Why are we being forced to pay for a service the ISP's can't provide?

mattyprice4004

si1verf0x wrote: »

Years ago, all of the ISP's had different tiered for the download speed you could achieve. But not any more.
That's because it was a new 'market' and some only wanted to view emails, whereas some users wanted the latest features such as downloading music etc. They capitalised on this, however these days the focus has shifted onto charging for download allowance rather than speed - it's just a change in how the market works. In my case, the ISP will be making around 70% profit on my monthly bill. That's a massive profit margin.
No they won't, as explained to you previously the wholesale cost is the same to the ISP whether you get 0.5 or 24Mbps. That doesn't change.

Hope this helps!

littleboo

si1verf0x wrote: »

That's what is annoy me. Years ago, all of the ISP's had different tiered for the download speed you could achieve. But not any more. They are all now a greedy bunch & they only want our hard earned money & give us next to nothing in return. In my case, the ISP will be making around 70% profit on my monthly bill. That's a massive profit margin.

Please do share the maths

littleboo

si1verf0x wrote: »

I'm guessing virgin will require some kind of proof ie student card etc.

When I asked sky the other day "do you do 12month fibre contracts?" They said that "they only do 18month fibre contracts". I think I'll give them another calls to see if they do, do a 12month contract.

Yeah I did mean hence…it was my fat fingers trying to type on my phone lol

I don't think they do require any proof. However, they are only available around September time to coincide with the start of the university year.

VisionMan

si1verfOx -

Your personal circumstances are not the ISPs fault. I understand your complaint but the line speeds available over ADSL are simply down to pure physics.

forgotmyname

Sam knows says your between 2 and 4 miles from the exchange as the crow flies. Actual cable length can be triple that.

But fibre is available in that area. So you can get upto 65mb. Simple solution get fibre.

kwikbreaks

From observation the OP is not amenable to any explanations and simply persists with his delusion that the ISP somehow profits from the inability of his phone line to deliver the same speeds as short lines.

What I want to know is why I have to pay as much for my short phone line as he does for his long one - surely I should only be paying half as much!!!

forgotmyname

When BB 1st started rolling out mine was going to be paid for by someone else so win/win for me. But BT took longer than expected to upgrade the lines.

When they did it turned out that i was too far away from the exchange to actually get it. Limit of something like 1 mile back then?
As the crow flies i was just on the border but i found a BT engineer test number and dialled it. My cable length was actually just short of 2 miles.

I must be a similar distance from the exchange as the OP. Figures suggested 3mb was my limit. I did get a touch over 4mb when i switched to O2. But that was it.
I now have Plusnet fibre at 73mb. Estimated 68.

I agree you should pay less for your shorter line, But then a surcharge because you get your calls faster

I got a faster connection and pay a lot more. Damn..