Indeed. The cheapest is always the best choice.

That's why the government (of whatever flavour) keep losing tens/hundreds of millions of our quids on projects that fail, or run years late and more tens/hundreds over budget.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 25-Aug-14 21:54:53)

I'd recommend Sky any time. It's GEA-FTTC which uses the same high capacity backhaul used for their LLU network. So none of those slow downs and outages you might get with a BT Wholesale FTTC service.

Taking TV and phone with Sky Fibre as well opens up further discounts... I'm actually paying £20pm for Fibre Pro and that is for the full contract length and TV is reduced from £32 to £16pm.

However at the end of my contract I'll be looking for something cheaper and will probably ditch Sky TV as I'm not really making good use of it.

In reply to a post by 5km:

So none of those slow downs and outages you might get with a BT Wholesale FTTC service.

?
Does BT Wholesale frequently cause slowdowns and outages?

I think so but can't (be bothered to) back that statement up with any real fact... lol.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/zen/t/4352403-re-wo...

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Indeed. The cheapest is always the best choice.

That's why the government (of whatever flavour) keep losing tens/hundreds of millions of our quids on projects that fail, or run years late and more tens/hundreds over budget.

Linked statements that don't qualify for stating "always". The race to the lowest price frequently brings forth cr*p hardware, software and/or service that cost a fortune to put right. A simple example: I have never had a decent install from Kelly's but always a quality job from BT.

Have you considered EE home broadband with landline phone? Best move I made when I switched from BT to EE for home phone, you are still with BT but pay EE prices.

https://broadband.ee.co.uk/home.do

https://broadband.ee.co.uk/macCode

https://broadband.ee.co.uk/switchbroadband

In reply to a post by 5km:

I'd recommend Sky any time. It's GEA-FTTC which uses the same high capacity backhaul used for their LLU network. So none of those slow downs and outages you might get with a BT Wholesale FTTC service.

Taking TV and phone with Sky Fibre as well opens up further discounts... I'm actually paying £20pm for Fibre Pro and that is for the full contract length and TV is reduced from £32 to £16pm.

However at the end of my contract I'll be looking for something cheaper and will probably ditch Sky TV as I'm not really making good use of it.

While I'm hating BT, I can max out my 79987 sync any time day or night, I don't get congestion issues. Maybe I'm lucky with my area, but that's one thing I can't knock them for.

I did phone sky but they won't do anything for me on price, possibly because I'm already on 1/2 price TV for 12 months. I won't be paying full price for it when that ends in 8 months.

Sky look good except for the idiotic router restrictions, and the stupid price for Fibre Pro over Fibre.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Indeed. The cheapest is always the best choice.

That's why the government (of whatever flavour) keep losing tens/hundreds of millions of our quids on projects that fail, or run years late and more tens/hundreds over budget.

I detect a hint of sarcasm here

If someone can give me a reason to spend more I will, I'd be willing to go to Zen (probably prefer them to Sky due to the 60m limit on calls and no router restrictions), but there is no point in spending money without purpose.

Talktalk may have [censored] support, but I can deal with that by arguing with them, taking them to an ombudsman, etc, if I have to. The reality is that I have a stable max sync line with 60 days of sync uptime, so I don't plan on needing to call them.

The quality of the backhaul, the ping times, etc, are more interesting to me.

The fact that AAISP use Talktalk wholesale extensively makes me feel positive about their backhaul, but is it the same for retail customers?

Unless I'm likely to experience congestion, I'd rather go with them than Plus.net as they are BT owned.

Zen I feel are giving good value but probably suffer from being more of a "techie" isp meaning the users like myself go there, it's more expensive (per user) to run a network for 1,000,000 100-300GB a month users than it is to run one for 15,000,000 users, half of them old grannies that check email once a month. This likely makes their costs higher and therefore I wouldn't be surprised if their margins are lower despite their higher price.

Not what I'd call sarcasm, but I can see what you mean .

It was more an allegory, just to remind you that the cheapest can be a disaster even if it is more often good value.