General Prices - Page 4

BenMcr · 03-10-2013, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big-Gaz

Hi,

Have I missed something, what this about the prices going/gone up?
Does it affect everyone regardless of package?

It affected those with standalone broadband or Sky Sports only

kwikbreaks · 03-10-2013, 11:01

No the price rise was for broadband only customers and if anybody doesn't feel like paying it all they need do is call retentions and they'll be offered a fairly substantial reduction on their current price in exchange for a fresh 12 months minimum term - unless they are already on some really low rate of course.

Sorry for mentioning "unlimited" several pages back. I promise I wasn't trolling although the result may have suggested I was....

====

I see I missed SkySports only customers - I'm guessing they can dodge the increase too.

Kushan · 03-10-2013, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

I really think we do. Especially when it is Joe Public being taken advantage of by big ISP's

---------- Post added at 02:42 ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 ----------

You surely mean limited?

I'm going to duck out out on this one as I'd rather not disagree with the mods. I agree with them that debating limited/unlimited has nothing to do with price rises.

BenMcr · 03-10-2013, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I see I missed SkySports only customers - I'm guessing they can dodge the increase too.

There are two separate price changes.

One for Broadband only customers

One for customers with Sky Sports

Not connected to each other, just happening at the same time

Sephiroth · 03-10-2013, 12:54

Not that a couple of quid matters too much, but I get BT Sport free from BT! Now I get it twice and pay extra for it once.

qasdfdsaq · 05-10-2013, 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

If they can then fine but I doubt that there are many that can support downloads and uploads at full headline speed by all their customers 24x7 which is what "unlimited" implies.

I'd disagree, as been said before, unlimited != uncontended. I don't think anyone expects at this price point (even post price-rise) to get 100% of their rated speed all the time, if most people can use their connection as much as they want then that's fine by me.

Quote:

Every utility that supplies a measurable product (such as gas electricity and water) does so at standing charge + price per unit volume. If ISPs did the same it would get rid of the "unlimited" nonsense and all the sniping between high volume users and low.

Well that's wrong in two ways, not every utility company has a standing charge and not every utility has a price per unit volume. Water is unlimited for a flat fee (council tax) in some places.

Then there's "Unlimited" calls on telephone. "Unlimited" refills on food/drinks. "Unlimited" mobile data. "Unlimited" mileage. Etc. etc. Again I'd expect most people to have some common sense to maintain reasonable expectations at given price points. Unlimited at £35 a month and Unlimited at £350 a month are going to mean different things.

kwikbreaks · 05-10-2013, 10:18

The "unlimited" discussion was ruled off-topic by a moderator a few pages back so I will only say that on point 1 we are arguing semantics and on point 2 you are nit picking - replace all with most and all is well with my comment.

qasdfdsaq · 05-10-2013, 15:27

There's a reason "all" and "most" are two separate words.

Also, not bold = not a moderating decision.

kwikbreaks · 05-10-2013, 23:59

There's also a reason I had you on ignore until recently.

qasdfdsaq · 06-10-2013, 02:05

I'm sure you've said that before, block me or don't, make up your mind already.

I may be a moron but at least I'm consistent.

Chrysalis · 06-10-2013, 05:37

kwikbreaks I do disagree with you on this one, going to a metered broadband model is like taking 10 steps back and will cause more problems than it solves, payg internet is now very obselete practice.

For the most part unlimited broadband in the uk is in a much better state than it was a couple of years ago, VM is now the only major wired broadband uk isp left who uses protocol shaping and usage based throttling on its unlimited products. They are the odd one out not the norm.

kwikbreaks · 06-10-2013, 09:53

I'm not suggesting that metered broadband is a good idea but neither is going back to relying on congestion if they aren't prepared to invest in the capacity to support what they are advertising. I don't really know what the answer may be. The fault lies with the ASA allowing "unlimited" to mean just about anything that the ISP decides it may mean. Very Alice in Wonderland.

---------- Post added at 08:53 ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

block me or don't, make up your mind already

Bye again....

Sephiroth · 06-10-2013, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

kwikbreaks I do disagree with you on this one, going to a metered broadband model is like taking 10 steps back and will cause more problems than it solves, payg internet is now very obselete practice.

For the most part unlimited broadband in the uk is in a much better state than it was a couple of years ago, VM is now the only major wired broadband uk isp left who uses protocol shaping and usage based throttling on its unlimited products. They are the odd one out not the norm.

Chrys is right. I've always said that BT will win in the end because it's like the Russian army, if you know what I mean.

HFC in its current form brings congestion to a point close to the consumer - the optical node. FTTC doesn't. HFC can get out of this hole through investment at the local level but PRICE wars that BT (and its FTTC dromes) can sustain constrain VM's ability to increase local capacity quickly.

kwikbreaks · 06-10-2013, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

HFC in its current form brings congestion to a point close to the consumer - the optical node. FTTC doesn't. HFC can get out of this hole through investment at the local level but PRICE wars that BT (and its FTTC dromes) can sustain constrain VM's ability to increase local capacity quickly.

I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell except I don't see it as a price war. To reach new customers with FTTC must cost considerably less than it would for cable as the phone lines already reach the majority of premises in the country. One fibre to a cab somewhere can reach 100 or so (I forget how many lines each FTTC box can support) but to reach them with cable you have at least a new conduit and cable(s) to install passing certainly more premises than will ever take the product plus quite probably a new optical node which must cost as least as much as the FTTC cabinet to install.

The only real way VM can expand is to increase takeup in areas already covered and push more product to each customer.

The situation is even worse on paid TV - much of the install cost is paid by the consumer.

Were any of the earlier failed cable companies debts written off or did VM pick up the tab for all. I know that they are running with a huge debt mountain which must place pretty big constraints on what they can do.

MaverickJesus · 06-10-2013, 12:38

The debt was never really paid off, it was just restructured to have lower ongoing costs. Liberty Global took all of that debt on in the takeover, which seems barmy considering how much debt LG were running with from their existing operations.

Both LG & the VM subsidiary got credit downgrades following the takeover, if I remember rightly.