Apologies - was not meant to be taken in the Victor Meldrew complaining sense

In reply to a post by bobble_bob:

So it appears that about 70% of those who could upgrade, have no great interest in doing so; with ADSL being sufficient for their requirements; or Dial-up; or are not concerned to have access to the Internet.

Im sure cost is the major factor. Maybe faster but unless you download or stream HD content then you probably dont need to spend the extra it costs to have fibre. Even HD can be streamed on ADSL. Alot cant warrant paying the extra for fibre a month.

But then the issue is if/when fibre comes down in cost, will more suddenly want it, resulting in more cabs requiring upgrades which cost OR money, which gets passed to the user?

HD can barely be streamed on ADSL (max) and even then you need a fast connection, HD on ADSL2+ is easier to do. Of course distance from exchange impacts on speeds.

But if you are on a decent 10Mbps+ ADSL2+ connection you might not see the need to upgrade if you are on a 5Mbps ADSLMax connection you might be more likely to upgrade.

The question is what does the data look like for upgrading from those on fast ADSL2+ connections to those on slow ADSLMax/2+ connections?

I have posted a similar post to this one previously.
Have read all the posts on this subject in this recent post and my comment is that the FAMOUS UP TO, get out of jail card used by all ISPs.
I believe it should be, if you sign an agreement to accept a service, the phase UP TO should not exist.
The service you get is what you should pay for, no more or less.
if a speed test is done for a number of days then averaged out, then that is what you should pay for.
But there again there are powerful interests which will not agree to this.
Yes I have heard all the reasons for UP TO,but afraid we just lie down and take the 'crumbs' from the table.
Free market competition does not exist, with the BT Monopoly in existence.

In reply to a post by helpoort:

I believe it should be, if you sign an agreement to accept a service, the phase UP TO should not exist.

Until ISPs know where you live, they can't quote anything other than "up to". Once they know where you live (phone number entered), they will quote an estimated speed. All major ISPs have signed up to the Ofcom code of practice on speeds, whereby customers can leave penalty free if they get less than their estimate.

I can't see how they can make it fairer.

Edited by Oliver341 (Tue 16-Feb-16 17:19:33)

Say you paint white lines for a living. The longer the line the more it costs you to paint both in the cost of the paint and the time taken by you or your staff.

You only have three options for how you charge. By length of line, so the longer the more your customer pays you, or you charge a fixed price for a line but the longer it is the thinner it is. The "thinner" can be narrow for the full length, or start at full width then taper to half width at half distance and zero at the end.

How are you going to charge your customers to maximise your turnover and profit? Also bearing in mind your overheads of travelling to the start of the line and back from the end of it.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 16-Feb-16 17:21:41)

Depends on the codecs used.

I stream stuff which is mainly H.264 encoded (some H.265) and I can watch 1080p (I know it's not blu ray quality 1080p but it's still excellent quality) on my 7 meg connection. Video needs around 4mbps, 5.1 about another 500kbps.

Nothing stopping them abandoning up to, just simply sell broadband as a 160 Kbps service and guarantee that level of speed.

Some providers have tried PAYG broadband usage charging, but never widely popular and that is where the cost really is, i.e. the amount of data we transfer, i.e. a person on FTTC with 15 Mbps speeds costs the same to provide a line for as someone getting 38 Mbps, and only fractionally more if they are on a up to 76 Mbps package. 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.

In reply
LEAVE TO GO WHERE.
What did Henry Ford say, any colour as long as it is black.
I repeat, pay for what you receive.

Have you got a water meter?

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.