"Fast broadband for all by 2020 pledged by David Cameron"

I'm not even in some rural area, but Openreach have pushed back the date for my street for 2 years running now. So I'll probably get it in 2023....
 
I wish ofcom would jump in and make it where you pay a price on the speed you get possible based on estimated speeds. Such as:
0 - 5meg pay no more than x price
5 -10meg pay x price
10-15meg pay x price

and so on, then based on your estimated speeds and speeds you get you pay for what you use?

I can remember when i was on ADSL2+ and got 2Mbps speed but was paying for the up24Mbps packaged. I found it quite unfair i was paying the same price as some one else who was on this package getting over 10Mbps who not only gets faster speeds but probably uses more bandwidth per month than me. Yet pays same price. This was when i couldn't get FTTC or anything faster.
 
r7slayer said:
I wish ofcom would jump in and make it where you pay a price on the speed you get possible based on estimated speeds. Such as:
0 - 5meg pay no more than x price
5 -10meg pay x price
10-15meg pay x price

and so on, then based on your estimated speeds and speeds you get you pay for what you use?

I can remember when i was on ADSL2+ and got 2Mbps speed but was paying for the up24Mbps packaged. I found it quite unfair i was paying the same price as some one else who was on this package getting over 10Mbps who not only gets faster speeds but probably uses more bandwidth per month than me. Yet pays same price. This was when i couldn't get FTTC or anything faster.
Click to expand...

But the equipment within the Exchange and Rental fees to Openreach are all the same price no matter how long your line or how far from the Exchange you are? Then you'd also get people wanting to only pay half because they don't need 24 Meg, they're just lucky enough to live a stones throw from the exchange.
If OFCOM were to enforce such a thing it could quickly mean some ISP's having real trouble. Or also potentially some customers bills actually going up.
 
r7slayer said:
I wish ofcom would jump in and make it where you pay a price on the speed you get possible based on estimated speeds. Such as:
0 - 5meg pay no more than x price
5 -10meg pay x price
10-15meg pay x price

and so on, then based on your estimated speeds and speeds you get you pay for what you use?

I can remember when i was on ADSL2+ and got 2Mbps speed but was paying for the up24Mbps packaged. I found it quite unfair i was paying the same price as some one else who was on this package getting over 10Mbps who not only gets faster speeds but probably uses more bandwidth per month than me. Yet pays same price. This was when i couldn't get FTTC or anything faster.
Click to expand...

Presumably though you would be completely opposed to line rental charges reflecting the actual costs involved in maintaining your service based on the location.

MissChief said:
But the equipment within the Exchange and Rental fees to Openreach are all the same price no matter how long your line or how far from the Exchange you are? Then you'd also get people wanting to only pay half because they don't need 24 Meg, they're just lucky enough to live a stones throw from the exchange.
If OFCOM were to enforce such a thing it could quickly mean some ISP's having real trouble. Or also potentially some customers bills actually going up.
Click to expand...

Also there would be no way to stop people from purposely degrading their lines to drop into a lower price band. Then what, are the ISP expected to pay for in-home visits to rectify internal wiring faults on the sorts of margins that home broadband delivers?

This also ignores the likelihood of any price banding between attainable sync speed being maybe a 60p difference from lowest speed to highest. It seems you want to return to capped connections as well based purely on the concept of "if I can't have something then nobody should".
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
The sums have been done many times over, if FTTP was commercially viable to deploy into your particular area then it would be there already.
Click to expand...

If that argument was applied to everything then everyone outside of major population centres would still be on dialup. There has to be a point at which it has be added as a service even if they're compelled to by the government, or subsidised.
 
When i first got the internet I had a 28.8K modem (in fact i may have had a 14.4K)
wading through treacle don't come close to it!
I am sure some of you guys remember those days?
 
Silicon Si said:
When i first got the internet I had a 28.8K modem (in fact i may have had a 14.4K)
wading through treacle don't come close to it!
I am sure some of you guys remember those days?
Click to expand...

Oh I remember those days, I had a 28.8! Seemed incredible when I got a 56k!
 
Caged said:
Also there would be no way to stop people from purposely degrading their lines to drop into a lower price band. Then what, are the ISP expected to pay for in-home visits to rectify internal wiring faults on the sorts of margins that home broadband delivers?

This also ignores the likelihood of any price banding between attainable sync speed being maybe a 60p difference from lowest speed to highest. It seems you want to return to capped connections as well based purely on the concept of "if I can't have something then nobody should".
Click to expand...

You could also look at it the other way round, those closer to the cabinet/exchange that can get the faster speeds should pay less as there's less cable involved...
 
Jamauk said:
You could also look at it the other way round, those closer to the cabinet/exchange that can get the faster speeds should pay less as there's less cable involved...
Click to expand...

Is that why XXXXXL is the same price as a medium or small?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom