I might agree with you, but if your VCR
is capable of receiving broadcast material then you become
liable. That is clearly stated in the very paragraph which you
referred us to so I fail to see why you think your case is
supported by 'established law'.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by altheim

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by altheim
"No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy
or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under
the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by the Postmaster
General, and any person who establishes or uses any station for
wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus for wireless
telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a licence
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
"install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?

You missed the key bit "for wireless telegraphy"
If I install and use a VCR recorder only for playing prerecorded
videos, then it wasn't installed or used for wireless telegraphy,
and thus no licence is required. This is well established law.

If you owned a video cassette player - as opposed to a video
cassette recorder - I might agree with you, but if your VCR
is capable of receiving broadcast material then you become
liable. That is clearly stated in the very paragraph which you
referred us to so I fail to see why you think your case is
supported by 'established law'.

I've sat through around 30 cases in magistrates court, and heard
it stated there many times. A defence solicitor will (where
possible and relevant) show that the apparatus was not "installed
or used for wireless telegraphy", but installed and used for some
other purpose, and thus does not come under the Act.
Try reading the above again -- I can only assume you aren't
reading it carefully enough, as that is exactly what it says.

[Kráftéé]

"altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:***@bt.com
| "Andrew Gabriel" <***@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
| news:49cd4900$0$513$***@news.aaisp.net.uk...
| > In article <***@bt.com>,
| > "Kráftéé" <***@b&e-cottee.me.uk> writes:
| >> You of course know that you are wrong and the law doesn't specify
| >> whether it is in use, it's the ownership of any receiver, not
| >> the use of, which requires a licence.
| >
| > Go read the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949 to see that you're 100%
| > wrong. Actually, you only have to read the very first sentence of
| > it.
| >
|
| OK, Here it is:
|
| "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless
| telegraphy or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy
| except under the authority of a licence in that behalf granted by
| the Postmaster General, and any person who establishes or uses any
| station for wireless telegraphy or instals or uses any apparatus
| for wireless telegraphy except under and in accordance with such a
| licence
| shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
|
| Except for specifying "in use" __as well__ as "establish" and
| "install" how is Mr Kraftee wrong?
|
| --
| altheim

This is the bun fight & round & around we go.

Altheim he won't admit that the law states that, all he will now do is
regurgitate his perception, his own personal interpretation completely
ignoring the actual black & white.

Been thru it all for some exams several years ago, but not that long
ago & I know it hasn't been amended that much because as sure as eggs
is eggs if you posses one you will use it at some time or other.

[altheim]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by altheim

Post by Stuart Noble

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).
No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

Post by altheim
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. [...]

Exactly my point. It is virtually impossible to prove that you
have never used your equipment to watch TV (you cannot
prove a negative) therefore you cannot win.

Clearly the prosecutors would not take their claims to court
if the law was not on their side therefore we can assume
that the law relates to ownership of equipment and not how
it is used.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by altheim

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by altheim

Post by Stuart Noble

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for

Yes, if you're downloading it at the same time it is being broadcast
(for either immediate watching or recording).
No, if you're downloading something which isn't currently being
broadcast, e.g. from one of the broadcasters' replay services.

Post by altheim
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

In theory, only if you use it. E.g. people with VCR's which they
only used for playback rental tapes don't need a licence in theory.
However, if you've ever sat through TV licence cases in magistrates
courts, you'll know that regardless of what the law says, you will
have to prove you haven't been using any broadcast recieving
apparatus if you are found with it. [...]

Exactly my point. It is virtually impossible to prove that you
have never used your equipment to watch TV (you cannot
prove a negative) therefore you cannot win.

Oh, it was easy if you genuinely hadn't, e.g. there was no
way to plug an aerial in.

Post by altheim
Clearly the prosecutors would not take their claims to court
if the law was not on their side therefore we can assume
that the law relates to ownership of equipment and not how
it is used.

I would guess about 40% of the not guilty plea cases were found
not guilty. This is probably more than should have been, but the
prosecution were not very competent, and sometimes didn't offer
any evidence at all, particularly if the defendant had a solicitor.
I never saw a case which was caught by detector van.

[Ken Ward]

Post by altheim

Post by Stuart Noble

Post by Arfa Daily
What I'm hoping now is that this rotten government don't start taxing
internet supply as they have said they will, because doubtless some
bright spark will then work out that they can hammer you for more
depending on your supply speed or useage. That really would knock the
cost of a VMBB connection firmly on the head ...

As long as it replaces the tv licence fee, I wouldn't complain. Being
charged for garbage I never watch, and hardly ever listen to, does get up
my nose though.

I heard it is already done. If you watch TV a TV licence is required
irrespective of the means by which which you receive it - including
via the internet. That means you could not (legally) avoid paying for
a TV licence merely by getting rid of your TV, arials, dishes set-top
boxes and stuff. If you have broadband and something like Windows
Media Player on your computer, or your mobile, you would still be liable
even if you never actually used it to watch TV.

Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in TV
watching.

Ken Ward.

[george (dicegeorge)]

Post by Ken Ward
Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in TV
watching.

I am told by someone who works in TV/internet
that a tv licence is needed to watch it Live over the internet,
but its OK to watch old programmes on BBC iplayer without a TV licence.

[g]

[Kráftéé]

"george (dicegeorge)" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gqjr5e$2lq3$***@energise.enta.net
| > Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in
| > TV watching.
| >
|
| I am told by someone who works in TV/internet
| that a tv licence is needed to watch it Live over the internet,
| but its OK to watch old programmes on BBC iplayer without a TV
| licence.
|
| [g]

That's right you're allowed to 'time slip' but not real time
watching...

[dennis@home]

Post by george (dicegeorge)

Post by Ken Ward
Only liable if you DO USE it! No such thing as "Going equipt" in TV
watching.

I am told by someone who works in TV/internet
that a tv licence is needed to watch it Live over the internet,
but its OK to watch old programmes on BBC iplayer without a TV licence.

You need the licence if it is near live, whatever "near live" means in
court.

Post by george (dicegeorge)
[g]

[Dave Liquorice]

Post by ***@home
You need the licence if it is near live, whatever "near live" means in
court.

I guess that is there because any defence lawyer worth their salt would
immediately point out that with any television there is a delay of some
sort between the precise moment of an event and the moment the same event
appears on the television screen.

In old analogue days this delay would be very short but now with digits,
sybchronisers, multiplexes, multi-hop geosynchronous satellite
distribution etc etc, the delay between an event happening and it
appearing on screen can be many seconds.

[tony sayer]

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by Kráftéé
|
| > Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| > offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| > useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| > using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".
Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).
I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..
Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.

Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He then
just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)
Arfa

Same here .. problem is if he leaves the whole lot it seems will grind
to a halt, there are precious few people who know what there're doing
with this sort of equipment!...

[Arfa Daily]

Post by tony sayer

Post by Arfa Daily

Post by Kráftéé
|
| > Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| > offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| > useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face of
| > using the word "unlimited"
|
| Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small print
| including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was nothing that I
| could find that altered the meaning of the word "unlimited" away
| from "without limit".
Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from the
slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over a 2-3
day period has not been unheard of a few times).
I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used to be
50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new. Unfortunately
Torrents just don't want to work for me, different story sorry..
Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of anybody
being told that they have abused their unlimited service. So it's
pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you need
unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them to,
instead of them playing up because you've done something like turn the
wifi off. They also have problems with words like contention but if a
firm hand is used they can be guided, without to much, if any,
swearing.

Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems with my
Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field service. He then
just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access to
technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are then able to
check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk level, and right down to
street cab level. :-)
Arfa

Same here .. problem is if he leaves the whole lot it seems will grind
to a halt, there are precious few people who know what there're doing
with this sort of equipment!...
--
Tony Sayer

I must admit that I do live in fear of him leaving them. He doesn't like his
job any more, but he is a couple of years older than me, and would stand
zero chance of getting employed elsewhere in today's economic climate,
because of his age, so I figure that unless they get rid of him, he's there
for the duration. He actually knows what he is about, but is a little too
conscientious about getting customers' problems sorted, often carrying out
work that he really ought to be calling other departments out to do. He has
worked in most of those departments over the years, so has collected the
expertise and equipment to do the remedial work, but it tends to put him
behind on jobs, which then leaves him working late. He is very 'old school'
on the customer service and satisfaction angle, as am I. I fear we are a
dying breed ...

Arfa

[Kráftéé]

"Arfa Daily" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:ZFfzl.40918$***@newsfe04.ams2
| "tony sayer" <***@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
| news:***@bancom.co.uk...
| > In article <mxWyl.144794$***@newsfe30.ams2>, Arfa Daily
| > <***@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
| >>
| >>"Kráftéé" <***@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
| >>news:***@bt.com...
| >>> "Dave Liquorice" <***@howhill.com> wrote in
| >>> message news:***@srv1.howhill.net
| >>> | On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
| >>> |
| >>> | > Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| >>> | > offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| >>> | > useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the
| >>> | > face of using the word "unlimited"
| >>> |
| >>> | Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small
| >>> | print including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was
| >>> | nothing that I could find that altered the meaning of the
| >>> | word "unlimited" away from "without limit".
| >>>
| >>> Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is
| >>> from the slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30
| >>> GB over a 2-3 day period has not been unheard of a few times).
| >>>
| >>> I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a
| >>> slow death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there
| >>> used to be 50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new.
| >>> Unfortunately Torrents just don't want to work for me,
| >>> different story sorry..
| >>>
| >>> Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of
| >>> anybody being told that they have abused their unlimited
| >>> service. So it's pretty good. The problem is with the
| >>> helpdesk which you need unearthly skills to get them to sort
| >>> out what you want them to, instead of them playing up because
| >>> you've done something like turn the wifi off. They also have
| >>> problems with words like contention but if a firm hand is used
| >>> they can be guided, without to much, if any, swearing.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>
| >>Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems
| >>with my Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on
| >>field service. He then
| >>just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as he has access
| >>to technical people who listen to what the problem is, and are
| >>then able to check stuff for him, right up to switch and trunk
| >>level, and right down to street cab level. :-)
| >>
| >>Arfa
| >>
| >>
| > Same here .. problem is if he leaves the whole lot it seems will
| > grind to a halt, there are precious few people who know what
| > there're doing with this sort of equipment!...
| > --
| > Tony Sayer
| >
| >
| >
| I must admit that I do live in fear of him leaving them. He doesn't
| like his job any more, but he is a couple of years older than me,
| and would stand zero chance of getting employed elsewhere in
| today's economic climate, because of his age, so I figure that
| unless they get rid of him, he's there for the duration. He
| actually knows what he is about, but is a little too conscientious
| about getting customers' problems sorted, often carrying out work
| that he really ought to be calling other departments out to do. He
| has worked in most of those departments over the years, so has
| collected the expertise and equipment to do the remedial work, but
| it tends to put him behind on jobs, which then leaves him working
| late. He is very 'old school' on the customer service and
| satisfaction angle, as am I. I fear we are a dying breed ...

Make that more a unemployed breed. It always happens when stats get
in the way of end user service, some companies even place 'quality
standards' which are impossible to keep 100% if the stat is to be met
so the customer service engineer who tries to satisfy the end users &
keep to the quality standards fall even further behind. The funny
thing is, when the crap hits the wall who are the employees they call
to help them out....That's right the very ones who they're threatening
with poor performance discplinary procedures & anything else they can
dream up to try & force them out the door.

[tony sayer]

Post by Kráftéé
Make that more a unemployed breed. It always happens when stats get
in the way of end user service, some companies even place 'quality
standards' which are impossible to keep 100% if the stat is to be met
so the customer service engineer who tries to satisfy the end users &
keep to the quality standards fall even further behind. The funny
thing is, when the crap hits the wall who are the employees they call
to help them out....That's right the very ones who they're threatening
with poor performance discplinary procedures & anything else they can
dream up to try & force them out the door.

British mis- "management" at its very best;(...

[Kráftéé]

"Arfa Daily" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:mxWyl.144794$***@newsfe30.ams2
| "Kráftéé" <***@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
| news:***@bt.com...
| > "Dave Liquorice" <***@howhill.com> wrote in message
| > news:***@srv1.howhill.net
| > | On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0000, Arfa Daily wrote:
| > |
| > | > Most 'unlimited' services, including the Virgin "L" and "XL"
| > | > offerings AFAIK, are subject, in the small print, to a 'fair
| > | > useage policy' which in my opinion, rather flies in the face
| > | > of using the word "unlimited"
| > |
| > | Agreed. I did look about the BT web site to find such small
| > | print including the (a?) fair use policy page. There was
| > | nothing that I could find that altered the meaning of the word
| > | "unlimited" away from "without limit".
| >
| > Well I hammer mine on occasions & the only problem I get is from
| > the slow servers where I'm getting the data from (20 - 30 GB over
| > a 2-3 day period has not been unheard of a few times).
| >
| > I could say P2P 24 hours day but the network I use had died a slow
| > death only 3 world wide servers on the network where there used
| > to be 50 or more, so I've got to look for pastures new.
| > Unfortunately Torrents just don't want to work for me, different
| > story sorry..
| >
| > Let's put it this way in the last year I have never heard of
| > anybody being told that they have abused their unlimited service.
| > So it's pretty good. The problem is with the helpdesk which you
| > need unearthly skills to get them to sort out what you want them
| > to, instead of them playing up because you've done something like
| > turn the wifi off. They also have problems with words like
| > contention but if a firm hand is used they can be guided, without
| > to much, if any, swearing.
| >
| >
|
| Bit of a cop out on that score, but when I have had any problems
| with my Virgin BB, I just call my mate, who works for them on field
| service. He then just pops round to sort it for me. Very useful, as
| he has access to technical people who listen to what the problem
| is, and are then able to check stuff for him, right up to switch
| and trunk level, and right down to street cab level. :-)
|
| Arfa

Had the same thing when I first had Diamond Cable, but with the switch
to NTHell he was moved to another part of the midlands so I lost the
chance of support. Infact the only time, after he moved, when I di
get him involved was when one of their TV repeaters on a bloc of flats
in Leicester was broadcasting a signal into one of the amateur radio
bands, which was quickly, very quickly, looked into but then dropped
after they discovered how much it would cost to rectify the problem..

[Andrew Gabriel]

Post by r***@ntlworld.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

AA are not of residential bargain basement ISP category AA are very
expensive they can afford to offer the above considering what they are
charging their customers .

They aren't very expensive, and neither are they very cheap.
However, their service level is what I expect, and so I use them.
Their full honesty and openness when they have problems are
excellent. (Demon used to be quite good in this respect when they
first started, but lost any such claims years ago now, not evem
acknowledging faults for days, if at all nowadays.)

I also had excellent service from BT Openworld Business, but at
over £60/month 4 years ago (and colleagues still on it are now
over £100/month), I couldn't justify the cost.

BT Openworld Business were excellent at identifying faults (usually
before I noticed them), letting me know, and getting them fixed. A&A
let me know automatically if the link goes down completely (but not if
it's just getting poor, although they provide me the full data to see
that if I look). A&A are excellent at getting BT to fix things, and
are very flexible and responsive to any configuration change requests.

[m***@care2.com]

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

One month! ... what use is that.

Makes me wonder if they've implemented that famous RFC for data
packets for internet connection via carrier pigeon.


NT

[Bob Eager]

Post by m***@care2.com

Post by Bob Eager

Post by Andrew Gabriel
If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

"We'll fix your line even if you are with another ISP!
If you are migrating your service to us, even though you know you have a
problem with your line, we'll take on the fault. We'll tackle the
problem and get it fixed within one month. If we don't then you can
migrate away and owe us nothing for your migration to us and your
service charges for that month. Details. "
http://aa.nu/broadband.html

One month! ... what use is that.

If you've been struggling for months trying to get anything done....

Post by m***@care2.com
Makes me wonder if they've implemented that famous RFC for data
packets for internet connection via carrier pigeon.

Been done.

http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/

[tony sayer]

Post by Andrew Gabriel

Post by tony sayer

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:25:42 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster

Post by r***@ntlworld.com
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:00:12 +0000, Lobster

Post by Lobster
What, you mean you're still paying BT for their line??

I am in a similar situation I have a Virgin line which is never used
it came part of a package. Virgin charge a connection fee for every
call made ,I have the all calls option from BT which cost me 14.00 a
month including line rental and no connection charges .

So why not dump the BT line altogether and just take Virgin's Talk
Unlimited package (which AFAICS is equivalent your BT offering) at 8.00
per month?

Because in my opinion BT and GPO before them have always provided me
with good service never tried to over charge me bills have always been
correct and have never in the last fifty+ years have I picked up the
phone and found it not to be working .
Has people say if something is working don't try to fix it if BT are
ever able to provide the Internet speeds that Virgin provide then it
will be Virgin that gets dumped not BT .

Someone there who deals with telecoms very infrequently...
.. A lucky person indeed;)....
BTW if Virgin we're not around do you think that BT would have been
bothered to improve anything other then what Ofcom might want them to
do?..

If you're refering to the ability to get BT to fix broadband issues,
this is pretty much entirely down the the quality of your ISP's support
staff. If you have a bargin basement ISP with call staff in a foreign
centre who can only read from script cards, then you're going to be
stuffed because they won't have a clue how to engage BT correctly to
fix a fault. However, there are ISPs who are very good at handling BT
and getting faults fixed, but that requires a level of support staff
and infrastructure you won't find in the residential bargin basement
ISP category.

No it was telecoms in general..

As to the latter thats why Two of our accounts are with Zen now, not the
cheapest but U get what U pay for..

FWIW I would have had VM in those two locations but the cable network
doesn't extend where they are located:(..

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Post by altheim
I hear that ITV, for that very same reason, are considering moving
some, or all, of their channels to Sky.

They'd cease to be ITV, then, as the franchise has an obligation as
regards how it is transmitted.