Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | uk.telecom |
| Subject | Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? |
| Date | 2026-05-04 14:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n5rle5FioakU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <82y0i23r4g.fsf@example.com> <82bjew4s89.fsf@example.com> <10t8dif$32v0l$5@dont-email.me> <10t9h9a$3fj5o$1@dont-email.me> <82tssn3849.fsf@example.com> |
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?
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