Anyone heard more on Tiscali price hike?

Just wondering if anyone has heard anymore about the Tiscali price hike
reported in the guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...k-not-so-cheap

"Geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just wondering if anyone has heard anymore about the Tiscali price hike
> reported in the guardian?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...k-not-so-cheap
>

The customers who suffer are those on non LLU exchanges. Ringing up and
asking for the MAC code does not result in a better offer.
(Well not for Pipex customers anyway.)

IMHO Ofcom should disallow the two tier pricing system where ISPs offer
lower prices at some exchanges.

ISPs should be obliged to offer their services at all exchanges, perhaps
using shared equipment at the smaller ones.

Michael Chare

Michael Chare wrote:
> "Geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Just wondering if anyone has heard anymore about the Tiscali price hike
>> reported in the guardian?
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...k-not-so-cheap
>>
>
> The customers who suffer are those on non LLU exchanges. Ringing up and
> asking for the MAC code does not result in a better offer.
> (Well not for Pipex customers anyway.)
>
> IMHO Ofcom should disallow the two tier pricing system where ISPs
> offer lower prices at some exchanges.
>
> ISPs should be obliged to offer their services at all exchanges, perhaps
> using shared equipment at the smaller ones.
>
> Michael Chare
>
>

>
Welcome to 21st century consumerism - people will charge what they think
they can get away with.

BT were forced to let other ISPs use their network, but this does not
apply to either virgin cable or the llu suppliers. When there is a level
playing field, then you can call for level pricing.

In message <hkmun8$hdv$(E-Mail Removed)>, Michael Chare
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>"Geoff" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Just wondering if anyone has heard anymore about the Tiscali price hike
>> reported in the guardian?
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009...k-not-so-cheap
>>
>
>The customers who suffer are those on non LLU exchanges. Ringing up
>and asking for the MAC code does not result in a better offer.
>(Well not for Pipex customers anyway.)
>
>IMHO Ofcom should disallow the two tier pricing system where ISPs
>offer lower prices at some exchanges.
>
>ISPs should be obliged to offer their services at all exchanges,
>perhaps using shared equipment at the smaller ones.
>
I'm with Pipex, been paying £3.99 per month for the last two years. I've
been with them since home broadband first became a viable proposition
however many years ago that was, was paying £21 a month until I told
them I was cancelling and going to Sky.

I know a lot of people have had problems with Pipex, but I haven't found
them too bad and £4 a month for unlimited broadband isn't such a bad
deal :-)

Had a letter last week saying that they were moving me onto an "up to
8mb" service (I've previously been getting around 1.6mb) and hiking the
price to £14.99.

I'm going to wait and see if I get any improvement in speed, I'm not
really expecting much due to the line length, but we'll see. I'm
certainly not prepared to pay an extra tenner a month for the same
service I'm getting now. So unless there's a significant speed increase,
I'll be asking for my MAC and going to Sky, as I already have Sky TV
adding broadband shouldn't cost me much more than I'm currently paying
to Pipex/Tiscali/Talk Talk or whatever they're calling themselves at the
moment.
--
Sean Black

Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Michael
Chare chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> IMHO Ofcom should disallow the two tier pricing system where ISPs offer
> lower prices at some exchanges.

Why? Forcing ISPs to charge more isn't going to result in any better
broadband for anybody!

> ISPs should be obliged to offer their services at all exchanges, perhaps
> using shared equipment at the smaller ones.

That sounds like a description of IPstream from BT - the very thing that
you're complaining "does not result in a better offer".

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
22:51:56 up 4 days, 3:31, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY

"alexd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Michael
> Chare chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> IMHO Ofcom should disallow the two tier pricing system where ISPs offer
>> lower prices at some exchanges.
>
> Why? Forcing ISPs to charge more isn't going to result in any better
> broadband for anybody!

I have not suggested that the price should be higher, just that it should be
the same at all exchanges!

Why should people attached to Non LLU exchanges pay more, thus subsidising
people using the same service at LLU exchanges?


>> ISPs should be obliged to offer their services at all exchanges, perhaps
>> using shared equipment at the smaller ones.
>
> That sounds like a description of IPstream from BT - the very thing that
> you're complaining "does not result in a better offer".

How the ISPs would provide a service is up to them. My complaint is with the
price differential.

At the moment competition at the larger (LLU) exchanges is benefiting
consumers connected to those exchanges. The same is not happening at the
smaller Non LLU exchanges. - and at the moment does not look likely to
happen.


--
Michael Chare

Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.broadband Job Justification Hearings, Michael
Chare chose the tried and tested strategy of:

> I have not suggested that the price should be higher, just that it should
> be the same at all exchanges!

It would end up higher for LLU users rather than cheaper for everyone else,
because ISPs aren't going to start reselling BT IPstream at a loss.

> Why should people attached to Non LLU exchanges pay more, thus subsidising
> people using the same service at LLU exchanges?

Because it's cheaper to offer LLU than it is to re-sell another ISP's
service. ISPs don't charge less for LLU just for a laugh. They charge less
because it costs them less, and they want to be competitive.

> How the ISPs would provide a service is up to them. My complaint is with
> the price differential.

If my ISP had the option to charge me less but didn't, I'd be complaining
about the lack of a price differential.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
22:48:00 up 6 days, 3:27, 6 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY

In article <hkmun8$hdv$(E-Mail Removed)>, Michael Chare
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>IMHO Ofcom should disallow the two tier pricing system where ISPs offer
>lower prices at some exchanges.

Not very bright, are you? It's a free(ish) market.

>ISPs should be obliged to offer their services at all exchanges, perhaps
>using shared equipment at the smaller ones.

Oh dear. And how much would that cost them? And who pays for it in the
long run?

Take some courses in basic economics, hm?

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article <hkscr6$4lc$(E-Mail Removed)>, Michael Chare
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>I have not suggested that the price should be higher, just that it should be
>the same at all exchanges!

_Really_ not too clever, are you?

>How the ISPs would provide a service is up to them. My complaint is with the
>price differential.

It's called a "free market". See that as how thou wilt.

>At the moment competition at the larger (LLU) exchanges is benefiting
>consumers connected to those exchanges.

nooooo shit!!

> The same is not happening at the
>smaller Non LLU exchanges.

Yes, because BT Openworld can't make any money on the deal. They're not
gonna bury a few metres of copper when the cabinet or pole is
(eventually) connected up to FTTC.

> - and at the moment does not look likely to
>happen.

And it won't, because there's no business case to be made. I feel sorry
for BT sometimes - they've had a great deal of business ripped from then
in the guise of the free market and they get a kicking from all comers.

Now all their engineers and plant are owned by something called
Openreach. The engineers are learning that they are now working for a
private firm, not warm, avuncular old BT and are being encouraged to try
and maximise profits.

Have you seen the latest BT pension deficit?

The fat cats who bought BT Openworld have to try and maximise profits
wile laying off as many staff as they can while maintaining some
semblance of service, installing a FTTC initiative at a reasonable cost
from a govt that couldn't care less about anything except what they
(individual MPs) can make from private company "sponsorships" and paying
themselves off with lucrative "consultancies". Instead, of paying
single supplier/bill a single supplier, you now have pay a bewildering
variety of different companies for "services".

And they say this is progress?

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

On 12/02/2010 11:59, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> In article<hkscr6$4lc$(E-Mail Removed)>, Michael Chare
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>> I have not suggested that the price should be higher, just that it should be
>> the same at all exchanges!
>
> _Really_ not too clever, are you?
>
>> How the ISPs would provide a service is up to them. My complaint is with the
>> price differential.
>
> It's called a "free market". See that as how thou wilt.
>
>> At the moment competition at the larger (LLU) exchanges is benefiting
>> consumers connected to those exchanges.
>
> nooooo shit!!
>
>> The same is not happening at the
>> smaller Non LLU exchanges.
>
> Yes, because BT Openworld can't make any money on the deal. They're not
> gonna bury a few metres of copper when the cabinet or pole is
> (eventually) connected up to FTTC.
>
>> - and at the moment does not look likely to
>> happen.
>
> And it won't, because there's no business case to be made. I feel sorry
> for BT sometimes - they've had a great deal of business ripped from then
> in the guise of the free market and they get a kicking from all comers.
>
> Now all their engineers and plant are owned by something called
> Openreach. The engineers are learning that they are now working for a
> private firm, not warm, avuncular old BT and are being encouraged to try
> and maximise profits.
>
> Have you seen the latest BT pension deficit?
>
> The fat cats who bought BT Openworld have to try and maximise profits
> wile laying off as many staff as they can while maintaining some
> semblance of service, installing a FTTC initiative at a reasonable cost
> from a govt that couldn't care less about anything except what they
> (individual MPs) can make from private company "sponsorships" and paying
> themselves off with lucrative "consultancies". Instead, of paying
> single supplier/bill a single supplier, you now have pay a bewildering
> variety of different companies for "services".
>
> And they say this is progress?
>
Erm... not really accurate. Openreach is not a private firm. It remains
a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT, therefore the fat-cats can't buy shares
in it (unless they buy BT shares, of course!).
It was set up by BT because OFCOM warned them that they were in danger
of losing their network unless they set up a company which operates
completely independently of the rest of BT on a day-to-day basis.
This is what it does, providing network services to each and every telco
and ISP (including BT itself but excluding Virgin, who have their own
network).
In this way, they can be seen to be not giving any favours to the other
parts of BT.
And the other advantage is that, being a nominally-independent company,
they have to balance their own books, without cross-subsidisation with BT.

George