More . . . BT Broadband Data Accounting Bingo

[@Lee]

even if the online usage monitor was down you can check it yourself in the router.

[Dr Zoidberg]

This transition from capped Broadband to unlimited is obviously a change which benefits BT and the wider internet long-term strategic way. 

 

 

No, it really doesn't. Bulk data running across the internet backbone is expensive. Increasing capacity in local exchanges is expensive.

BT are quite happy to have people on capped plans - if you don't use it much they still get the same income, and if you use it more then they can charge you extra.

 

That's why providers introduced caps in the first place.

[mbames]

I am prepared to try anything, but why should I even need to do this if the BT kit at my address and their servers are fit for purpose i.e.  prevent intrusion and accurately account for data usuage ?

 

 

I very much doubt that the logging of data will be recorded via your homehub - if it were you could simply use any other (non-Homehub) router which reported back zero usage that would ruin BT stats.  Most likely BT will be logging the IP address you are assigned when the HH connects and then log traffic against that.

 

The equipment can't also prevent intrusion because you might have an insecure wifi password, and may have left a network cable dangling out of your window for a friend to use (obviously you will say you haven't, buy my point is that if you fiddle with the settling, etc you can make a semi-secure device totally insecure).

[Clunkclick]

even if the online usage monitor was down you can check it yourself in the router.

But at that point, there was no previous history of my data usage bouncing off of the ceiling and certainly no anticipation of the outrageous claims to come - remember the account monitoring went down at the end of June and the data usage started going haywire sometime in July.

 

I know its circumstantial, but its so pat  and in accord with other BT Customers' previous experience (Dating back to 2011) suspicions must be raised amongt the sentient types in the BT customerhood.

 

If its all koscher, why the reluctance to supply the daily figures ?

 

N.

[Clunkclick]

No, it really doesn't. Bulk data running across the internet backbone is expensive. Increasing capacity in local exchanges is expensive.

BT are quite happy to have people on capped plans - if you don't use it much they still get the same income, and if you use it more then they can charge you extra.

 

That's why providers introduced caps in the first place.

Sorry matey, its quite obvious too me that they weren't happy with me pootling along at 25-35 GB a month usage . Otherwise, why after 4.5 years of this rate of usqge did they UNILATERALY impose an uprate in my monthly data cap and an increase, of greater proportion, in my download speed ?

 

There's not many of these companies capitivated in the thrall of the City who suddenly get overcome with the warm glow of humanity even if I was paying, or supposed to pay an extra £3 a month for the privilege. No, the change was effected for a purpose . . . . . entrapment .

 

N

[gadgetman]

Sorry matey, its quite obvious too me that they weren't happy with me pootling along at 25-35 GB a month usage . Otherwise, why after 4.5 years of this rate of usqge did they UNILATERALY impose an uprate in my monthly data cap and an increase, of greater proportion, in my download speed ?

There's not many of these companies capitivated in the thrall of the City who suddenly get overcome with the warm glow of humanity even if I was paying, or supposed to pay an extra £3 a month for the privilege. No, the change was effected for a purpose . . . . . entrapment .

N

Curse you've clearly seen through their plan of wanting you on an uncapped plan paying less than at present (excluding extra charges) instead of letting you carry on as you are and charging you for any extra.

Clearly we're all the stupid ones falling for this faux money saving trick. I'll write to Mr Lewis immediately

[mac11irl]

So... yet another out clause offered ( a very decent vodafone deal) but youd rather spend your time trying to beat BT into submission "to follow the protocols".... i dunno, id like to think that even when im retired id value my own time better than dealing that ****e.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Sorry matey, its quite obvious too me that they weren't happy with me pootling along at 25-35 GB a month usage . Otherwise, why after 4.5 years of this rate of usqge did they UNILATERALY impose an uprate in my monthly data cap and an increase, of greater proportion, in my download speed ?

 

There's not many of these companies capitivated in the thrall of the City who suddenly get overcome with the warm glow of humanity even if I was paying, or supposed to pay an extra £3 a month for the privilege. No, the change was effected for a purpose . . . . . entrapment .

 

N

BT with their millions of customers have decided to enact this cunning plan to personally entrap you for £3 extra a month, knowing that you can heave for another ISP?

That's tinfoil hat territory.

[Clunkclick]

So... yet another out clause offered ( a very decent vodafone deal) but youd rather spend your time trying to beat BT into submission "to follow the protocols".... i dunno, id like to think that even when im retired id value my own time better than dealing that ****e.re

Surely, under any logical service schema consideration,  the option you suggest would only be considered once all avenues with BT are exhausted. They are not at that point. 

 

If you do that first you're not fully exploring all the solution possibilities with BT, and you're giving the marketeers in BT and elsewhere an easy ride.

 

N

[Clunkclick]

BT with their millions of customers have decided to enact this cunning plan to personally entrap you for £3 extra a month, knowing that you can heave for another ISP?

That's tin foil hat territory. 

Read the BT Community fora, the M.O. is identical for loads of customers.

 

If you discount the possibility that "Every little helps" the BT balance sheet, what other explanations are there, in the absence of a guiding principle, staff incompetence en masse that coincidentally always leads to the same result ?

 

More realistic is that its the combined action of dummies all speaking from the same hymm sheet.

 

Yeah, that sounds more like contemporary existence.

 

Spratt to catch a mackerell.

 

N 

Edited 15 January, 2017 by Clunkclick

[Dr Zoidberg]

Surely, under any logical service schema consideration,  the option you suggest would only be considered once all avenues with BT are exhausted. They are not at that point. 

 

If you do that first you're not fully exploring all the solution possibilities with BT, and you're giving the marketeers in BT and elsewhere an easy ride.

 

N

Why would I exhaust all avenues with BT, when they have clearly annoyed you and there are significantly cheaper alternative companies that you could swap to?

If you believe they are either incompetent or dishonest or both, staying with them is giving them an easy ride as you put it.

Stop giving them your money.

[mac11irl]

Surely, under any logical service schema consideration, the option you suggest would only be considered once all avenues with BT are exhausted. They are not at that point.

If you do that first you're not fully exploring all the solution possibilities with BT, and you're giving the marketeers in BT and elsewhere an easy ride.

N

No, its telling them bogoff, theres no overusage being paid for without irrefutable evidence from them (the ISP) being provided. In the meantime there is no existing contract so stuff your crappy service and complaints system, and sign up to a decent (better and cheaper) alternative, and never go near BT again. The end.

[Clunkclick]

Curse you've clearly seen through their plan of wanting you on an uncapped plan paying less than at present (excluding extra charges) instead of letting you carry on as you are and charging you for any extra.

Clearly we're all the stupid ones falling for this faux money saving trick. I'll write to Mr Lewis immediately

So £120 is easy come easy go with you ? I looking forward to the cheque in the post.

 

N

[@Lee]

[Clunkclick]

No, its telling them bogoff, theres no overusage being paid for without irrefutable evidence from them (the ISP) being provided. In the meantime there is no existing contract so stuff your crappy service and complaints system, and sign up to a decent (better and cheaper) alternative, and never go near BT again. The end.

I'm off contract at the moment.

 

Without my acceptance they can't force me onto one. 

 

I've got more leverage remaining in that position than doing a bunk.

 

If the period of excess data usage in 2016 is an inflated phoney, then they won't risk doing that again, soon, without it looking very suspicious. Especially, whilst its under consideration by an Ombudsman.

 

They're going to be like post-war Germans on holiday in France - on their best behaviour.

 

N

Edited 15 January, 2017 by Clunkclick

[mbames]

Once again. Being 'on-contract' with unlimited data would stop this entire issue from ever happening. Would save you endless time installing and recording monitoring software to compare to BTs figures and would mean you have more time that isn't spend writing angry emails and challenging capitalist regimes.

That sounds like a good deal to me to be honest. But I'm not retired and I value my time.

 

And as much p*rn as he would like to download too  :D  :x  :peek:

[mbames]

So £120 is easy come easy go with you ? I looking forward to the cheque in the post.

 

 

Well you seem more than keen to pay BT an over inflated priced for internet access for many years, so we will have to assume that money isn't the issue here.

I recently switched my father to Origin Broadband (which appears to run through Plusnet) to save him a few quid.  If you wanted a capped service, plusnet still do them.

[Clunkclick]

Well you seem more than keen to pay BT an over inflated priced for internet access for many years, so we will have to assume that money isn't the issue here.

I recently switched my father to Origin Broadband (which appears to run through Plusnet) to save him a few quid.  If you wanted a capped service, plusnet still do them.

Assumptions. Misleading ones.

 

I'm not averse to an unlimited service at a reasonable reduction over my current expenditure, but BT have indicated, in their offer,  that they are not going to relinquish the £120 excess charge (Which is IMHO fake). The effect of this is that when you take that into account  my gross expenditure on Broadband over the period of the proposed contract the monthy charge savings are totally negated by the payment of the excess charge. Where's my financial motivation to accept. So the money side of this deal is important. What's more that sort of effective price manipulation is illegal, so how could any subsequent contract be valid ?

 

Why link the to issues if they intend progress, rather than money grabbing ?

 

Therefore the only contractual consideration coming to me under this proposed contract is the unlimited data use. But, to date, I've been operating within the existing capped allowance, unlimited data isn't. of itself, essential , as it doesn't give me any additional utility

 

If BT care to make an offer which  ditches the excess charge, leaves the data allowance capped at current levels and reduces the monthly price to that contained in their original offer,  I would give that due consideration. If the Ombudsman gives me an opportunity to state my case, then I'd definitely put that forward as customer side proposal.

 

Postscript

 

Excuse me, I'm off to get some eats, before I keel-over.

N

Edited 15 January, 2017 by Clunkclick

[Mort]

I'm not averse to an unlimited service at a reasonable reduction over my current expenditure, but BT have indicated, in their offer, that they are not going to relinquish the £120 excess charge (Which is IMHO fake). The effect of this is that when you take that into account my gross expenditure on Broadband over the period of the proposed contract the monthy charge savings are totally negated by the payment of the excess charge. Where's my financial motivation to accept.

So they're offing you an unlimited service, cheaper than your capped one. But that's a bad deal?

They're asking you to pay the excess you have (In Their Humble Opinion) used and EVEN WITH this charge the total cost over the next year means you get an unlimited service for the same price you are paying currently for a capped one.

Alongside this there's multiple suggestions of cheaper and more suitable plans from other providers that adorn this thread. Allowing you an unlimited service at a lower rate than you currently pay.

Your issue is one of your own vanity. This has nothing to do with the service, contract or money. This is to do with your pride.

[mac11irl]

So they're offing you an unlimited service, cheaper than your capped one. But that's a bad deal?

They're asking you to pay the excess you have (In Their Humble Opinion) used and EVEN WITH this charge the total cost over the next year means you get an unlimited service for the same price you are paying currently for a capped one.

Alongside this there's multiple suggestions of cheaper and more suitable plans from other providers that adorn this thread. Allowing you an unlimited service at a lower rate than you currently pay.

Your issue is one of your own vanity. This has nothing to do with the service, contract or money. This is to do with your pride.

Not even sure its pride at this stage so much as publicising one mans war against big business.. this aint Clunk's first utility company battle front..

[Clunkclick]

Whereas, of course, you  routinely would like to be manipulated and ****ed over by the anonymous Corporate control freaks, for undisclosed reasons, on a service, which to the middle of last year, was  working perfectly OK.? Don't we all ?

 

I think that's what called **** BT's luck.

 

There's too much unexplained.

 

The issue was originally raised by me as a dispute over the excess usuage charge which was unprecedented and

 

Only when the  unresolved matter was referred to the high level complaints team was there any mention of a solution involving other items, such as reduced monthly rate, as contained in the offer  by the High Level Complaints Team.

 

Whether this is just the standard buy-off for complainants that reach this level, who knows ?

 

I had no pre-existing beef with the monthly charge that I was paying.

 

Similarly, I had not  sort out and uncapped service - I was happy working within the capped service.

 

The offer made by BT was not sort by me.

 

IMHO, judging where the offer came from and its nature,  the whole excess use thing is a pretext by BT to introduce a different service in such a way as to put the consumer on the back foot from a negiotating point of view.

 

Frankly, before going any further,  I want to know where I am, what's being offered and why the change is being made before making a change myself - that's an equitable principle.

 

If BT's real object is to clear out low use Johnnies, because they want to fill the bandwith with  Netflix and football consuming types, then  I'd like to know that, so that I can make an informed decision about which provider it would be  best to approach next with my requirement.

 

If this is the underlying reason for all these shennaginans, then one would  expected that a straight foward E-mail to me months ago would have solved the problem - unless this sort of activity is prohibited by the regulator.

 

There's an outside chance that the excess use was made by intruders, in which case, i'd like to know BT's view.

 

And,  as a first step,  all these potential issues could be resolved by the release, by BT,  of daily data usage for the disputed period.

 

They refuse to do it.

 

Perhaps a referral to Watchdog would put a fire under them.

 

 

Nick

Edited 15 January, 2017 by Clunkclick

[Clunkclick]

Not even sure its pride at this stage so much as publicising one mans war against big business.. this aint Clunk's first utility company battle front..

 Before they were privatised and in the first 20 years of privatised life,  I can't remember ever having to complain about any of them. Its only now, as the economic conditions have worsened over the last 10 years (For the majority) that the stunts they have to pull in order to remain viable in the eyes of the City of London has meant their corporate ethics and behaviours have degraded substantially and affected ordinary folk.

 

Nick

[B33fy]

Enlighten moi re: the contract. How I read it clink is still on a contract it hasn't changed, the contract is the capped amount at x cost, with a reduced monthly cost for 18 months the contract would not have ended at that point. Off contract doesn't make sense. The only way the contract changes is if clink chooses another scheme or BT decide to let a valued customer go elsewhere..

Just keep it brief, don't want to drag this out longer than required...

[@Lee]

He's out of contract IIRC

[mac11irl]

Enlighten moi re: the contract. How I read it clink is still on a contract it hasn't changed, the contract is the capped amount at x cost, with a reduced monthly cost for 18 months the contract would not have ended at that point. Off contract doesn't make sense. The only way the contract changes is if clink chooses another scheme or BT decide to let a valued customer go elsewhere..

Just keep it brief, don't want to drag this out longer than required...

The minimum contract/ original contract duration has expired. As such he is free to change contract/provider without any financial penalty (a buy out fee) from the current provider in order to affect said change. But... he has decided it is betrer to drag this out for months to make BT change their ways and deal with customers correctly via protocols in place rather than saving his time (which he clearly values as nil) and telling them to take a hike and moving to another contract/ISP