the last time this got applied ignition it led to the aweful adsl max pricing where one price was used for everyone, now on FTTC we have burst speed price differentials and a lousy isp struggling which I like to see.

Yes BT are very likely cross subsidising but my reply is whats the big deal?

If you say they werent loss leading how were they supplying broadband for under wholesale cost? What talktalk want is to lower the standards again by been the cheapest and not then having to do things like up service quality to sell connections. I am surprised you are in favour of this.

We also need to consider BT could shrink back their FTTx work if ofcom changes change the business case. Actually I think its a bit sly of talktalk to wait until BT have already spent loads of cash before making the complaint.

I agree I did complain about min contract durations believing them to be abusive, but I have just got on with it now and accepted the situation which is what talktalk should be doing, BT eg. have also invested in TV rights to aid their goal of been a triple play provider, which sky also is (as you mentioned) as wella s virgin media. Why havent talktalk gone the same route? other isp's who are just telecom based have either failed (O2) or are innovating in other ways.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 03-May-13 19:40:36)

I am no fan of BT, but the main problem of this country has been the over emphasis on competition. We are not in the same position as the year 2000, talktalk now have a very large customer base built up.

The seperation of BT wholesale and openreach eg. has only harmed the consumer, the only winners of that are the isp's who piggyback of BT's infrastructure.

Your situation wont be affected by this complaint.

I hope the complaint is either rejected or the action taken is to leave openreach and BT retail prices alone (to annoy talktalk) but drop BT wholesale pricing so the margin shifts from BTw to BT retail thus passing the margin squeeze test.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 03-May-13 19:18:35)

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

so can't see why CP's can't offer these products if FTTP is all you can get.

Plusnet supply 2 products to precisely this market, at the 40/10 and 80/20 speed levels to match their FTTC packages, with prices and GB allowances to match too.

Unfortunately, they're only listed as trial products available to existing customers, but they aren't restricting the number of people they're accepting into the trial.

Yes (to the obvious question), people have joined Plusnet with ADSL with the express need to jump straight onto the FTTP trial.

Good to know, thanks.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

given the unlimited broadband services we have available and the prices that we have them available for, doesn't seem to be all that bad.

That is certainly a good thing - value for money makes the internet widespread, almost ubiquitous - probably as it should be.

The downside is that the government will use this factor heavily in deciding whether we have the "best" broadband in 2015.

It's a commodity now not something nerds have in their bedrooms and spend all their money on. Hardly a bad thing?

There is one bad thing... with such low prices, it is hard to justify (to investors) upgrading the nation to full fibre. Hell, it is hard to justify upgrading to FTTC! And hard to justify anything at all for the remote areas.

The bad thing for the nerds though is that they, of course, all want full fibre, and rant incessantly without much regard for the fact that most of the country doesn't want to pay for it.

They also won't believe the government when they pronounce that, ta-da, we *do* have the best broadband after all.

Hmmmm...

except unlimited wont be so cheap if talktalk get their own way, because plusnet and BT prices may go up. Or it may reintroduce dare i say it traffic management because suddenly all these capacity upgrades plusnet have been doing will no longer be viable with a margin squeeze test enforcement.

Or that doesnt matter because LLU competition is more important?

my (crude) analysis suggests that Talk Talk have the best margin and the lowest cost to the consumer, which hardly sounds like grounds for dissatisfaction.

On the other hand the ability to write a letter and have a competitor tied in knots for some months might be attractive.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The seperation of BT wholesale and openreach eg. has only harmed the consumer, the only winners of that are the isp's who piggyback of BT's infrastructure.

The majority of DSL customers are on LLU services made possible through that separation. I've a suspicion they'd disagree with you.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

except unlimited wont be so cheap if talktalk get their own way, because plusnet and BT prices may go up. Or it may reintroduce dare i say it traffic management because suddenly all these capacity upgrades plusnet have been doing will no longer be viable with a margin squeeze test enforcement.

Or that doesnt matter because LLU competition is more important?

*Sigh*

The point is that if it comes to it those capacity upgrades aren't viable anyway. That is exactly the point.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

the last time this got applied ignition it led to the aweful adsl max pricing where one price was used for everyone, now on FTTC we have burst speed price differentials and a lousy isp struggling which I like to see.

Okay.....

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Yes BT are very likely cross subsidising but my reply is whats the big deal?

It's against the Competition Act.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

If you say they werent loss leading how were they supplying broadband for under wholesale cost? What talktalk want is to lower the standards again by been the cheapest and not then having to do things like up service quality to sell connections. I am surprised you are in favour of this.

They weren't selling for under wholesale cost. MPF LLU has no wholesale cost for the broadband element.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

We also need to consider BT could shrink back their FTTx work if ofcom changes change the business case. Actually I think its a bit sly of talktalk to wait until BT have already spent loads of cash before making the complaint.

The business case for FTTC is based on revenue into Openreach, this discussion isn't about revenue into Openreach.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I agree I did complain about min contract durations believing them to be abusive, but I have just got on with it now and accepted the situation which is what talktalk should be doing, BT eg. have also invested in TV rights to aid their goal of been a triple play provider, which sky also is (as you mentioned) as wella s virgin media. Why havent talktalk gone the same route? other isp's who are just telecom based have either failed (O2) or are innovating in other ways.

Err https://sales.talktalk.co.uk/product/tv ?