In reply to a post by m0aur:

...... Sky totally unlimited BB at £5 per month for non-Sky customers is looking very tempting........

If it were a stand alone offer it would be fantastic...but it is not.

It is conditional on taking line rental so going full LLU...perhaps not a deal breaker for many (it may be for some) but the headline BB cost is misleading when additional costs and a 12 month line rental contract are mandatory.

In reply to a post by Sadoldman:

In reply to a post by m0aur:

...... Sky totally unlimited BB at £5 per month for non-Sky customers is looking very tempting........

If it were a stand alone offer it would be fantastic...but it is not.

It is conditional on taking line rental so going full LLU...perhaps not a deal breaker for many (it may be for some) but the headline BB cost is misleading when additional costs and a 12 month line rental contract are mandatory.

I don't know where you get the idea of LLU from, there is no mention of it to me, plus they would have a job on a Market 1 exchange, though I realise the likelihood of auto-switching to LLU at a later date is quite possible from such a money-grabbing bunch. I don't see Sky line rental a problem at £12.25 including off-peak calls. can you tell me a way to work without line rental? No ISP can offer that all for £17.25. Even the much praised Plusnet charge £23.48 and it has a 60Gb cap.

Edited by deleted (Sun 22-Jan-12 11:07:32)

I made the assumption of LLU because I have yet to see anyone recommend their ADSL vanilla offering.....all the posts I have seen by users of this product makes it hard to recommend...at any price.

As for line rental when on LLU you are fully unbundled so when wishing to move the MAC system does not operate so you have to transfer the line to the new ISP with possible expense and downtime.

Cost is not everything, and the ease of freedom to change is a great weapon in keeping ISPs honest.

Sky Unlimited is LLU

Market 1, as you say, is not LLU. It is Sky Connect.

40GB limit. £17pm. See this page.

As sadoldman says, its reputation is dreadful.

There are some Sky Unlimited customers who are on LLU but retained the land line with BT. New customers however have to go fully unbundled to Sky.

I am aware of their reputation and if cheap is what you pay, cheap is what you get, which is why I am thinking of returning to B.T. despite saying I never would because of the price. I realise their offshore customer services leave a lot to desire, but I never needed them and to be perfectly honest, the customer services were equally inept everywhere I have been. The biggest plus for me, was the compatibility of the HomeHub, all other routers are a nightmare here with multiple multimedia devices and computers. An expensive Dratek Vigor 2710n could not stick the pace, and I have just had to restart the Billion BiPak 7800N to let the Internet through again despite it showing DSL & Internet lights. Getting expensive.
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4156/billion.jpg

Edited by deleted (Sun 22-Jan-12 13:25:03)

In reply to a post by wingco1:

There are some Sky Unlimited customers who are on LLU but retained the land line with BT. New customers however have to go fully unbundled to Sky.

There are even some that went with for line rental to Sky( in the very early days of Sky) and kept their BT line...so BT were out of the loop as regards payments, but not full LLU.

I recently read a post where someone in that situation and was written to by Sky advising that his land line was being "upgraded"....I assumed transferred to their own equipment, and made fully LLU. I did ask if an option was given but did not get a reply. I am almost certain that those in that situation were given an opt out when Sky orignally started connecting to their own equipment, but this was many moons ago.

IMO if there was not a significant cost reduction there is no advantage to the customer but certainly would be for Sky.

As in keeping with the thread I am now going to evict myself...sounds painful..... but it's not I assure you.