Talk:TalkTalk Group/Archive 1

Tidy up

Confusing this talk page is Sceptre ^(Talk) 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This page must have one of the most befuddling titles in WP... could be confused easily with TalkTalk, Talk:Talk, Talk Talk, Talk:Talk Talk... dearie me. haz (talk) e 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead reference

I had to remove a reference to a message within "talktalkhell" as the following message appears on accessing it "This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:"

Ashley VH 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Including talktalkhell

I am unsure why user:193.118.251.61 (from AOL.COM) removed the external reference to TalkTalkHell. I have reverted to put it back in unless there is a clear rationale? -- Ashley VH 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

wrong logo?

is there any particular reason that someone has put the CPW logo on this page? the TT logo is included, but the CPW logo is in the place where the logo of the actual company in question usually goes.

although TT is owned by CPW, it is still a separate company, and not just a service offered by CPW Paulfp 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

. thanks to Ashleyvh for changing the logo :) I've also corrected some other inaccuracies in the company box bit, which referred to Carphone Warehouse rather than TalkTalk. I've also updated the opening sentence of the article as it implied that TT was just a service offered by CPW... I have now brought it in line with what it says on the official TT web site Paulfp 09:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

wrong date on timeline

Also, we need to change the date for the free broadband launch on the timeline... it was in 2006 not 2005 :) I had a go but I don't understand the Wiki markup so couldn't move the column! :) Paulfp 09:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now corrected, well spotted. Help:Table is a good guide for tables, the normal options for html tables apply so "rowspan" etc. works in the normal way. -- Ashley VH 10:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Terms & Conditions?

Is the big section on the TT Ts&Cs really necessary? It makes the article seem a bit like a slagging-off ground for talktalk, rather than an informative and impartial encyclopedia article, IMHO. 85.69.208.145 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to re-present this. These are customer issues and to be fair to TalkTalk it seems sensible to quote the actual contract terms. Perhaps this could be shrunk to key words from the contract rather than the full paragraph {text now slimmed down}?

If balance is the problem then if there are responses from TalkTalk these can also be referenced. There are references for the contract lock-in issue but I'm not sure there are references with regard to the customer records issue apart from the current ICO potential prosecution (discussed in Carphone Warehouse).

-- Ashley VH 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

fixed line...

It occurs to me that this article makes TalkTalk seem like it's purely a broadband provider.... whilst it is the free broadband offer which has been in the news most recently, we should not forget that it is first and foremost a landline phone company. (and a very successful one at that - I dont have the figures to hand but if you ignore the broadband, its customers are overall extremely satisfied). If someone has a moment to add information on the Talk1, Talk2, Talk3 and Talk3 International tarrifs [but careful not to make it read like an advert] that would be useful Paulfp 13:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tracking websites

Note that CPW has moved where the pdfs of the annual reports are available on the corporate website (cpwplc). I have this on my to-do list to sort out. -- Ashley VH 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I've added a POV box to the top of this article, as it seems me that it has turned into too much of a "let's slag off TalkTalk" than an Encyclopedic article. Of course, it is OK and indeed good to mention shortcomings within a company and the service(s) it offers, but this needs to be done in a less 1-sided, biased-against-the-company way IMHO. There is a huge section on the Free Broadband offer, basically slagging the whole thing off and focussing entirely on the negatives. There is then a very large section about issues with customer records - does this really need that much attention? Is it of extreme interest to the average viewer?

Therefore, over the coming weeks I intend to (a) add information about their phone packages too, as this article is lacking in that respect, and (b) try and make the article less of a firing ground for TalkTalk, and more worthy of a Wikipedia article. Paulfp 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have today added some information about the landline services from talktalk, plus made a few alterations here and there. I've tried hard not to make it read like an advert! I don't work for either CPW or TalkTalk any more so I have no reason to advertise them. Feel free to improve what I've done - it's far from perfect! I'm also intending to shorten the excessively long section on the Free broadband and as promised make the article more neutral. Paulfp 15:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The small print

Is this section really necessary? Do other articles about companies dissect their Terms and Conditions? In any case, when customers sign up they are given the option to receive no marketing information from cpw or partners. I shall remove this section if there is no objection before 29th april '07. Paulfp 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As per the above, this section has now been removed. Paulfp 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Broadband traffic shaping or capping

Having recently had my P2P application constrained to only have bandwidth from 12.30pm through to 8.30am does anyone have any definitive sources explaining TalkTalk's traffic shaping policy? -- Ashley VH 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

TalkTalk have this FAQ on their website [1]...

"How is Peer-to-Peer (P2P) restricted?" - "We restrict P2P activity in peak hours to make sure that other general Internet use takes priority (including surfing, email, shopping, gaming and commercial downloads)."

-- Ashley VH 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

P2P

This article needs a section regarding the throttling of P2P, in some cases completely shutdown of P2P.

Personally as a customer of TalkTalk I am unable to use P2P at all, which has affected not only torrents but some online games, such as World of Warcraft.

To my knowledge this was implemented on the 1st of March, so some customers were under the impression that they had P2P albeit on the fair usage policy.

Some reports of port blocking has made some sites inaccessable. Myspace and Microsoft are recurring examples if you search the web.

Personally Facebook and Google both seem to load extremely slow, to the point of error.

I'm not up to the task of adding this to the article as I'll find it damn hard to stay neutral about such a company. Can't believe they were voted best for "Overall customer satisfaction" as my experience was anything but.

To Summarise:

Addition of P2P throttling.

Possible addition of some websites not loading/very slowly.

Marcbaldwin27 10:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)