How about introducing a system for giving members a copy of the phone book

[#1]

Quote from: Ben

I'm wondering if receiving a phone book is tied to whether you are an ex-directory customer or not? I've always been ex-directory and all our new customers are ex-directory but older customers may not be.

Definitely not. Never had a problem whoever the CP, always been ex-directory.
@DaveyH
They are delivered to an address, but you should be able to get the quantity reduced by one if it's multiple occupancy.

[#2]

I was not ex-directory when with BT and did not ask to become ex-directory when transferring to Plus.net
I understand that ex-directory is the default for Plus.net
I am not in the phone book now, though I still get them delivered on a regular basis

[#3]

I wish Plusnet would give a clear accurate statement, first they say if you transfer in from another provider, your directory setting stays as it was previously (unless you change it), and if you are a new customer with a new line it's ex-directory unless you say otherwise.
So come on Plusnet can we have an accurate statement please?

[#4]

We no longer do like for like transfers (this used to cause massive issues with TalkTalk CPS).
All phone orders are placed with ex-directory on as default. (I have stated this before though Chris)

[#5]

+1 to what James said.

[#6]

Quote from: shadow4dog

It's not only that. I personally wonder what else Plusnet have dumbed down to save a few pennies... If they can't even supply my local phone book for FREE then perhaps my SLA in the event of a fault is slightly less than it was with BT... There seems to be an awful lot more small print than I'd imagined. I've just lost the confidence that I've bought the right product.

You are right to ask that question.
If your phone has a fault that prevents you receiving incoming calls BT will give you a divert to a mobile phone. Plusnet will charge for setting up the divert and for the cost of the each diverted call.
My phone is still with BT.

[#7]

We only charge for the calls, not for the divert itself - if applied at the point of raising the fault. However, call processing has no way of knowing that calls are being diverted due to a fault in order to zero-rate the forwarded calls.

[#8]

Quote from: Ben

We only charge for the calls, not for the divert itself - if applied at the point of raising the fault. However, call processing has no way of knowing that calls are being diverted due to a fault in order to zero-rate the forwarded calls.

Please excuse my saying so but that is a completely disingenuous reply. If PN know that a fault has been reported then it is up to PN to sort out their system so that it can take that into account (as BT apparently do). You would have been better saying that it is not PN policy to zero-rate forwarded calls.
I too will be leaving PN's phone package when my contract period is up. The fairly minor savings from BT in having my phone with PN are outweighed by the combination of small print items I've become aware of and the concern that there are others buried in there somewhere. As it happens I'm also a regular user of the hard-copy phone book and wasn't aware (because PN didn't tell me) that I might no longer get one.
Bad show.

[#9]

I don't think it is disingenuous at all, quite the opposite. Our systems would need to have an entirely new section built in both our back end CRM to flag accounts as "in fault with call divert" and another in our WLR call processing servers (which are entirely separate to our core db) to provide this functionality which:
Is a significant departure from our existing fault reporting setup
Is a major update to our call features tracking
Would slow down processing (a business risk that would be hard to accept)
The slight loss of revenue wouldn't factor into the development costs of such a system which I expect would far exceed tens of thousands of pounds and require significant resource from Development which would have to be taken away from other projects.

[#10]

So if the only thing stopping you from doing it is the development, presumably if someone set up a divert themselves for the duration of the fault you'd have no problem reimbursing them the cost after the fault is fixed?

[#11]

That would require a decision from the entire business with input from people significantly higher up the chain than me
As has always been the case, the question of refunding calls 'made' when call divert is in effect during a fault is done on a case by case basis.