Infinity, which appears to be what you are talking about, is a BT Retail product, running over BT Wholesale WBC, with the exchange to customer link being over Openreach FTTC and FTTP.

How BT Retail go about training their staff in selling Infinity is nothing whatsoever to do with Openreach's exchange and cabinet forecasts for FTTC and FTTP that any ISP can sell under their own product name, not necessarily through BTW.

RobertoS / Batboy,

I was not asking for a definition of BT Retail vs Openreach.

I did not understand the point being made !!!

To clarify:

[Batboy stated]
Apparently, it is a crime and BT got penalised by the ASA. Some people complained because the dates kept moving as another poster said.

[ME]
[condensed] I made bet it was Marketing. Was Wrong.

[Mr Saffron stated]
Asa can rule over websites even if not an explicit advert.

Issue was dates kept shifting and people complained the dates should be fixed

[ME]
Yes, I forgot about websites.

Thanks, so giving out false information basically.

[Batboy stated]
No, they were keeping them up to date with the status of a job.

[ME]
I am still puzzled then, but don't worry I will do some googling on the ASA site.

Thanks for the correction.

It makes the ASA decision sound strange but I will investigate.

[RobertoS stated]
You are right in all you say, but miss one vital point smile.

The vast majority do not understand how complex project management works, particularly given the many unforeseeable problems that arise with FTTC rollout.

The dates were (probably still are) set at an overall planning stage in quarters, so the quarter end was quoted. Once a particular exchange or cabinet got close then it would become a real date. If it got to the last eight days or so of a quarter you could almost guarantee it was going to slip at least one if not two quarters.

Punters got very upset at that. Not too surprisingly. A bit like kids told on 21 December that Father Christmas isn't going to com till the end of March.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
end quote of post(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used the clues given (BT, ASA, Dates on internet site, Customers not happy etc) and found a Adjudication that fit after a quick search.

If you read the Adjudication in full it covers the points regarding dates changing and customers not happy , dates being updated, Openreach etc. It also does show giving out false information which was the highlighted partial quote from the Adjudication.

I don't understand the mention of BT Retail and Openreach and confusion or RobertoS' mention of staff training ???

I did not specifically mention staff I mentioned BT (the company) and in the venacular this covers BT Retail and Openreach as the man in the street does not differentiate and they are all part of BT Group anyway. Where is my confusion, unless the Adjudication is a different one ?

If this is the wrong Adjudication I would be grateful to find the right one.
I am just trying to understand why ASA would penalise BT for giving dates ?
And equally why anyone would feel that this justifies giving no information at all ?

Perhaps something is being read into what I have written that is not there?

Herein lies the problem

In reference to www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/1/British-Telecommunicati...:

Action

The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told BT to ensure that the availability checker only included dates if they corresponded to scheduled plans for Openreach to engineer the BT Infinity service to the corresponding area.

Of course, Openreach aren't engineering the BT Infinity service. Which makes me wonder if the ASA completely grasp how the process works and if the adjudication makes any sense at all.