Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > uk.telecom > #39440

Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film?

Path csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups uk.telecom
Subject Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film?
Date Mon, 04 May 2026 09:13:26 +0100
Organization Frantic
Message-ID <82tssn3849.fsf@example.com> (permalink)
References <82y0i23r4g.fsf@example.com> <82bjew4s89.fsf@example.com> <10t8dif$32v0l$5@dont-email.me> <10t9h9a$3fj5o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain
Injection-Info solani.org; logging-data="122525"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock sha1:y5nJKH9RGQNzJkQlgtRMikxoIQg= sha1:juQ9bMyhRmIrdx8YQwzE6uyaVCM=
X-User-ID eJwFwYEBgDAIA7CXBGkp5wwm/59ggpfGySAYWGxPKdLQLM2ppTA3Iq+hYH5kS6/rkvk+X/8QvhCN
Xref csiph.com uk.telecom:39440

Show key headers only | View raw

David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> writes:


> Well there are two items of note. The first is that as newer internet
> services no longer require a landline customers are ditching them as
> fast as they can, while the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is
> going up as it ages. So if the existing copper land lines were to be
> retained the price would have to rise substantially, at which point
> more customers would ditch them, so the price would rise again.
>

But the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did
not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was
full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more. And
this includes the supposed savings of VOIP. And I had to move to a
different ISP and lose my phone for a week.

Back to uk.telecom | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-02 13:58 +0100
  Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-02 17:30 +0200
    Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 13:02 +0100
      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:10 +0100
      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-03 16:05 +0200
  Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 13:01 +0100
    Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-03 22:09 +0100
      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 09:19 +0200
        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 09:13 +0100
          Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-04 14:31 +0100
            Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 15:42 +0100
              Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 10:59 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-05 23:23 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-06 09:35 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-06 17:48 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:51 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-07 06:57 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-05-07 11:26 +0000
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-07 14:07 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-07 16:47 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:34 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-06 17:44 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 19:13 +0200

csiph-web