Calling time on the Talk Talk fiasco

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/...973619,00.html

Eight month's after Carphone Warehouse's Talk Talk service offered
customers a 'free broadband forever' deal, up to 100,000 frustrated
customers are yet to be connected. As a result, Cash today launches its
Why Are We Waiting campaign to put pressure on companies such as Talk
Talk that promote a service, only to consistently fail to deliver it to
customers.

On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
>to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...

A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.

--
www.netdimes.org - mapping the internet.
Join team UK-24x7 (position 227) Let's beat "United States" :->

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:37:25 +0000, NoNeedToKnow <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

|On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|
|>As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
|>to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
|
|A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
|particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
|with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
|ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
|implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
|BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
|just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.

But all bad publicly is *bad* publicity. May kick them into doing
something.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

NoNeedToKnow wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
> >to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
>
> A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
> particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
> with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
> ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
> implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
> BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
> just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.

They shouldn't publicise a service that they don't have capacity for.

Why is it BT's fault ?

Graham

NoNeedToKnow wrote

> On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
> >to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
>
> A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
> particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
> with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
> ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
> implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
> BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
> just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.
>
>

WTF has BT done to make TT fuck up? TT are installing their own
equipment into the exchanges. Other ISPs are not having problems - then
again, no other ISP sold a service before it had bought, let alone
installed the hardware.
TT are taking money under false pretences. They are acting illegally.
I'm amazed they've not been nicked.

Eeyore wrote:
> NoNeedToKnow wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
>>> to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
>>
>> A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
>> particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
>> with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
>> ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
>> implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
>> BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
>> just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.
>
> They shouldn't publicise a service that they don't have capacity
> for.
>
> Why is it BT's fault ?
>
> Graham

Because it's always BTs fault, just like the inept way EasyNet
installed their equipment caused SKY problems, that was caused by BT
as well. It's allways easier to blame the big (non existent) company
now (& before anybody starts up about it being in existence you should
try working between different BT companies without breaking the
equivalence rules/licencing law)

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
>
> NoNeedToKnow wrote:
>
> > On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > >As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
> > >to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
> >
> > A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
> > particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
> > with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
> > ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
> > implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
> > BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
> > just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.
>
> They shouldn't publicise a service that they don't have capacity for.
>
> Why is it BT's fault ?
>
> Graham
>
>
presumably because BT own the exchanges and the 'last mile'. BT have to
be involved as CPW can't physically break into the exchange and do the
work itself, plus BT's engineers will be required to do any work on BT
kit.

Seems to be a two-sided affair though, with CPW forward selling accounts
which they don't have a fixed start point to be able to offer for when
the BB will go live.

Flying Rat wrote


> >
> presumably because BT own the exchanges and the 'last mile'. BT have to
> be involved as CPW can't physically break into the exchange and do the
> work itself, plus BT's engineers will be required to do any work on BT
> kit.
>
> Seems to be a two-sided affair though, with CPW forward selling accounts
> which they don't have a fixed start point to be able to offer for when
> the BB will go live.
>
>

This info hasn't changed in months
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/ds...p?provider=cpw
Provider name: Carphone Warehouse
Exchanges: Enabled 0 | Pending 1,045

Whereas Easynet & Be each unbundled 10 exchanges last week.

Jethro wrote:
> NoNeedToKnow wrote
>
>> On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
>>> to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
>> A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
>> particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
>> with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
>> ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
>> implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
>> BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
>> just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.
>>
>>
>
> WTF has BT done to make TT fuck up? TT are installing their own
> equipment into the exchanges. Other ISPs are not having problems - then
> again, no other ISP sold a service before it had bought, let alone
> installed the hardware.
> TT are taking money under false pretences. They are acting illegally.
> I'm amazed they've not been nicked.
>
>

Ive been with talktalk since the start of the "free" just back on after
being unable to connect since Friday, 5 calls to "technical support"
resulted in them telling me there was server maintainance and it would
be down for about 24 hours.

Flying Rat wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> >
> >
> > NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> >
> > > On 17 Dec 2006, Jethro <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > >As a result, Cash today launches its Why Are We Waiting campaign
> > > >to put pressure on companies such as Talk Talk that promote ...
> > >
> > > A paper can do what it likes in the way of campaigning. In this
> > > particular case it seems the journalists involved are out of touch
> > > with the events.... in particular, CPW/TT was making noises months
> > > ago about delays concerning the installation of equipment, and the
> > > implication that BT was the cause of this (something about taking
> > > BT to court!) So the paper might make a noise, and CPW/TT will
> > > just respond that they've been hampered in their plans by BT.
> >
> > They shouldn't publicise a service that they don't have capacity for.
> >
> > Why is it BT's fault ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
> presumably because BT own the exchanges and the 'last mile'.

Precisely how does that make it BT's fault ?


> BT have to
> be involved as CPW can't physically break into the exchange and do the
> work itself,

Actually, they do do the work themselves. They like to pretend they don't of
course.


> plus BT's engineers will be required to do any work on BT kit.

It's not BT's kit anymore is it ?


> Seems to be a two-sided affair though, with CPW forward selling accounts
> which they don't have a fixed start point to be able to offer for when
> the BB will go live.

What's 2 sided about owning kit that works or not ?

Graham