*daniel* Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Well twitch, that would certainly result in a poorer service. And if MT were not wanted to raise prices then maybe they would have done some of what you suggest by now? Seems they haven't tried to cut down costs to stop price rises, so no doubt they would rather give customers a price rise in the future rather than performing those actions which would harm their reputation, possibly even convince customers to move to alternatives. Never mind, at least we agree that jackos 'Can`t wait for more to "Jump ship", just means I will get an even better service from MT.' is not a very logical thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 But less customers doesn't necessarily mean higher prices (at least in a competitive market), really it should mean lower profits. And mean lower investment in network upgrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEqualizer Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Is everyone aware that MT are up for sale? Telefonica / O2 are currently in the process of selling MT to the highest bidder. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Is everyone aware that MT are up for sale? Telefonica / O2 are currently in the process of selling MT to the highest bidder. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation? Sounds like a story to me, got any evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I wish I had enough money to buy MT - oh the fun I would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 It's also worth considering what happened with Pronto when Sure started, deals became better and more free phones became available, a little competition is always healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 To save trying to get through to Manx Telecom, can anyone tell me if I have 3 fixed bills and 2 mobile bills can they all be put onto one bill but on different tariffs? I.e. could two fixed line be on Standard Choice and one fixed line on Global Choice on the same bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Is everyone aware that MT are up for sale? Telefonica / O2 are currently in the process of selling MT to the highest bidder. Perhaps this will shed a little light on the situation? Sounds like a story to me, got any evidence? Indeed - would be good to see that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 It's also worth considering what happened with Pronto when Sure started, deals became better and more free phones became available, a little competition is always healthy. after listening to the bullshit spouted by the MT chappie on manx radio at lunch time. i have a few points to raise and some for debate. 1) i am fed up with MT saying they are nowt to do with BT. on paper maybe, but some of the older MT broadband contracts came from an office in the UK on BT headed paper ( so i was told, not actually seen, but i'm sure i could. ) 2) the propoganda man on MR was going on about customer feedback to questions, and then said he didn't see why it wouldn't be the same in the IOM?? this would suggest that the customer feedback he refers to and used for MT spout is actually not from the IOM in the fisrt place?? 3) he then twitters on about having to be competetive in the world market place? we are in the IOM, there is no competition for MT landlines* so who are they competing with considering MT AFAIK don't trade off the island in a world market anyway?? and if they did they could price accordingly? * although other companies offer a land line service, they are not permitted to put in their own lines, they have to 'rent' in bulk from MT at a slightly lesser rate than MT charge us. there will be a chance of a tiny mark up, but nothing worth the bother unless most of the lines are in use. 4) as competitors have to use MT landlines, if something goes tits up, MT will sort it's own stuff and customers out first, making 'competitors' service look less efficient and in the eyes of some not worth the bother of moving away from MT. 5) the only reason mobile prices became realistic was because mobile infrastructure does not have to be sourced from MT so proper competition exists. you could argue that MT are looking at ways of getting more out of us on landlines to make up for the mobile gravytrain having the brakes put on. 6) sky tv ( used to, don't know if it is still the same ) would only install in properties with a land line to plug the box into for a year, so you would 'need' a landline for that, again MT either direct or though others, but ofcourse you can't have sky broadband on the IOM ( you have to protect the bandits ) 7) the new DD billing bollox means those that don't pay by DD get charged an extra quid per bill!! which they have now decided to send/bill you 12 times of a year instead of 3!! how generating more bills per customer is 'economic' i don't know?? an easy way to save money would be to sack the wanker spouting the bollox on MR as he obviously hasn't got an honest idea of what to tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I have a feeling MT promote people out of the way - my old boss there was a true example of this. /point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ean Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 they have now decided to send/bill you 12 times of a year instead of 3 Is that actually true? That's fooking genius if it is, somebody in the daylight robbery dept. earned his money with that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 1) i am fed up with MT saying they are nowt to do with BT. on paper maybe, but some of the older MT broadband contracts came from an office in the UK on BT headed paper ( so i was told, not actually seen, but i'm sure i could. ) They used to be part of BT. Then BT moved them into the mobile devision, and then flogged it (as o2). MT was included with that, so they're now not part of BT. 2) the propoganda man on MR was going on about customer feedback to questions, and then said he didn't see why it wouldn't be the same in the IOM?? this would suggest that the customer feedback he refers to and used for MT spout is actually not from the IOM in the fisrt place?? Hmm, don't really understand what you're saying there. I think he was saying most companies are moving to online billing, and that's true. Paper billing and manual payments is more expensive, so you should pay more for it. I agree with him here. 3) he then twitters on about having to be competetive in the world market place? we are in the IOM, there is no competition for MT landlines* so who are they competing with considering MT AFAIK don't trade off the island in a world market anyway?? and if they did they could price accordingly? MT do find themselves competing worldwide, in a bunch of ways, particular now as people use voip providers, least cost routing providers or other off-island links for telecoms. 6) sky tv ( used to, don't know if it is still the same ) would only install in properties with a land line to plug the box into for a year, so you would 'need' a landline for that, again MT either direct or though others, but ofcourse you can't have sky broadband on the IOM ( you have to protect the bandits ) No, we don't have LLU, so we can't have other providers. However in the UK very few exchanges with this number of customers would have llu providers either. The big problem with llu is it attracts providers to the densest populations, where they'll make the most money. So even if we did have LLU, I doubt sky would make use of it. 7) the new DD billing bollox means those that don't pay by DD get charged an extra quid per bill!! which they have now decided to send/bill you 12 times of a year instead of 3!! how generating more bills per customer is 'economic' i don't know?? an easy way to save money would be to sack the wanker spouting the bollox on MR as he obviously hasn't got an honest idea of what to tell us. Yep, agree, that's mental. They should let you set your billing period yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Lets do a poll - Should MT be allowed to charge for non e-billing is customers? Is the e-bill and direct debit option fair and equal to ALL. Should the robbin' git accountant who thought up the idea of charging us per month be named/shamed and flogged on Tynwald Day? I would set it up - but dont have the time at the mo. I asked some very direct questions today - on MR - and was just fobbed off with - customer feedback, competitive market (WTF!) - blah blah. No bugger from MT has asked me for any feedback - ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 they have now decided to send/bill you 12 times of a year instead of 3 Is that actually true? That's fooking genius if it is, somebody in the daylight robbery dept. earned his money with that one! it used to be 4 times a year, i fooked up, but i knew what i meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 I asked some very direct questions today - on MR - and was just fobbed off with - customer feedback, competitive market (WTF!) - blah blah. No bugger from MT has asked me for any feedback - ever! that was my point in 2), the question and feedback would seem to be from off island. i suppose it depends how they word the 1 quid difference although it amounts to the same. a 1 quid surcharge for not paying pay DD sounds all wrong, a 1 quid discount for paying by DD sounds better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.