Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > uk.telecom > #39425

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

From Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups uk.telecom
Subject Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film?
Date 2026-05-03 13:02 +0100
Organization Frantic
Message-ID <827bpk4s6k.fsf@example.com> (permalink)
References <82y0i23r4g.fsf@example.com> <10t55bi$28oho$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> writes:

> I don't think the supplier matters. BT are as capable, indeed some may
> say more capable of fubar-ing any upgrade, downgrade or service
> change.

I am puzzled by the no extra cost bit, as for me there was the extra
cost of fibre. Maybe if you have no broadband there is no extra cost.

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