Fairer broadband prices for existing customers

RogerBareford

onomatopoeia99 said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

You are conflating different things, which you well know.

Sales are allowed as anyone can buy at the sale price without having to haggle like they're in a medieval market.  What people are arguing for is transparency in pricing, so if there's a sale, the sale price is published and offered to everyone.

The problem is companies discriminating against some disabled people by requiring "haggling" on the telephone to get the best price.  Not helped by people on forums like this that encourage this discrimination, such as the post I have quoted above.

On my Nectar app i have "My Nectar Prices" which are prices that are offered just to me on certain items that i buy. These sale prices aren't published and only offered to a small selection of customers who have the app and have a particular shopping pattern.

I also sometimes get vouchers by email for many places which are only offered to people who sign up to the mailing list and sometimes i get a voucher because i have gone to a website and abandoned the basket.

These are examples of sale prices that only certain people can get just like only certain people can get the deals on broadband.

So do you think that all such things should be banned aswell?

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

Because connectivity is a commodity nowadays. Otherwise, with your logic, lets extend that to everything, health, taxes, electricity, water, security etc. 
Why is car and home insurance more important to be regulated than connectivity? Do people need cars more?

That's why i also disagree with how insurance companies have to offer everyone the same price. 

Basically what your saying is that "I can't haggle so no one should be allowed to haggle to get a cheaper price".

Just because someone can't do something the solution isn't to stop everyone from doing it!.

If you proposed a solution that would enabled anyone who wants to haggle to do it then i would agree but effectively banning people from getting a lower price for something is just ridiulous.

agentcain

RogerBareford said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

You are conflating different things, which you well know.

Sales are allowed as anyone can buy at the sale price without having to haggle like they're in a medieval market.  What people are arguing for is transparency in pricing, so if there's a sale, the sale price is published and offered to everyone.

The problem is companies discriminating against some disabled people by requiring "haggling" on the telephone to get the best price.  Not helped by people on forums like this that encourage this discrimination, such as the post I have quoted above.

On my Nectar app i have "My Nectar Prices" which are prices that are offered just to me on certain items that i buy. These sale prices aren't published and only offered to a small selection of customers who have the app and have a particular shopping pattern.

I also sometimes get vouchers by email for many places which are only offered to people who sign up to the mailing list and sometimes i get a voucher because i have gone to a website and abandoned the basket.

These are examples of sale prices that only certain people can get just like only certain people can get the deals on broadband.

So do you think that all such things should be banned aswell?

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

Because connectivity is a commodity nowadays. Otherwise, with your logic, lets extend that to everything, health, taxes, electricity, water, security etc. 
Why is car and home insurance more important to be regulated than connectivity? Do people need cars more?

That's why i also disagree with how insurance companies have to offer everyone the same price. 

Basically what your saying is that "I can't haggle so no one should be allowed to haggle to get a cheaper price".

Just because someone can't do something the solution isn't to stop everyone from doing it!.

If you proposed a solution that would enabled anyone who wants to haggle to do it then i would agree but effectively banning people from getting a lower price for something is just ridiulous.

You're looking at it from a wrong angle; the "me" angle. "What do I get? Why should I pay? Why can't I benefit?" So long for the "we're all in this together" joke.

As I said, why not extend this to everything that is essential for living? And yes, I consider connectivity as essential as water, energy and health, especially when many needs are met through it one way or another.

It'd not about who's allowed to do something. You can still benefit from lower prices, just not at the disadvantage of others. I dont see any one discussing how the companies dropped their prices by dropping their expenses.

Here's a solution
Everyone gets offered the same package as a new customer. If you want to haggle by taking in a longer contract or some weird bundling with SIMs or TV packages that isn't advertised anywhere, it's up to you to propose it to the company. Fair?

RogerBareford

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

You are conflating different things, which you well know.

Sales are allowed as anyone can buy at the sale price without having to haggle like they're in a medieval market.  What people are arguing for is transparency in pricing, so if there's a sale, the sale price is published and offered to everyone.

The problem is companies discriminating against some disabled people by requiring "haggling" on the telephone to get the best price.  Not helped by people on forums like this that encourage this discrimination, such as the post I have quoted above.

On my Nectar app i have "My Nectar Prices" which are prices that are offered just to me on certain items that i buy. These sale prices aren't published and only offered to a small selection of customers who have the app and have a particular shopping pattern.

I also sometimes get vouchers by email for many places which are only offered to people who sign up to the mailing list and sometimes i get a voucher because i have gone to a website and abandoned the basket.

These are examples of sale prices that only certain people can get just like only certain people can get the deals on broadband.

So do you think that all such things should be banned aswell?

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

Because connectivity is a commodity nowadays. Otherwise, with your logic, lets extend that to everything, health, taxes, electricity, water, security etc. 
Why is car and home insurance more important to be regulated than connectivity? Do people need cars more?

That's why i also disagree with how insurance companies have to offer everyone the same price. 

Basically what your saying is that "I can't haggle so no one should be allowed to haggle to get a cheaper price".

Just because someone can't do something the solution isn't to stop everyone from doing it!.

If you proposed a solution that would enabled anyone who wants to haggle to do it then i would agree but effectively banning people from getting a lower price for something is just ridiulous.

You're looking at it from a wrong angle; the "me" angle. "What do I get? Why should I pay? Why can't I benefit?" So long for the "we're all in this together" joke.

As I said, why not extend this to everything that is essential for living? And yes, I consider connectivity as essential as water, energy and health, especially when many needs are met through it one way or another.

It'd not about who's allowed to do something. You can still benefit from lower prices, just not at the disadvantage of others. I dont see any one discussing how the companies dropped their prices by dropping their expenses.

Here's a solution
Everyone gets offered the same package as a new customer. If you want to haggle by taking in a longer contract or some weird bundling with SIMs or TV packages that isn't advertised anywhere, it's up to you to propose it to the company. Fair?

But what your suggest is basically no different than what happens now... BT are currently offering the package i am on to new customers for £29.99 a month and i have it for £19.99 a month because i haggled when it came up for renewal. So in your system i would say to BT your offering £29.99 for a 24 month contract and i would say i want it at £19.99 a month for a 25 month contract and i won't switch away.

That conforms with your solution but i thought that was what you were arguing against?

 

Chino

agentcain said:

Here's a solution
Everyone gets offered the same package as a new customer. If you want to haggle by taking in a longer contract or some weird bundling with SIMs or TV packages that isn't advertised anywhere, it's up to you to propose it to the company. Fair?

No.
Companies should be free to offer what prices they choose to which customers they choose. Equally, customers should be free to shop around.

agentcain

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

You are conflating different things, which you well know.

Sales are allowed as anyone can buy at the sale price without having to haggle like they're in a medieval market.  What people are arguing for is transparency in pricing, so if there's a sale, the sale price is published and offered to everyone.

The problem is companies discriminating against some disabled people by requiring "haggling" on the telephone to get the best price.  Not helped by people on forums like this that encourage this discrimination, such as the post I have quoted above.

On my Nectar app i have "My Nectar Prices" which are prices that are offered just to me on certain items that i buy. These sale prices aren't published and only offered to a small selection of customers who have the app and have a particular shopping pattern.

I also sometimes get vouchers by email for many places which are only offered to people who sign up to the mailing list and sometimes i get a voucher because i have gone to a website and abandoned the basket.

These are examples of sale prices that only certain people can get just like only certain people can get the deals on broadband.

So do you think that all such things should be banned aswell?

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

RogerBareford said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

The op is right. These marketing tricks and incentives should stop. Existing customers should be charged the same as new ones. These are fundamental expenses that we shouldn't have to negotiate around. 

I'm with BT and they charge me far less than what they do a new customer and all it took was one phone call. It's not difficult at all do i don't see why everyone should be charged more just because people are too lazy to shop around for a good deal or call up.

Not all deals are available everywhere. And some people suffer from social anxiety, including making phone calls. Providers like VM make sure to only consider phone calls, as emails are too hard for them. Not to mention those who don't speak English fluently or simply are not in the habit of haggling for necessary services, especially when that requires waiting in queue to reach VMs retention centrw. Let's just strike them out as lazy. 

I saw how much the energy sector's gift incentives didn't affect prices. Those 50£ to join us referral links are a great idea.

I take it you're also against the recent law on insurances? 

I don't see why a company shouldn't be allowed to offer variable pricing to attract customers.

Using your logic then sales in shops and vouchers shouldn't be allowed and all products must be sold at the same price by all stores?

My Sainbury's nectar app and others offer me personalised discounts on certain products but not to other people, should this all be banned?

Because connectivity is a commodity nowadays. Otherwise, with your logic, lets extend that to everything, health, taxes, electricity, water, security etc. 
Why is car and home insurance more important to be regulated than connectivity? Do people need cars more?

That's why i also disagree with how insurance companies have to offer everyone the same price. 

Basically what your saying is that "I can't haggle so no one should be allowed to haggle to get a cheaper price".

Just because someone can't do something the solution isn't to stop everyone from doing it!.

If you proposed a solution that would enabled anyone who wants to haggle to do it then i would agree but effectively banning people from getting a lower price for something is just ridiulous.

You're looking at it from a wrong angle; the "me" angle. "What do I get? Why should I pay? Why can't I benefit?" So long for the "we're all in this together" joke.

As I said, why not extend this to everything that is essential for living? And yes, I consider connectivity as essential as water, energy and health, especially when many needs are met through it one way or another.

It'd not about who's allowed to do something. You can still benefit from lower prices, just not at the disadvantage of others. I dont see any one discussing how the companies dropped their prices by dropping their expenses.

Here's a solution
Everyone gets offered the same package as a new customer. If you want to haggle by taking in a longer contract or some weird bundling with SIMs or TV packages that isn't advertised anywhere, it's up to you to propose it to the company. Fair?

But what your suggest is basically no different than what happens now... BT are currently offering the package i am on to new customers for £29.99 a month and i have it for £19.99 a month because i haggled when it came up for renewal. So in your system i would say to BT your offering £29.99 for a 24 month contract and i would say i want it at £19.99 a month for a 25 month contract and i won't switch away.

That conforms with your solution but i thought that was what you were arguing against?

 

It is different
Lots of providers put you on an expensive rolling contract and you then have to call them and haggle. They make you believe that you grabbed a deal when in reality should you were a new customer you would have that by default, without even touching the phone. VM comes to mind, with tricks like cancelling and setting a new contract under your partner's name.
I'm suggesting that any bundle available to new customers should be one click away available to existing ones.
Totally different.

agentcain

Chino said:

agentcain said:

Here's a solution
Everyone gets offered the same package as a new customer. If you want to haggle by taking in a longer contract or some weird bundling with SIMs or TV packages that isn't advertised anywhere, it's up to you to propose it to the company. Fair?

No.
Companies should be free to offer what prices they choose to which customers they choose. Equally, customers should be free to shop around.

But it is

Both can happen to an extent but companies favouring customers at the expense of others is a dystopian society we really want to move away from. And I think we can see who's stopping us. You sure you're not on "money saving expert at the expense of others"?

Neil_Jones

agentcain said:

It is different
Lots of providers put you on an expensive rolling contract and you then have to call them and haggle. They make you believe that you grabbed a deal when in reality should you were a new customer you would have that by default, without even touching the phone. VM comes to mind, with tricks like cancelling and setting a new contract under your partner's name.
I'm suggesting that any bundle available to new customers should be one click away available to existing ones.
Totally different.

The crux of the matter here if people are too idle to get themselves off the expensive rolling contracts then that's their problem.  If they want to overpay, that's their problem.  We've seen it before where millions of people are stuck on standard energy tariffs because they can't be bothered to move/shop around and (prior to 2021) paid over the odds.  The regulator and every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry has done all kinds of thins to get people off these tariffs (including the whole "move to the cheapest tariff automatically" thing) and all that happens is people insist on staying on expensive tariffs for one reason or another.  They're happy to pay a fortune.

There is nothing to suggest that forcing customers onto cheap tariffs in broadband will make any difference because all that will happen is they will roll onto another tariff at the end of a fix.  To get the cheap deals requires opting in and you cannot be opted into a new deal at a cheap for x months unless you specifically agree to it.  And that is why rolling over tariffs exist because of apathy.

And you can get better deals than new customers anyway if you're jammy enough.

HaroldWren5

agentcain said:

Marvel1 said:

agentcain said:

So you're all up for making our life more miserable and less easy eh?

Compare new supplier, complete details- done.  How is it hard?

Much less than time looking and completing details for a new insurance provider.

And what about those who don't have the luxury of another provider at comparable speeds? Too bad for them I guess.

I concur. Frankly it is appalling that an ISP doesn't treat an existing customer with the decency to at least not increase the price after the contract is up. Worse is how they raise the price during the contract. I am pretty sure that if 5 customers ran their own small businesses with contracts to supply each other and their own customers with products/services, they would be frowned upon for raising prices during the contract despite committing to a price at the start. 

HaroldWren5

flaneurs_lobster said:

A recent (yesterday) example. My car breakdown insurance is due for renwal in two weeks, I rang my insurers to ask what the cost of renewal was. Told £100.80. Said "Thats a lot, any discounts available"?. Tap, tap..."£67.20". 

That policy would have auto-renewed at the higher price had I not asked. Until this ridiculous "haggling" (there wasn't any in this case) is abolished either by legislation or custom I and others, who are willing and able, have to go this ridiculous process at each renewal.

Just offer me the final, best, lowest price at the onset. This is supposed to be a mature regulated marketplace not a medieval souk. 

I agree, that's the thing. Sometimes the difference is staggering. For car insurance it can be £100+ which is insulting. That means it was more a case of them hoping that they could openly help themselves to some more of your money. Just quote the best price and aim to beat your competitors from the start. At the very least the difference should not be so vast for auto renewal (e.g. that could be slightly more expensive than competitors). When it comes to a big gap between the price you get when you threaten to leave, that means they just weren't being honest. 

Furthermore, having prices increases in a contract seems absurd. Any other business operating in the country would not get the right to do that on a whim. A contract is a contract. That means if the price goes up, you pay the same. Similarly, if the price goes down, you still pay the same price (in that case higher). I doubt a customer could say "I will pay you £X a month minus the inflation rate minus a further 3.9% every March." 

RogerBareford said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

A recent (yesterday) example. My car breakdown insurance is due for renwal in two weeks, I rang my insurers to ask what the cost of renewal was. Told £100.80. Said "Thats a lot, any discounts available"?. Tap, tap..."£67.20". 

That policy would have auto-renewed at the higher price had I not asked. Until this ridiculous "haggling" (there wasn't any in this case) is abolished either by legislation or custom I and others, who are willing and able, have to go this ridiculous process at each renewal.

Just offer me the final, best, lowest price at the onset. This is supposed to be a mature regulated marketplace not a medieval souk. 

But that's the thing. If a company has to offer the same price to all customers it won't be the best and lowest price they offer it will be a higher price with a nice big profit margin for all customers instead.

If they know no companies are allowed to offer lower prices to attract new customers then all prices will go up.

Is that true though? Surely the emergence of other supermarkets like Lidl/Aldi have shown that if someone enters the marketplace and willing to take a lower margin, prices go down!

If the wholesale price by Openreach to Broadband ISPs goes down, why should customers be paying a cartel of ISPs increased prices over time? That isn't a genuine free market then. Since the existing players are raising prices. Though it does seem there a few new entrants offering fixed prices. But of course given their size, the Aldi effect hasn't happened to Broadband. YET. But one day, people like BT who wasted time squeezing the lemon with copper out of greed will end up losing customers on mass to anyone with the capital to pull off an Aldi. 

Obviously the analogy may not be exact, but you get the point. I'm not against negotiating for a better price. But it seems plain wrong if there is a wide gap between an existing customer's RENEWAL price and offers for new customers which are not available even at renewal for old customers. That just seems bad business as well. You don't gain many new friends by constantly losing old ones. 

Keruge

alan235 said:

Now that the law has been changed and insurance companies cannot charge deeply discounted prices to new customers, how about getting the same fairer treatment for Broadband customers?

 The major broadband companies like Virgin Media, Talk Talk and BT are all offering cheap deals to new customers that they state in their advertising are not available to existing clients.

 For example VM Big Bundle of broadband, TV and phone is currently £29.99/mth for 18 months and with a £75 bill credit.

I am an existing customer with VM with Big Bundle and paying £58/mth soon to be £62/mth from March 2022.

Surely the same rules should apply to broadband companies as now does to insurance companies?

 Depends on what you  call fair, the whole broadband market is dysfunctional.

We were regularly getting offers of £25 a year even one offer on MSE for £5.38 for the year including the router and delivery of same.

Then OFGEM and the CMA sold us out.

They allowed BT to buy EE, so BT now consisted of

BT
Plusnet
EE
BT Wholesale (or whatever name they are calling it)

After that the Companies seemed to get together and decide to no longer compete.

I don't know if BT Wholesale was given some ability to make their cost price not work or whether they we acting like OPEC but what I do know is prices went up and up and up.  In fact OFCOM even allowes them to stuff in an inflation increase into the contract.

We are talking about wires and routers that are in, they are installed, they do not suffer inflation.

It is not just OFCOM, all of the so called regulators work for the industries rather than the consumer. 

Energy companies get £14 BILLION for smart meters and they expect us to bail them out when the gas market goes teetes up, what about the shareholders who benefited in the good times, why should we bail them out. 

I say reset the gas and electricity prices to 2020 levels and dump the standing charge, if they go bust we can take control of the company when they go bust and float them again in the future.

So I am not very keen on your idea, what I want to see is BT Wholesale made into a separate non profit.

I want BT to spin off broadband from EE and Plusnet.

BT could still sell broadband and own the EE Mobile business, it can even go buy a TV company but the CMA needs to BREAK UP BT to restore competition to this market.

How many times did BT say they were going to invest in the network and yet it is still rubbish for the same "poor relations" in rural areas or those who live in built up areas.

All this nonsense of charging you to disconnect, charging you to connect, once a household is connected to their exchange that setup should be permanent.  The exchange should merely put them on the VLAN for their subscriber or put them in a disconnected VLAN until an occupant signed up again.  No engineer call out, no mess at the green box, just a software switch, a drag n drop in software.

Do you think that Barclays Bank or the NHS pull out all the wiring to a desk when an employee leaves, of course not.  Even the security conscious will simply disable the port in software.