Rural living, Changing broadband provider?

spyhunter

Knackered_girl wrote: »

Just been on the website you suggested and it states I can get
BT Wholesale ADSL
BT Wholesale ADSL Max

Unfortunately I have no idea what this means! Then clicked on if I’m confused (yes definitely) and says bt, virgin, talktalk and sky plus a few others I’ve never heard of should be available! I can’t understand sky being on there as I checked earlier on their website and they won’t supply the address.

Have you spoken to BT about a better deal. ? Call 0800800030. Say your leaving for 5 pound broadband. Doesn't matter if not available to you. They don't check.

iniltous

Knackered_girl wrote: »

Just been on the website you suggested and it states I can get
BT Wholesale ADSL
BT Wholesale ADSL Max

Unfortunately I have no idea what this means! Then clicked on if I!!!8217;m confused (yes definitely) and says bt, virgin, talktalk and sky plus a few others I!!!8217;ve never heard of should be available! I can!!!8217;t understand sky being on there as I checked earlier on their website and they won!!!8217;t supply the address.

Sky don't have to offer you service , even if you are in an exchange area where they do offer service to others...it's been the case for a while that they refuse service to people if the predicted line speed is 'low' (below a figure they set themselves)
ISP's now have to advertise the speed they offer based on what an average customer of theirs gets , if Sky accepted people who will 'only' get 2Mb, it will damage their 'average', so to keep the average above (for arguments sake) 10Mb,(so they can use 10Mb in their adverts) they are only looking for customers who will get closer to that figure than you

onomatopoeia99

Knackered_girl wrote: »

Here’s the link

https://availability.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NIFCT

OK, so there are no LLU networks at your exchange. This means you're restricted to providers that use BT wholesale services for their backhaul.

Apart from BT Internet themselves, the biggest is probably Plusnet, so it would be worth seeing what they do. The ISP I use (A&A) offer BT wholesale backhaul as an option, but they are expensive so won't be of interest.

macman

As above, Plusnet is the obvious non-LLU alternative. Same cables, same engineers, but cheaper and better CS.
PN are not perfect, but certainly better than BT.

[Deleted User]

iniltous wrote: »

...if Sky accepted people who will 'only' get 2Mb, it will damage their 'average', so to keep the average above (for arguments sake) 10Mb,(so they can use 10Mb in their adverts) they are only looking for customers who will get closer to that figure than you

Sky were doing this for quite a while before the average speed was required but unless you think that they (and only they) were thinking well ahead then I think the more plausible reason is that people at the far end of cable runs have more problems than people nearer, not to mention that someone on 2Mbps is going to be much more unhappier and more liable to complain at the drop of a hat than someone on a half decent speed at the same price.

boatman

You may find Plusnet actually charge extra, as you are almost certainly not in a 'low cost area'.

iniltous

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Sky were doing this for quite a while before the average speed was required but unless you think that they (and only they) were thinking well ahead then I think the more plausible reason is that people at the far end of cable runs have more problems than people nearer, not to mention that someone on 2Mbps is going to be much more unhappier and more liable to complain at the drop of a hat than someone on a half decent speed at the same price.

The move to advertising average speed wasn't something that appeared out of the blue, it was publically known about well in advance of its implementation, and the industry probably would have had even greater notice than the public.
I agree that someone on a poor broadband speed is more likely to be unhappy , compared to someone on a fast speed, and Sky don't want unhappy customers ( what company would ) , then why not have this policy (no slow customers) from the very start , rather than introduced just before the mandated 'average' speed to be used in advertising...some people would see Sky advert , average speed 10Mb , and a BT advert , 'average speed 6Mb' , and would go for Sky , even though the actual speed would be that same with BT or Sky , and has nothing to do with so called average speed, again it was widely discussed, that some ISP's would ditch slow customers , or not sign them up , to get a better average from their remaining customers, thus attracting more customers by having a good average.
AFAIK, Sky are the only company, so far, that have adopted this policy (you don't deny they don't take new slow customers ) but there may be others, I don't even think Sky make excuses about it ( you seem to be defending something they don't bother to defend themselves ) it's not 'bad' or immoral, it's a perfectly understandable approach for them to take.

As for as longer slower lines more fault prone, possibly true, but Sky are not 'slow' to blame their supplier (OR) and should a Sky customer have a line related problem,you know how the story goes , you see many posts , all along the lines of 'my internet is rubbish, Sky are wonderful, it's that awful Openreach' or more usually , 'that awful BT that are to blame' so Sky rarely get the blame anyway.
I doubt thats the reason Sky don't sign up new slow customer.

Knackered_girl

Thanks for everyone replying to my query. I can see that big companies don’t want to take areas on if it’s going to affect their stats. What I need is for the infrastructure to be changed here. Some rural areas around here have got fibre but I have been told by open reach engineers there’s no plans to do so here. This is so frustrating as I’m paying more than fibre customers nearby. I want value for money which I don’t feel I get. Yes i can only get a slow speed so therefore I should pay less!

I will contact bt to see if they can look at reducing the cost although I’ve done this before and they only knocked a couple of pounds off. I will also contact plusnet and see what offer they can give me.

Thanks again for your all your help. You’ve answered a lot of questions I had that I needed answering and knew the company’s would just tell me anything just to get me signed up.

iniltous

Knackered_girl wrote: »

Thanks for everyone replying to my query. I can see that big companies don!!!8217;t want to take areas on if it!!!8217;s going to affect their stats. What I need is for the infrastructure to be changed here. Some rural areas around here have got fibre but I have been told by open reach engineers there!!!8217;s no plans to do so here. This is so frustrating as I!!!8217;m paying more than fibre customers nearby. I want value for money which I don!!!8217;t feel I get. Yes i can only get a slow speed so therefore I should pay less!

I will contact bt to see if they can look at reducing the cost although I!!!8217;ve done this before and they only knocked a couple of pounds off. I will also contact plusnet and see what offer they can give me.

Thanks again for your all your help. You!!!8217;ve answered a lot of questions I had that I needed answering and knew the company!!!8217;s would just tell me anything just to get me signed up.

Although I can see why someone with poor speed would think they should get cheaper rather than more expensive service, but if you are with BT you pay the price they publish , you may not get a deal that some other BT customers get , if those customers can threaten to leave BT for someone else, but although you may not have the choice of Sky or Talk Talk , there are dozens of others to chose from if you don't like BT.
if Sky and Talk Talk don't offer service, that's down to them, not BT.

Just playing devils advocate, an alternative way of looking at price, if you are on a long phone line , then your line 'consumes' more resources than short lines , more valuable copper in the line, more electricity to make it work, costs more to maintain it, because there is more to go wrong, so arguably you should pay more not less for the long line.
It's a bit like arguing 'I should pay less for a long train journey than a short train journey, because I 'waste' more time sitting on the train on a long journey than a short one, and my time is valuable' at least with OR phone lines, they all cost the same in wholesale rental terms regardless of how long or short they are , and in someways long line owners get subsidised not penalised by short line owners because if OR were allowed to just get get rid of long lines, they could provide short lines cheaper having got rid of the expense of the long ones

AndyPK

Do you work in sales ?:rotfl: