Happy Clicksilver user

dub45

Originally posted by oscarBravo
All of whom were made aware of their options, and none of whom are being charged a penny more than they signed up for at the beginning of their current contract. Translation: UTV made a business decision not to lose money on those customers who, in effect, signaled their intention not to stay with the company; and to pass on the wholesale savings - and then some - to the rest.

That is a fact. As a result of whose decision, precisely? Oh yes, their own.

Keep digging, I've got all day.

Apologies to anyone I'm contributing to boring to tears, but you never know - it might get interesting.

Nothing you have writen above alters the fact that UTV did not pass on wholesale savings available to them to all of their customers. Some UTV customers find themselves paying more for their broadband than Eircom or IOL customers. (The latter do find themselves paying less than they signed up for originally on their previous contract so it is possible to pass on savings without imposing additonal conditions if the will is there)

No matter how you may dress it up or 'translate' it that is a fact.

Given that UTV considered that 12 months was enough to cover their costs and as customers were tied in for that 12 months UTV could have passed on the savings available to them to all customers without losing money presuming that they maintained the same difference between the costs to them and the new charges to their customers.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dub45
Given that UTV considered that 12 months was enough to cover their costs and as customers were tied in for that 12 months UTV could have passed on the savings available to them to all customers without losing money presuming that they maintained the same difference between the costs to them and the new charges to their customers.

Now you're starting to get it. They faced a choice: pass on the wholesale savings to all customers - including the ones who had essentially given notice of their intention to quit - and probably end up only slightly undercutting the competition; or substantially undercut the competition, but only for those customers who planned to hang around long enough to make it worth their while.

I don't think it takes an MBA to figure out why they made a decision that would appeal to the vast majority of their customers.

But you know what? I'm bored, so I'm not going to bother anymore. You can have the last word. Hell, I'll save you the trouble: you win, I'm wrong, UTV should have done whatever was necessary to keep you personally happy, even if it didn't make commercial sense and even if it cost all their other customers their substantial savings.

jonski

Originally posted by oscarBravo
including the ones who had essentially given notice of their intention to quit - .

Giving that most ppl reading here would associate this statement with me , I want to be sure that everyone understands my position . I never adopted the attitude of " well that it I'm off " It has always been " well look guys , I'm here for the gaming , If ye can't fix that before my contract expires then I will have to look elsewhere for a service that will ". It is only in the last few days that I have said my contract expires soon and I am off because nothing has been done or even spoken about in relation to this issue . If anything it is worse in the last 2 weeks . At the time of the change over in price I don't think that I had even hinted at leaving .

John.

Ripwave

Originally posted by dub45
How can recounting UTV's behaviour be described as 'having it in' for them? Is there something wrong with stating a fact about UTV? Are we supposed to keep it secret that they did not pass on savings that were available to them unless you signed up for a further 12 month contract unlike other providers?

The same old lies trotted out again and again don't make something a "fact".

UTV created a new, low cost product, and gave every single one of their existing customers the option of switching to it. Some people chose not to take that option, and to continue with their existing contract. Those are the "facts".

UTV charge €120/per year less than Eircom or IOL for the basic 512/128k service. To do this, they spread the up front costs of acquiring a new customer over a number of years. So customers who don't renew their contract at the end of their first year end up costing UTV money.

You weren't "entitled" to a lower price when eircom changed their wholesale rates. You were offered them, subject to conditions that didn't suit you, so you declined them, and elected to stick to your existing contract. Just as you would have insisted on sticking to your original contract if the wholesale price had gone up.

dub45

Originally posted by Ripwave
The same old lies trotted out again and again don't make something a "fact".

Can you point to the 'lies' please?

dub45

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Now you're starting to get it. They faced a choice: pass on the wholesale savings to all customers - including the ones who had essentially given notice of their intention to quit - and probably end up only slightly undercutting the competition; or substantially undercut the competition, but only for those customers who planned to hang around long enough to make it worth their while.

I don't think it takes an MBA to figure out why they made a decision that would appeal to the vast majority of their customers.

But you know what? I'm bored, so I'm not going to bother anymore. You can have the last word. Hell, I'll save you the trouble: you win, I'm wrong, UTV should have done whatever was necessary to keep you personally happy, even if it didn't make commercial sense and even if it cost all their other customers their substantial savings.

There is no evidence whatsoever that if UTV would have been unable to reduce their prices if they had passed on savings immediately to all their customers. Given that presumably a relatively small number of people will not renew their contracts you appear to be suggesting that allowing those people to avail of the reductions would have stopped UTV passing on the savings which are ongoing and available per customer.

Ripwave

Originally posted by dub45
Can you point to the 'lies' please?

Your constantly repeated contention that UTV "pulled a fast one" is a lie.

It's a lie to state that there are UTV customers "paying more" that they would be with eircom, because everyone, including eircom customers, are on 12 month contracts, and if you calculate the full, 12 month contract price, even those people who chose not to opt for the new €29 service are still paying less than they would if they had started their contract with eircom.

dub45

Originally posted by Ripwave
Your constantly repeated contention that UTV "pulled a fast one" is a lie.

It's a lie to state that there are UTV customers "paying more" that they would be with eircom, because everyone, including eircom customers, are on 12 month contracts, and if you calculate the full, 12 month contract price, even those people who chose not to opt for the new €29 service are still paying less than they would if they had started their contract with eircom.

No my contention that UTV 'pulled a fast one' is just that a contention. You can argue with it of course but it is not a lie.

I stated 'some UTV customers are currently paying more than Eircom customers for their broadband' that is perfectly true. This month 'basic' Eircom customers will pay €39.99 for their broadband UTV customers who have not committed to a new contract will pay more - €47.50.

(Incidentally it seems to me that an Eircom customer will pay €581.45 for the first 12 months while a Clicksilver customer not opting for the new contract will pay €570)

Ripwave

Originally posted by dub45
No my contention that UTV 'pulled a fast one' is just that a contention. You can argue with it of course but it is not a lie.

As UTV didn't pull a fast one, it is a lie. Of course, if you like to make up your own definitions for words, then you can say what you like.

I stated 'some UTV customers are currently paying more than Eircom customers for their broadband' that is perfectly true. This month 'basic' Eircom customers will pay €39.99 for their broadband UTV customers who have not committed to a new contract will pay more - €47.50.

There you go again with the "lies by ommission". As I pointed out, and you deliberately omitted, nobody is on a one month contract - the cost of broadband is the cost over the period of the minimum contract. The fact that people pay it bit by bit is irrelevant - so the fact that an eircom customer pays €39.99 this month, but payed €54.45 a few months ago doesn't change the fact that the total amount paid by that eircom customer over the course of their miniumum contract is more than they would pay with UTV.

(Incidentally it seems to me that an Eircom customer will pay €581.45 for the first 12 months while a Clicksilver customer not opting for the new contract will pay €570)

See, you've just proved it yourself!

(Of course, as 12 months of the €29.99 contract would only cost €360, anyone with more than 8 months of their contract to go would save money by signing up for the new contract, even if they decided to cancel before the end, and had to buy them selves out).

dub45

Originally posted by Ripwave
As UTV didn't pull a fast one, it is a lie. Of course, if you like to make up your own definitions for words, then you can say what you like.
There you go again with the "lies by ommission". As I pointed out, and you deliberately omitted, nobody is on a one month contract - the cost of broadband is the cost over the period of the minimum contract. The fact that people pay it bit by bit is irrelevant - so the fact that an eircom customer pays €39.99 this month, but payed €54.45 a few months ago doesn't change the fact that the total amount paid by that eircom customer over the course of their miniumum contract is more than they would pay with UTV.
See, you've just proved it yourself!

(Of course, as 12 months of the €29.99 contract would only cost €360, anyone with more than 8 months of their contract to go would save money by signing up for the new contract, even if they decided to cancel before the end, and had to buy them selves out).

I stand by what I wrote. If you decide to interpret that as lies thats up to you. Omitting that somebody is on a 12 month contract is not a lie by omission. This is a simple fact known to everyone.

I deliberately used the word 'currently' in realtion to the charges to illustrate the impact that UTV's decsion not to pass on the savings available to them was having on people who had not signed up to the new contract.

And no matter how you want to attack me the fact is that UTV did not pass on savings to them unless people signed up for another 12 month contract. Other ISP's did. Now you can label UTV's decision as a business strategy or a business decision or whatever but the simple fact is that they did not pass on the savings automatically.

Now just in case anyone is worried about UTV not being able to afford to pass on such savings you might like to note the following from UTV's Prelimnary Results for 2003

■ New Media operating profits trebled to almost £0.9m (2002: £0.3m)

■ Internet business continued exceptional growth with revenues rising by 80% to £3.6m (2002: £2.0m)

■ Internet operating margins rose to 22% from 15% in 2002

I think they could have managed to pass on the reductions to all of their customers particularly those who felt unable to commit to a new contract because of the poor service they were receiving from UTV.

Board@Work

I've been following this discussion..

Firstly i have to admit I'm a new clicksilver customer signed up in April.

To say I'm happy would be true as my phone costs overall have gone down by at least 40% but this is beside the point.

Simply put. If I sign a 12 month contract and state that I am going to pay a fixed amount for that twelve months then I am legally obliged to pay it. TOUGH. You had the choice not to sign the contract in the first place.

UTV did not pull a 'fast one' by not reducing the price when some of the other operators did. They are under no obligation to do so. Fare enough it isn't great customer care but they are not cheat you or 'pulling a fast one'. An example of this is in the case of fixed term morgages. When you sign up you are tied as the bank is to a fix interest rate. If the rate goes down then you are stuck with the higher rate. Tough u signed the contract. similarly if the rate goes up then its fantastic.

Prior to me signing up I read alot of discussions on boards about utv. I still dedided to go with then because simply they were/are the cheapest and should be congratulated for this. I have never once had a service outage. Granted the speeds haven't been fantastic but they aren't as bad as some people on boards would state.

If you want better pings then go to the competitors pay more and in the case of €ircom have far worse customer service.

dub45

Neither were the other isps obliged to pass on the reductions to their customers yet they managed to do so. I think that when most people signed up for broadband they would have expected that any savings which would become available to their isps would have been passed on to them without further condtions.

In the case of UTV this turned out to be a naive expectation. And fixed motgages do come down too!

jonski

Originally posted by markororke
If you want better pings then go to the competitors pay more and in the case of €ircom have far worse customer service.

Advice taken , tks mark , although maybe not eircom

dub45

Originally posted by jonski
Advice taken , tks mark , although maybe not eircom

And in the meantime you have had to pay approx 90 euros extra because you felt you could not commit to Clicksilver for a further 12 months (even though you had not fundamental wish to leave UTV) because they were not supplying the service you wanted.

Moriarty

zzzzzzzzz