|
Post by mfaxford on Mar 19, 2021 21:25:56 GMT
There is NO TECHNICAL REASON why what I stated in my example should be happening. You analogy of pipes doesn't come into it either, its a completely misguided and false analogy. Let me spell it out to you:
You move your phone number from BT to, say, Virgin
Your friend is a Vodafone customer and wants to call you. Virgin already have a direct connection to Vodafone Because (as I understand things) there is a technical reason for it. My understanding is that blocks of phone numbers are allocated to different providers so when Vodaphone looks up how to route the call to you they find a block of numbers that's managed by BT so that's where it's initially routed. BT then lookup how to get the call you you and find the number has been ported to Vodaphone so route it that way. Of course depending on where you are that Virgin service might still be delivered to you using the local BT exchange and BT cabling (if it's a landline call and you're not in an area with Virgin cabling) or the EE network (if it's a mobile). There are similarities between BT Openreach and services like Water and Electricity as they all provide the basic infrastructure to your house. For the majority of the country the cabling that your phone line uses will be owned by one of two companies and only one of those covers more than half the country. Edit: Found this which adds some more detail www.syntec.co.uk/blog/porting-reality-the-real-deal-behind-uk-telephone-number-portability/
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Mar 19, 2021 22:52:47 GMT
[...] A.N. Other does blah, blah for the sake of being argumentative blah, blah. [...]
Have you looked in the mirror recently? 🤣
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,983
Likes: 4,810
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 20, 2021 8:39:10 GMT
So many dolts, so little time.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Mar 21, 2021 14:59:05 GMT
so speaking to my partner, she has a friend who is bad with money and owes the Water Board £720 because not paid anything for 2 years. The water board have accepted an offer of £10 a month towards current and future bills because they can't afford more, Err hang on they are clocking up £30 a month bill and they are paying £10 a month. Surely that means this time next year the will owe £960 and so on. BTW anyone know what the rules are on changing a direct debit ie how much notice they have to give, my Council tax payment is due at the start of April and the bill hasn't arrived as yet. Ah, good old Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water for the uninitiated ). I rather like the fact that they are still a public utility and not there to make shareholders profits. My water bills are still lower than they were in England, even 5 years after moving to Wales. Has the friend misunderstood that the £10 is to pay off the arrears only, and they will still be expected to pay the regular bills on top of that? Any other scheme would sound crazy as you say... The water company system for helping with debt usually has a write off condition after 12 months subject to circumstances. Anything else, as has been suggested, would not be in a customers best interests. Information I currently look after making applications for help with fuel and water costs for vulnerable clients of a charity in my local area. Water companies have different criteria to follow which is not centralised.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Mar 21, 2021 16:35:03 GMT
my Council tax payment is due at the start of April and the bill hasn't arrived as yet. Nor mine, (electronically, email) and it is getting a bit tight to comply with DD rules. Checking, 2020 came through on 13th March, and 2019 was 9th March. Although, I suspect you complaining under the DD rules that "this was not notified, please refund" will just provoke the council, as you still have to pay it, DD or not! 10 working days (i.e. 2 real weeks) -- I think they've missed the deadline to be collecting on 1st April.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Mar 21, 2021 19:23:35 GMT
so speaking to my partner, she has a friend who is bad with money and owes the Water Board £720 because not paid anything for 2 years. The water board have accepted an offer of £10 a month towards current and future bills because they can't afford more, Err hang on they are clocking up £30 a month bill and they are paying £10 a month. Surely that means this time next year the will owe £960 and so on. BTW anyone know what the rules are on changing a direct debit ie how much notice they have to give, my Council tax payment is due at the start of April and the bill hasn't arrived as yet. Ah, good old Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water for the uninitiated ). I rather like the fact that they are still a public utility and not there to make shareholders profits. My water bills are still lower than they were in England, even 5 years after moving to Wales. Has the friend misunderstood that the £10 is to pay off the arrears only, and they will still be expected to pay the regular bills on top of that? Any other scheme would sound crazy as you say... Water bills are related to costs. I believe there is no shortage of water in Wales hence lower charges. Nothing to brag about. Mines £7 a month although that's water only. His friends is more expensive because all the users are subsidising the wasters who can, but choose not to pay there bills, in the sure knowledge that they can get away with it!! I base the waster statement on the ops "who is bad with money"
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Mar 21, 2021 19:26:10 GMT
Yes I also like the idea of utilities and railways not making a profit out of me. Hence they become extraordinarily inefficient and you end paying more.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Mar 21, 2021 19:40:19 GMT
@wallstreet enlighten me "Why the bloody hell should Virgin be forced to pay fees to BT for routing an inbound call via the BT network to a number that is held by a customer that decided to leave BT ?" Surely BT have to charge otherwise who maintains and updates the infrastructure? Am I missing something?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,871
Likes: 2,762
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 21, 2021 19:59:42 GMT
Yes I also like the idea of utilities and railways not making a profit out of me. Hence they become extraordinarily inefficient and you end paying more. As I discovered over my working life, there is nothing inherently inefficient about public vs private. I think its actually about large vs small. It just so happens there are of course far more small organisations in the private sector. I worked for a very large multi-national for a few years recently and I couldn't imagine anywhere less efficient. As long as the relevant utilties/railways etc are run at arms length like the BBC and other publicly funded orgs, then there is a least _some_ hope of them being reasonably effecient.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Mar 21, 2021 20:00:23 GMT
Things to go to public ownership Lets start with Water, and make Water meters compulsory. Each property gets a basic allowance lets say 120 cubic metres per year. If you use less you get a rebate, if you use more you pay more. the Basic 120 Cubic metres is paid for from general taxation. What a weird view. Why not make the first 120 cubic metres part of the standing charge? Also why should the taxpayer pay me for using less than 120 cubic metres? (that's not a rhetorical question). Have you thought that some households have more than one occupant? Fairness, which i assume your suggesting would only be fair if it was based on the amount of occupants. As an aside every house has to have a meter but for now they can choose on wherever to be charged per cubic metre.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Mar 21, 2021 20:11:43 GMT
Hence they become extraordinarily inefficient and you end paying more. As I discovered over my working life, there is nothing inherently inefficient about public vs private. I think its actually about large vs small. It just so happens there are of course far more small organisations in the private sector. I worked for a very large multi-national for a few years recently and I couldn't imagine anywhere less efficient. As long as the relevant utilties/railways etc are run at arms length like the BBC and other publicly funded orgs, then there is a least _some_ hope of them being reasonably effecient. You are suggesting the BBC is efficient? Effecient at giving southern lefties in a big fat pay packet they don't deserve. Creating local radio stations which are unnecessary and are designed to reduce and remove competition. With the final outcome to be the news from and only from the BBC.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,871
Likes: 2,762
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 21, 2021 21:30:36 GMT
As I discovered over my working life, there is nothing inherently inefficient about public vs private. I think its actually about large vs small. It just so happens there are of course far more small organisations in the private sector. I worked for a very large multi-national for a few years recently and I couldn't imagine anywhere less efficient. As long as the relevant utilties/railways etc are run at arms length like the BBC and other publicly funded orgs, then there is a least _some_ hope of them being reasonably effecient. You are suggesting the BBC is efficient? Effecient at giving southern lefties in a big fat pay packet they don't deserve. Creating local radio stations which are unnecessary and are designed to reduce and remove competition. With the final outcome to be the news from and only from the BBC. No definitely not. I knew it was a bad analogy as I wrote it.... I agree with all your points there!
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 22, 2021 8:19:24 GMT
Hence they become extraordinarily inefficient and you end paying more. As I discovered over my working life, there is nothing inherently inefficient about public vs private. I think its actually about large vs small. It just so happens there are of course far more small organisations in the private sector. I worked for a very large multi-national for a few years recently and I couldn't imagine anywhere less efficient. As long as the relevant utilties/railways etc are run at arms length like the BBC and other publicly funded orgs, then there is a least _some_ hope of them being reasonably effecient. It is true that large companies can be inefficient. The classic example is Xerox which got fat and lazy protected by its patent on the xerographic process. When the patent expired the Japanese produced copiers at under 10% of the equivalent Xerox ones. However that is not evidence that "there is nothing inherently inefficient about public vs private". Indeed it is evidence to the contrary as there is similarity between a company protected from competition by patent and a public organisation that does not face competition. It is the lack of competition that will cause any organisation whether in the public or private sector to exist to serve its employees rather than the customer/end user. It's basic human nature. Anyone who thinks that telecoms is worse today that before privatisation was either not around then or has a short memory. Same for railways. Utilities are intrinsically difficult to privatise and in practice we have really only privatised part of the back office function of billing etc. Yes, all the regulators are useless, but that is not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is a reason to improve regulation.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,245
Likes: 2,689
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 22, 2021 8:31:18 GMT
Things to go to public ownership Lets start with Water, and make Water meters compulsory. Each property gets a basic allowance lets say 120 cubic metres per year. If you use less you get a rebate, if you use more you pay more. the Basic 120 Cubic metres is paid for from general taxation. What a weird view. Why not make the first 120 cubic metres part of the standing charge? Also why should the taxpayer pay me for using less than 120 cubic metres? (that's not a rhetorical question). Have you thought that some households have more than one occupant? Fairness, which i assume your suggesting would only be fair if it was based on the amount of occupants. As an aside every house has to have a meter but for now they can choose on wherever to be charged per cubic metre. We can't have a meter as we have a shared supply outside the house and there is no space to put a meter by our stopcock in the house. Someone came out to look and said no chance.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,983
Likes: 4,810
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 22, 2021 9:43:39 GMT
You are suggesting the BBC is efficient? Effecient at giving southern lefties in a big fat pay packet they don't deserve. Creating local radio stations which are unnecessary and are designed to reduce and remove competition. With the final outcome to be the news from and only from the BBC. Compare the cost of the BBC with the costs of the various commercial networks, then consider the far smaller scope of those networks. The BBC is extraordinarily efficient, relative. Sky's annual profit alone is more than half the BBC's total licence revenue, and their total revenue is more than 3x the BBC's. The portion of the licence fee that goes to BBC TV is about the same as the cheapest Netflix sub. The company behind Classic FM, Heart, LBC and Capital radio have revenue about twice the total BBC radio expenditure... yet they still make an annual loss of more than twice the total cost of Radio 4, the single most expensive BBC radio channel. As for pay... welcome to the market value of "talent". If the BBC didn't pay those figures, somebody else would, and the people would simply move. It's happened many times in the past, with presenters and programmes going from the Beeb to commercial over money.
|
|