Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or see our HOMEPAGE











FAO: Clive Selley CEO &Philip Jansen REF. 01323
Open Reach & BT Monopoly
BT Group plc,
BT Centre,
81 Newgate Street,
London EC1A 7AJ

                                                                                                                              14 August 2021
Dear CEOís,

BREACH OF CONTRACT - Account No: GB ...........

Fibre 1 - (so-called) High-speed fibre broadband.

I have raised the subject of very slow broadband speeds and line crackling many times over a period of years. I think I have been more than patient. Iíve listened to your excuses and denials of poor performance for longer than most would bear.

When I signed up this last time it was on the basis of minimum guaranteed speeds:

- Your normal available download speed will be between 36-50 Mbps
- Your normal available upload speed will be between 7-9 Mbps
- Your minimum guaranteed download speed will be 30 Mbps
- Your minimum upload speed is 7Mbps.

Each time I called in complaints, and that includes when I was with Talk,Talk (in between seeking a better service) I was told the line checks out, but it appears that may not have been accurate, where no real monitoring was carried out, hence, sending an engineer to run ďspotĒ line checks, appears more designed to disguise the fact that the copper wires from the cabinet on the A271 to ........., are defective. I doubt they are even high-speed copper. Please confirm date of installation and what type.

It appears to me that BT is the root cause of my problems, and has been for many years, even where Talk,Talk was hoped to be a cure. That is because BT owns Open Reach and Talk-Talk is reliant on the Open Reach network, who in turn are owned by BT as a wholly owned subsidiary. Hence, there is no independence as required by Ofcom. 

In other words, it is a cods. BT has the monopoly and has developed a method of slowing complaints, pretending they are closed, but in fact nothing has been done to repair the defective network. I complained about this before, citing the complaints ostensibly raised and closed. See my letter to BTís CEO dated 23 April 2020, entitled Massaging the Figures.

As I understand it, Ofcom is the regulator for the communications services that we use and rely on each day. They do not settle disputes.

As to cost, time is money. Each time you forced me to remain available at home, to deal with the next incoming engineer, you cost me lost time. This does not include the loss of effective service, that you contracted with me to provide.

Here, I include OpenReach. That because they are owned by BT, ultimate control of service rests with BT, to provide the speeds contracted in the area contracted for.

I am of the view that the monopoly situation that persists, should be broken once and for all. To my mind, it is illegal in trading terms and not good for competition. Where it is competition that improves a service, with choice. Choice is the paramount ingredient to improvement. At the moment there is no choice as to network provider, it is all owned and operated by BT, save for, as I understand it, some city locations.

BT can only hold the monopoly if it performs as promised when the monopoly was granted to the company. The enclosures prove that the service I have at the moment is substandard. You will note the ridiculously slow up and download speeds, and no doubt sit around a table and try to figure out some kind of plausible excuse.

I am of the view that weather conditions, such as temperature, water from rain and residual humidity, all play a part in upsetting the speed of my service, perhaps from fracture or elongation.

I look forward to hearing from you on all of the issues raised herein. Meantime, as this is not a problem limited to me, but a nationwide problem for many rural locations, I think it is high time that there was a Public Inquiry, or some other high-level investigation into what amounts to fraud, as per the 2006 Act, Sections 3 and 4, the duty to put things right, where loss is occasioned. Loss being paying a speed and not getting that speed. Meaning, you have gained a pecuniary advantage, by deception. Deception, in the closing of complaints that are not in reality resolved, and that as the complaint is so long in the tooth, that any reasonable person would come to that conclusion, with reference to the attached Schedule of Complaints, and printouts of actual speed tests, as proofs of evidence. 

This is also potentially a Human Rights issue, where Open Reach, under BTís absolute ownership is effectively discriminating against residents and businesses located in rural locations. They get a second-class service. Where so many people are being cheated on service speed, that is essential to all in modern living.

I look forward to an acknowledgement by way of confirmation of receipt of this communication on a by-return basis, and hearing from you within 28 days with a full and considered explanation.

Meantime, I am reserve the right to furnish this information to the media for publication in the press and on the internet. I am hopeful that the evidence presented, will shake up the system. I have a duty to report these matters in the public interest.

Yours Faithfully,

...................   (Affected Customer in Person)

c.c. OPENREACH Limited
Kelvin House
123 Judd Street
London WC1H 9NP
Company No. 10690039











OpenReach received 7 million reported faults between September 2011 and August 2013. That is 9,589 reported faults per day. No wonder they have designed a system to fend off complainants. But this begs the questions, how many of these faults were rectified and why so many.


Considering that it was the Scotsman, Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the telephone in 1876, you would imagine that British Telecom and OpenReach would offer a decent service to all people within their geographical remit. 


That may be so if you live in a city or large town, but when you live in a village backwater ....







It is alleged that the reason for such poor performance in outlying areas is all to do with money. But is that cost effective for their shareholders. Is it restrictive practices, a dishonest business model or plain and simple negligence.


Either way the company is in breach of contract, in ordinary law, if they fail to provide a clear landline and internet speeds advertised. Especially over a prolonged period


Is there an effective remedy? 






The village of Herstmonceux is an area in Sussex, England, that is the subject of investigation, after 3 years of faults, slow broadband speeds and line crackling.







HERSTMONCEUX - Is a poor signal area for mobile phones ...







The shit service may include Human Rights violations.







OFCOM is the services providers regulator, who is supposed to intervene and seek to sort our complaints.













Line crackling ...
























The deve







The Injustice Alliance is a group dedicated to unearthing perverse decision making, and making corrupt officials accountable for their actions. This includes law enforcement officials who are either on the payroll or for other reasons fail to investigate crime. Injustice also encompasses systems where profiteering is by failing to provide an advertised service.







ARE YOU IMPRESSED BY THEIR BULLSHIT? - Many customers are unimpressed with the level of service, referring to BT as Bullshit Telecoms. Fair comment. In fact it is more cleverly managed bullshit than you imagine, with no effective remedy all the while there is no network competition. Being cables and exchanges that offer a less fault free experience, as with BT nursing old systems that should have been replaced years ago. For some reason, the British Parliament have allowed a monopoly situation to become unassailable. When competition should be encouraged to give customers a genuine choice. There is no choice at the moment as to whose cables and network you want. It is Hobson's Choice.


John Flemming puts it rather well in his 2011 rant: Are there any competent telecoms companies anywhere in Britain?

BT treats its customers with much the same care and respect as the Libyan and Syrian governments treat its people.

But Pipex/TalkTalk appears to be in some sort of heavy-handed contest with BT and Virgin Media to win a prize as the most PR-stupid and professionally incompetent telecoms company in the UK. They seem to manage to be devious, deaf and incompetent simultaneously. At least Virgin Media is not devious, itís just plain incompetent.

Virgin Media claims to have the fastest broadband in Britain but, in my (his) first-hand experience, its broadband does not work for 60% of the time and constantly drops. Someone else I know reckoned, for her, Virgin Mediaís broadband was perhaps 10% the speed of her former BT line for 90% of the time. Perhaps it has the fastest broadband in Britain over a measured two second spurt. Try to get any customer service, of course, and you might as well be trying to play football underwater.

At least Pipex/TalkTalkís people are comprehensible, if unwelcome. BT, in my (his) limited experience, have Ďhelp centresí in Ďproperí India staffed by unfortunate people with accents more incomprehensible than drunken Glaswegians wearing gas masks. Thatís not racism, itís a rant against BTís stupidity in having foreign help centres. They might as well have their help centres staffed by deaf mutes in Guatemala for all the good they do. When will BT realise that saving money on help centres costs them more in lost customers and disastrous damage to their already low image?




Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site