Adrian C wrote: > David wrote: >> Putting the Prefix in might be a problem to us, or should I say my wife. >> We use a memory phone.
> Not a problem. The '1899' can be entered and stored before the number to > be called, there is no wait time required between that and dialing the > rest of the number.
>> Not worked how it is "free" how they make their money to run this? >> Wondering too why you not putting the Prefix in all the time.
> Each call via 1899 has a min connection fee of 5 pence which is cheaper > than BT (9.05p). And they can go on longer than having to redial every > 1hour. So yes, we should really use 1899 a bit more after 6pm.
> My main reason for having the free BT plan 'Unlimited UK Evening & > Weekend calls' on BT (apart from convenience of not dialing the 1899) is > that calls made on this count to their minimum requirement of making 2 > chargable calls (=18.10p) per month to keep the 'free BT Privacy' Caller > Display service free. Note different interpretations of the word 'free' > in the previous few sentences.
> So unfortunately ye have to throw BT a few coppers for it all to work > and it's their deft application of 1899 skullduggery and bulk buying to > keep customers traffic out of the costly grabbing claws of BT et al. The > owners of 1899 are Swiss-Italian.
> BTW It was Graham ('Eeyore') that put us on to them - Where is he?
>> "Adrian C" <em...@here.invalid> wrote in message >> news:7kga8vF39fo36U1@mid.individual.net... >>> David wrote: >>>> Putting the Prefix in might be a problem to us, or should I say my wife. >>>> We use a memory phone. >>> Not a problem. The '1899' can be entered and stored before the number >>> to be called, there is no wait time required between that and dialing >>> the rest of the number.
>>>> Not worked how it is "free" how they make their money to run this? >>>> Wondering too why you not putting the Prefix in all the time. >>> Each call via 1899 has a min connection fee of 5 pence which is >>> cheaper than BT (9.05p). And they can go on longer than having to >>> redial every 1hour. So yes, we should really use 1899 a bit more after >>> 6pm.
>>> My main reason for having the free BT plan 'Unlimited UK Evening & >>> Weekend calls' on BT (apart from convenience of not dialing the 1899) >>> is that calls made on this count to their minimum requirement of >>> making 2 chargable calls (=18.10p) per month to keep the 'free BT >>> Privacy' Caller Display service free. Note different interpretations >>> of the word 'free' in the previous few sentences.
>>> So unfortunately ye have to throw BT a few coppers for it all to work >>> and it's their deft application of 1899 skullduggery and bulk buying >>> to keep customers traffic out of the costly grabbing claws of BT et >>> al. The owners of 1899 are Swiss-Italian.
>>> BTW It was Graham ('Eeyore') that put us on to them - Where is he?
>> I see Connection fees. >> But to put the prefix into my phones memory would mean all calls even >> evening/weekend going through them and not the free BT package.
> Many phones are happy with *two* stored number presses - store 1899 with > label "Daytime" or similar. It's what I have done in the past.
Exactly. Don't forget BT start charging after 1 hour for evening and weekend calls with Options 1 and 2 so it can be simpler to use 1899 in the evening too if you're going to be yacking without having to keep an eye on the clock.
> Alan wrote: >> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger >> <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote >>> Graham J wrote: >>>> "Woody" <harroga...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
>>> I use Zen and they are excellent.
>> I'm finding Zen very slow at peak times.
> I nearly went with Zen but heard similar stories. IDNet don't have that > problem since a lot of their traffic is business related, so freeing up > lots of bandwidth after 6pm or so.
> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger > <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote >>Graham J wrote: >>> "Woody" <harroga...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message >>> news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
>>I use Zen and they are excellent.
> I'm finding Zen very slow at peak times.
Same here with Zen (Central London EC4). I'm getting to the stage of considering moving.
George Weston wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@removethishotmail.com> wrote >> Alan wrote: >>> Old Codger <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote >>>> Graham J wrote: >>>>> "Woody" <harroga...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote
>>>> I use Zen and they are excellent. >>> I'm finding Zen very slow at peak times. >> I nearly went with Zen but heard similar stories. IDNet don't have that >> problem since a lot of their traffic is business related, so freeing up >> lots of bandwidth after 6pm or so.
> Back from holiday, Graham? > ;-)
> George
Sort of. A holiday from Usenet really. Too busy doing important things.
> Same here with Zen (Central London EC4). I'm getting to the stage of > considering moving.
Put IDNet on your list then. Monthly contract only so you're not tied in for a year or so if unsatisfied. So, no risk at all.
Quote me ( Graham Stevenson and my phone number - email me for that on the rabbit... account ) when you apply to transfer and we both get a £10 credit ( or used to for sure ).
|
