BT shareholder asking why pay someone to wind up customers?

Here is a specific example, which is just typical.

Last November (yes, that is a year ago), we reported a fault. BT sent two engineers. The engineer did an "uplift of network for ADSL", which means they changed the wiring in BTs network (moved to another pair).

BT billed us!

As normal, where BT have done work to fix the fault on their side of the network we dispute the charges. We sent the dispute and withheld the charges.

In total, they charged £245, which is two lots of £50 "End user wiring module", one £50 "End user equipment module", and £95 "base" module.

This is odd for a start. If they did the "End user wiring module", then how could they charge to do it a second time a few days later unless the first guy did not do it right? In fact, the fact BT did not charge the "base module" for the second engineer which means they agree it was a BT fault already, as it is only free if there is a BT fault and they find it. That means they should not have gone on to do wiring and equipment modules anyway. The charges make no sense in the first place!

Anyway, it did not bother us. We had disputed and withheld payment (as per contact terms) so we did not need to do anything. As we have explained to BT many times, we are happy for a charge to just stay in dispute until written off under the 6 year Limitations Act.

Two months ago they started chasing asking why the bill from November 2011 was underpaid. We explained, again, and sent details of the disputes, again.

Last month (11 months after the fault) they credited us £209. Odd, given we disputed £245. There was no explanation of this discrepancy. There were several disputes and many were under credited by some random small amount.

They threatened that they would send a "formal breach of contract notice" if we did not pay the balances of these various disputes (including the £36 difference in this case). We pointed out they had incorrectly failed to credit the full amount of these agreed disputes.

They then agreed to credit a further £1. Actually they say they are "waiving" the £1 as if it is some good will gesture on their part rather than a cock up. This leave £35 which they say is "valid" and is for a co-op call.

We queried that, pointing out we did not ask for a co-op call (we have no record of a call, as it happens). We are told that in August 2012 there was a change in policy in BT allowing engineers to decide to make co-op calls and for which we have to pay.

Hang on? That dubious change of policy, for which we have no record of any notice or agreement on our part, is 7 months after the fault. So how is that relevant.

And hang on? We were not charged for a co-op call. We were charged for two equipment modules, a wiring module and a base module. They are clearly itemised on the bill, and different prices to a co-op call, so no ambiguity. So, what co-op call?

So we go back, explaining that the charges for this are not valid, again, and we are just told "Please check the previous attachment where we have already explained the Engineer actions and the reason for the charges. We have fully investigated for each and every circuits, mentioned in the attached excel sheet and have added our findings." [sic], and no attachment either but previous one just says "Charge of £35 is valid" and "Engineer made co-op call".

That's it! They have told us they are valid. End of story!

Well sorry, but no! The charges are still in dispute as far as we are concerned. We have advised BT that the charges are not valid. We have offered to provide a Special Billing Investigation where we would extract the XML orders and confirmations to prove the case. We have offered to consider any actual evidence BT have to support their position. All we have so far is an assertion from them that the charge is valid. We assert it is not. So, in the mean time, still in dispute, and still withheld.

How is it that they think this is sensible?

As a BT shareholder myself I have to ask why it is sensible to pay someone to wind up customers like this. It must cost time and effort and gets nobody anywhere. I may have to go to the shareholder's meeting and ask. Yes, I am a shareholder in BT Group plc (sole owner of British Telecommunications plc) as I have one 5p share.

P.S. I have emailed Ian Livingstone asking about this now.

BT find new ways to rip us off!!!

When an engineer is booked to repair a fault, one of the options is a "co-op call".

This is where the engineer in question talks to our staff. It can be useful to confirm what we can see our end, and so can help the engineer do his job.

One of the rather odd things about this is the charging. Even though the term "co-op" seems to suggest a mutual benefit, or a two way thing, BT charge us £35 for the co-op call.

This makes no sense if we are helping the engineer do his job, surely it is mutually beneficial (so no charge) or we are providing consultancy (so we would charge BT).

What is stranger is the charge seems to apply even if it is found that the fault report and engineer visit was completely correct (i.e. a fault is found in the BT network and fixed). This especially makes no sense.

Even though this is rather odd, we have a specific field in the fault booking system to say if we are requesting a co-op call, and we always say "No".

Lately we have had the occasional call from an engineer, and helped them out, and to our surprise we have then had a bill from BT for co-op calls.

We explained that we did not request them, so "sod off", or words to that effect, but they are saying they have had a change of policy and now the engineer can request/make a co-op call whether we asked for one or not.

And, if the engineer makes a call, even when we said we do not want one, BT will charge us £35, even if the fault is found and fixed.

I'm sorry, but, basically, no way. This is so totally wrong it exceeds all of the other things that are wrong about BT engineer visits by orders of magnitude. It is quite unbelievable. It means BT can, if they wish, make £35 out of us for reporting a genuine fault in the service they provide and for which we pay. Even just calling to say "it seems to be working now" is £35. Actually making money from faults in their network.

So we have a plan, as always, and it is a voice warning on the contact number advising that the engineer should only proceed if he agrees to our terms for co-op calls, and to hang up otherwise. We'll record the call. The terms will be for BT plc to pay us for the call. I can't see that not standing up in court.

It does leave me wondering what the next cunning plan someone in BT will come up with to rip off its customers.

Lets be clear here - I really want to work with BT on fixing their systems. We need an attitude of working together to fix problems. Bullshit like this just alienates customers and makes it a battle with BT, when it should not be. Someone in BT needs to get some clue and stop the battle and actually think about providing a proper service and fixing it when it goes wrong. We have tried, and will continue to try and work with BT. I have personally joined in with an internal meeting with BT fault desk managers, given presentations, and spent the day with them. I really thought we were making progress, but once again it is all going downhill. Depressing.

Special Billing Investigation

So, BT are being fun. Things like agreeing a £144.00 charge last December was not valid but only crediting £137.80. No explanation.

Several of the other short paid agreed disputes are odd. E.g. £61 under credited, and now saying £11 will be credit but "£50 charge is valid". WTF?

So here is my response:-

As Stuart said, why are those charges valid?

You need to explain!

e.g. "Charge of £50 is valid"

What is the £50 for exactly, and why is it valid exactly?

You can't resolve a dispute simply by stating that "it is valid".

You need to elaborate...

If such a response was all that was needed then lets play that game.

In reply, I state "Charge of £50 is NOT valid". That all you need?

Or would you expect us to elaborate and back up that assertion?

Bear in mind that we never order end user premises module or co-op call module, ever. We do not order extra modules. It is hard coded in the XML ordering system to exclude these modules, and we have copies of the signed XML requests as well as the BT signed XML confirmations.

So if your logic is that some extra module was completed and so the charge is valid, you need to state that. We can then prove that we did not order the module and therefore that the charge is not valid.

As of 1st Nov we will charge BT for such investigation. That means you will have to provide evidence of your assertion that the charge is valid, such as sending a copy of the XML signed order. In the absence of such evidence the charge remains in dispute with us simply stating it is not valid.

If you don't have evidence to back up your claim, you can request that we investigate and find evidence for you. For example, we could provide a copy of the signed XML order and BT signed XML acknowledgement. This would prove the matter either way. We provide this additional investigation as a chargeable service, but free if we were wrong. Sounds familiar?

We call it a "Special Billing Investigation". It is a fixed cost of £144.00+VAT for all investigation relating to a single dispute item. It will involve work finding any supporting evidence relating to a dispute. The charge will be waived if we find that the BT charge being disputed is in fact valid (i.e. if we are wrong). You can order Special Billing Investigation from us by email, asking us to provide extra evidence relating to any disputed amount. I look forward to your order. The service starts on 1st November.

See the following web page for details of this service:-

http://aa.net.uk/legal-sbi.html

Regards,

Adrian.

OSPF plodding on

Well, finally starting to get over my cold, and managed to get in early yesterday and today and spend a few hours on OSPF before the day starts.

I am still working on the database exchange process. I almost have it working (well, far end thinks we have done the exchange, so a start).

It is messy, but getting there. Once I have the database exchange sorted, I have to sort the "flooding" logic. This will then mean we have, and maintain, the OSPF link state advertisement database.

There are a few gotchas that I can see. The way entries are withdrawn is, err, fun. You mark them as old (a hour) and ensure everyone has seen that, then remove it. That is not too bad, but it is a problem if you want to change your mind and now announce the entry again. You sort of have to wait for it to all be removed before re-creating it. You are supposed to cater for a 32 bit sequence wrapping as well, in a similar way. There is another related gotcha in that you are not allowed to update an LSA more often that a certain rate. Well, what if you have changes faster than that? You are meant to delay them. That sort of means storing a current version, and a "new version" in the database and a process to pick up that we want to move to a new version after a delay. That sort of crap is horrid - who makes a protocol like that? Just saying in the text of the RFC "delay" sounds so simple doesn't it - but delay means storage and timers and tasks.

I suspect that I will have to have a pending "new version" for any LSA we originate, and a task to pick up when to move to it. Arrrrg!

So, next milestone is full database synchronisation, not just exchange and loading, but flooding (as designated router, backup router and other router).

Once the database synchronisation is sorted there are a couple more jobs to do.

The first is that we have to originate stuff. I am, for now, trying to just originate our own router LSA, which is a single, and relatively simple, LSA for us as a router. Even that is a pain as it has to update on any change to any links, even just designated router changing. We'll have to also originate a network LSA where we are the designated router for a subnet. That should not be a lot more complex.

Then we have to ensure we originate LSAs for external routing, e.g. connected networks like L2TP links, BGP routes, and so on, subject to various filtering logic. The current design makes it very easy for the OSPF subsystem to track any core routing changes, and effectively get events for adding, changing or removing external routing LSAs. Once again the issue of changes being too fast, and withdrawing routes, but that will have to be solved first.

So that is a milestone of maintaining LSAs that we originate.

Finally, after that, we have the simple job (!) of working out shortest path and injecting routes in to the core routing table. To be honest that is not too scary. We have a simple interface for injecting routes and removing them, which then ensures the routes propagate as needed (e.g. via BGP is required) and update the forwarding logic. There is a minor special case for equal path routing, but we have several systems for that in place already for bonding, so taking multiple OSPF targets an routing to them as a set is not a major change.

So, final milestone is working OSPF!

Once we have that we have a single area OSPF router and have loads of testing to do. Making it multi-area may come later, or may fall out of the database work anyway, not sure yet.

All good fun.

Junk calls

As anyone reading my blog for a while will know, I really hate junk calls.

Much like junk emails, I am sure that once upon a time they were sufficient few and far between that they were not a major problem. Junk post is sort of bearable because it is relatively low in volume - but imagine if every morning your post was a large sack, somewhere in which was the couple of "real" letters you needed. We all know email has become like that, and junk calls are getting as bad.

There are several ways to tackle junk callers...

When the office started getting literally hundreds of calls a day I automated a system to play one-sided conversations to keep the callers on as long as possible. I managed calls lasting 5 minutes, and some were posted on my blog. The particular company making such calls no longer call any of our numbers - it was very effective. Oddly a honey trap of thousands of other numbers did not get the same level of calls - and we wonder if the fact we had notified the TPS of our whole office number block was the reason we got the calls. Hard to prove though. If I get a chance I may test this theory by listing specific numbers with TPS and not listing others and checking levels of calls.

Of course the TPS should be the answer - tell them you don't want to be called. My experience is that it is not that helpful. I still get junk calls. When I mention the TPS they may apologise, etc, but usually hang up when I explain that they are criminals now.

This is a key point - such calls are criminally illegal if they are to numbers in the TPS. Its the law! It is also the law that you can make a civil claim for damages if you get such calls - so not just breach of law (and hence the only action would be taken by CPS or DPC), you can make a county court claim!

So cudos to this man:-
http://news.sky.com/story/1003497/victory-for-man-who-took-cold-caller-to-court

He told the junk caller that he would charge them. They still called. He charged them. He did not even rely on the legislation for junk calls for this - he relied on the making of a contractual offer (offering his time for a fee) which they accepted (by continuing to call).

The real shame is that it was not tested in court, but makes it well worth a try for anyone else similarly annoyed by them. Submitting a county court claim is quick and easy and relatively cheap. You can do it on-line.

The big problem I find is that you cannot find out who is behind the call. Well, you can, if you buy what they are selling, I suppose, but not just by asking. They typically have no clue who they are. They may know a brand name but can't say if a limited company or registered office address, etc. They are useless.

Most complete?

You can tell I have been sat here all afternoon with a cup of soup and paracetamol watching daytime TV. Ug... But I note that BT sell what they claim is the "most complete broadband package"...

I always try and pick adverts apart at the best of times, but I am not sure what "most complete" means, or what it means to have a "complete broadband package".

We can probably put to one side the fact that "broadband" is a technical term that relates to the multiple frequency bands / carriers used on DSL lines (ADSL and VSDL). It has started to become a term for "Internet access", annoyingly.

But to my view, even "Internet access" simply means the ability to send and receive IP packets. In order to make the package "complete" I would say you want caching DNS resolvers. But you have a "complete" internet access package if you can send and receive IP packets. Everything else is extra.

If you want a TV package, that is part of a TV package, not a broadband package. A "broadband package" is "complete" if (calling it an "internet access package") it provides internet access. How can it be "more complete" or "most complete"?

Obviously, to be even vaguely "complete" as an "internet access package" you have to include the current IP protocol, IPv6. Does it I wonder? If another ISP also allows IPv4 packets, and DNS, and so on, but also IPv6, does that ISP not have a more complete broadband package that BT? If that is the case, then BT's package is not the "most complete" is it?

Hmm. Who is it that one complains to about adverts these days?

Taking a stand?

This one is aimed at other ISPs using BT services.

All of you spend a lot of time on disputes, I am sure, not just SFI charges but mistakes, though I suspect SFI charges are the main one. It is very time consuming.

So, we are taking a stand (what a surprise).

We have told them that we will check the bill and advise them of errors (i.e. what the error is and why), but only the once. We will then withhold the payment of the disputed charges, as per the contract. We believe that this is all we have to do as per the contract.

When they come back later asking why the invoice was under paid (even though we told them), we will only reply if they agree to pay a consultancy fee, probably £75/hour or part.

We might reply confirming once again our offer of consultancy to help them identify their mistakes, and that the withheld amount is "as per previously advised disputes" but no more work than that.

We might even make an automated reply stating that, and stating an alternative email address for "purchase of consultancy services" specifically. If they email that, we help them our and invoice for our time.

To be quite frank I am sick and tired of having staff spend hours and hours fixing BT errors on their bill. They should have no errors. It is simply not acceptable.

Any other ISPs got similar approaches? Please do post a follow up...

P.S. Examples :-

I just looked at a small batch of SFI charge disputes BT resolved, 9 of them, totalling £1,500. They are all cases of an SFI or SFI2 charge often with extra modules, disputed because BT did in fact find and fix a fault on the network, so should have been free. Simple disputes, usually quoting the BT engineer notes back at BT.

With no explanation BT have chosen to only partly credit 4 of then, fully crediting the remaining 5. This means we still have £214 in dispute.

So, we now have another round of "why is this invoice under paid" where we have to explain the dispute again, and that they only partly credited us, and that the balance remains in dispute.

Just an example of the total stupidity here - one of the disputes resolved this month dates back to last December. The charge was the standard cost for an SFI, £144.00. The credit we have received is £137.80, so £6.20 still in dispute. Why do that? How do they do that? It makes no sense at all - but it means more work for us in handling the disputes.

Update: Apparently this has got as far as Ian Livingstone!