| | BT sneaky offer
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:43:28 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
BT sent me an email today subject "Our BT Smart Hub could be yours today"
In it said
"How to get your BT Smart Hub
We’ll deliver your BT Smart Hub directly to your home (you’ll need to pay £9.99 delivery charge). It fits through your letterbox, and it’s super-simple to set up.
1. Click on the button below and log in with your BT ID
2. Select ‘Get this offer’ on your homepage
3. Follow the on-screen upgrade process."
Well NO if course it wasn't a new router for £9.99p, but a swizz to tr and get me to sign up for 18 months at a much higher monthly fee half way through my current annual deal.
No surprise really :-(
I recently set up one of these for a someone who said that the new
contract was actually cheaper. Although I didn't ask for details I was
puzzled that she'd allowed herself to be talked into accepting a
replacement for something that was working perfectly well beforehand,
but she insisted that it was cheaper. I'm not with BT myself and
haven't investigated this any further.
Setup was just a matter of swapping plugs and then entering the new
wireless details into all connected devices, after which everything
just continued working as before. Wireless coverage was noticeably
better though, even just testing crudely by walking around the
premises and using speedtest.net on a phone. It really does seem to
have made a difference, and you may feel that this alone is worth
paying extra for - if it actually is extra (see above).
About a week later I had the opportunity to check it again and found
that the connection speeds were about three times what they had been
before, so the service had evidently been upgraded from ADSL to VDSL,
the modem in the superhub apparently having switched over
automatically. Unless there's some huge logistical advantage to BT in
getting everybody on the same system, it seems odd to me that this
would be offered on a cheaper contract. I wonder if it really is
cheaper, or just appears cheaper to the uninitiated because of
obfuscatory fine print in the contract?