Your thoughts for Ofcom

AGMSIX

Might lower your blood pressure if you did a bit of research first. You DO NOT have to get a new line via BT retail, any voice provider can do it for you if they wish. Some that will do it include Plusnet, Post Office, Phone Co-op, Madasafish and many more.
Even if you do get BT retail to install the line there is a £30 offer on at the moment, details on the forum somewhere.

[Deleted User]

I want to know why companies can demand payments for service not being provided and at the same time lock them into the service see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1262591 . Why are companies allowed to operate, charge for and 'provide' a service if they are not able/willing to repair service when they break down and are dependent on other 3rd party companies to fix repairs.
I'm sure TT 'policy' of threatening customers of BT's £150+ fee to reconnect is against competition rules. IMAO 'competion' sucks when it forces you to stay with a company who dont provide what you are paying for and leave people vulnerable.

Jemma-T

Do you sell green ADSL? Do you sell environmentally friendly Caller Display? Then consider Accredited® by OfCom™*. Easy payments are available.

This is the main thing that's wrong with OfCom. They are run like a private busines with a useless chief executive and it gets on my goat when I see TV presenters/interviewers talking to their staff like they're part of ASDA. What the hell this 'accredition' is I don't know but it should be none of OfCom's business trying to increase a private company's business profit. They have legal duties to work in the public interest but we see no sign of any assistance for the public. It's all fur coat and no knickers.

Accredited® is an OfCom™ selling mark. OfCom™ is a wholly own subsidary of LoydsTSB and the letter "O" is copyright the Oxford English Dictionary and ASDA.

billsavings

Jemma-T wrote: »

Do you sell green ADSL? Do you sell environmentally friendly Caller Display? Then consider Accredited® by OfCom™*. Easy payments are available.

This is the main thing that's wrong with OfCom. They are run like a private busines with a useless chief executive and it gets on my goat when I see TV presenters/interviewers talking to their staff like they're part of ASDA. What the hell this 'accredition' is I don't know but it should be none of OfCom's business trying to increase a private company's business profit. They have legal duties to work in the public interest but we see no sign of any assistance for the public. It's all fur coat and no knickers.

Accredited® is an OfCom™ selling mark. OfCom™ is a wholly own subsidary of LoydsTSB and the letter "O" is copyright the Oxford English Dictionary and ASDA.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ocp/statement/pricescheme/consumerfaq/

Heinz

Heinz wrote: »

Martin, it appears BT are now making it up as they go along (see the nonsense e-mail reply one MSE-er received HERE

You'll remember it was the No.1 issue I suggested you raise at your meeting with Ofcom. I expect that was the issue to which they gave you the old, "We'll get back to you on that" response.

Have they yet? Clearly, saying, "We've had to withdraw the 1280 service" is unacceptable (and nonsense because their own website advises people to use that prefix to make qualifying calls in order to get free Caller Display and/or 1571).

Surprisingly, Ofcom appear to have ignored Martin and repied, unsatisfactorily, to YoungNick on this matter instead.

diamonds

Well as a public body it nice to know OFCON are ignoring Martin & consumers

KimYeovil

billbennett wrote: »

The one thing that pees me off about the landline system as it is, is that you HAVE to get your landline installed through BT, then you HAVE to pay them £124.99 for the privelege, then you HAVE to stay with them for a year.

If that doesn't kill competition, I don't know what does.

Imagine if broadband suppliers were like that. New broadband? You've GOT to sign up with BT Broadband for a year before you can switch to Tiscali/Orange/AOL/Whoever...

What a strange, ill-informed seethe! That last paragraph is one of the weirdest I have read. A self-contradiction without parallel.

Chrysalis

ofcom is just a pretend regulator, there to satisfy the public so they think they protected but ofcom will only react when there is severe bad publicity usually.

If you look at their remit one of the items is they have to ensure the companies they legislate remain profiteable, that should not be their concern at all.

Then look at the amount of people that have moved between ofcom and the companies it regulates its so obviously blatantly corrupt.

It does seem martin has been given the runaround.