In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

I was going to ask the same until I noticed that they quote their prices ex-VAT which is a bit cheeky imho

Bah, of course! Thanks.

The justification for ex vat I suppose is that their website pitches to SOHO and business customers.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sat 16-Jan-16 14:51:30)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Sky have their call centres in the UK. They are competitively priced and have recently been highlighted for having a low level of complaints.

But they will not provide FTTC only, no SMPF unless they of course don't have their newer LLU kit installed in your exchange , and even then they would want to take over the line ,because they want the lucrative line rental and calls part of it, which i would think will be by now a very small number of exchanges,And there isn't any way of knowing which llu kit they have in each exchange as they wont publish a publicly available list

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 16-Jan-16 16:07:22)

i usually read many posts with interest..
The major problem to me as a layman is the PENALTY imposed on subscribers when they wish to move provider.
There claim of speed is always 'UP TO'.
If you sign a contract, the conditions should be a stated minimum speed.
Their failure to provide same, should be grounds to move without penalty.
I believe their excuse of congestion is their GET OUT CLAUSE.
The consumer is taken for a ride by ALL OF THEM, a very cosy 'boys club' agreement.
Before I get shot down, I admit I am a Layman in these matters and may have a very
simplistic view.

The claims are estimates of the connection speed. Estimates of throughput speeds from ISPs are few and far between at the consumer product level. I don't know about true business connection leased lines.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong re the "steep" but, but remember at the moment you're comparing the £25 and ignoring line rental, and the £60 WITH line rental, or in other words, the gap isn't as big as it seems.

Whether the overall proposition is expensive is another matter entirely.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by caffn8me:

...and they're still way below Zen and AAISP in ratings from TBB users

If there are so many unhappy customers on Sky it's a shame they don't post their experiences here on the forum, I'd be interested to know why they are unhappy. In my experience Sky have been excellent.

I'll second that, Sky has amazed me consistently, and my FTTC which syncs at the full 80/20 gets the full 80/20 every single day, anytime I want. It has always just worked.

In reply to a post by caffn8me:

What they certainly do tell you is the proportion of customers satisfied with their particular ISP. Are you suggesting that customer satisfaction isn't important and companies don't need to worry about it?

Good Point. Customer Satisfaction rates Sky best...

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/01/sky-bro...

So your point was?

In reply to a post by tommy45:

But they will not provide FTTC only, no SMPF unless they of course don't have their newer LLU kit installed in your exchange

I missed that requirement of the OP's since I replied to the first post. I stand by my general recommendation of Sky though, be it via MPF or otherwise.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Others to look at, though depending on the package you choose from them they may be unlimited or week-daytime allowance and overnight unlimited are (alphabetically): Aquiss; uno; vivaciti. All with low cost line rental and calls like Pulse8broadband.

With what we've seen recently I'd remove Vivaciti from that list!

In reply to a post by jelv:

With what we've seen recently I'd remove Vivaciti from that list!

Seems like a bit of a cheap dig at Vivaciti to add this comment to a stale thread. But it did get me to check the ISP Unhappiness thread which I suppose was your intention.

As it happens, I think Vivaciti did their best to resolve the matter, they initially passed on the Openreach activation charges on the new line to the customer without making a profit (about £100) and later offered to reduce it to £8 because that's what the order confirmation quoted. So they accepted making a £92 loss on this charge. The cease fee was not redacted for the old line because Vivaciti's T&C highlighted these charges and they technically do not belong to the charges for the new order and so did not show on the order confirmation.

OP on the other hand cancelled their Direct Debit and complained their broadband was suspended. All ISPs would do this in the event of a bill non-payment. The OP additionally rejected the £8 offer even though that was what they were quoted in their order confirmation. They also refused to pay the cease fee on the old connection despite this charge being present in Vivaciti's T&C.

On balance, I side with Vivaciti on this one.