May i be the first to say, "who gives a shit"?
36 posts • joined 3 Mar 2008
I never understood what the advantage to consumers was in these deals.
With mobile companies you understand a minimum term due to a subsidy being paid on the handset but where there is an existing line in perpituity there is no need to lock people in, other than to scare them off leaving.
Its like a partner tying their spouse to the bed, tv or cooker to prevent them looking for someone who'd treat them better.
Shows what a bunch of contemptuous, immoral sharks run BT and other shitty outfits who can't/won't compete fairly. Its shitty practices like this coupled with the inferior offering of xDSL providers which stopped me using any BT service about 5 years ago.
Its just a shame others aren't savvy enough to take their hard earned money away from them.
Stop wasting your time and ours.
1). Google have become the market leader because their service is simple, uncluttered and works.
2). You have and will have nothing "novel" enough to pull users away from Google's long established service.
3). Individually you are poor companies - MS - you are a monolitic and greedy entity who thinks it has a rightful place in every part of the IT market. You don't. Perhaps in the 80's and 90's you were edgy and fresh and rightfully grew, now you feel archaic and bloated. Yahoo, you service is cluttered and ugly. You rightfully lost the search battle with Google and have done nothing that i am aware of worth using for many years.
4). You have both tried to compete with Google for a decade and failed. Guess what, the exact same thing will happen again.
So, in conclusion, stop boring us with your crap and pointless plans. Go do something useful.
At least you accept you are a luddie but come on.. a text is hardly the most complex or invasive thing to recieve. Personally, I prefer them as I dont feel compelled to pick up the phone when one comes in which you generally do with a call.
That said, i'm thinking all the moaners in this thread should;
A). Take their email requirements elsewhere.
I'm incredibly keen in privacy but they're making a mountain out of a molehill and missing the obvious point that within their email accounts there is probably far more sensitive information than merely their mobile number.
Arrogant beyond belief
So "we'll have your data eventually, like it or not"
Instead of being "childish" and trying to prevent this, "grow up and tell us how you think we should use it - but consider this - you'll never know we've kept to the agreement".
I think this greedy little man needs to think less about lining his own pockets and more about humanity.
Its not difficult, they could provide a wires only service which is paid to your ISP so no relationship with Bloody Terrible.
Or you could just get cable.
The point isn't the delivery method but the point that it adds about a tenner a month to the cost if you aren't using a PSTN service. Handily overlooked by the BT spin machine.
Gavin Patterson - FAIL!
>CEO Gavin Patterson announced the upgrade with a dig at main rival Virgin Media, whose 20Mbit/s and 50Mbit/s services cost significantly more than its slower packages.
>"Unlike other providers, BT is upgrading customers to 20Mb/s for free," he said.
Well, well, well Gav.
Firstly, lets see how many get >10mb/s before you start gloating and before you forget...
...xDSL means consumers are obliged to pay line rental on a PSTN service many don't use.
Add that too your broadband costs you tool.
>If you do not commit crimes you have nothing to fear. In fact, this database will help people prove their innocence and mean less mis-carriages of justice (plus less wasted court time).
It is NOT the place of the citizen to prove their INNOCENCE. It is the place of the state to prove their GUILT.
No wonder we're in such a mess when people think like this. What absolute nonsense!
>I too recently had my Yahoo account hacked into (which was then used to access my ebay account and cause havoc). When I reported this to Yahoo they wanted me to email them all my security questions before they would investigate (even though I was emailing them from my Yahoo account which should be proof of ownership). Due to email not being secure and only just having my account hacked into, I decliend to email them all my details so they promptly ignored my report of hacking and did absolutely nothing nothing about it.
How would they know you weren't the "hacker"? Couldn't you have emailed from another account quoting your email address and security question answers?
What do you want them to do if they can't verify you are the right person?!
>As for privacy I see it all t he time with people forwarding their junk joke emails to me including the emails of half the Internet for my leisure. You can't trust users to be private until you make BCC: the default and remove support for multiple addresses in TO: and CC: in mail clients and servers.
As do I but that doesn't mean you can or even should force private citizens to follow your beliefs.
Companies (data processors) are one thing. Personal mailing lists are another.
I don't want the incompetence of oranisations as that above dictating how i might use my own email services and clients thank you very much!
I'm bored of this tired old line coming out of organisations who make these obvious schoolboy errors -
"We take your privacy very seriously and our team are working hard to put in additional safety measures right now."
Clearly they do not or it wouldn't have happened in the first place.
As a follow up to my email I sent them (posted here yesterday), I have now received the following email (my subsequent response is below).
"Good afternoon x
Thank you for letting me know about your concerns about the changes to charges for calling 08 numbers. I appreciate why you've contacted us about this and I'm sorry for any disappointment that's been caused.
From the 28 July 2008 the price of calling specific 08 numbers will change. To make things clearer for our customers we have aligned our 08 number charges with local and national calls to follow the latest OFCOM guidelines.
These calls aren't included as part of the allowance in any of our price plans. As one of our Flext customers you're currently being charged 10p per minute. However, as of 28 July you'll be charged 20p per minute.
Numbers beginning with 08 are used by third parties to enable access to their helplines or customer services. As they're not UK mobile numbers and are non geographic, they're chargeable. This is stated in the non-standard charges in your 'What It Costs' document that forms part of your terms and conditions.
I'm sorry to hear that you wish to leave us because of these changes. As you're in contract, you would still be liable to pay an early cancellation charge of £x VAT exempt. This is calculated as your monthly line rental until the end of your contract, minus 4%. Should you want to go ahead with the cancellation, please call us on 150 from your mobile. We're available between 7am and 10pm, everyday.
Please ensure that you make a note of any important information you have stored on your SIM pack, as this will be lost when the cancellation goes through.
you can rest assured that whilst this may mean an increase to some individual costs, we believe our price plans are the most competitive in the UK for price. We will continue to offer you simple and innovative new tariffs.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us x. We do value your custom and we hope that you'll reconsider your decision and stay with us."
My reply -
"Good afternoon x,
Thank you for your template response to my query.
I have already explained that I am well aware of the "justification" T-Mobile have for doubling the prices of calls to these numbers. In effect, that is irrelevant. You could quite easily have made them "simpler" by bundling chargeable calls and returning freephone numbers to being free to call. Now I understand this is a difficult concept for some but for others, it's really quite straightforward. Ofcom have at no point suggested you or any other company increase prices for the consumer. To suggest or imply otherwise (as the tone of your response) is dishonest in the extreme.
In December when I took out this number I agreed to a specific tariff and the associated chargeable call charges. I most certainly did not agree to the prices you now expect a customer to pay for these numbers.
Given that you are doubling the price of calls to these numbers I would consider this a significant material change in line with your T&Cs.
I insist at this point you escalate this within T-Mobile. Failure to obtain a legitimate and satisfactory response will result in a report to Trading Standards, Ofcom, CISAS and any other appropriate body.
To recap - You have not responded to the specifics of my email (i.e. the legality of your position with the specific references to the quotes from your own T&C's), you have not explained how you feel these do not apply in this situation. I believe I am within my rights to request cancellation without penalty and would once again insist upon this being carried out."
My response to T-Mobile (sent yesterday)
I have received a text message today stating that as of July 28th 2008 T-Mobile will be increasing its call charges to numbers beginning with 08.
As a user of these numbers I do not believe it to be acceptable to increase call charges to numbers which were introduced to be either free of charge or charged at a "local rate".
Having briefly reviewed the T&C's (V55) on your website and believe that under clause 2.11.2 and 18.104.22.168 I am entitled to cancel my service without penalty. I have this morning spoken with one of your colleagues in the retention team who has confirm I'm on T&C's version 52 which I do not have a copy of at present to review further.
To quote -
7.2.5. A cancellation charge won’t apply if You are within Your Minimum Term and:
22.214.171.124. You are a Consumer and the change that We gave You
Written Notice of in point 2.11.2 or 7.1.4 above is of material detriment
to You and You give Us notice to immediately cancel this Agreement
before the change takes effect;
2.11.2. If You are a Consumer and the change is of material detriment
to You, We will send You Written Notice one calendar month before the
terms and conditions are due to change. The new terms and conditions
will apply to You once the calendar month’s notice has run out unless
You terminate Your Agreement with Us within that notice period. If
You do this You won’t have to pay any cancellation charge that would
otherwise apply, see point 126.96.36.199.
I take the view that an increase to these charges is indeed a material detriment to me and consider your text message notification as written notice.
To this end I would request you cancel my CTN* (x), without penalty in line with my rights under the T&C's and the raft of consumer legislation in this area.
I would be grateful if you could come back to me ASAP to confirm your position on this matter.
In order for you to access my records in line with the Data Protection Act I have included the information you will need below -
Account Holder: x
I can be contacted on the above number or by email at this address should you need further information.
*CTN is internal terminology for a mobile number (I worked for them many years ago).
AC - Offshoring
Yes, people dislike overseas call centres. They are script driven and can't communicate naturally.
That's not to say they need to be brought back to the UK. They just need to empower staff at all levels to do the best for the customer.
I'm neither for nor against overseas call centres, just poor service.
As an aside...
Whatever happened to the "black boxes" proposed around the time RIPA was being debated?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be told if the functionality to remotely monitor any connection was available. In fact, I understand that (informing) is contrary to IOCA anyway.
Let's not forget Phorm but isn't it time to look at the bigger picture on interception of comms data?
Re: John MacIntyre
>I'm assuming this is all down to online shopping and not orders made in store right?
The article states "after hacking into systems involving card authorisation". That doesn't give any indication as to whether these are in store or not. Chances are the data would travel through the same system irrespective. So to jump on the internet fraud bandwagon at this stage would seem a little hasty/speculative.
>Why do they need to hold the credit card details of that many cards after payment has been authorised and taken?
Who said this occurred AFTER that?
>And if it isn't online, why would they have the corresponding names and addresses for all those people, the two bits of information you're always meant to keep separate?
The article clearly states "Hannaford said hackers might have accessed customer credit and debit card numbers - but not the corresponding names or addresses"
>Or is this my naivety, that once you purchase from a shop the company won't be interested in tracking your shopping habits every step of the way... almost makes me want to move back to cash payment again...
Companies DO track what you buy to build up a marketing profile. It's usually done via storecards rather than credit card data. Certainly, that would be unlawful in the UK and I expect so for the US (that said, the US do have some odd data protection legislation).
>So they'll most likely go ahead anyway, until someone takes the fuckers to court, where they'll most likely employ the usual army of expensive briefs and "experts" to defend their position.
Maybe so but unlawful interception of communications is a criminal offence so there could be people at the top of these companies being arrested.