On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote: > What absolute codswallop. I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.
> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it > needs fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I > would assert we make more money having stuff that works than stuff > that doesn't. Where I sit, a spreadsheet that spans sixteen A4 pages of faults that have all been round the disputes process multiple times is pinned to the wall behind me. About half of them have finally been (rightfully) credited, and half still in laborious "dispute". Whilst I cannot disagree with the spirit of your comment that you make more money from happy customers, I suspect BT does, in fact, make some money out of customers who've been wrongly charged for SFI, and *not* wasted their time disputing. I think SFI might even be a profitable activity for BT. I hardly need to point out how morally wrong this is, if it's true. I can only see this SFI income increasing under a regime where the demarcation point is blurred and modems can be casually classed as "not approved", and therefore "to blame" by default. "Right When Tested" will no doubt by surpassed by "Wrong Modem In Use" as the leading excuse for charging an SFI. Pretty much every dispute we have, we eventually win. But only after we've wasted huge amounts of man-hours chasing them. This comes off our bottom line. > In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but > given the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL > chipsets it was felt that having this as part of the product was > unavoidable. It's a very different world now. Yes, it's a different world where it takes many months to get a modem/router approved by Martlesham. Kind regards, Alex.
