Rural living, Changing broadband provider?

Knackered_girl

I understand what your saying however I know rural people that are approx same distance as me from exchange, however they’ve had fibre for over a year now and they pay half what I pay. That’s what I don’t believe is fair.

[Deleted User]

Knackered_girl wrote: »

I understand what your saying however I know rural people that are approx same distance as me from exchange, however they’ve had fibre for over a year now and they pay half what I pay. That’s what I don’t believe is fair.

Fair doesn't really come in to it I'm afraid, it is what it is at the moment for yourself.

There may be something useful for yourself here: https://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/ask-our-expert/rural-broadband

[Deleted User]

iniltous wrote: »

...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...

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.

I can't say I've ever seen anyone advertise figures like that, from all of my searches every single company advertises ADSL as either 10 or 11Mbps average rather than "up to 17Mbps" which makes the new rules fairly useless to my eye. So there's no advantage whatsoever for Sky to do this in regards to advertising "average speeds".

As for "defending Sky" I'm merely putting forward a different perspective which seems more logical to myself. The other way of looking at it seems more paranoid about "big companies" being sneaky.

iniltous

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

I can't say I've ever seen anyone advertise figures like that, from all of my searches every single company advertises ADSL as either 10 or 11Mbps average rather than "up to 17Mbps" which makes the new rules fairly useless to my eye. So there's no advantage whatsoever for Sky to do this in regards to advertising "average speeds".

As for "defending Sky" I'm merely putting forward a different perspective which seems more logical to myself. The other way of looking at it seems more paranoid about "big companies" being sneaky.

I'm surprised you say you have never seen anyone advertise average figures like that, then post 'average' figures ....I'm not saying Sky's average is 10Mb, I've no idea (or interest) what the actual figure is they use, i'm sure it is accurate , but it's self evident, if you only supply faster customers , and say 'No' to potential slower customers your average will look better than a rival company that accepts slow and faster customers, that competitor company's slow customers will dilute the average speed they have to use in adverts...and Sky not having slow customers don't have the same dilution , benefitting the average speed Sky can publish, thus potentially getting more new customers that don't understand 'averages',
Some will think Sky are faster and ask them to provide service and will be rejected as they will be below Sky's acceptable speed figure ( a figure that doesn't impact thier 'average') but it's a nice position to be in, picking and choosing who you supply and who you don't.

Over time, IMHO someone may look at say a Sky advert which may say average 10Mb, and a BT advert that may say average 7Mb (or whatever) and conclude that Sky will be a faster provider than BT at their individual address, and it just won't be true, they would both provide roughly the same speed at that address , the Sky national average speed is pointless on an individual address basis, as is every other ISP's national average , when gauging what speed an address will get, but Sky's policy of no slow customers does make the most of the format adverts have to take...and as I said , I'm not making a judgement on them for that, just pointing out why some will ask Sky for service and be told 'No Sky broadband for you'

JohnS75

Have you heard of the Three mobile broadband service?
I use it in the caravan - and it travels well.
It's on 4G, and will default to 3G when we're out in remote areas. Speed advertised at up to 150, depending on where you are, of course.


Where there is a reasonable mobile signal, you will get mobile broadband.


We've now cancelled BT altogether, and gone for a Three mobile broadband Router.
Our contract is for 20Gb per month at £25.00p. on a year's contract.
Wherever we go, we take the router with us.

I am not connected with Three in any way.

[Deleted User]

iniltous wrote: »

I'm surprised you say you have never seen anyone advertise average figures like that, then post 'average' figures ....



Over time, IMHO someone may look at say a Sky advert which may say average 10Mb, and a BT advert that may say average 7Mb (or whatever) and conclude that Sky will be a faster provider than BT at their individual address, and it just won't be true, they would both provide roughly the same speed at that address , the Sky national average speed is pointless on an individual address basis, as is every other ISP's national average

I'm not even sure what your point is with the first part above unless you're deliberately misunderstanding.


And again you're just making figures up, first it was 6Mbps for BT and now it's 7Mbps. BT advertise 10Mbps as do Plusnet, Sky and Talktalk use 11Mbps, no one is using those figures to choose one over the other. Are you claiming that they'll change in the future? Maybe, maybe not, I don't have access to your crystal ball.

iniltous

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

I'm not even sure what your point is with the first part above unless you're deliberately misunderstanding.


And again you're just making figures up, first it was 6Mbps for BT and now it's 7Mbps. BT advertise 10Mbps as do Plusnet, Sky and Talktalk use 11Mbps, no one is using those figures to choose one over the other. Are you claiming that they'll change in the future? Maybe, maybe not, I don't have access to your crystal ball.

I have never claimed that the figures were actual Sky figures , as it doesn't matter what the actual figure is...Do you dispute that Sky don't accept customers that will not get a minimum speed that they set themselves , no you don't.
Will that refusal to service slower customers benefit them , in that it will improve their average speed and they can use that in adverts ? If you don't think it does, then I would let others decide who is correct

The reasons you give for Sky refusing to provide service to customers that will fail to reach their minimum speed figure are in my opinion frankly laughable, and what if every other ISP followed Sky's example and refused to supply slow customers, they may moan about having slow broadband , but would moan even more if they couldn't get broadband at all.

Using your actual figures, if BT advert average is 10Mb, and Sky advert average is 11Mb , why don't think some would chose Sky over BT for being that 1Mb faster on average ?, yet that customer wouldn't get faster speed on their line from Sky, they would get same speed from Sky or BT, and if some couldn't understand the 'upto' speeds in adverts, why wouldn't the same people not understand the 'company average' has nothing to do with the speed they will get

Over time as Sky only take 'faster' customers and refuse to provide slower customers that 1Mb gap may get bigger and potentially becomes more of a factor in choosing an ISP especially by those who don't understand that the average quoted has nothing to do with the speed they will get on their individual line...

I really cannot see why you have a problem with this ( it's pretty simple maths ) the only thing you could dispute is the reason why Sky refuse slow customers, I contend it's to give them an advantage when it comes to how they advertise their service ( it does) you claim it's Sky being altruistic when saying 'No' to customers who want to take Sky broadband , that refusal based on nothing more than the fact that they will not reach a speed figure Sky set themselves

Lar46

Hi , new to this forum so if I make mistakes no flames please. I am in a similar situation to 'knackered g..' Broadband speed barely brakes 2Mbs . Live appx 2 miles from cabinet which provides upwards of 10 Mbs but no plans to provide fibre. Have contacted my service provider ( Talk Talk ) regarding dire speed , who were excellent at doing their best to improve speed. I take exception with ' Iniltous' last post regarding length of cable / maintenance costs therefore you should pay more. Stuff and rubbish , most copper lines have been in place for a long number of years , therefore cost should come down as initial investment has been paid for numerous times . What if comes down to is the old numbers game , keep the majority in the cities provided and stuff the rest.
Why given that there are so many customers without a decent broadband speed are all the major providers shouting about mega fast broadband for some cities , ploughing many millions into projects with unbelievable speeds , when the money could be better spent giving better speed to more people. In my view there is no such thing as a free lunch , yes we have to pay , but why do the few with poor speed have to subsidise the many with superb speed . Go figure.

JJ_Egan

In what way are you subsidising my slightly better speed ??
Problem is often old rotten cables that where laid for phone use then BB comes along .


Hope you are in touch with your MP and other organisation regarding this problem .

iniltous

Lar46 wrote: »

Hi , new to this forum so if I make mistakes no flames please. I am in a similar situation to 'knackered g..' Broadband speed barely brakes 2Mbs . Live appx 2 miles from cabinet which provides upwards of 10 Mbs but no plans to provide fibre. Have contacted my service provider ( Talk Talk ) regarding dire speed , who were excellent at doing their best to improve speed. I take exception with ' Iniltous' last post regarding length of cable / maintenance costs therefore you should pay more. Stuff and rubbish , most copper lines have been in place for a long number of years , therefore cost should come down as initial investment has been paid for numerous times . What if comes down to is the old numbers game , keep the majority in the cities provided and stuff the rest.
Why given that there are so many customers without a decent broadband speed are all the major providers shouting about mega fast broadband for some cities , ploughing many millions into projects with unbelievable speeds , when the money could be better spent giving better speed to more people. In my view there is no such thing as a free lunch , yes we have to pay , but why do the few with poor speed have to subsidise the many with superb speed . Go figure.

Perhaps you missed the 'just playing devils advocate' , I never suggested that longer lines should pay more, I pointed out that longer lines cost more to provide and maintain , that is an indisputable fact, and usually things that cost a company more to provide and maintain are usually more expensive to purchase.
As far as old lines have already been paid for , if you rent a property , and you paid rent for that long that the amount paid in rent over the years exceeds the purchase price of the property when you moved in, the landlord doesn't say 'you can now live here rent free because your rent has paid for the house' do they ?

BT's shareholders own the lines , and are justified in expecting a return on their asset, which is about £9.21 per month including VAT , per line rented, so given you don't use BT as your provider, TT hand over around 30p a day for your line to OR, do you think 30p is too much ?,
As far as 'rural' customers being ignored, OR FTTP is as, if not more likely, to be available in rural locations than urban ones, and FTTC is rate adaptive, so if your home is a long way from the cabinet, you will be slower than someone closer to the fibre cabinet, that's not them being vindictive, it's physics.
If you were a business , ( and BT/OR are businesses not charity's) and could cover 1000 homes for £1 million in an urban area or 200 homes in a rural area for the same £1 million, where would your shareholders expect you to invest that £1 million ?