In reply to a post by Kiggs:

Presumably Sky's 'Unlimited' offering is aimed at a slightly more advanced consumer rather than say, BT's Broadband product - due to its lack of cap. This should infer that the end-user would want to use their own router, if they so chose and not be essentially forced into buying what ever they offer at the time.

Worth forwarding this thread onto [email protected] ?

Unlikely they will change this one. Bumping the replacement router fee up to £60 or £70 could be an instant revenue raiser, they probably wouldn't want to lose out on that.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Kiggs:

Presumably Sky's 'Unlimited' offering is aimed at a slightly more advanced consumer rather than say, BT's Broadband product - due to its lack of cap. This should infer that the end-user would want to use their own router, if they so chose and not be essentially forced into buying what ever they offer at the time.

Worth forwarding this thread onto [email protected] ?

Unlikely they will change this one. Bumping the replacement router fee up to £60 or £70 could be an instant revenue raiser, they probably wouldn't want to lose out on that.

Which in time may well turn out to be the more realistic reason behind why they are so insistent on customers using the router chosen by the isp solely on price and not what the customer needs or wants or performance , whilst the supplied router may work on their network it will quiet possibly not work as well as other brands/models will&do, but that's what a typical isp who sees that one size fits all is about

Quite apart from being held to ransom by Sky for replacement routers priced at whatever price they see fit at the time, it's also crazy that many people have two or three spare routers in their home, but in the event of a Sky router failure they would be without broadband for a few days while the replacement is on its way.

As it happens I have my PPPoA details so "I'm alright jack". But it doesn't of course stop me from disagreeing with Sky's policies.

While the TV boxes are more custom made, that does not affect consumer rules, so if your router ot sky settop box dies in month 13 i.e. one month out of warranty, and there is an expectation for the device to last longer than the warranty period, then a free replacement (or just postage) seems reasonable.

This is even more the case if you are seeing lots of peoples devices fail after a similar period of time.

The UK is fairly rare in the large ADSL modem, it is very common around the world for a bridging ADSL modem to be a requirement, and then a cable/DSL router of your own choice sourced. FTTC/P is heading that way in the UK now.

13 months may be outside the Sky 'warranty' period but in fact, with anything you buy the 12 months is not necessarily relevant. Under the Sale of Goods Act a consumer has the right to expect the product to be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose given the amount paid. With many items, it is possible to successfully argue that some time after the 12 months period the consumer has the right to expect a product to not go wrong and as such, receive some recompense for failure.

However, Sky ship these routers free of charge initially and given that their T&C's are pretty clear on this matter, I see no reason why a reasonable sum of £35 shouldn't be paid for a replacement.

Whining about this is penny pinching in the extreme and ignores the fact that whilst Sky make profits, they do so on small margins per customer and to not control this sort of issue would simply make everything else more expensive to compensate.

I'm not with Sky yet or work for them. I am being connected in two weeks time.

In reply to a post by peewee:

However, Sky ship these routers free of charge initially and given that their T&C's are pretty clear on this matter, I see no reason why a reasonable sum of £35 shouldn't be paid for a replacement.

I think it's £35 at the moment. My point is what is stopping sky from making it £80 in a few months time? Who makes sure it's a reasonable charge given that market forces aren't allowed to work here?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The UK is fairly rare in the large ADSL modem, it is very common around the world for a bridging ADSL modem to be a requirement, and then a cable/DSL router of your own choice sourced. FTTC/P is heading that way in the UK now.

Interesting point. What happens when the Openreach VDSL2 modem fails outside of warranty?

Users would vote with their feet!

I suppose. But in the process of switching providers over this issue, the customer would be without broadband for days or weeks, so coughing up the £80 could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Sky pretty much have the customer over a barrel in this instance.

I think the concern is that the customer is without broadband.

Many now rely on it for daily use, banking, shopping,contacts with family and would not be inclined to keep arguing the point whilst not having the service, and even less inclined to consider moving supplier with the possibility of further of downtime and additional costs.

Sky do very much have the upper hand here....just a bit too much for my liking.