BT Doesn't inspire confidence

[ReformedCharacter]

In July I decided that we were paying too much for our broadband and landline calls. We have BT as our provider because when fibre to the premises became available in this area BT were the cheapest option. With FTTP and their 'anytime calls' option we were paying £53 a month. I decided to change to VOIP for phone calls and called BT to change to a 'pay as you go' tariff. They quoted me £44.99 a month and when I mentioned that I could see what I wanted for £39.99 a month, the call centre person said 'Is that on a price-comparison website?'. 'No', I said 'it's on your own website'. 'I'll have to check that with my supervisor...' Anyway, the price of £39.99 was agreed and that's what we've been paying.

Then, a week ago, I had an advertising email from BT for their 'Unbelievably fast, unbelievably reliable broadband' and out of curiosity clicked on the link in the email to find out the quote for my 'Upgrade'. After the system cogitated it offered me £34.99 and the promise to 'send you a 4G hub if your broadband fails'. So I completed my upgrade and I'm happy to be saving £5 a month, get a spare Home Hub for £9.99 and the promise of a 4G hub if the fibre fails. The Home Hub came today, as did 2 emails from BT. The first told me the details of the upgrade and the second was the another advertising email for their 'Unbelievably fast, unbelievably reliable broadband'. I clicked the link and this time I got an offer of £39.99.

Now, you might think that pricing-up an Internet service, a landline charge and a 'phone tariff wouldn't be difficult but they've managed to offer me £44.99, £39.99 and £34.99 for the same products. Glad I'm not a shareholder

RC

[Lootman]

All I can say is that BT used to be much worse prior to its privatisation in 1984. I recall being told I had to wait 3 months for a landline phone when I bought my first place in London in 1980, then again when I moved in 1983. By then I was working with a guy whose wife worked at BT so I managed to jump the queue.

Now I suspect they can install in days because there is competition. Even so an opportunity was missed. Thatcher/Lawson had wanted to break up BT into regional phone companies, as the US had done with AT&T and the "Baby Bells". But that was impossible with BT because of their archaic and monolithic accounting and computing systems. So even to this day BT retains some of the aspects of being run as a government bureaucracy, with all that that implies.

[gryffron]

Now, you might think that pricing-up an Internet service, a landline charge and a 'phone tariff wouldn't be difficult but they've managed to offer me £44.99, £39.99 and £34.99 for the same products. Glad I'm not a shareholder

Internet connection is "What will the customer pay?". True of virtually all the providers.

Gryff

[stewamax]

All I can say is that BT used to be much worse prior to its privatisation in 1984. I recall being told I had to wait 3 months for a landline phone when I bought my first place in London in 1980, then again when I moved in 1983. By then I was working with a guy whose wife worked at BT so I managed to jump the queue.

Oh so true. When I was working in Scotland I needed a data line (Tariff T - remember them?) from near Edinburgh to Glasgow. These were phone lines that were jumpered to bypass the electromechanical Strowger switches in the exchanges. I was quoted "a year".
So I did something slightly disreputable and gave a good and very alcoholic lunch to the area installations manager on the pretext of his meeting my new telecomms recruit. A good time was had by all, and - just before we parted - I mentioned this teeeeeny problem we had. The line was installed the following week.