My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and 
broadband with which she is very happy.

She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many 
properties are within a protected area and dishes are not 
allowed. The area is not cabled.

It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so 
which ISP taking into account speed, reliability, and above all 
value for money? An unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would 
be enough - she does work from home some of the time.



-- 
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and broadband with 
> which she is very happy.
>
> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many properties 
> are within a protected area and dishes are not allowed. The area is not 
> cabled.
>
> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so which ISP 
> taking into account speed, reliability, and above all value for money? An 
> unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would be enough - she does work 
> from home some of the time.


speed, reliability, and low cost are incompatible.

Speed is in principle a function of the length and quality of the phone 
line.  The ISP may provide less than the phone line can support - this is 
often true of the cheaper suppliers

If you want reliability go for Andrews and Arnold, or Zen.

For most people the combination of speed and reliability represents value 
for money.

-- Graham

Graham J wrote:
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
>> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and broadband with 
>> which she is very happy.
>>
>> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many properties 
>> are within a protected area and dishes are not allowed. The area is not 
>> cabled.
>>
>> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so which ISP 
>> taking into account speed, reliability, and above all value for money? An 
>> unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would be enough - she does work 
>> from home some of the time.
> 
> 
> speed, reliability, and low cost are incompatible.
> 
> Speed is in principle a function of the length and quality of the phone 
> line.  The ISP may provide less than the phone line can support - this is 
> often true of the cheaper suppliers
> 
> If you want reliability go for Andrews and Arnold, or Zen.
> 
> For most people the combination of speed and reliability represents value 
> for money.

I use Zen and they are excellent.


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Woody  wrote:
: It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so 
: which ISP taking into account speed, reliability, and above all 
: value for money? An unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would 
: be enough - she does work from home some of the time.

When I was considering moving away from Sky both Be (who have a 12 months
half-price deal until 31/10) and O2 came up as recommended. They are
both LLU operators (like Sky) and charge under 7 pounds/month (with current
offers!)

O2 is better if you have an O2 mobile as this brings the price down.

"Graham J"  wrote in message 
news:4ae2028e$0$2477$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
>> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and 
>> broadband with which she is very happy.
>>
>> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many 
>> properties are within a protected area and dishes are not 
>> allowed. The area is not cabled.
>>
>> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, 
>> so which ISP taking into account speed, reliability, and above 
>> all value for money? An unlimited service is preferred but 
>> 10Gb would be enough - she does work from home some of the 
>> time.
>
>
> speed, reliability, and low cost are incompatible.
>
> Speed is in principle a function of the length and quality of 
> the phone line.  The ISP may provide less than the phone line 
> can support - this is often true of the cheaper suppliers
>
> If you want reliability go for Andrews and Arnold, or Zen.
>
> For most people the combination of speed and reliability 
> represents value for money.
>
> -- Graham
>
>
>
>
>


Point - I said value for money, I did NOT say cheap.


-- 
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Woody  wrote:
: Point - I said value for money, I did NOT say cheap.

It is perfectly possibe to get BOTH - O2 or Be for example!

Brian Mc wrote:
> Woody  wrote:
> : Point - I said value for money, I did NOT say cheap.
>
> It is perfectly possibe to get BOTH - O2 or Be for example!
>   
Definately .
I have a Be, and O2 & UK-Online all LLU and all great value & reliable
and all used for business.
Be. being the main one which also runs business phones on voip and a VPN
+ multiple networked computers constantly in use with our web-site
e-mails etc etc. so it's in use 12 hours a day all week.
UK On-Line as the fallover should Be go down (which it doesn't) and O2
at home VPN to the Be* shop connection (Home working)
All the above are "unlimited" use and in my opinion the best there is
out there for value/reliability.
Only real way to decide is see what the exchange has as LLU then take
anything except the rubbish ones like TalkTalk etc.

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and broadband with 
> which she is very happy.
>
> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many properties 
> are within a protected area and dishes are not allowed. The area is not 
> cabled.
>
> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so which ISP 
> taking into account speed, reliability, and above all value for money? An 
> unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would be enough - she does work 
> from home some of the time.
>
>
>
I like my Be Unlimited up to 24Mb

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

"www.GymRatZ.co.uk"  wrote in 
message news:hbu456$6o6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Brian Mc wrote:
>> Woody  wrote:
>> : Point - I said value for money, I did NOT say cheap.
>>
>> It is perfectly possibe to get BOTH - O2 or Be for example!
>>
> Definately .
> I have a Be, and O2 & UK-Online all LLU and all great value & reliable
> and all used for business.
> Be. being the main one which also runs business phones on voip and a VPN
> + multiple networked computers constantly in use with our web-site
> e-mails etc etc. so it's in use 12 hours a day all week.
> UK On-Line as the fallover should Be go down (which it doesn't) and O2
> at home VPN to the Be* shop connection (Home working)
> All the above are "unlimited" use and in my opinion the best there is
> out there for value/reliability.
> Only real way to decide is see what the exchange has as LLU then take
> anything except the rubbish ones like TalkTalk etc.
>

As I said I use Be LLU and have Talk Talk phone, TT Customer Service when 
things go wrong are a nightmare.
Wish Be did home phones.

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

David wrote:

> As I said I use Be LLU and have Talk Talk phone, TT Customer Service 
> when things go wrong are a nightmare.
> Wish Be did home phones.

Go back to BT for your phone with a free 'Unlimited UK Evening
& Weekend calls' package and use 1899.com for other moments?

Our phone bills (minus standing) are rarely over a few quid per month.

-- 
Adrian C

"Adrian C" <email@here.invalid> wrote in message 
news:7kg0d5F39nv26U1@mid.individual.net...
> David wrote:
>
>> As I said I use Be LLU and have Talk Talk phone, TT Customer Service when 
>> things go wrong are a nightmare.
>> Wish Be did home phones.
>
> Go back to BT for your phone with a free 'Unlimited UK Evening
> & Weekend calls' package and use 1899.com for other moments?
>
> Our phone bills (minus standing) are rarely over a few quid per month.
>
Putting the Prefix in might be a problem to us, or should I say my wife.
We use a memory phone.
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.
I'm on an Any Time package now, rather like that not having to worry if it 
6pm yet, or if daytime.

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

Woody wrote:
> "Graham J"  wrote in message 
> news:4ae2028e$0$2477$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> "Woody"  wrote in message 
>> news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
>>> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and 
>>> broadband with which she is very happy.
>>>
>>> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many 
>>> properties are within a protected area and dishes are not 
>>> allowed. The area is not cabled.
>>>
>>> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, 
>>> so which ISP taking into account speed, reliability, and above 
>>> all value for money? An unlimited service is preferred but 
>>> 10Gb would be enough - she does work from home some of the 
>>> time.
>>
>> speed, reliability, and low cost are incompatible.
>>
>> Speed is in principle a function of the length and quality of 
>> the phone line.  The ISP may provide less than the phone line 
>> can support - this is often true of the cheaper suppliers
>>
>> If you want reliability go for Andrews and Arnold, or Zen.
>>
>> For most people the combination of speed and reliability 
>> represents value for money.
>>
>> -- Graham
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Point - I said value for money, I did NOT say cheap.
> 
> 
Very happy with IDNET. to the point where I am running my sole remaining 
phone line with them as well.

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?

BT still are a can of worms and charges are on the up. Read the small 
print on whatever :-(
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1867569

-- 
Adrian C

Brian Mc wrote:
> Woody  wrote:
> : It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so 
> : which ISP taking into account speed, reliability, and above all 
> : value for money? An unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would 
> : be enough - she does work from home some of the time.
> 
> When I was considering moving away from Sky both Be (who have a 12 months
> half-price deal until 31/10) and O2 came up as recommended. They are
> both LLU operators (like Sky) and charge under 7 pounds/month (with current
> offers!)
> 
> O2 is better if you have an O2 mobile as this brings the price down.

Yes, the LLU services of O2/Be are excellent, but not so if they have to be 
provided via a BT Wholesale connection, (I don't think Be actually offer a 
BT-W version anyway)

Check Sam Knows to see if you daughter's exchange has O2/Be LLU kit installed.

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/llu-league.php

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

"Adrian C" <email@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?
>
> BT still are a can of worms and charges are on the up. Read the small 
> print on whatever :-(
> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1867569
>
 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.

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.

David wrote:
> 
> 
> "Adrian C" <email@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?
>>
>> BT still are a can of worms and charges are on the up. Read the small
>> print on whatever :-(
>> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1867569
>>
> 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.

-- 
PeeGee

"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

Mark Carver wrote:
> Check Sam Knows to see if you daughter's exchange has O2/Be LLU kit
> installed.
>
> http://www.samknows.com/broadband/llu-league.php
LOL we should have started there first !
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/SSBAT
:¬(
Which screws up preferred choices nicely.

I was on an Entanet reseller (UKFSN) connection through BT and it wasn't
much better than virgin cable that I was on before that.
I'd suggest anything that is on a short term contract to make it easier
to switch but steer clear of the only LLU service on the exchange TalkTalk.

Pete
--
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/rowing-machine/ - WaterRowers and reviews
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/waterrower/ Even more WaterRowers
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/waterrower-natural-s4 Our best WaterRower package
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/ On-Line since 1999 doing Gym Equipment & stuff.

"www.GymRatZ.co.uk"  wrote in 
message news:hc0t5a$abq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mark Carver wrote:



....but steer clear of the only LLU service on the exchange TalkTalk.

Is it the equipment/system you refer to not being good?
Or the Customer Service and Accounts depts. which I find the lowest of the 
low with my TT phone.

-- 
Regards,
David

FREESAT HD  as it is now it is a joke.
>

David wrote:
> Is it the equipment/system you refer to not being good?
> Or the Customer Service and Accounts depts. which I find the lowest of
> the low with my TT phone.
I have phone calls routed through TT for our fax machine but wouldn't
entertain giving them my line rental and would sooner have a "reliable"
dial-up service than an un-reliable TalkTalk "broadband" package.
Plenty of user feedback to be found everywhere.

Pete
--
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/fitness-equipment/ Fitness Equipment
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/boxing-equipment/ Boxing equipment
http://www.gymratz.co.uk/bodybuilding-supplements/ Bodybuilding
Supplement reviews.

"www.GymRatZ.co.uk"  
wrote in message news:hc0t5a$abq$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mark Carver wrote:
>> Check Sam Knows to see if you daughter's exchange has O2/Be 
>> LLU kit
>> installed.
>>
>> http://www.samknows.com/broadband/llu-league.php
> LOL we should have started there first !
> http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/SSBAT
> :¬(
> Which screws up preferred choices nicely.


Wrong exchange I'm afraid.

Bath is covered by Kingsmead to the north and Combe Down to the 
south. SSBAT is Batheaston which is some distnace away north 
east.


-- 
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:39:19 +0100, "Woody"
 wrote:

>My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and 
>broadband with which she is very happy.
>
>She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many 
>properties are within a protected area and dishes are not 
>allowed. The area is not cabled.
>
>It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so 
>which ISP taking into account speed, reliability, and above all 
>value for money? An unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would 
>be enough - she does work from home some of the time.

IME Avoid AOL & BT.  PlusNet is quite good if price is important to
you.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
 wrote
>Graham J wrote:
>> "Woody"  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.

-- 
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and broadband with 
> which she is very happy.
>
> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many properties 
> are within a protected area and dishes are not allowed. The area is not 
> cabled.
>
> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so which ISP 
> taking into account speed, reliability, and above all value for money? An 
> unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would be enough - she does work 
> from home some of the time.
> Woody
>
>
Till the end of the month Quidco are offering BE value at half price
with 25quid quidco cashback
http://www.quidco.com/bethere-co-uk/

Steve Terry

Graham J wrote:
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:bTlEm.103950$ly7.3625@newsfe14.ams2...
>> My daughter is currently a Sky customer for TV, phone, and broadband with 
>> which she is very happy.
>>
>> She is about to take up a new post in the Bath area where many properties 
>> are within a protected area and dishes are not allowed. The area is not 
>> cabled.
>>
>> It looks as though she will have to go to bog standard ADSL, so which ISP 
>> taking into account speed, reliability, and above all value for money? An 
>> unlimited service is preferred but 10Gb would be enough - she does work 
>> from home some of the time.
> 
> speed, reliability, and low cost are incompatible.

100% accurate ! But the cost can be 'reasonable' if you shop around. 
Andrews and Arnold cost an arm and a leg.

> Speed is in principle a function of the length and quality of the phone 
> line.  The ISP may provide less than the phone line can support - this is 
> often true of the cheaper suppliers
> 
> If you want reliability go for Andrews and Arnold, or Zen.

Or IDNet.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/isp/compare.html?commit=Compare&isp_2=1&isp_16=1&isp_6=1

Not a lot of difference between them.

Here are some of the dregs !
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/isp/compare.html?isp_13=1&isp_22=1&isp_23=1&commit=Compare

Which would you prefer ?

Another Graham

Alan wrote:
> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
>  wrote
>> Graham J wrote:
>>> "Woody"  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.

Graham

Woody wrote:
> 
> Point - I said value for money, I did NOT say cheap.

In which case you need to decide whether reliability and speed are more 
important than price. Overall 'value for money' probably doesn't vary much.

Graham

Adrian C wrote:
> David wrote:
> 
>> As I said I use Be LLU and have Talk Talk phone, TT Customer Service 
>> when things go wrong are a nightmare.
>> Wish Be did home phones.
> 
> Go back to BT for your phone with a free 'Unlimited UK Evening
> & Weekend calls' package and use 1899.com for other moments?

Exactly what I do except I never left BT since 1976 when it was Post 
Office Telecommunications.

Graham

David wrote:
> "Adrian C" <email@here.invalid> wrote
>> David wrote:
>>
>>> As I said I use Be LLU and have Talk Talk phone, TT Customer Service 
>>> when things go wrong are a nightmare.
>>> Wish Be did home phones.
>>
>> Go back to BT for your phone with a free 'Unlimited UK Evening
>> & Weekend calls' package and use 1899.com for other moments?
>>
>> Our phone bills (minus standing) are rarely over a few quid per month.
>>
> Putting the Prefix in might be a problem to us, or should I say my wife.
> We use a memory phone.

Put 1899 in one of the memories ? Then reprogram the other memories as 
required to include the area code for local calls.

Graham

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?

I'm here still. Just taken a short break.

Graham

PeeGee wrote:
> David wrote:
>>
>> "Adrian C" <email@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?
>>>
>>> BT still are a can of worms and charges are on the up. Read the small
>>> print on whatever :-(
>>> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1867569
>>>
>> 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.

Graham

"Eeyore"  wrote in message 
news:012c935b$0$25872$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Alan wrote:
>> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
>>  wrote
>>> Graham J wrote:
>>>> "Woody"  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.

Back from holiday, Graham?
;-)

George

"Alan"  wrote in message 
news:JPB9h$E2uj5KFwri@amac.f2s.com...
> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
>  wrote
>>Graham J wrote:
>>> "Woody"  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.

Paul

Paulg0 wrote:
> 
> "Alan"  wrote in message 
> news:JPB9h$E2uj5KFwri@amac.f2s.com...
>> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
>>  wrote
>>> Graham J wrote:
>>>> "Woody"  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.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
it may not actually BE the ISP..BT is doing massive upgrades to the ATM 
stuff at the moment.

George Weston wrote:
> "Eeyore"  wrote
>> Alan wrote:
>>> Old Codger  wrote
>>>> Graham J wrote:
>>>>> "Woody"  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.

Graham

Paulg0 wrote:
> 
> "Alan"  wrote in message 
> news:JPB9h$E2uj5KFwri@amac.f2s.com...
>> In message <4ae209b9$0$2474$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
>>  wrote
>>> Graham J wrote:
>>>> "Woody"  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.

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 ).

Graham