This is Tesco’s response to the email I sent yesterday about their Unlimited tarrif being subject to a limit, as explain in the post below this one. 

Tesco replied:

I am sorry to hear that you feel our advertising for the unlimited tariff is misleading.

Unfortunately, as with every network, there is a fair usage policy on the tariff, which has been set at £500.

I have replied to that:

Regardless of what other networks do and say, the fact is that you state that the tariff includes “Unlimited calls, texts and browsing” but it is limited; it’s limited to £500.  To say it is unlimited is not true.

I’ll post what they say next.

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) recently said that telecoms companies can call their plans ‘unlimited’ even though they’re limited by the companies’ “fair use” policies.  This just does not make sense.

If the regulators can’t protect the consumer against such an obviously misleading practice, we can’t trust them to protect us against other bad practices.  It’s quite simple, you just ban the use of ‘unlimited’ if there are any limits at all on the tarrif.  If they don’t take action on this, the Regulators are either in the pockets of the telecoms companies or they are impotent and need reform; there’s no other explanation.

We as consumers need some sort of campaign for fair and honest treatment from these companies.  If you have any suggestions, please let me know in the comments.

Hello all. I know I said I wouldn’t start posting again until the end of August, but I’m a little ahead of schedule.

I’ve been looking into a new mobile phone and contract, and mobile phone companies keep telling me that they have ‘unlimited’ internet. Tesco told me this in person last week, and T-Mobile told me this over the phone today. But these ‘Unlimited’ deals are not unlimited. Here’s an example:

Despite the big print saying “£30pm for unlimited calls, texts and browsing”, the small print says “subject to a fair use limit of £500″.  So, it’s not unlimited, it’s limited to £500.

T-Mobile said today that I (currently) have unlimited data allowance on my £15pm SIM cards.  I said “It’s limited to 3GB, so how is it unlimited?” and he replied that if I exceed 3GB, I still have unlimited data but I’ll be charged for anything above the that.  I don’t think he’s right there either, but it does illustrate how these companies are trying to mislead people.

I just sent this email to Tesco Mobile and should receive a reply within 24 hours.

Subject:  Complaint about misleading advertising

Body:  Your advertising states “£30 per month for unlimited calls, texts and browsing”, then in small print states “Unlimited calls, texts and browsing subject to a fait use limit of £500″.  How can it be unlimited, and limited, at the same time.

I’ll let you know what they say.

Quick post while waiting for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to call me back.

I’ve just opened a letter from FIrst Direct Bank.  “If you had a cash machine that was guaranteed to print money over the next 25 years would you insure it?”  This is a sales pitch I first heard heard over 15 years ago, but it’s still in use today.

Their point is that you are that cash machine!  Every month you go to work and make money to support your family.  The point is that you should insure that money-making machine to make sure that if you die or fall ill, your family can get the money from the insurance policy instead.

I’m not a big fan of ‘clever’ sales pitches like that, they seem a bit immature.  I’m usually dealing with an existing client or one who has been recommended by an existing client so I have their attention already.  But now I’m looking for a few new clients to work with, maybe I should be using those tried and tested methods.

Back to my tax return.

Don’t expect any new posts until the end of August.

I’m working hard on my two businesses for a few months; my Financial Services clients need even more help in the current climate and my IT (PC) services clients need the best service I can offer. 

It reminds me of when I started business in 1990, there was a recession but I worked hard and built a business I am proud of.  Although I have two stable businesses now, I figure that if I work hard now, my clients and I will benefit more in the future.

So, I’ve decided to focus my time on my businesses for a few months.  As usual, I’m busy with my family (visits and holidays) too.  I miss posting here but it does take more time than I currently want spend on it.  Sometimes you have to focus on the most important things in life.

All this could change though…  I’m considering entering a national karting championship.  Although it will take up time, that sort of activity puts me in effeciency overdrive, so might be a good use of my time.  If I enter, I might be making short, quick posts here, and might start tweeting @BowenRacing.  In any case, I’ll continue tweeting @ColinBowen.

No time to try to create a table to include here, so I’ll just post a link to the excellent F1 Fanatic site, showing grid positions, fuel loads, and estimated first (or only) stop.

Very nice site too.  I wish I had the time to make my site that good. 

I’m working on a way to get the race results and championship standings posted to this site within about 10 minutes of the end of the race.  It might not be pretty, but it might be fast.  I won’t be able to do that for tomorrow, I have some technical stuff to work on first.

I hoping that my site will be ‘F1 for busy people’ (written by a busy person); a place to go for all the key information like TV schedules and Championship standings.  Of course, any racing I do myself will also go here if I get round to writing it up.

Enjoy the race!

Drivers’ Championship Standings

Position / Points / Driver / Team
Pos 1 - 10 points - Jenson Button Brawn-Mercedes
Pos 2 - 8 points - Rubens Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes
Pos 3 - 6 points - Jarno Trulli Toyota
Pos 4 - 5 points - Timo Glock  Toyota 5
Pos 5 - 4 points - Fernando Alonso Renault
Pos 6 - 3 points - Nico Rosberg Williams-Toyota
Pos 7 - 2 points - Sebastien Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari
Pos 8 - 1 points - Sebastien Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari
Pos 9 - 0 points - Felipe Massa Ferrari
Pos 10 - 0 points - Giancarlo Fisichella Force India-Mercedes
Pos 11 - 0 points - Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber
Pos 12 - 0 points - Kazuki Nakajima Williams-Toyota
Pos 13 - 0 points - Heikki Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes
Pos 14 - 0 points - Kimi Raikkonen Ferrari
Pos 15 - 0 points - Mark Webber Red Bull-Renault
Pos 16 - 0 points - Sebastian Vettel Red Bull-Renault
Pos 17-  0 points - Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes
Pos 18 - 0 points - Nelson Piquet Jr Renault
Pos 19 - 0 points - Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes
Pos 20 - 0 points - Robert Kubica BMW Sauber

Constructors’ Championship Standings

Pos 1 - 18 points - Brawn-Mercedes
Pos 2 - 11 points - Toyota
Pos 3 - 4 points - 3 Renault
Pos 4 - 3 points - 4 Williams-Toyota
Pos 5 - 3 points - 5 Toro Rosso-Ferrari
Pos 6 - 0 points - 6 Red Bull-Renault
Pos 7 - 0 points - 7 Ferrari
Pos 8 - 0 points - 8 BMW Sauber
Pos 9 - 0 points - 9 McLaren-Mercedes
Pos 10 - 0 points - 10 Force India-Mercedes

Sat 4th April

Practice 0655-0805 Red Button

Quali 0900-1130 BBC1

Sun 5th April

Race 0900-1200 BBC1

Interactive Forum 1200-1300 Red Button

Highlights 1900-2000 BBC3

Okay, it took me so long to write that last post that the things had moved on before I posted it.  Read more at F1 Fanatic.  I agree with their comments about the Stewards/FIA procedures.

Maybe Trulli should still be penalised; he did pass a car under yellow flags.  I didn’t see the incident in TV, but if he could have stayed behind Hamilton without stopping, then he should have done so.

As I said, I’m an Hamilton fan, and more so a McLaren fan, but I don’t think a DQ is sufficient.  Misleading the Officials is a serious offense.  The penalty should be so harsh that teams don’t even consider it. 

Here starts my rant, move on if your not interested or too busy.

The FIA should have a scale for punishments, such as ‘Misleading Officials by Deceit: DQ for three races where the car finishes the race, commencing with the race where deceit occured.’  This would prevent the teams from starting a race knowing that they would be DQ’d, but not finishing it in order to save their engines.

Further, the rule would have to stipulate whether the penalty applies to both drivers.  In the case where only one driver is involved (Hamilton in this case), only that drive should be DQ’ed, and of course the team suffers from potential loss of points.  However, where a fuel irregularity is involved for example, the penalty must apply to both drivers individually.

These must be carefully thought out. In the above example, if the deceit occurs at the end of the season, a decision has to be made (when the rule is written) as to whether the punishment is retrospectively applied to the last three races of the season, or is carried over to the early races of the following season, with regard to potential team and driver changes.

Another punishment might be ‘Misleading Officials by Error: DQ from the affected race(s)’.  This would be used to put right breaches that took place in the past, but could not be identified at the time.  It’s hard to think of an example right now, but the purpose of this rule is to put right mistakes that had been made, but where a team could not have known at the time of the original decision by the Stewards.

There also needs to be a procedural change in regulations.  Take the diffuser row for example.  The cars were deemed legal to race, but under appeal they may be deemed illegal.  Either they’re legal under the current regulations, or not.  The Officials should have the facilities (and wit) to make a decision at the time.  If they can’t decide whether the cars meet the regulations, then the regulations aren’t specific enough, and the teams must not be punished for that.

There should be no ’spirit of the rules’ rubbish.  The rules are the rules.  If the cars don’t actually breach the regulations as they’re written, then they’re legal.  If it is then decided that the regulations need to be tightened up, then do so after the fact, but allow the teams reasonable time to make adjustments.  There must be no retrospective penalties when the regulations that aren’t clearly defined.

The FIA must take the stance that the rules are a work in progress.  F1 is a complicated sport, and innovation should be encouraged within the regulations.  If it’s not specifically illegal according to the regulations, then it’s legal until the regulations specifically make it illegal.

Officials are re-examining what happened when Trulli and Hamilton swapped places under the safety car in Malaysia.  They’re meeting later today to make a decision which could see Trulli reinstated to 3rd and Hamilton penalised.

Under the safety car, Trulli slid off onto the grass and Hamilton went past; that’s legal.  Trulli recovered and re-passed Hamilton; that’s illegal.  Trulli was penalised with a 25 seconds penalty which demoted him to 12th (or thereabouts) and Hamilton took 3rd.

However, Trulli says that he passed Hamilton because Hamilton slowed suddenly and veered off the racing line, and Trulli thought he had a mechanical problem and was letting cars pass.  Hamilton said that he was distracted by a message on his steering wheel.  However, Stewards are reviewing radio transmissions which may show that Hamilton thought he had to let Trulli pass again; something he didn’t disclose to Stewards in the initial investigation.

Unfortunately, the BBC TV coverage didn’t show the incident.

I’m no expert, but here’s how I see it:

• Hamilton can’t be penalised for slowing and moving off-line, but can be penalised if he was more than two seconds behind the cat in front.  If he mislead the Officials, then he should be punished severely.
• Trulli should not have passed Hamilton unless Hamilton had slowed so much that Trulli had to stop (it’s against the rules to stop on the track unless you have a car failure).  If Trulli had been forced to pass Hamilton because Hamilton slowed, he could have allowed Hamilton to re-pass and the Stewards would take no action.

I’m a Hamilton fan, but misleading Officials is a serious offense, and disqualification from that race is not enough of a punishment.

The FIA must publish their findings, and the evidence, so the public can be fully confident that the regulations have been correctly applied.  I have long held the view that all punishments should be clearly defined.  In other words, for example, “Continuing to drive for more than three turns when the car is damaged to the point that it cannot realistically be repaired during the race (for example, broken suspension): penalty is disqualification from that race, and 10 points penalty for both driver and constructor.”

Yet again, we’re faced with uncertainty over a race result.  This has got to be solved, it’s bad for the sport, and bad for its commercial interests.

Max Mosley is now on twitter.  He’s following 38 people at the time of writing, and I’m one of them!  I had no idea I was so influential!

I read his tweets and they seem credible so far, but I’m quite net-savvy so I’m not going to assume anything here.  He did say his IT team had helped him secure the @maxmosley username, which sounds credible too; if anyone else had it they would be making fake comments by now.

To confirm, I called Mr Mosley’s secretary in Monaco.  She didn’t know for sure, but said she would ask him when he returns to the office tomorrow and contact me to confirm whether it’s actually him.

I’ll let you know.

Edit: Max’s secretary never got back to me. The Twitter account has been suspended, so I assume it was fake. Would have been nice is someone had thanked me for bringing it to their attention, but that’s Max and the FIA for you.