|
Wobbly Oystercard charges
I topped up £10 to have £14 on my card by 1 Jan. So far so good.
Journey on Monday White City to LCY shows some oddities. The DLR touch-out claimed a total fare of £2.50 to leave £10.20 balance, which means I dropped £3.80. The DLR pad seems to speak a contradicting story - Oystercard journey history is: Date Time Station +/- Balance ----- ----- ------- ---- ------- 17/01/11 06:36 London City Airport Exit £1.90 £10.20 05:17 White City Entry -£4.40 £8.30 19/12/10 09:40 Heathrow Top-up £10.00 £14.00 1hr19min can't be the reason for a Z123 journey can it? There are indeed no trips on this card between 19 Dec and 17 Jan (other train tickets were used instead). -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:37:49 +0000, Colum Mylod wrote:
I topped up £10 to have £14 on my card by 1 Jan. So far so good. Journey on Monday White City to LCY shows some oddities. The DLR touch-out claimed a total fare of £2.50 to leave £10.20 balance, which means I dropped £3.80. The DLR pad seems to speak a contradicting story - Oystercard journey history is: Date Time Station +/- Balance ----- ----- ------- ---- ------- 17/01/11 06:36 London City Airport Exit £1.90 £10.20 05:17 White City Entry -£4.40 £8.30 19/12/10 09:40 Heathrow Top-up £10.00 £14.00 1hr19min can't be the reason for a Z123 journey can it? There are indeed no trips on this card between 19 Dec and 17 Jan (other train tickets were used instead). Something seems to have gone wrong on touching in at White City. 14.00 - 4.40 = 9.60 not 8.30. Was there a bus journey, costing £1.30 that isn't showing up? |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message of Wed, 19 Jan 2011
07:53:07 in uk.transport.london, solar penguin writes On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:37:49 +0000, Colum Mylod wrote: I topped up £10 to have £14 on my card by 1 Jan. So far so good. Journey on Monday White City to LCY shows some oddities. The DLR touch-out claimed a total fare of £2.50 to leave £10.20 balance, which means I dropped £3.80. The DLR pad seems to speak a contradicting story - Oystercard journey history is: Date Time Station +/- Balance ----- ----- ------- ---- ------- 17/01/11 06:36 London City Airport Exit £1.90 £10.20 05:17 White City Entry -£4.40 £8.30 19/12/10 09:40 Heathrow Top-up £10.00 £14.00 1hr19min can't be the reason for a Z123 journey can it? There are indeed no trips on this card between 19 Dec and 17 Jan (other train tickets were used instead). Something seems to have gone wrong on touching in at White City. 14.00 - 4.40 = 9.60 not 8.30. Was there a bus journey, costing £1.30 that isn't showing up? I infer you are quoting your online statement. If you can manage to find yourself at an open Underground ticket office, you may like to get a paper statement. The usual 10cm one is given by default; you may want to get a full/long statement which is up to 30cm. I would not waste effort at a ticket office to get an explanation. The Oyster helpline 0845 330 9876 is open 8 - 8, each day. I find there is rarely a queue at 0800 on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, you often wait 10 minutes. I have paper to resolve: 19/01 10:58 Pre Pay Entry Euston LU £4.40 19/10 11:31 Unstarted - Sev Sisters £4.40 The system did not match my touch out to my touch in. There should have been one entry: 19/01 11:31 Euston LU - Sev Sisters £4.40 I shall check the online statement, tomorrow, and resolve on Saturday. -- Walter Briscoe |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message ... I have paper to resolve: 19/01 10:58 Pre Pay Entry Euston LU £4.40 19/10 11:31 Unstarted - Sev Sisters £4.40 Well if you take nine months to travel four stops then it is not surprising you had an unresolved journey! Peter Smyth |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Jan 19, 3:28*pm, Walter Briscoe wrote: [snip] The Oyster helpline 0845 330 9876 is open 8 - 8, each day. I find there is rarely a queue at 0800 on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, you often wait 10 minutes. How often do you call them?! I never do. I have paper to resolve: 19/01 10:58 Pre Pay Entry Euston LU *£4.40 [19/01] 11:31 Unstarted - Sev Sisters *£4.40 The system did not match my touch out to my touch in. There should have been one entry: 19/01 11:31 Euston LU - Sev Sisters *£4.40 I shall check the online statement, tomorrow, and resolve on Saturday. That's bizarre - unless this is a possible OSI time-out - had you exited Euston NR a bit beforehand having used Oyster PAYG (on London Midland or LO say from wherever)? Going by what you say, I reckon this is what you may have done, as the Euston to Seven Sisters fare is £2.50 (off-peak), whilst the z1-6 NR+TfL 'through fare' is £4.40 (also off-peak), which is the figure you give above... unless that was a mistake? ("I have paper to resolve"?) |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:24:55 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:37:49 +0000, Colum Mylod wrote: I topped up £10 to have £14 on my card by 1 Jan. So far so good. Journey on Monday White City to LCY shows some oddities. The DLR touch-out claimed a total fare of £2.50 to leave £10.20 balance, which means I dropped £3.80. The DLR pad seems to speak a contradicting story - Oystercard journey history is: Date Time Station +/- Balance ----- ----- ------- ---- ------- 17/01/11 06:36 London City Airport Exit £1.90 £10.20 05:17 White City Entry -£4.40 £8.30 19/12/10 09:40 Heathrow Top-up £10.00 £14.00 1hr19min can't be the reason for a Z123 journey can it? There are indeed no trips on this card between 19 Dec and 17 Jan (other train tickets were used instead). You are well within the max journey time of 110 minutes for z123 trip so I don't see that as the issue. Given that the £1.30 was already missing when he _started_ the trip, there's no way the length of the trip could possibly be the issue. I am puzzled by the max fare deduction of £4.40. Having looked at some info I think this should actually be £4.30 if you were on the TfL farescale. I'm also puzzled by the deduction of £4.40, but like I said in the other post, I'm puzzled as to how it could leave £8.30 instead of £9.60 That's the real mystery here, and all this business of journey times and fare scales is just a red herring. The £2.50 fare is correct. Quite where the £1.30 has gone is anyone's guess. Looking at the fare lists then a single zone or two zone (not Z1) journey off peak on the TfL tariff is £1.30 which is a tad suspicious. It's also the cost of a bus fare, which might be even more suspicious, since AIUI bus journeys don't show up on the online journey history until after they've been uploaded from the bus. The simplest, most boring explanation is that the OP made a bus journey which he forgot about, and that hadn't yet shown up on the online history when he checked it. I assume you went White City - central line - Bank - dlr - London City Airport? No intermediate validations? No OSIs? No strange interchange route at Bank Station? If you could confirm the route you took then it might provide a clue. Since the £1.30 was already missing at White City, how is what happened afterwards going to provide any clue at all? We need to start by looking at the OP's movements, especially bus journeys, in the month after topping up at Heathrow, but before touching in at White City. |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:24:55 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote: I assume you went White City - central line - Bank - dlr - London City Airport? No intermediate validations? No OSIs? No strange interchange route at Bank Station? Exactly as you describe (though the rat run interchange at Bank gets more and more weird with the current works), but.. If you could confirm the route you took then it might provide a clue. solar penguin guessed right - yesterday I logged in again to check, and a forgotten £1.30 Bus.7 has appeared between top-up and White City touch in. Dang! Obviously the online code has hardwired formulas that parse the data incorrectly. I can claim some of these journeys, and it's a treat to explain that the horror Entry and Balance numbers are not the actual cost (room to fiddle..) -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Jan 20, 8:56*am, Colum Mylod wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:24:55 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote: I assume you went White City - central line - Bank - dlr - London City Airport? *No intermediate validations? *No OSIs? *No strange interchange route at Bank Station? Exactly as you describe (though the rat run interchange at Bank gets more and more weird with the current works), but.. If you could confirm the route you took then it might provide a clue. solar penguin guessed right - yesterday I logged in again to check, and a forgotten £1.30 Bus.7 has appeared between top-up and White City touch in. Dang! Obviously the online code has hardwired formulas that parse the data incorrectly. I can claim some of these journeys, and it's a treat to explain that the horror Entry and Balance numbers are not the actual cost (room to fiddle..) -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com £4.40 is the Off-Peak adult maximum Oyster fare for all stations in zones 1-9 since 2 Jan 2011. |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +0000, Walter Briscoe wrote:
The Oyster helpline 0845 330 9876 is open 8 - 8, each day. I find there is rarely a queue at 0800 on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, you often wait 10 minutes. Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? Any idea when TfL will do that? -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic Fashion label: n: a liferaft for personalities which lack intrinsic buoyancy |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:20:48 +0000
David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +0000, Walter Briscoe wrote: The Oyster helpline 0845 330 9876 is open 8 - 8, each day. I find there is rarely a queue at 0800 on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, you often wait 10 minutes. Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? Any idea when TfL will do that? *hollow laugh* B2003 |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On 21 Jan, 11:29, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:20:48 +0000 David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +0000, Walter Briscoe wrote: The Oyster helpline 0845 330 9876 is open 8 - 8, each day. I find there is rarely a queue at 0800 on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, you often wait 10 minutes. Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? *Any idea when TfL will do that? *hollow laugh* B2003 I'm afraid that for me this just proves (yet again) that Oyster really is more trouble than it's worth, stick to paper tickets would be my advice! |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:37:29 -0800 (PST)
George wrote: I'm afraid that for me this just proves (yet again) that Oyster really is more trouble than it's worth, stick to paper tickets would be my advice! Except Livingstone deliberately priced paper tickets at an extortionate rate to force people into using Oyster (and to rip off tourists). It seems Boris isn't inclined to reverse this unjustified extra cost. B2003 |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message of Fri, 21
Jan 2011 11:20:48 in uk.transport.london, David Cantrell writes On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 03:28:35PM +0000, Walter Briscoe wrote: The Oyster helpline 0845 330 9876 is open 8 - 8, each day. I find there is rarely a queue at 0800 on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, you often wait 10 minutes. Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? Any idea when TfL will do that? I would love to see chapter and verse on that "meant". I am quite irritated that 222 1234 recently moved from 0207 to 0843, where ISTR it is quietly charged at 0.10UKP/minute. From my landline, 0845 numbers and 020 are toll free with BT. I pay a small monthly rental for that service. -- Walter Briscoe |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
|
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , David
Cantrell writes Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It is supposed to be a local-rate number from any UK location (and can be free on BT landlines for a small charge). Mobile phone companies may vary. -- Paul Terry |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Jan 21, 7:01*pm, Paul Terry wrote: In message , David Cantrell writes Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It is supposed to be a local-rate number from any UK location (and can be free on BT landlines for a small charge). I think the idea of a 'local-rate number' is rather dying out - BT residential tariffs don't embrace the concept of local and national calls being charged at different rates any more, though BT business tariffs did but I'm not sure if they continue to do so (though that's perhaps less relevant here unless one is calling on company time, and indeed a company line). Mobile phone companies may vary. I think on most mobile tariffs one is charged a (potentially hefty) extra for calling non-geo numbers. |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... On Jan 21, 7:01 pm, Paul Terry wrote: In message , David Cantrell writes Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It is supposed to be a local-rate number from any UK location (and can be free on BT landlines for a small charge). I think the idea of a 'local-rate number' is rather dying out - BT residential tariffs don't embrace the concept of local and national calls being charged at different rates any more, though BT business tariffs did but I'm not sure if they continue to do so (though that's perhaps less relevant here unless one is calling on company time, and indeed a company line). Mobile phone companies may vary. I think on most mobile tariffs one is charged a (potentially hefty) extra for calling non-geo numbers. Indeed, for 0843/5 the costs on a contract handset for the 4 major players are; Orange & o2 20.4p per minute, Vodafone 20.5p per minute & Tmobile a whopping 40.9p per minute. Given that most people calling 0843 222 1234 will these days be doing so from a mobile, I find it very hard to see any possible justification for the change to a non geographic number Cheers, Steve. |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Jan 21, 2:12*pm, Walter Briscoe
wrote: I am quite irritated that 222 1234 recently moved from 0207 to 0843, where ISTR it is quietly charged at 0.10UKP/minute. From my landline, 0845 numbers and 020 are toll free with BT. I pay a small monthly rental for that service. pedant The area code for London is 020. Prior to it closing, you could have dialled 7222 1234 from a London phone; 222 1234 wouldn't have got you anywhere. /pedant But yes, it is annoying that it now costs more money to call TfL. |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:01:51 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote: In message , David Cantrell writes Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It is supposed to be a local-rate number from any UK location (and can be free on BT landlines for a small charge). Mobile phone companies may vary. The industry got that range defined as non-premium so they can queue callers and count the cash coming in. For joe and jane user it is premium: call cost is above the cost of a real local landline. The usual cause of a move to 084x or 087x is a mis-selling to the punter (TFL here) by a greasy telco on the make. Many GPs fell for this, look at the Patientline scam in hospitals. It'll end in tears for TFL. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:01:51PM +0000, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , David Cantrell writes Aren't public bodies meant to have moved to 03 numbers instead of premium rate 08 numbers? 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It jolly well is premium rate, if you use a mobile. 13% of English households have *only* mobile phones, and I'd expect that to be higher in London. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information THIS IS THE LANGUAGE POLICE PUT DOWN YOUR THESAURUS STEP AWAY FROM THE CLICHE |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , David
Cantrell writes On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:01:51PM +0000, Paul Terry wrote: 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It jolly well is premium rate, if you use a mobile. Which is why I wrote "Mobile phone companies may vary" in the part that you conveniently snipped! -- Paul Terry |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , at 11:57:29
on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It jolly well is premium rate, if you use a mobile. It's "more expensive" which is not the definition of "Premium Rate". -- Roland Perry |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
|
Wobbly Oystercard charges
|
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:23:56PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:57:29 on Mon, 24 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It jolly well is premium rate, if you use a mobile. It's "more expensive" which is not the definition of "Premium Rate". It's not merely "more expensive". It's "a lot more expensive". It costs more than several 09whatever numbers do to call from a land line. Therefore it is premium rate. That's premium rate by sensible definitions, as opposed to OFCOM's definition. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic It's my experience that neither users nor customers can articulate what it is they want, nor can they evaluate it when they see it -- Alan Cooper |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , at 11:13:36
on Tue, 25 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: 0845 is not premium rate (unless you have an exceptionally bad telco). It jolly well is premium rate, if you use a mobile. It's "more expensive" which is not the definition of "Premium Rate". It's not merely "more expensive". It's "a lot more expensive". It costs more than several 09whatever numbers do to call from a land line. I often feel that people have been lulled into a sense of false security by so many "bundled minutes" plans on mobiles (and fixed line phones have them too these days). The underlying cost of mobile calls is *much* greater than landline ones, that's just something we have to live with. My provider (Virgin PAYG) would charge you 31p a minute to call a geographic landline, for example. Therefore it is premium rate. That's premium rate by sensible definitions, as opposed to OFCOM's definition. OFCOM's definitions are there for a reason - so that we can all distinguish between the different kinds of number. And Premium Rate numbers are there primarily for the revenue stream and have stronger regulation as a result. It's that aspect which distinguishes them, not the price as-such. 0845, 0870 etc numbers have fundamentally different characteristics, and thus a different name. (If you want a transport analogy it'd be like calling Eurostar a "tube train". The Chunnel is a tube, isn't it?) -- Roland Perry |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:30:00AM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
I often feel that people have been lulled into a sense of false security by so many "bundled minutes" plans on mobiles (and fixed line phones have them too these days). The underlying cost of mobile calls is *much* greater than landline ones, that's just something we have to live with. But there's no reason why calls to 080 numbers can't at least be included in bundled minutes, aside from profiteering on the part of the mobile phone company. I don't see any reason why calls to 0845 numbers can't be included either, perhaps with a multiplier so that each minute of call "costs" 2 bundled minutes, or whatever, if the costs involved really are so much higher than calls to, for example, other networks' mobiles (which *are* included in bundled minutes). Again, that I have to pay eleventy squillion pence a minute looks like profiteering, on both the part of the mobile phone companies and TfL. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire Do not be afraid of cooking, as your ingredients will know and misbehave -- Fergus Henderson |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , at 11:50:36
on Wed, 26 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: I often feel that people have been lulled into a sense of false security by so many "bundled minutes" plans on mobiles (and fixed line phones have them too these days). The underlying cost of mobile calls is *much* greater than landline ones, that's just something we have to live with. But there's no reason why calls to 080 numbers can't at least be included in bundled minutes, aside from profiteering on the part of the mobile phone company. OFCOM is currently consulting on proposals to make 0800 free from mobiles. I don't see any reason why calls to 0845 numbers can't be included either, perhaps with a multiplier so that each minute of call "costs" 2 bundled minutes, or whatever, if the costs involved really are so much higher than calls to, for example, other networks' mobiles (which *are* included in bundled minutes). From my time in the mobile phone industry, the charging scheme tends to be built around what the billing system will allow you to do. So having different "consumption rates" of bundled minute is probably not something they can cope with - otherwise it would probably have been done by now. Again, that I have to pay eleventy squillion pence a minute looks like profiteering, on both the part of the mobile phone companies and TfL. All calls cost almost zero, on a marginal cost basis. What ends up on the price list is a complex combination of amortising network build costs, what other operators charge you at the interconnects, and what the market will stand. -- Roland Perry |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:19:13AM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
From my time in the mobile phone industry, the charging scheme tends to be built around what the billing system will allow you to do. So having different "consumption rates" of bundled minute is probably not something they can cope with - otherwise it would probably have been done by now. Hmmph. From *my* time in the phone industry (admittedly this was mostly wholesale, with some landlines) the billing system can be very flexible indeed. Perhaps they should write some better billing software. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it -- Agatha Christie |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , at 11:32:02
on Fri, 28 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: From my time in the mobile phone industry, the charging scheme tends to be built around what the billing system will allow you to do. So having different "consumption rates" of bundled minute is probably not something they can cope with - otherwise it would probably have been done by now. Hmmph. From *my* time in the phone industry (admittedly this was mostly wholesale, with some landlines) the billing system can be very flexible indeed. Perhaps they should write some better billing software. They do - for example the whole PAYG platform, rather than monthly subscriptions, was new. Nevertheless, any billing system needs "levers to pull" (to implement a fancy new charging scheme[1]) and if they aren't there, the marketing people have to think again. [1] Brainstorm: maybe something like "all calls to someone you've already called for more than half an hour that day are half price". Of course, one you've got the levers in place, you can tinker with the "half hour" and the "half price" (and perhaps even the "that day", although I wouldn't put it past the IT people to take that literally and hard code it in) until the cows come home - but the billing system needs to support that model. -- Roland Perry |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:13:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:32:02 on Fri, 28 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: Hmmph. From *my* time in the phone industry (admittedly this was mostly wholesale, with some landlines) the billing system can be very flexible indeed. Perhaps they should write some better billing software. They do - for example the whole PAYG platform, rather than monthly subscriptions, was new. Nevertheless, any billing system needs "levers to pull" (to implement a fancy new charging scheme[1]) and if they aren't there, the marketing people have to think again. Where I work now, those of us who create and run the back-end software get requirements from the rest of the business, which we then implement. In EVERY place that I've worked, that is what happens. Marketing (or whoever) say "we need thus and so", and we say either "OK, it will take X weeks, you can have it in Whatevermonth", or we say "that breaks the laws of physics, what do you *really* want?", or we say "that conflicts with this other requirement, oil up and get in a cage with them and fight it out". So the marketing people need to think about what levers they would like to pull. Anyway, I've recently been looking at alterantive telcos, cos my O2 contract is up. One of them (I forget which) lets you buy a certain number of 08expensive minutes a month in advance. It's quite a reasonable rate, compared to their normal 08ripoff. I suppose that that's at least a good start. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh. |
Wobbly Oystercard charges
In message , at 14:02:14
on Mon, 31 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 02:13:07PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:32:02 on Fri, 28 Jan 2011, David Cantrell remarked: Hmmph. From *my* time in the phone industry (admittedly this was mostly wholesale, with some landlines) the billing system can be very flexible indeed. Perhaps they should write some better billing software. They do - for example the whole PAYG platform, rather than monthly subscriptions, was new. Nevertheless, any billing system needs "levers to pull" (to implement a fancy new charging scheme[1]) and if they aren't there, the marketing people have to think again. Where I work now, those of us who create and run the back-end software get requirements from the rest of the business, which we then implement. In EVERY place that I've worked, that is what happens. Marketing (or whoever) say "we need thus and so", and we say either "OK, it will take X weeks, you can have it in Whatevermonth", or we say "that breaks the laws of physics, what do you *really* want?", or we say "that conflicts with this other requirement, oil up and get in a cage with them and fight it out". So the marketing people need to think about what levers they would like to pull. And that's what they did with PAYG. The problem with the underlying billing platforms is that they had to be able to feed bills out to hundreds of tied resellers (remember when phones could only be bought through them) as well as being able to cope with the effect the new charging structure would have on interconnect agreements with a dozen or more other domestic telcos. Nothing is impossible (within reason) but if it means rewriting the code then you can't have it by the middle of next week. Anyway, I've recently been looking at alterantive telcos, cos my O2 contract is up. One of them (I forget which) lets you buy a certain number of 08expensive minutes a month in advance. It's quite a reasonable rate, compared to their normal 08ripoff. I suppose that that's at least a good start. I wonder if that's a stealth pilot scheme for the proposed "free from mobile" 0800 scheme OFCOM is consulting about? -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk