Price Hike

[#1]

Charity has nothing to do with the simple will to improve a bad service. By the way, why should I pay even more for a service that doesn't live up to the most basic internet demands, like getting online each day

[#2]

Yep. 

[#3]

There is currently no obligation for anyone to be able to supply you with any kind of internet connection.

When the USO comes in then there would be, up to a certain cost.  There is nothing to say that Openreach would be providing the USO for broadband either.  If you can get a Satellite, 4G, Wifi (or whatever) connection for a "reasonable" price that is over 10Mb then that might very well meet to USO.

On your question of "why should I pay more", then the reverse could easily be asked by others, in that why should you pay less when the cost of providing that connection is more.

[#4]

Well no, but in this day and age there is an obligation to make it available yes?

One might just as well say there is no obligation to provide decent roads and moreover, roads without potholes! 

[#5]

Not at the moment there isn't.

To take your roads analogy, it would be like having a house with no roads to it.  There wouldn't be an obligation for anyone to build a new road to that house (unless it was stipulated in the planning permission, but then it would be up to you to build that road.).  Likewise with you having to build that road, you could get the fastest internet connection developed, but that would be up to you to commission and pay for, which is where leased lines and such like come in to play.

[#6]

So why are the likes of BT having their arms twisted? 

Sorry,  but I see no purchase in siding with either the failure or the obligation to provide where there is a reasonable expectation to do so.

Reasonable internet, reasonable roads. Makes sense to me.

[#7]

I'm not sure what you mean about BT having their arms twisted.

Weather it make sense or not it still needs to be paid for.  A business isn't going to pay for it if they aren't going to see a return on their investment.  The government has put quite an amount of money in it (which ultimately we are paying for through taxes and cut backs to other services), and there are still a good number of properties that have no or poor internet access.

As I've said above though, there are other means to getting a decent speed not via a BT line.

When the USO eventually comes in that may not be down to BT to provide either.  Even then there will still be a cap on the amount to provide the install before the person requesting it would have to pay towards it.

[#8]

I thought the government via Ofcom were putting pressure on BT, and if they are not then the market under the guise of Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk most certainly will.

But I agree, and as it said in the Financial Times recently, making money from network building is not easy. Digging ditches and laying fibre is hard, costly work, with even the most optimistic forecasts generally suggesting a return only after five years. BT says its return on fibre will take up to 15 years.

So there you go, or not. 

[#9]

Yes exactly.  It will take then 15 years for a return on fibre.  If they are then to start deploying to areas where the costs are double or triple (or even more) to deploy, or that fibre is only going to provide service to a small number of properties then the time for that return on investment would be much longer for those.

With an kind of capital project there are risks about if and when you will get that capital back.  Any kind of business must balance those risks and not be too reckless.  Those reckless risks are what got so many banks in trouble a few years ago.  If it is 15 years for BT to get their returns then that will have been well calculated, along with the risks and has been something they are prepared to go with.

[#10]

All I want is a reasonable speed for the money I already pay which is over £30 per month for less than 3mbps and a very uncertain service at best. A consistent 3mbps would be really good. 

Since most "things happen via the net or phone" these days, I do not think it an unreasonable request .

I would happily pay more for an improved service that enabled me to actually use the internet more fully. I find the usual banal arguments irritating and typically 'political'. 

[#11]

@murox2017

Did you say you were using a satellite dish to get your internet?

[#12]

I have the possibility of getting one from a private 'local' company.

[#13]

Ah right.

Expensive though, although in some cases there was a subsidy available if for example you lived in an area where BT were unwilling or unable to provide you with a conventional internet connection.

Fitted a few in France and they worked really well, although if you wanted a fast upload speed......  

https://www.satelliteinternet.co.uk/government-subsidy-schemes

[#14]

There are similarities to be drawn here with mains gas and sewers ... in some areas it is not viable and alternatives have to be used with their associated attendant costs ... and one has to balance the cost of those services against the benefit of living in idyllic rural settings.

The touch stone here is (regardless of what you think you should get) what do you get against the predictions of the xDSL line checker?

What are the expectations for your line?

Please use the following links to check the services available and their estimated speeds. From the first link, please record and report back the distance from the exchange. The second link advises of which fibre services (if any) are available on your line and their anticipated speed.

• Kitz line check
• Kitz BT checker

 If the line is not meeting the above expectations then follow the fault diagnostic process.

[#15]

Never found those line checkers any good, guesswork at best has been my experience besides which, why should the customer not all of whom are even half technically competent, have to fanny around trying to figure out what's wrong with an antiquated copper wired system. Physician heal thyself?

We have low water pressure here, perhaps I should start digging up the road in order to find out what the problem is. 

Surely the provider not the purchaser should get it sorted, not the other way around.