Increased service or a reduced monthly rate from ISPs. Which ?

"Comcast and Adelphia Communications, two of the largest cable
operators is the US have announced that instead of reducing prices of
their cable broadband services, they will instead increase the
service. Both companies will increase their 1.5Mbps services by 100%
to 3Mbps, whilst retaining the existing $43 (£25.90) per month
charge."

More information @ http://snurl.com/2k4o

Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
reduction in prices ?

--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

"Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
> bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
> reduction in prices ?

For the equiv of £25.00 a month it would have to be the Increased Bandwidth
for me..

"BitsAndBobs2003" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3rzfb.6553$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
> > bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
> > reduction in prices ?
>
> For the equiv of £25.00 a month it would have to be the Increased
Bandwidth
> for me..

I favour an increase in monthly subscription with no increased bandwidth -
the extra revenue being used to provide broadband to everyone in the UK who
wants broadband. I live in a village three miles from Didcot and three from
Abingdon, both of which have had ADSL for ages. We have been told by BT
that it will *never* be financially viable to upgrade our exchange to ADSL.
Also, I've just heard this morning that Invisible Networks, who were going
to provide wireless broadband to our village, has just gone into voluntary
liquidation.

All of this makes those incessant BT Broadband adverts on TV a real kick in
the teeth :-(

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:56:28 +0100, "BitsAndBobs2003"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>> Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
>> bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
>> reduction in prices ?
>
>For the equiv of £25.00 a month it would have to be the Increased Bandwidth
>for me..

Hi Martyn (?)

There's certainly arguments on both sides - and valid ones too. If
there any is chance of this behavoir occuring in the UK, I think it
would come down to the ISPs subscribers core usage.

Some ISPs have users who are prolific in their downloading of MP3's,
the latest movies and downloading [pirated] applications & gaming
titles. Some ISPs have a heavy bais of home workers using VPN
connections (BT Yahoo Broadband & NTL for example - are the main
choice for many UK companies to provide their employees with a
broadband connection).

The difference in ISPs main traffic would drive any decision I feel -
opting for a reduction in price for companies such as BTYahoo, NTL
etc, whilst 'consumer choice' ISPs (like Nildram, Pipex, Bullgod et al
would probably offer an increase in service as opposed to a decrease
in price.

Me ? I'm on the fence at the moment. Whlist my main usage for
Home500 connection I have at present is web browsing - with around 5
days of a month working from home (transferring large - sometimes
'00's of MB ), I dont think I could justify the increase in speed (up
or down). Until such time that more of my associates, friends &
family get on the broadband wagon, transferring huge files is
something that is limited a small reach of recipients. Yes - I think
I'm on the 'price reduction' scheme.
--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

"Martin Underwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) s.com...

> Also, I've just heard this morning that Invisible Networks, who were going
> to provide wireless broadband to our village, has just gone into voluntary
> liquidation.
>

From what you have written I take it your in Norfolk/Suffolk??

"BitsAndBobs2003" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:A0Afb.6566$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Martin Underwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) s.com...
>
> > Also, I've just heard this morning that Invisible Networks, who were
going
> > to provide wireless broadband to our village, has just gone into
voluntary
> > liquidation.
> >
>
> From what you have written I take it your in Norfolk/Suffolk??

No. Invisible were about to switch on a service to villages such as Blewbury
on the south side of Didcot, with our scheme (villages on the north side of
Didcot) being one of the next schemes as soon as we reached our target of 90
pre-orders. We probably had a lucky escape - if it had happened in six
months' time, we'd have lost our setup cost and our subscriptions if we'd
chosen to pay in one year in advance to secure a lower monthly cost.

I wouldn't mind if I lived right out in the country, miles away from
anywhere, but I feel very aggrieved that a village so close to two
fair-sized towns and "the largest industrial estate in Europe" (so I've been
told) can be treated as a lost cause by BT. This is what comes of allowing a
privatised monopoly to cherry-pick which places it will serve. We don't even
have a cable TV feed to the village (though a neighbouring one does) so
cable modems are not viable. And satellite dishes are banned (certainly on
the only side of my house that could "see" a satellite) so satellite
broadband and satellite TV are impossible too.

I suppose I should count myself lucky that I've got electricity, water and
telephone services ;-(

"Martin Underwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) s.com...
>

To be honest Martin I have a good friend in the same boat as you, he lives
in a village, in between 2 towns enabled for Broadband.
I think the whole BT Pre-Reg is a sham, www.demandbroadband.com is another
sham (EEDA), and these people are allowed to get away with it, thats the
frightening thing...

"Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
"Comcast and Adelphia Communications, two of the largest cable
operators is the US have announced that instead of reducing prices of
their cable broadband services, they will instead increase the
service. Both companies will increase their 1.5Mbps services by 100%
to 3Mbps, whilst retaining the existing $43 (£25.90) per month
charge."

More information @ http://snurl.com/2k4o

Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
reduction in prices ?

--------------------------

More speed esp upload which I think is very poor in general in the UK

"Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:56:28 +0100, "BitsAndBobs2003"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>
>> Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
>> bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
>> reduction in prices ?
>
>For the equiv of £25.00 a month it would have to be the Increased Bandwidth
>for me..

Hi Martyn (?)

There's certainly arguments on both sides - and valid ones too. If
there any is chance of this behavoir occuring in the UK, I think it
would come down to the ISPs subscribers core usage.

Some ISPs have users who are prolific in their downloading of MP3's,
the latest movies and downloading [pirated] applications & gaming
titles. Some ISPs have a heavy bais of home workers using VPN
connections (BT Yahoo Broadband & NTL for example - are the main
choice for many UK companies to provide their employees with a
broadband connection).

The difference in ISPs main traffic would drive any decision I feel -
opting for a reduction in price for companies such as BTYahoo, NTL
etc, whilst 'consumer choice' ISPs (like Nildram, Pipex, Bullgod et al
would probably offer an increase in service as opposed to a decrease
in price.

Me ? I'm on the fence at the moment. Whlist my main usage for
Home500 connection I have at present is web browsing - with around 5
days of a month working from home (transferring large - sometimes
'00's of MB ), I dont think I could justify the increase in speed (up
or down). Until such time that more of my associates, friends &
family get on the broadband wagon, transferring huge files is
something that is limited a small reach of recipients. Yes - I think
I'm on the 'price reduction' scheme.
--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

----------------------------------

Though the simple answer is simple a two or three tier system based on how
much traffic you need and the type of traffic this would mean that those who
use a lot pay what they should be and those who dont use much dont sub the
others but at the moment this is not the case and I think it will be a long
way off, I for one am a heavy user and would love to have a leased line but
the prices they ask are out of by pocket range by a factor of 10x but I
think sooner or later things will sort out

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:34:35 GMT, "NAZGUL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Andy Jenkins" <andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>"Comcast and Adelphia Communications, two of the largest cable
>operators is the US have announced that instead of reducing prices of
>their cable broadband services, they will instead increase the
>service. Both companies will increase their 1.5Mbps services by 100%
>to 3Mbps, whilst retaining the existing $43 (£25.90) per month
>charge."
>
>More information @ http://snurl.com/2k4o
>
>Whats the opinion of the group here ? Which is preferred? Increased
>bandwidth availability for the same monthly subscription ? Or a
>reduction in prices ?
>
>--------------------------
>
>More speed esp upload which I think is very poor in general in the UK
>

Poor - or expected considering the length of time that the UK has had
broadband connections for the home market ?

I can't quote anything - but I dont think that the US had anythink
more than our eqivilent 512 connections for about 2 years iirc after
the first BB connections were being installed.

--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net