Posted at 2009-09-24 00:56 BST by RevK
Update #0: 2009-09-24 01:00 BST

BT have just announced a reduction in one of the components of their
21CN network that will (we expect) lead to a reduction in our costs. We
expect to reduce our prices when this happens.

The price reduction does not take effect until 1st January 2010, so we
will publish new prices shortly once we have details of how our costs
will change.

BT have also announced targets of 75% coverage for 21CN by Spring 2010.[IMAGE]

URL: http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/09/info-price-reductions-in-new-year.html

-- 
AAISP Status Blog
URL:http://aaisp.blogspot.com/

On 27 Sep, 10:04, David Taylor  wrote:
> On 2009-09-27, Fillco  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well I am asuming that as its a 'tax' on those with a telephone line,
> > even though the line rent maybe with other than BT, BT still maintain
> > it and would be the benifactor of the tax. Of course the 50p could be
> > another way of simply attempting to fill other coffers. Not sure what
> > happens in Hull though wih Kingston telecoms.
>
> > I dont thnk I am the only one assming its for BT and I would thnk it a
> > little unfair even on BT, if the fund was to support the spread of
> > broadband over land line but allow every carrier to have a dip in the
> > pot. If the argument would be that everyone will benifit, then
> > everyone should pay, or not pay the tax at all.
>
> Er, why should BT (which part?) benefit from a "tax" paid by someone
> paying line rental to a different company?  BT (Openreach) may maintain
> the line, but they are PAID to maintain it, either by BT Retail, or
> an LLU company....
>
> --
> David Taylor

Er, who will upgrade the line or the equipment of those that are
paying to a different company for the use of BT equipment. I thought
it would be BT (whichever part) as its their equipment/line leased to
a third party.

Maybe I've misunderstood.

But its like all the other ex public utilities, where they are able to
increase prices in the argument to improve infrastructure. Private
companies do it by investing profits, whereas the former dont wish to
touch profits.

Phil

David Taylor wrote:
> 
> Er, why should BT (which part?) benefit from a "tax" paid by someone
> paying line rental to a different company?  BT (Openreach) may maintain
> the line, but they are PAID to maintain it, either by BT Retail, or
> an LLU company....

If everyone is already paying BT, directly or indirectly, for their phone 
lines, then what is the point of making this a tax? Surely BT could simply put 
up its line prices by 50p, the way they are always putting up prices anyway.

If it is a tax then it has to go via the government, so most of it will 
probably go on paying civil servants to administer it, and eventually it will 
become like National Insurance ... just part of the general pot of money for 
the government and nothing to do with its original intended purpose.

Er-r, BT is already privatised and cannot be split by government ;-)

Alex wrote:
> Er-r, BT is already privatised and cannot be split by government ;-)

This is England, mate ... no constitution ... the government can do whatever it 
damn well pleases!

On 28/09/2009 in message <h9qvuh$44a$1@aioe.org> Alfred E Neuman wrote:

>Alex wrote:
>>Er-r, BT is already privatised and cannot be split by government ;-)
>
>This is England, mate ... no constitution ... the government can do 
>whatever it damn well pleases!

You mean this is England - the oldest constitution in the world, used as a 
model by many other countries.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation

"Alex"  wrote in message 
news:4a8bea20-409c-4aa1-9a48-289a217f7a5e@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Er-r, BT is already privatised and cannot be split by government ;-)

AT&T was privatised, that didn't stop the US government splitting it

tim

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 28/09/2009 in message <h9qvuh$44a$1@aioe.org> Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> 
>> Alex wrote:
>>> Er-r, BT is already privatised and cannot be split by government ;-)
>>
>> This is England, mate ... no constitution ... the government can do 
>> whatever it damn well pleases!
> 
> You mean this is England - the oldest constitution in the world, used as 
> a model by many other countries.

No. We wrote (and imposed) constitutions for many other countries but always 
insisted that we were such trustworthy chaps that we didn't need one ourselves. 
The phrase "English (or British, or OK) Constitution" is an oxymoron. There is 
no definitive source of rules with which the government must comply, and no 
rules at all which the government of the day can not alter by a simply 
parliamentary majority. That is not a constitution.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:21:19 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
wrote:

> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 28/09/2009 in message <h9qvuh$44a$1@aioe.org> Alfred E Neuman wrote:
>>
>>> Alex wrote:
>>>> Er-r, BT is already privatised and cannot be split by government ;-)
>>>
>>> This is England, mate ... no constitution ... the government can do 
>>> whatever it damn well pleases!
>>
>> You mean this is England - the oldest constitution in the world, used as 
>> a model by many other countries.
>
> No. We wrote (and imposed) constitutions for many other countries but always 
> insisted that we were such trustworthy chaps that we didn't need one ourselves. 
> The phrase "English (or British, or OK) Constitution" is an oxymoron. There is 
> no definitive source of rules with which the government must comply, and no 
> rules at all which the government of the day can not alter by a simply 
> parliamentary majority.

Which Act must they repeal or amend in order to cause a "rule" that the
courts have to obey and enforce laws that did not receive any Royal Assent?

> That is not a constitution.

:-)

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> 
> Which Act must they repeal or amend in order to cause a "rule" that the
> courts have to obey and enforce laws that did not receive any Royal Assent?

The Royal Assent is a formality. The monarch has no right to withhold it.

In any case, the whim of a monarch does not amount to a constitution.

Actually, the remaining rights (or lack of them) of the monarch are probably 
the closest thing we have to a written constitution ... Magna Carta, Bill of 
Rights, and so on. None of these have much bearing on statute or common law, 
though. Essentially, what little written constitution we have simply transfers 
the unfettered right to absolute rule from the monarch to parliament.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:10:48 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
wrote:

> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>
>> Which Act must they repeal or amend in order to cause a "rule" that the
>> courts have to obey and enforce laws that did not receive any Royal Assent?
>
> The Royal Assent is a formality. The monarch has no right to withhold it.

You may believe that, but the monarch does not and nor do the courts, armed
forces etc. who are needed to enforce those Acts to give them any meaning.

If there is no constitution, what gives the government has any power or
says that the courts or the armed forces must listen to the government?
Indeed, who is the government?  Are the office cleaners of the cabinet
offices the government in the night time?  And if not - why not?
 
> In any case, the whim of a monarch does not amount to a constitution.

Ignoring the "whim" jibe, it does cloud your claim that there is none.

> Actually, the remaining rights (or lack of them) of the monarch are probably 
> the closest thing we have to a written constitution ... Magna Carta, Bill of 
> Rights, and so on. None of these have much bearing on statute or common law, 
> though. Essentially, what little written constitution we have simply transfers 
> the unfettered right to absolute rule from the monarch to parliament.

Unfettered even by the "whim" of the monarch?  And I see you now say that
parliament holds all power when before you claimed it was the government!

Anyway this is OT so I'm outta here.

Tony

Swifty wrote:
> RevK wrote:
>> Posted at 2009-09-24 00:56 BST by RevK
>> Update #0: 2009-09-24 01:00 BST
>>
>> BT have just announced a reduction in one of the components of their
>> 21CN network that will (we expect) lead to a reduction in our costs. We
>> expect to reduce our prices when this happens.
> 
> Will you have different prices for people on 21CN and 20CN? Or can I
> expect some benefit? :-)

That is one of our concerns. We have a different cost now, but this
price reduction may only be 21CN and make a very different cost to us
between 20CN and 21CN which would have to be reflected in prices.

Rev Adrian Kennard wrote:
> That is one of our concerns. We have a different cost now, but this
> price reduction may only be 21CN and make a very different cost to us
> between 20CN and 21CN which would have to be reflected in prices.

That's fine, it will give me something to look forward to when I get 
migrated to 21CN. Something that will offset the fears that my bandwidth 
might plummet, based on accounts I've read here.

-- 
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

Swifty wrote:
> 
> That's fine, it will give me something to look forward to when I get 
> migrated to 21CN. Something that will offset the fears that my bandwidth 
> might plummet, based on accounts I've read here.

Your bandwidth doesn't need to plummet. If ADSL2+ turns out not to be stable on 
your line, simply ask to be changed back to ADSL1 (or get a modem which only 
handles ADSL1, or which can be configured not to try an ADSL2+ connection). You 
would still be on 21CN with the corresponding prices and higher upload speed.

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> Your bandwidth doesn't need to plummet. If ADSL2+ turns out not to be 
> stable on your line, simply ask to be changed back to ADSL1 (or get a 
> modem which only handles ADSL1, or which can be configured not to try an 
> ADSL2+ connection). You would still be on 21CN with the corresponding 
> prices and higher upload speed.

That's comforting to know (I was vaguely aware of it). I react poorly to 
adverse changes, and have an irrational fear of them happening. Each 
time I turn on my cellphone, I expect my PIN number to be rejected, 
despite this never having happened.

-- 
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

On 29 Sep 2009, Alfred E. Neuman spake thusly:

> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> Which Act must they repeal or amend in order to cause a "rule" that the
>> courts have to obey and enforce laws that did not receive any Royal Assent?
>
> The Royal Assent is a formality. The monarch has no right to withhold it.

The Monarch has the right to withhold it, but it is understood that
should the Monarch choose to exercise that right without an astoundingly
good reason (say, imminent revolution), that said right would promptly
be taken away.

> Actually, the remaining rights (or lack of them) of the monarch are
> probably the closest thing we have to a written constitution ... Magna

Aha! That word.

We *have* a constitution. It simply isn't a written one, and it's
accreted rather than being designed.

Nix wrote:
> 
> We *have* a constitution. It simply isn't a written one, and it's
> accreted rather than being designed.

If a constitution is not written down then it can not be enforced. Also, there 
is nothing in the laws or traditions of this country that can not be changed by 
a simple majority in Parliament. By any reasonable definition, that is not a 
constitution.

On 06/10/2009 in message <haf6em$m60$1@aioe.org> Alfred E Neuman wrote:

>If a constitution is not written down then it can not be enforced.

Rubbish. Our constitution has devolved over hundreds of years and is 
evidenced by case law. You need to look at how the Common Law devolved.

>Also, there is nothing in the laws or traditions of this country that can 
>not be changed by a simple majority in Parliament. By any reasonable 
>definition, that is not a constitution.

No that's democracy.

I know this is off topic for this group but your apparent lack of 
understanding makes me cringe.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 06/10/2009 in message <haf6em$m60$1@aioe.org> Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> 
>> If a constitution is not written down then it can not be enforced.
> 
> Rubbish. Our constitution has devolved over hundreds of years and is 
> evidenced by case law. You need to look at how the Common Law devolved.
> 
>> Also, there is nothing in the laws or traditions of this country that 
>> can not be changed by a simple majority in Parliament. By any 
>> reasonable definition, that is not a constitution.
> 
> No that's democracy.
> 
> I know this is off topic for this group but your apparent lack of 
> understanding makes me cringe.

A constitution is a law that binds the government / Parliament and can not be 
changed without special conditions being met, as a minimum a much higher than 
simple majority vote. Otherwise it is just an ordinary law.

Cringe all you like. Emotional appeals will not change facts.

In article <hafd9t$ve6$2@aioe.org>, nospam@invalid.uk says...
> 
> Jeff Gaines wrote:
> > On 06/10/2009 in message <haf6em$m60$1@aioe.org> Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> > 
> >> If a constitution is not written down then it can not be enforced.
> > 
> > Rubbish. Our constitution has devolved over hundreds of years and is 
> > evidenced by case law. You need to look at how the Common Law devolved.
> > 
> >> Also, there is nothing in the laws or traditions of this country that 
> >> can not be changed by a simple majority in Parliament. By any 
> >> reasonable definition, that is not a constitution.
> > 
> > No that's democracy.
> > 
> > I know this is off topic for this group but your apparent lack of 
> > understanding makes me cringe.
> 
> A constitution is a law that binds the government / Parliament and can not be 
> changed without special conditions being met, as a minimum a much higher than 
> simple majority vote. Otherwise it is just an ordinary law.
> 
> Cringe all you like. Emotional appeals will not change facts.

You are aware that the view that a constitution MUST be Entrenched is an 
opinion that appear held by only a small minority of constitutional 
scholars ?

-- 
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are 
fantastic

Matchstick wrote:
> 
> You are aware that the view that a constitution MUST be Entrenched is an 
> opinion that appear held by only a small minority of constitutional 
> scholars ?

OK, back to the original post where this point was raised ... I was referring 
to the sort of constitution that can constrain a government from arbitrary use 
of power, by which I mean a written set of laws by which a government can be 
challenged in the courts and the courts have the power to overrule the 
government on the basis of those laws. The government can also not simply 
change those laws without special procedures being followed, which include 
considerably more than a simple majority vote.

I realise there are scholars ... presumably mostly scholars of English or UK 
law ... who choose to call the set of vague traditions of the UK system a 
"constitution", but I can't off hand think of any other country which claims to 
have a constitution but where that constitution is not a set of specific, 
written laws which the government has to obey.

However, if this has degenerated into a dictionary argument rather than a 
debate about the original point, I'll bow out.