BTo limits time online for users - again

dahamsta

The Register

BTopenworld is to cut the number of hours its Internet users are allowed to stay online in what is being regarded as a move to cajole users to upgrade to broadband.

From 5 June punters on the ISP's narrowband unmetered AnyTime and Surftime packages will have their daily online allowance cut from 16 hours to 12 hours a day.

aidan_dunne

That doesn't sound good for all the people in the UK on those packages but I think it's a very strange way to try and cajole users to upgrade to the broadband service, by cutting your daily online allowance. Very strange indeed.

Then again, it can be also be looked upon as an example of how flat-rate is used as a stepping stone towards broadband. Maybe eircom will see this and think the same and get FRIACO operating ASAP. Then again, don't hold your breath! lol.

Still though, 12 hours a day flat-rate. Myself and a lot of users in this country would kill for that, I reckon.

dahamsta

I think it's a very strange way to try and cajole users to upgrade to the broadband service, by cutting your daily online allowance.

I don't see it as strange, I just see it as another example of European telco's being allowed do as they damn well please. Mario Monti keeps making threats (DT being the latest), but he appears to have his finger well and truly up his butt. You'd need to be blind not to see the lack of competition in the comms marketplace right across Europe.

Still though, 12 hours a day flat-rate. Myself and a lot of users in this country would kill for that, I reckon.

I wouldn't kill for it, but I'd quite like it please. Maybe we need to send Yoda in to ask nicely again.

adam

Tellox

lol I bet the brits will go mental over it too.
Oh well, at least it makes me less miserable...

aidan_dunne

I was just listening to the "Ian Collins And The Creatures Of The Night" radio show on the English station Talksport a few minutes ago. It's an all night phone-in discussion type show. I heard this and felt I just had to post it up here.

Someone sent in an e-mail to the show a few minutes ago saying how they had gotten a letter from BT yesterday which informed them of their decision to reduce this person's 24-hour a day internet access to 12 hours a day (I know, I know, he's actually on a 16 hour a day limit but I'm repeating what was said!). This person was quite pi$$ed off with this and rang up BT to complain. He asked the BT customer support rep how they thought they could get away with charging people for what they thought was a 24-hour a day service but were only going to be allowed online for half that time, and how they thought they could get away with advertising and marketing a 24-hour a day service but only supplying people with half that amount of time online. The BT rep explained that if he had read the small print of the ISP contract he would have seen that they reserve the right to change the daily online time allowance at any time and they reserve the right to market the service in whichever way they wished.

Now, I know what you're all thinking. I'm sure memories of Esat and their "excuses" concerning the whole SNL 2,000 disconnected customers debacle from last year are probably flooding back now. However, it gets better!

The customer complained that even if BT reserved the right to market a 12 hour a day product as a 24-hour a day product, surely advertising the 12 hour product as a 24 hour one is a blatant case of false advertising and they could be taken to court over this. The BT customer rep's reply was:

"No, you see it doesn't mean you can be connected to the net 24 hours a day if you want to. It means that you can connect to the net anytime you want to, 24 hours a day."

When I heard this I had to laugh. We thought some of eircom and Esat's excuses and ways of interpreting contracts were weird! Maybe someone in BT has been taking marketing lessons from eircom or something! lol

Just thought you'd all like to hear about that. I think it proves that telecoms companies all over the world have their own "special" ways of doing or explaining things!

vampyre

I saw this in the mirror days ago and both aol and freeserve say BT are just trying to push heavy users to broadband. When asked Bt more or less said yeah that's it. But with shifts of people using the net in a house 12 hours is easy to exceed and you are abruptly thrown off without any negotiation.

Fallschirmjager

LOL..it sounds to me that the ex memebers of eircon have got new employment...in the UK...


wait till the say broadband should be delayed!!!!

Urban Weigl

I'm back -- my sincere apologies for not contributing much over recent months, as I've been busy restructuring my business. I hope this will change soon.

Anyway, regarding this thread: who cares? There are dozens of ISP's in the UK offering unmetered Internet access through FRIACO, many of them for less than BT.

So if you're unhappy with only being able to use the Internet for 12 hours a day with BT, switch & save a few £££ while you're at it. Not to mention that with the recent ADSL price reductions, you'd be silly not to upgrade!

Just my 2 cent (I do believe that's the correct spelling).

Xian

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, unless you're dealing with a contention ratio of 1:1...
Expectations - Unmetered Usage
ISP Review
March 27th - 2002
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/articles/usage/index.shtml

Starting out with the survey (highlighted earlier), we wanted to know what ISPs thought of the way most people appeared to expect 300+ hours per month from a provider charging £14.99 PM. C9 was clear,"It is just NOT economically possible to provide 300+ hours per month based on current FRIACO pricing!"
The Manager from Vispa followed C9 by being equally blunt, "Nope.... at £14.99 we would say 160 hours a month/40 hours a week is the max that revenue can support, and that is pushing it. As Emeric already said, the revenue is not there to allow users to reach 10 hours a day."
So if the revenues aren't there then how can some ISPs such as Freeserve offer a maximum of 10/11 hours usage per day at such a low price point? 123 ISP believes they know, "I *suppose* that Freeserve have Wanadoo subsidising them for what goes over their costs on FS Anytime."

Their conclusion is a list of recommendations:

1. Clear Definitions of Usage Restrictions - Making sure to highlight exactly what's meant by maximum or recommended daily use.
2. Clearly Promoted Restrictions - ISPs must make this available on the service offer pages since they're part of what's being sold, they should NOT just be mentioned in the Terms & Conditions.
3. Try To Offer Packages Based On Usage Type (hours per month) - This is more economically realistic, easier to control and gives the ISP direct justification for dealing with people who surf over a clear limit.
4. Price Services Realistically - This should be done with No.1 in mind because there's no set standard for pricing, it's largely based on contention, port cost and usage. Typically these are dynamic unless you set a standard, in which case the ISP has control and should thus negate the need to increase prices.

The moral of the story is, as ever, you pay a bit extra for quality of service (in the absence of BT wholesale price reductions, that is).

sceptre

Interesting info Xian.

I'm guessing that there are a few reasons why ISPs don't quote maximum hours for their "anytime/surftime/nolimits" offerings:

[list=2]
[*]An official allowance of say 160 hours/month will have more people using hours approaching that amount (who might use less if no specific amount was quoted (probably to try and get value for money)
[*]An ISP that has a "No Limits - hey, we really mean it" product is going to get more customers than an ISP with a "you can use up to 40 hours per week" product if both retail at the same price
[/list=2]

Having said that, any company that advertises its product with the tagline "there literally are no limits!" is really asking for trouble, now isn't it.

dahamsta

I'm back

Greetings Urban Weigl, nice to see your handle again.

Anyway, regarding this thread: who cares?

No-one really, least of all me. Just making a point, yeah?

adam