Say no to Sky's 0844 numbers campaign

DonnyDave · 17 November 2009 at 2:24PM

At SAYNOTO0870.COM we have been publishing geographical (01/02) alternative numbers to Sky's 0844 numbers. We have got to the point where they only last a day or two before they are taken out of service.

I am not a Sky customer, but I am given to understand certain changes to mean a telephone call, such as changing package, and in particular moving downwards or cancelling the paid-for part of the service. This is because the website and the red button only allow customers to add services.

I urge all Sky customers who have a view on this matter to e-mail the Chief Executive:[EMAIL="jeremy.darroch@bskyb.com"] jeremy.darroch@bskyb.com[/EMAIL]

Sky could provide an alternative for us to list, but chooses not to. If only a few calls are made to the alternative numbers, then why disable them? If not, then this demonstrates that customers don't like the 0844 numbers.

So Sky, give us an alternative number for customers to use.

davemurgatroyd · 17 November 2009 at 3:50PM

DonnyDave wrote: »

At SAYNOTO0870.COM we have been publishing geographical (01/02) alternative numbers to Sky's 0844 numbers. We have got to the point where they only last a day or two before they are taken out of service.

I am not a Sky customer, but I am given to understand certain changes to mean a telephone call, such as changing package, and in particular moving downwards or cancelling the paid-for part of the service. This is because the website and the red button only allow customers to add services.

I urge all Sky customers who have a view on this matter to e-mail the Chief Executive:[EMAIL="jeremy.darroch@bskyb.com"] jeremy.darroch@bskyb.com[/EMAIL]

Sky could provide an alternative for us to list, but chooses not to. If only a few calls are made to the alternative numbers, then why disable them? If not, then this demonstrates that customers don't like the 0844 numbers.

So Sky, give us an alternative number for customers to use.

The problem with a lot of the numbers you have posted for Sky is that they are direct lines to specific departments within Sky for use by their installers. Sky change these numbers to prevent disruption to their business down to you publicising such numbers. If you were to only publish direct switchboard numbers then no problem BUT the way your site has been publishing numbers is counter-productive.

Quentin · 17 November 2009 at 4:02PM

DonnyDave wrote: »

I am not a Sky customer......
I urge all Sky customers who have a view on this matter to e-mail the Chief Executive: ....

So you are not even a customer, yet publish their CE's personal e-mail address??

Why do you have an axe to grind?

(And coming here and breaking the MSE rules by publishing the e-mail address lets down saynoto0870 as well as trying to bring MSE into isrepute by urging mischievous action like this)

Quentin · 17 November 2009 at 4:34PM

Kenny_Powers wrote: »

As for bringing this forum into disrepute? You can't even spell the word.

Your point being what exactly?

How does it look if MSE is used as the means to mount mischievous campaigns against individuals by publishing their prsonal e-mail addresses?

When we join up here we agree to be bound by the rules, one of which is not to to post personal email addresses.

And the OP isn't even a customer of Sky, so seems to just be causing them trouble for vindictive reasons.

(And as far as you pointing out that posts here are the personal opinion of the poster - isn't that always the case?)

Fifer · 17 November 2009 at 4:51PM

I suspect Martin doesn't have much of a problem with this campaign or its methods.

Quentin · 17 November 2009 at 4:56PM

Fifer wrote: »

I suspect Martin doesn't have much of a problem with this campaign or its methods.

So why would he bother having rules like "don't post personal e-mail addresses" if he was happy for his site to be misused for campaigns like this?

McKneff · 17 November 2009 at 4:59PM

Am i right in thinking that

a. if you are a skytalk customer then calls to sky (eve & weekends) are free

2. calls to 0870 numbers are also free (not sure about just evening and weekends.

Just to add - i think saynoto0870 is great, i have saved a fortune over the years. I tell anyone and everyone about it.

I also think its outrageous that there is an 8p connection charge during the day so usually dont call anyone during that time. 13p to make a 1 minute call is
oTT in my opinion.

incus432 · 18 November 2009 at 12:17AM

Do you really think that this really is a 'personal email address' that Mr D uses to chat to his friends? Anyway I'm afraid going to the top is oftenb the only way to get action from these corporations. I fully support saynoto0870 on this.

Inactive · 18 November 2009 at 1:55AM

incus432 wrote: »

Do you really think that this really is a 'personal email address' that Mr D uses to chat to his friends? Anyway I'm afraid going to the top is oftenb the only way to get action from these corporations. I fully support saynoto0870 on this.

So do I, I am convinced that Sky actually tell call centre staff to drag out phone calls in order to increase revenue.

derrick · 18 November 2009 at 3:59PM

McKneff wrote: »

Am i right in thinking that

a. if you are a skytalk customer then calls to sky (eve & weekends) are free

2. calls to 0870 numbers are also free (not sure about just evening and weekends.

No, they are "inclusive", you have to pay a subscription to receive the inclusive calls, if they where free, you would not need to pay anything!

Free = at no cost.

LeeSouthEast · 18 November 2009 at 4:33PM

If a company does not have a geographic alternative, or I cannot find one, I don't ring them. It's that simple. I thank SNT0870 for saving me an absolute fortune over the last few years.

Shame on Sky for being money-grabbing !!!!!!!s.

Say no to Sky's 0844 numbers campaign

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free