Talk:BT Group

Ownership

well i have also been looking for which shareholder has majority control and come up on a blank, how ever i can tell you that BT is a PLC. Can anybody see any share ownership data on the website? I can't see anything.--Jerry seinfeld 22:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As in, ownership of shares in BT plc? Data on the number of holdings of various sizes and their total weight in the company as a whole? It's on p.143 (or p.144 as the PDF counts it) of the last Annual Report.--rbrwr^± 22:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merger

"It has been suggested that BT's Northern Ireland operations may be merged into BT Ireland at some point in the future." - I can't find any source for this, and would find it highly unlikely given the different market and regulatory factors at play - never mind the political sensitivities it would impact upon Col mc 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Customer service

I've added a point about customer services. At present the comment is pretty general, as I don't want to use the article to promote individual customer complaints, but if references are required I'll set up a few specific references to illustrate points raised.

Do you think it would be worth mentioning the problematic waiting times that some people have had whlie trying to use BT's helpline. If you're not sure about what I mean, check out this link. The story stems from The Times.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070818/tuk-britain-offbeat-telecom-company-bt-a7ad41d_1.html

The inclusion of this article seem a bit like a slagging-off ground for BT, rather than an informative and impartial encyclopedia article, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.212.216 (talk) 10:22:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

BT are the only operator that are required by their licence to provide connections when requested -- other operators are free to 'cherry pick' their customers. In fact other operators often require the customer to already have a working BT line (the customer pays only line rental to BT). This gives BT a rather monopoly-like position, and with little practical competition it seems that customer service is not a priority for BT: Weeks or even months to connect a line or fix a fault are not uncommon. Indeed, it is easy to find blog entries etc. of angry BT customers and the frequency with which BT enrage their customers is indicative of genuine incompetence.

unregistered user: although i do agree that BT has problems with customer service i dont this edit really has a place on this article. i cant see what it brings to the article, if anyone wants to clarify this then fine. but i see no objective comparisons to other providers such as 'talk talk' or AOL who in most peoples opinions have worse reputations. just a smaller customer base. would someone like to clarify this please? or give relevant references as this section seems to me entirely opinion based, do sweeping statements like 'bt are renowned for.....' have a place on an encyclopedia?. thanks. i'll give until 23/11/07 for a reply or i will remove the section in the hope that if it is resurrected that it is more objective and verifiable

OK. I've deleted the section. It's not proper to an Encyclopedia, it's poorly written and it's not NPOV. It may well be justified, but not here. If someone wants to add a section presenting the issues properly (e.g. surrounding the fact that if BT doesn't provide a physical connection, no service is possible), that would be fine. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is fair to note that BT has a large reputation for having utterly useless and often controversial customer support workers. I myself have experienced their customer support too many times, and it goes beyond being rubbish support.

About Customer Service: A friend of mine who is pretty high up in BT billing here in the UK says that the Indian Call centers over the next few years WILL be closing down. The operations will consequently be moving back to the UK. I will try to get more details about it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.29.19 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Like most people I've suffered at the hands of BT's wretched customer service, and quite astonishing incompetence, *but* that is original research, and thus does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, thus citations from neutral authoraties need to be cited. The regulators for instance have been quite critical and the press has any number of pieces.

NPOV is a different, trickier issue. Some things are objectively bad, such as BT technicians not turning up for appointments, but neutrality requires that one researches whether they are worse than competitors, and certainly try and find the frequency of this. BT has tens of millions of customers, so to describe their support as somewhere between incompetent and actually malicious it is necessary to show that the list of horror stories is bigger than is reasonable given that they must handle millions of customer interactions per day. DominicConnor (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest edit

Why was the latest edit reverted? What was wrong with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.173.144 (talk • contribs) 21:29, November 28, 2006 (UTC)

The fact that its bullshit would be a starter for one. --Kiand 08:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a little vague. What, exactly, was "Bullshit" about it? A305w 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No sources. The fact that theres nothing but makers logos etched on chips inside the Home Hub - believe me, I've seen them cracked open; total lack of sourses, and mainly the fact that its complete shite. --Kiand 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You've seen them, have you? Sounds like original research to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.143.8 (talk • contribs) 23:39, December 2, 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Due to the recent revert war I have requested that the page is semi-protected. I have also reminded the main participants of the 3RR. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adverts

Someone has posted an advert at the bottom. Not sure on the rules for this, but I'm guessing it's against them. Anyone who knows for sure want to comment/remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deeem119 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:BTLogo91.png

Image:BTLogo91.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Buzby?

Does anyone know when Buzby was used as the BT logo? I seem to recall it being used somewhere in the early 80s. Was it before the T, at the same time as the T, or was it used for another part of the BT organisation?81.107.205.91 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Buzby - the multi-coloured talking cartoon bird, was launched c. 1977 and was around well into the 1980s. This puts it around the time of the GPO up to the T, but not sure if Buzby was still around during the T.

Darkieboy236 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

PS see Buzby!! Darkieboy236 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The first Buzby ads were in May 1976, which was during the time of Post Office Telecommunications (not the GPO era as such, since Post Office Telephones had became a separate entity distinct from the GPO at the beginning of the decade). For the TV commercials, Buzby was voiced by well-known actor and singer Bernard Cribbins. Post Office Telecoms became British Telecom in 1980, and the last BT ads featuring Buzby were circa 1985, just after privatization. So yes, part of the Buzby period was during the British Telecom "T" era. 146.90.61.45 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

External links

I think that the external links section, especially the links to BT, is way too big. I do not think that every BT company and service needs to be linked to. I suggest simply linking to the BT home page (bt.com) and the BT Group home page (btplc.com). If people want to go to the other websites, they can search for them on Google or go to the BT or BT group websites. I do not think that the BT Suck link is appropriate either. The site is currently offline and may not be coming back, as it has been offline for months. However, I checked it out using the Internet Archive. It is just a message board for people to complain about BT and sometimes ask for help. Self-help links are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Share Price at Floatation

We have the initial share price for mmO2, but not for original BT shares. Anybody recall what they were, around 230p /share I think? A Taxed Mind (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

130p. Blaise (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GPO badge.png

Image:GPO badge.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Rationale added. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest communications operator in Europe claim

BT is not the largest communications operator in Europe. For one, [[1]] France Telecom is larger by revenue, operating income, net income, and by number of employees. Deutsche Telekom is also considerably larger. There is no citation for the claim in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.133.54 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted the claim. Please feel free to edit the article yourself where it is incorrect. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Phorm | secret advert trials | alleged "spying"

Shouldn't involvement in Phorm trials be included into this article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.46.165 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add something. These sources seem reliable.

* BBC - BT advert trials were 'illegal'

* Guardian - BT admits tracking 18,000 users with Phorm systems in 2006

* Daily Mail - We spied on 36,000 customers using the internet, admits BT

* Channel 4 - BT condemned on internet 'spying' and BT 'spies' on customers

* Telegraph - Web ads: Targeted to your every taste.

* PC Pro - BT defends secret trials as backlash builds

* New statesman - Digital spying. Ha! (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Employees

The article states BT has 104,399 (2005-06) employees. Does anyone have the breakdown of which are contracted staff and which are agency staff? Does anyone have any breakdown on which department within BT these people work for? Darkieboy236 (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This will almost certainly be full time employees - agency staff would be on top of this figure and are bot counted as employees. --Phil Holmes (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a possibility, but never found any official info on it. Darkieboy236 (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was making the point that it's more than a possibility - I don't have the figures in front of me, but as an ex-BT employee, I'm pretty sure the 104,000 figure is people employed by BT. I have a BT Group slide showing that in 07/08 there were 112,000 people employed by BT, with a further 26,000 "globally sourced" (BT code for contract employees). --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Darkieboy236 (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref in intro

I replaced Dormskirk's deletion of ref in intro - most featured articles I have read contain refs in the intro, wp:style and Introductory_material do not mention this, and the claim of "operating in 170 countries" was previously challenged. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Angry BT caller

I've seen several youtube videos about the angry caller that got mad at BT for calling him around 2006. Maybe there can be a reference to that somewhere in this article. The youtube videos can be a good source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.138.214 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Language in the article

I see that the word 'leading' is used quite often, which is not a very neutral word, and anyway repeated words aren't good style. I would suggest 'major', 'large' etc which are more neutral and certainly true. Leading implies good, which in some cases is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed uncited information

I've removed the below, as it's uncited, and uses leading phrases such as "dismal" and "forced"

There is, however, increasing disquiet among analysts that the annual growth of the Global Services business has been unimpressive, and that BT has been using prior year adjustments to achieve favourable growth figures.

Take the quarter ended 30 September 2005, for example. At the time, BT said the external revenues of its Global Services division were £1,740m. However, a year later, BT revised this figure downwards to £1,703m. This enabled BT to claim growth of 3.5%, instead of the dismal 1.3% it would have been forced to announce if it hadn't adjusted the prior year's figures.

BT has made a habit of adjusting the previous year's revenue figure every quarter. Only once in the past year has BT adjusted the figure upwards rather than downwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.215.185 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The history of BT here is whitewashed. The text is very pro-BT. There is no criticism section. All we know is that privatization in 1984 was just great! and has been ever since! I'm sure there are plenty of opposing views there. - 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to describe any business' activities neutrally without somebody thinking it's marketing-speak; and "criticism" sections are not obligatory. The article already tries to strike a balanced tone; is there any specific criticism missing from it? bobrayner (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The article looks pretty fair and balanced to me, if anything with too much emphasis on negative issues.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BT's alliance with Israel's Bezeq

Jeff Song deleted the information I added about this alliance, with the argument that it is all based on a letter to the press. It is not. It is also based on an article in the Jewish Chronicle, and they must have found the information sufficiently interesting to publish it. I feel that when a company is accused of unethical behaviour, it should be mentioned on the relevant page, albeit in a neutral way. It's for readers to make up their mind. Nescio vos (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is one of weight. This is a company with 150 years of history, doing business in 170 countries worldwide and is one of the world's largest telecommunication companies. Of course it is going to be involved in many controversial issues over its lifetime, making some people unhappy about this policy or that action - but dedicating a full section to this trivial issue - a letter to the editor that got no coverage in any mainstream source beyond a single article in the Jewish Chronicle is beyond ridiculous. A "real" controversy would be something like BT's patent lawsuit against Google - that gets over 1.2 million ghits (https://www.google.com/search?q=bt+google+lawsuit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), and coverage in sources such as the BBC, Washington Post , the Guardian etc... Even something like a lawsuit by former consultants hired by BT gets over a quarter of a million ghits (https://www.google.com/search?q=bt+magenta+netlogic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), with lengthy articles in Reuters, the Times, CIO magazine etc.. Neither one of these events is mentioned in the article, and rightly so. That goes double for your non-event.

As a side note, I am beginning to see a somewhat disturbing pattern in your edits (here, on Veolia Environnement and Veolia Transdev) where you take material from fringe groups advocating for boycott of Israel, often from non-reliable self-published advocacy sites, and playing them up as a major element of the article. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not creation another political forum. Perhaps your time will be better spent on some blog. Jeff Song (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that. Such advocacy is not appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

1966 name at the time

When I joined BT as an apprentice engineer in 1966, it was called General Post Office (Telecommunications). This should be included as it showed that Telecoms at the time was seen as a division of the Post Office. A lot different to today. Molbrum2 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is referred to indirectly in both the lead and the history section but could be clearer. What would be useful is more precise information on all of the various name changes together with exact dates, which could then be put in a 'Name' section. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Consumer Rating

Possibly re-hashing Section 3. Customer Service here, but I've created a new section since this is a number of years later. Anyway, surely that section is related to the Customer service of BT Retail, and not the wider BT Group that this article relates to? BT Group do not deal with end users, but with CPs and partners. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As there is no response almost a week later, I'm removing that section. Please reply here on on my talk page if you wish to raise anything. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)