Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | uk.telecom |
| Subject | Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? |
| Date | 2026-05-04 15:42 +0100 |
| Organization | Frantic |
| Message-ID | <82bjev9qy2.fsf@example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <82bjew4s89.fsf@example.com> <10t8dif$32v0l$5@dont-email.me> <10t9h9a$3fj5o$1@dont-email.me> <82tssn3849.fsf@example.com> <n5rle5FioakU1@mid.individual.net> |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes: > Richmond wrote: > >> the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did >> not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was >> full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more. > > I've not got the option to migrate from FTTC to FTTP yet, but have > moved from POTS to VoIP. I'm under the impression that the base FTTP > price is the same as FTTC, did you pay 70% more because of being > upsold to a faster version of full-fibre? I paid 70% more because I had no choice, there was no other option. It was more like blackmail than up-selling. I've never had any cabinet, I was on an exchange only line. I think there is something going on here which gets lost in the usual discussions about what most people have and what's best for most people. Most people are on whatsapp and I would say that is not what is best for them. What we are talking about here is national infrastructure. It deserves better than Vodafone and the like. You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
Back to uk.telecom | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-02 13:58 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-02 17:30 +0200
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 13:02 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:10 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-03 16:05 +0200
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 13:01 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-03 22:09 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 09:19 +0200
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 09:13 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-04 14:31 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 15:42 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 10:59 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-05 23:23 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-06 09:35 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-06 17:48 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:51 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-07 06:57 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-05-07 11:26 +0000
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-07 14:07 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-07 16:47 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:34 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-06 17:44 +0100
Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 19:13 +0200
csiph-web