Just had my phone bill in from BT, and I noticed a new and interesting little charge of £4.50 (before VAT that is) itemised as “Payment Charges”.
Now you need to understand that all I pay BT for is the actual phone line. All the calls I make, and my internet connection, have been transferred to another supplier (the reasons for which being described in an ealier post at BT Yahoo sucks; suffice to say that it could be attributed to BT incompetence).
Well, back to the issue of this new “Payment Charge” (and if ever there was a misnomer this must be it, for its literal interpretation is that BT are charging customers for making a payment to them!!! – the logic of which is, to avoid the charge simply don’t pay them!).
They very kindly (that’s a bit of sarcasm incidentally) enclose a semi-glossy coloured four-page leaflet (wonder how much that cost to produce?) explaining this new charge, in the following terms…
“The payment processing fee has been introduced because some methods of payment are costly to process. But it’s not just about the cost of taking the payments; following up when customers forget to pay on time does involve spending time and money. Most telecom providers do not accept new customers unless they pay by Direct Debit.”
Well, my immediate reaction to that statement is, in a word, “bullshit”.
Lemme explain. I pay my BT bill quarterly, in cash, over the Post Office counter (and generally on time).
From the point at which the hard cash leaves my grubby little mitt and is handed over the entire process is automated, i.e., computerised. The only cost involved is that of one computer talking to another (given that the systems for enabling this are already in place, and have been for quite some time).
The extra cost that BT incurs by having to bill me quarterly by post (oh dear, what a hardship!) is in actually producing my quarterly bill, printing it out, and mailing it to me (all processes that can be, if not already have been, computerised be it noted).
Now I don’t know if anyone’s actually ever explained this to BT, but it has long been a tradition that when one enters into business the arduous task of actually collecting payment for services has always been, and indeed should be, regarded as part and parcel of the service being provided. Were it not so its difficult to see how any business could actually have ever gotten off the ground.
The point being that the reason one enters into business in the first place is to… um… earn a living; i.e., actually receive (which implies “collect”) money for the service or goods provided. This in fact is the very nature of trade.
The idea that the task of collecting payment for the service or goods provided should become a service in its own right (that is to say, incurring a separate and distinct charge) is perverse to say the least.
And in regard to their comment about “following up when customers forget to pay on time does involve spending time and money” – have they never heard of levying surcharges for late payment?
Basically the whole thing is a con, and represents a price hike, with a slight discount being given to those who choose to pay either by Direct Debit or (another recommendation of BT) “Monthly Payment Plan”.
And here we get to the crux of the matter. For in fact what BT are doing is penalising all those who choose not to pay by (or simply don’t have) a bank account.
And this is the most disturbing aspect of the con. For it represents yet a further inducement to encourage folk to have all their cash affairs handled by the Banks, the implications of which (in terms of transaction tracking, potential identity theft, etc) deprive us of true control of our own finances and privacy.
(To say nothing of the even more worrisome implications should compulsory ID cards ever be introduced along with a national database incorporating linkages to Bank databases, opening up even more possibilities for State monitoring and control of personal finances.)
Nor let’s get into discussing the situation where a person agrees to pay BT by Direct Debit but, for one reason or another, fails to have sufficient funds in their account to cover the Order. Consequently the Bank sends them a snotty letter and charges them an horrendous amount for the privilege, or extends a temporary overdraft facility and then charges an horrendous amount for that. The conclusion to draw from which is that BT must be in collusion with the Banks to engage in profiteering!
I’ve said it before, and no doubt I’ll say it again… BT sucks!
Were it not for the unfortunate fact that my current ISP requires a BT phone line in order to function I’d have told BT to sling their hook a long time ago.
Hmm… perhaps its time I looked for an alternative setup.
