Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Did anyone else have this problem at all? Just got my phone bill back for April.. and apparently i made two calls which both originated AFTER 12 oclock, which would be after "yes" time. And i got charged for them. This has NEVER happened before and i am about 95 - 99% sure i didnt make them after 12:00 midnight..

Same thing happened to my girlfriend as well.. shes also on optus.

Just wondering if anyone else had this problem..?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/72258-optus-call-time-differences/
Share on other sites

A friend of mine got stung by Vodafone on the capped plan. Changed from a regular plan to $79 capped half way through the month and was told that the cap would come into effect straight away. At the end of the month, after ringing everyone including Uncle Boris who molested him, he received a $690 bill.

Rang them up, they said it was their fault because it wasn't entered into the system properly, but wouldn't accept resonsibility. He ended up footing the bill.

This time whoha with Yes Time is not an uncommon event. Simple reason is that most users check the time on their handsets or home clocks......99% of the time they are off. Statistically clocks around the home are faster than 'real time' or EST. We get numerous complaints about people getting charged the standard rate because they 'swear' they called after 8pm.......Yes im sure they did....but not as per EST. If you make a call @ 7:59:59pm, your entire call will be billed as per normal. As i have adivsed time and time again...just wait that extra 5-10 minutes to be sure!

As for the caps.....$79 cap is da bomb - $500 calls & sms, all i can also say (due to marketing reasons) if your with Optus.......keep your ears and eyes out for a 'new & improved' $79 & $49 cap to hit the market soon..........

Oh yeah if you haven't gathered....i am an acc manager for Optus Mobile.....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...