"what I want ofcom to turn their attention to is compulsory bundled services..."
Which in a more honest world would be described as abuse of BT's significant market power.
"[BT's] call package is not offering anything close to value for money."
It's value for money for BT though, because (a) it's basically money for nothing for BT (b) it makes a fortune for BT on out-of-bundle calls (c) it makes it less and less feasible for an alternate calls provider to survive ie to make money. All of which suits BT fine.
"We are unfortunately stuck with BT though."
You may be stuck with BT Openreach or even BTwholesale, but in the absence of diktats from employers etc paying your phone and/or broadband bills, even in an Openreach-only area, you should be able to choose retailers other than BT - not just Sky or TalkTalk using their own kit, but also less well-known "boutique" voice and broadband providers from AAISP to Zen (and others in between) who operate over wires from BT and others, and provide services different from what BT offer. Which is of course irritating to BT. See "abuse of significant market power" above, and repeat until competitors are non-existent.
"What a ridiculous system!"
Can't argue with that. I believe in the bigger picture it's called "regulatory capture":
Rather surprisingly the Wikipedia article mentions none of Oftel, Ofcon, or BT, so here's something with a UK focus albeit not specifically telecoms, from Professor Ross Anderson of Cambridge University Computing Dept
"Strategically, why is British regulators so cosy with the industries they regulate, and what can be done about that? My starting point is that the appointment of regulators should no longer be in the gift of ministers. I propose that regulatory appointments be moved from the Cabinet Office to an independent commission, like the Judicial Appointments Commission, but with a statutory duty to hire the people most likely to challenge groupthink and keep the regulator effective. That is a political matter – a matter for all of us."