Re: Device for barring unauthorised phone calls

["Neil Fuller" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> And as for the £2000 bill - I guess you'd like BT to 'absorb' it -
which
> is of course a euphimism for 'spread it around the rest of their
> customers'

No, a far better idea would be to remove it from the directors salaries.
I'm sure that would focus them on delivering good quality services!


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Greaves" <david@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Device for barring unauthorised phone calls


>
>
> Mark McCall wrote:
>
>> > continued to make them by calling the operator.
>>
>> Seems a bit of a glaring chasm in BTs banning service!
>
> Seems like a glaring chasm in parental control to me ;)
>
> I can imagine the scene:
> You: Please unblock the service, I need to call the weatherline
> Operator: Sorry sir, that service is blocked.
> You: But I want to unblock it
> Operator: But how do I know you are who you say you are?
> You: Well, I just am.
> Operator: Could you take your passport to the local police station and
> have them call me...
> You: I just want to make a phone call
> Operator: Yes, well, it's like this sir. Some people out there can't
be
> trusted to wipe their own bottoms - if you know what I mean sir - so
> although it makes life really difficult for the rest of us we have to
> treat you all like low grade morons. No offence sir.
>
> And as for the £2000 bill - I guess you'd like BT to 'absorb' it -
which
> is of course a euphimism for 'spread it around the rest of their
> customers'.
>
> Just out of interest how much would you or Malcolm like to pay?
>
>
> On a related note I noticed there was a story in the Register recently
> where BT just pro-actively blocked some numbers associated with the
> premium rate dial-up scams.
> What happened? The scam companies sued them and the regulatory rules
> forced them to restore the service.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>