In reply to a post by MCM:

I repeat, pay for what you receive.

What would be much fairer would be for you to pay what it costs the supplier to provide the service. This could mean the more rural the higher the price with reduced costs for those living in major population centres. I don't subscribe to this solution but it is in line with what you are suggesting which takes no account of the costs involved in providing a service at a distance.

Those living on a non-LLU exchanges often have to pay more and for the prvillage anf for this they often receive an inferior service. True some ISP''s charge the same no matter the status of the exchange.

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

In reply to a post by MacLe0d:

Those living on a non-LLU exchanges often have to pay more and for the prvillage anf for this they often receive an inferior service. True some ISP''s charge the same no matter the status of the exchange.

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

Because it costs ISPs more to provide services on those exchanges..

Edited by gt94sss2 (Wed 17-Feb-16 00:40:59)

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

You clearly don't understand basic economics. The costs to the service providers such as ISPs and OR are far more than simply the cost of sending bits from the user to the internet. Connections to remote and rural users involve much higher installation and maintenance costs than those in more concentrated population centres where the distances involved are much shorter.

There is a solution of course where users pay a realistic cost for their connection based upon where they live and the cost of providing and maintaining that connection together with a PAYG usage charge. I can't help suspect that this would lead to increased costs for many remote and rural users since each would be paying the true cost of their connection and city dwellers would see a decrease in their costs.

As I have already said, I do not support this model but it could well be the result of following your argument through to its logical conclusion.

According to the commemorative book published about 1955, covering the first 50 years of The Ford Motor Company, the "Model T" was available over its life-span in 14 (fourteen) different colours!

Although first only available in black, a dark green was introduced very early on, to satisfy the large farming community in the USA.

Those living on a non-LLU exchanges often have to pay more and for the prvillage anf for this they often receive an inferior service. True some ISP''s charge the same no matter the status of the exchange.

How is it fair to pay more a worse service?

You need to contact Ofcom to complain about that, not BT. BT are required to charge at a certain level on exchanges specified by Ofcom. This is supposed to be to allow LLU suppliers a chance to be able to undercut BT because there is a potential level of profit margin.

Ofcom do not set this minimum pricing on exchanges where they consider there to be competition and so BT are allowed to set the wholesale price themselves rather than having to satisfy a particular margin test that Ofcom specify.

A small number of ISPs pass on the lower prices that wholesale charge on exchanges where Ofcom aren't doing that level of regulation. The ISPs that charge the same for all are essentially not passing on the wholesale savings to the customers on the cheaper exchanges.

So, the actual situation is the opposite of what you think it is. If BT weren't regulated on those exchanges that have little or no competition then they would potentially reduce the wholesale prices - but Ofcom won't let them.

Blame the right people. And in this case that is Ofcom.

In reply to a post by ian72:

The ISPs that charge the same for all are essentially not passing on the wholesale savings to the customers on the cheaper exchanges.

I suspect that it is actually the other way round as 85-90% of the population are in lower cost areas. Where ISPs charge the same nationally, they are not passing on the extra costs to provide the service to the more rural areas (the last 10% etc)

But the rest of your post is right - BT never used to have geographic pricing until forced to by Ofcom

Edited by gt94sss2 (Wed 17-Feb-16 09:16:11)

How odd then that Plusnet are just about the lowest priced BT Wholesale providers on Market B and also EE on previously "out of area" exchanges. EE are the very strange one - basing it on where they had LLU were not just a vISP.

By your argument these two would be charging the same in most areas as the rest, the rest including BT Consumer, and far more in Market A. They don't.

The LLU suppliers and their resellers are different in that their far lower costs in general are the underlying factor. They don't have to provide telephone exchanges and local loop infrastructure.

I'm afraid that's just the way it is. How is it "fair" that somebody living in a city has to put up with higher levels of air pollution, traffic congestion and noise? How is it "fair" that somebody living further from a railway station has to pay more for a taxi trip to it? For that matter, how is it "fair" that those who live in urban areas have to cross-subsidise universal services, like phones, mail and rubbish collection for those in less densely populated areas.

This is a question of economics, not "fairness". It simply costs a lot more to provide services to those in less densely populated areas. There's very little difference in the cost of providing (say) 25mbps and 15mbps (a little bit of backhaul). It's very likely the cost of provision of the actual line is higher. More expensive to install, more expensive to maintain.

So what would you prefer? a system whereby you pay (say) by the full economic cost of provision or one that is, to at least some extent (in the form of the line) subsidised by others?

Edited by deleted (Wed 17-Feb-16 10:00:49)

In reply to a post by ian72:

So, the actual situation is the opposite of what you think it is. If BT weren't regulated on those exchanges that have little or no competition then they would potentially reduce the wholesale prices - but Ofcom won't let them.

Incorrect.

Ofcom set a charge cap on Market A exchanges, there's nothing to stop BT wholesale selling thier services cheaper there. Why don't they? Because they can charge what they like due to there being no competition.

The only thing you could accuse Ofcom of is not setting the cap low enough, but the cap has to take into account the increased cost to BT of provisioning at smaller exchanges.

Ironically if we want to go down the route of paying for what people get, then those buying a home further from the exchange/cabinet should be paying more as the infrastructure cost more to put in place.

Tell it like it is girlfriend !