50M : Avoiding installation fee for a new customer

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Never mind what BT are doing Ben, we're discussing VM. So, you support the tactic of charging students for installation even though a property has probably been 'installed' several times over already? Tens of thousands of students might be waiting for your answer

Yes I do because, there is an inherent risk for a service to be installed in shared occupancy addresses.

Although I'm sure there are lots of students that pay everything on time, there are probably a fair chunk that either don't pay on time, or don't return the kit when they leave at the end of the 9 months. Charging a fee at the beginning means that VM are likely to offset any risk further through the contract.

[rhyds]

The fact is any short term contract will be more expensive, as the supplier has fewer months to spread the costs over.

And as for being "installed several times over already" there's no guarantee of that being the case.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Yes I do because, there is an inherent risk for a service to be installed in shared occupancy addresses.

Although I'm sure there are lots of students that pay everything on time, there are probably a fair chunk that either don't pay on time, or don't return the kit when they leave at the end of the 9 months. Charging a fee at the beginning means that VM are likely to offset any risk further through the contract.

Not sure students will appreciate the character sleight.

As for returning the kit, is the onus upon the user to return the kit or for VM to collect it and does the upfront fee pay for the risks posed by those who don't comply with the rules? That would seem an unfair burden on those who do.

Originally Posted by rhyds

And as for being "installed several times over already" there's no guarantee of that being the case.

I didn't guarantee it, I said 'probably'. If you don't mind paying the 'same' fee over and over you are either a mug or have an undeclared vested interest.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Not sure students will appreciate the character sleight.

As for returning the kit, is the onus upon the user to return the kit or for VM to collect it and does the upfront fee pay for the risks posed by those who don't comply with the rules? That would seem an unfair burden on those who do.



I didn't guarantee it, I said 'probably'. If you don't mind paying the 'same' fee over and over you are either a mug or have an undeclared vested interest.

My old student houses always got post for many previous occupants who had either forgotten to cancel a contract or inform a change of address (usually TV licence and the odd mobile) or knowingly skipped out on them. Its the nature of the beast unfortunately.

And as for paying for the installation fee "over and over", its up to the customer(s) to work out what works out cheaper for them (installation charges next term or paying for 3 months usage over the holidays).

When I had a phone line installed at my new home most of the short-term contracts involved a £50/£100 installation charge. Tying myself in to an 18 month contract avoided that, as it meant the costs of activation could be absorbed over the term of the contract.

Telecoms contracts:

Cheap. Short-term. Fast. Pick any two.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by rhyds

And as for paying for the installation fee "over and over", its up to the customer(s) to work out what works out cheaper for them (installation charges next term or paying for 3 months usage over the holidays).

Well you're right about market forces.

Students take note: Paying for installation is probably paying for something that has already been paid for at least once before. Consider your options carefully unless you feel corporate greed is something you like to support.

[qasdfdsaq]

You know non-students get a 12-month contract and have to pay a £50 install fee for broadband only right?

Or are you one of those mugs who just won't be happy till everything's free.

Students take note: Kursk is just blabbering nonsense and the charge has nothing to do with you.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

You know non-students get a 12-month contract and have to pay a £50 install fee for broadband only right?

Or are you one of those mugs who just won't be happy till everything's free.

Students take note: Kursk is just blabbering nonsense and the charge has nothing to do with you.

You've missed the point. Again . This is about a repeated charge for no real 'installation'. I'll leave it to students to decide whether it is a rip off or not. There are tens of thousands of them and their custom is more important to VM than your rantings.

[jb66]

Originally Posted by Kursk

You've missed the point. Again . This is about a repeated charge for no real 'installation'. I'll leave it to students to decide whether it is a rip off or not. There are tens of thousands of them and their custom is more important to VM than your rantings.

Call it in activation fee if it makes you feel better

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by jb66

Call it in activation fee if it makes you feel better

Ok, it's in (sic) activation fee. Happy now?

Now please explain to students the technical wizardry of an activation that is a snip at a mere £49.95 every time activation takes place. Over and over again at the same address.

[jb66]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Ok, it's in (sic) activation fee. Happy now?

Now please explain to students the technical wizardry of an activation that is a snip at a mere £49.95 every time activation takes place. Over and over again at the same address.

£20*

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by jb66

£20*

Hrhrhrhr I like that! It isn't the principle of the rip off that bothers you, it's that the rip off is less than £49.95. lol

[horseman]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Hrhrhrhr I like that! It isn't the principle of the rip off that bothers you, it's that the rip off is less than £49.95. lol

Rip off? Perhaps VM should simply increase the monthly subscription by an additional £2.25 then for 9month contract and ditch the administration / installation fee?

Just because you see a previous occupants BB connection chattering away happily (or just a physical line/wall box) means diddly squat!

You naively expect VM to absorb the administration fee of terminating the previous account, engaging debt recovery if required for previous account, possibly even physically blocking/disconnecting the port?
Then re-enabling new account/payment details after credit checks, possibly re-enabling a port in street cab and potentially re-optimising signal levels for any upgraded equipment (or interim node resegmentations) all for nothing?

Worse still actually potentially increasing my bill proportionately as I've already original paid those fees for my own connection (albeit 15 yrs ago! )

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by horseman

Worse still actually potentially increasing my bill proportionately as I've already original paid those fees for my own connection (albeit 15 yrs ago! )

I think we can safely ignore the rest of your diatribe. Your only concern is YOUR bottom line.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I think we can safely ignore the rest of your diatribe. Your only concern is YOUR bottom line.

Does that mean we can ignore yours, as well?

Business is business. If you don't like it, take your money elsewhere. Oh what's that, the competition doesn't stack up against VM? Well then.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Does that mean we can ignore yours, as well?

Well, you haven't

Originally Posted by Kushan

Business is business. If you don't like it, take your money elsewhere. Oh what's that, the competition doesn't stack up against VM? Well then.

Business is indeed business and customer-focussed business practice is crucial in a competitive market. That's why this is an issue: students in their hundreds of thousands will want to know what they are paying for especially if it's been paid for before.

This kind of thing travels like wildfire on facebook and twitter so grateful to you for keeping its legs; ah, I notice you're an ex-vm employee