Questions That Should Be Stricken From...
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
I don't get annoyed very often but.....
22 Answers
....grrrr
http://www.btplc.com/inclusion/phoneservices/s ervices/btbasic/index.htm
Introducing BT Basic
We are committed to making sure that people with low incomes can still afford a phone service with us if they want one.
At BT, we've been working closely with the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, and listening to what consumer organisations think. This is so we can replace our "Light User" and "In Contact Plus" schemes with a new, improved service for people with low incomes.
The new service is called BT Basic. We created it to help customers who receive Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or Guaranteed Pension Credit to budget their money.
http://www.btplc.com/inclusion/phoneservices/s ervices/btbasic/index.htm
Introducing BT Basic
We are committed to making sure that people with low incomes can still afford a phone service with us if they want one.
At BT, we've been working closely with the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, and listening to what consumer organisations think. This is so we can replace our "Light User" and "In Contact Plus" schemes with a new, improved service for people with low incomes.
The new service is called BT Basic. We created it to help customers who receive Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or Guaranteed Pension Credit to budget their money.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Exactly what is the problem here? If BT or any other company want to introduce something to help those on low incomes then good on them.
Would you be happy if every person on low income got an automatic 20% discount from Tescos?
What about a car at a discounted rate?
How about all their utilities bills are also lowered?
And who will pay for this?
Do you think BT are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do you think they are a plc that has shareholders who want to make money. If it is the latter, then where is the extra money going to come from to subsidise the lower costs? I'll give you three guesses.
Would you be happy if every person on low income got an automatic 20% discount from Tescos?
What about a car at a discounted rate?
How about all their utilities bills are also lowered?
And who will pay for this?
Do you think BT are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Or do you think they are a plc that has shareholders who want to make money. If it is the latter, then where is the extra money going to come from to subsidise the lower costs? I'll give you three guesses.
Did you actually read the page on how it works oneeyedvic? The people who use this service will get a call allowance of just �4.50 per quarter,if they go over this then they have to pay the same for their calls as everyone else.What is your problem with people on lower incomes or benefits having a phone line,do you think they should all be living in huts and wearing rags?
There has always been a 'light user' scheme for those who only use the phone occasionally, and another service where calls can be received but only 999 calls made.
I see this service excludes calls to 0845, 0870 and similar numbers. This is a real bugbear of mine - it has been years since telephone users were charged more to call somebody 100 miles away than 10 miles away. There is absolutely no need for these non-geographical numbers and I wish they were banned. So many companies use them, and I refuse to pay the inflated costs to call them. (I don't have a landline so it is expensive for me).
10p per minute, plus 3p connection charge, is not cheap and that is how much this service costs; but it is ideal for those who need to be able friends and family in an emergency.
I see this service excludes calls to 0845, 0870 and similar numbers. This is a real bugbear of mine - it has been years since telephone users were charged more to call somebody 100 miles away than 10 miles away. There is absolutely no need for these non-geographical numbers and I wish they were banned. So many companies use them, and I refuse to pay the inflated costs to call them. (I don't have a landline so it is expensive for me).
10p per minute, plus 3p connection charge, is not cheap and that is how much this service costs; but it is ideal for those who need to be able friends and family in an emergency.
Who said anything about mud huts? Are you really comparing me complaining about subsidised phone bills to making people live in poverty?
My irritation is that they are getting a service that is subsidised - not by the government but by a business.
As I said - would you be happy if you knew that your weekly shop was 20% cheaper at Tescos if you were on benefits?
You already get a lot of advantages when you are on benefits - free prescriptions, free eye tests, lower council tax etc etc
My concewrn is that there are a lot of low earners who will see things like this and ask themselves why bother going to work at all.
When I was 18, I worked 39 anti social hours a week in a pub and was �10 a week better off than my mates who were on the dole.
If you make it pretty much even so that you don't get any benefit for working, what sort of culture will that entail?
My irritation is that they are getting a service that is subsidised - not by the government but by a business.
As I said - would you be happy if you knew that your weekly shop was 20% cheaper at Tescos if you were on benefits?
You already get a lot of advantages when you are on benefits - free prescriptions, free eye tests, lower council tax etc etc
My concewrn is that there are a lot of low earners who will see things like this and ask themselves why bother going to work at all.
When I was 18, I worked 39 anti social hours a week in a pub and was �10 a week better off than my mates who were on the dole.
If you make it pretty much even so that you don't get any benefit for working, what sort of culture will that entail?
Look at it from BTs point of view - they are losing this business to PAYG mobile phones. Why bother with the expense of a phone line if you're only going to make a call once in a blue moon?
What they are hoping is that users will go over their very small allotted time and then will have to pay extra; or hardly use it so will pay for calls they haven't made - it's a sprat to catch a mackerel and makes sound business sense.
What they are hoping is that users will go over their very small allotted time and then will have to pay extra; or hardly use it so will pay for calls they haven't made - it's a sprat to catch a mackerel and makes sound business sense.
There is a general move among utility companies to provide what are euphemistically called �social� tariffs. These are actively encouraged by the government and more recently veiled threats to make such schemes compulsory have been mooted.
Benefits are calculated to take account of the costs of everyday items including utilities. Those benefits are raised annually in line with the government�s measure of inflation and this includes increases in the cost of utilities. Yes, I know that inflation has a greater effect on some people than on others. If the government believes its calculations are not meeting the requirements of those on benefits it should say so and alter the process so that increases in benefits more accurately reflect increased costs. Of course, the same calculations should then be used to increase the basic state pension, so it almost certainly will not happen. Nonetheless, shareholders and other customers should not be expected to supplement benefit payments.
As for the specific issue of �BT Basic�, unlike energy prices, the costs of phone calls has fallen considerably in real terms. I know a bit about BT�s pricing structure and the cost of its landline services has actually fallen by about 13% (stripping out the effects of inflation) in the past five years.
So why is BT doing this? Well, a recent announcement (yesterday, I think) said that, again in the name of �inclusion�, the less well off will be entitled to a �free� computer and 12 months Broadband subscription (current minimum cost with BT �95.40). So, one lot of �free� Broadband subscription (paid for by the taxpayer) will pay for five lots of the �18 annual call allowance provided under BT Basic.
But, of course, that�s just a coincidence.
Benefits are calculated to take account of the costs of everyday items including utilities. Those benefits are raised annually in line with the government�s measure of inflation and this includes increases in the cost of utilities. Yes, I know that inflation has a greater effect on some people than on others. If the government believes its calculations are not meeting the requirements of those on benefits it should say so and alter the process so that increases in benefits more accurately reflect increased costs. Of course, the same calculations should then be used to increase the basic state pension, so it almost certainly will not happen. Nonetheless, shareholders and other customers should not be expected to supplement benefit payments.
As for the specific issue of �BT Basic�, unlike energy prices, the costs of phone calls has fallen considerably in real terms. I know a bit about BT�s pricing structure and the cost of its landline services has actually fallen by about 13% (stripping out the effects of inflation) in the past five years.
So why is BT doing this? Well, a recent announcement (yesterday, I think) said that, again in the name of �inclusion�, the less well off will be entitled to a �free� computer and 12 months Broadband subscription (current minimum cost with BT �95.40). So, one lot of �free� Broadband subscription (paid for by the taxpayer) will pay for five lots of the �18 annual call allowance provided under BT Basic.
But, of course, that�s just a coincidence.
Two points.
1) Public companies practice and publicise corporate and social responsibility. It makes financial sense and shareholders actually demand it. Part of that involves helping the community and those in need. Shareholders aren't being ripped off by this. It actually benefits the bottom line.
2) Why on earth would you wish to deprive job seekers on the one medium that is most likely to get them a job - the telephone? It benefits us all if they have the means to find work.
1) Public companies practice and publicise corporate and social responsibility. It makes financial sense and shareholders actually demand it. Part of that involves helping the community and those in need. Shareholders aren't being ripped off by this. It actually benefits the bottom line.
2) Why on earth would you wish to deprive job seekers on the one medium that is most likely to get them a job - the telephone? It benefits us all if they have the means to find work.
Until now, poorer and low users (Traditionally older people) have used public phone boxes. Access to the 999 emergency services is seen as an essential right of everyone.
However, this is a major burden for BT. Of the country's 75,000 phone boxes, only 29,000 cover their costs (2004 figures). They are a huge financial drain, and BT want to cull as many as possible. The Government have now started to allowed them to remove boxes, now that BT is offering a very cheap alternative.
BT as a business will actually save a lot of money by offering a cheap scheme to low users and scraping the community based call boxes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/new s/mobile-phones-push-public-callboxes-to-the-b rink-of-oblivion-560782.html
Since 2002, BT have removed 30,000 unprofitable phone boxes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7228184.st m
However, this is a major burden for BT. Of the country's 75,000 phone boxes, only 29,000 cover their costs (2004 figures). They are a huge financial drain, and BT want to cull as many as possible. The Government have now started to allowed them to remove boxes, now that BT is offering a very cheap alternative.
BT as a business will actually save a lot of money by offering a cheap scheme to low users and scraping the community based call boxes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/new s/mobile-phones-push-public-callboxes-to-the-b rink-of-oblivion-560782.html
Since 2002, BT have removed 30,000 unprofitable phone boxes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7228184.st m
Oneeyedvic
Thurs 23/10/08
07:40 Question Author
And who will pay for this?
I will tell you who. Just been to BT customer services 5 minutes ago in regard to all those 20 pence per call they have charged me for whenever my wife jut buzz me (when I am at work) so I could call her back using my free minutes on mobile.
Thurs 23/10/08
07:40 Question Author
And who will pay for this?
I will tell you who. Just been to BT customer services 5 minutes ago in regard to all those 20 pence per call they have charged me for whenever my wife jut buzz me (when I am at work) so I could call her back using my free minutes on mobile.
Your two points, Quinlad:
Explain to me just how such schemes �benefit the bottom line�.
I am a shareholder in a number of utility companies, including BT. I usually manage to read their annual reports and accounts, and this year I attended the AGM of BT. Whilst it is true that BT aims to ensure that �everyone gets a fair chance� I can see no evidence that schemes such as the one mentioned are requested, let alone �demanded� by shareholders, large or small.
Nobody in this thread is suggesting that �jobseekers� should be denied access to a telephone. This has certainly not been the case up to now as most of them that I have come across have at least one mobile phone and no doubt have access to a landline phone as well. This is to be applauded as it helps them keep their fingers on the pulse of the ever-changing job market. You can see them everywhere, eagerly thumbing through the �Situations Vacant� columns, and getting on their mobiles to all the local agencies and gangmasters, desperately seeking work.
But they are provided with funds in the form of benefits to undertake these activities and BT has no more responsibility to provide them with cut price rates than Sainsbury�s have to provide them with cheap potatoes.
Whatever you say, these schemes are being subsidised. This is not a promotion to encourage more business. It is a discriminatory discount to existing customers based on their financial circumstances and other customers paying the full rate are footing the bill.
Explain to me just how such schemes �benefit the bottom line�.
I am a shareholder in a number of utility companies, including BT. I usually manage to read their annual reports and accounts, and this year I attended the AGM of BT. Whilst it is true that BT aims to ensure that �everyone gets a fair chance� I can see no evidence that schemes such as the one mentioned are requested, let alone �demanded� by shareholders, large or small.
Nobody in this thread is suggesting that �jobseekers� should be denied access to a telephone. This has certainly not been the case up to now as most of them that I have come across have at least one mobile phone and no doubt have access to a landline phone as well. This is to be applauded as it helps them keep their fingers on the pulse of the ever-changing job market. You can see them everywhere, eagerly thumbing through the �Situations Vacant� columns, and getting on their mobiles to all the local agencies and gangmasters, desperately seeking work.
But they are provided with funds in the form of benefits to undertake these activities and BT has no more responsibility to provide them with cut price rates than Sainsbury�s have to provide them with cheap potatoes.
Whatever you say, these schemes are being subsidised. This is not a promotion to encourage more business. It is a discriminatory discount to existing customers based on their financial circumstances and other customers paying the full rate are footing the bill.
New Judge
Whatever you say, these schemes are being subsidised. This is not a promotion to encourage more business. It is a discriminatory discount to existing customers based on their financial circumstances and other customers paying the full rate are footing the bill.
And public call boxes weren't? It is just replacing one subsidy with another.
Whatever you say, these schemes are being subsidised. This is not a promotion to encourage more business. It is a discriminatory discount to existing customers based on their financial circumstances and other customers paying the full rate are footing the bill.
And public call boxes weren't? It is just replacing one subsidy with another.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
ChatterBank49 mins ago
