The CPI+ increase is really muddying the upgrade path.

[#1]

---

@Townman wrote:

Oh boy, do people carp on a bit much about price ... whilst not looking at value for money!  Has everyone forgotten that 20 years ago we were paying much the same for far less?  See ISPreview UK - Independent Internet Service Provider Information Source

IIRC that was for 2mbps.

In real terms, we pay darned little for what we get today.

---

Of course you're right there, but that's similar to a lot of things, such as a TV perhaps. Many things have become relatively cheaper, but this isn't 20 years ago. Back when I was a kid, I could travel about on the bus all day and buy dinner for under a quid :-).

The price is important of course, the price of everything is important right now, to a great many people. This is more about how the product is being sold to the customer right now.

[#2]

---

@Wildroverandy wrote:
Back when I was a kid, I could travel about on the bus all day and buy dinner for under a quid :-).

---

You make the point well that for most things, doing the same now costs far more than it did when we were younger.  But for internet technology (and to a large extent IT in general) today we get substantially more for the same number of groats as 20 years ago, even though today's groats ain't worth what they were.

As for marketing, it all depends on how you read the words "£24.50* for a 12-month contract" or "£21.50* for a 24-month contract" (*annual price increases apply) DOES NOT say that the price is for the duration.  It says that's the price for your commitment to the duration.  You get it a bit cheaper because you make the commitment to a longer duration.

[#3]

---

@Townman wrote:

---

@Wildroverandy wrote:
Back when I was a kid, I could travel about on the bus all day and buy dinner for under a quid :-).

---

You make the point well that for most things, doing the same now costs far more than it did when we were younger.  But for internet technology (and to a large extent IT in general) today we get substantially more for the same number of groats as 20 years ago, even though today's groats ain't worth what they were.

My point there was that looking back at the past too far is not always of any use. It's not particularly a lesson learnt in this context, or of any great help right now. Sometimes it's useful to learn from the past - such as what happens if we start a war!

As for marketing, it all depends on how you read the words "£24.50* for a 12-month contract" or "£21.50* for a 24-month contract" (*annual price increases apply) DOES NOT say that the price is for the duration.  It says that's the price for your commitment to the duration.  You get it a bit cheaper because you make the commitment to a longer duration.

---

The clever use of words is often used to entice consumers into buying something. What we've been fighting for for many years, is greater transparency, so we don't have to translate them into normal language.

But, you're wrong about the layout there. On my account offers page, it just says the price, with 'a month*' written under it - with the tiny asterisk. The pop down box states a 24 month contract, no other information is provided there. If I missed that little asterisk, I would assume that I'm paying that price for 24 months (of course I don't, as I'm now well aware of all this).

The asterisk linked text is as the bottom of the page, once you scroll right down to see it. It's very easy to click the 'Upgrade to this' button without ever seeing that disclaimer.

There's also a double asterisk against the shopping voucher offer, but no matching text to explain it.

For sure, PlusNet's info is not too bad, but some are much worse.

[#4]

Agree with all the points raised but my complaint is with Ofcom: annual increase of CPI+3.9% was fair enough when the CPI was away down with interest rates for the past 20 years or more, but nobody except us old-timers expected the CPI to hit 11% as it did last month! Our young relatives have never known hard times such as 15% mortgage rate in 1979 but all except one heeded our ancient grumblings and have refrained from going into debt, and are  they glad they didn't.

Many wage demands seem to call for around 5% plus inflation = 15% or even more but few have any hope of getting them. All the ISPs were doing fairly well but a 14% increase for an essential service is out of order. And by 'essential' I don't mean fast streaming of movies, little Johnny's games connection, but so many Government services, such as VAT for which small business must account and pay every month.

I think Ofcom needs to think again on this increase in the light of CPI's big jump.

[#5]

---

@Longliner wrote:

Agree with all the points raised but my complaint is with Ofcom: annual increase of CPI+3.9% was fair enough when the CPI was away down with interest rates for the past 20 years or more, but nobody except us old-timers expected the CPI to hit 11% as it did last month!

Wage demands are now for around 5% plus inflation = 15% or even more but few have any hope of getting them. All the ISPs were doing fairly well but a 14% increase for an essential service is out of order. And by 'essential' I don't mean fast streaming of movies, little Johnny's games connection, but so many Government services, such as VAT for which small business must account and pay every month.

I think Ofcom needs to think again on this increase in the light of CPI's big jump.

---

For sure, yes, I agree with all that. As much as it's OfCom's rule though, it is a limit, not a target.

It seems to me that we actually faired OK with ISPs battling it out in a competitive market, without such a rule in place. This rule has actually made it worse for the consumer.

[#6]

Blimey they better not be putting the prices up again soon as what was the point in reducing prices to put them back up in March after enticing everyone with a nice deal. No landline fee they said but it's still there hidden. I will just be reducing my line again to save money if any increases happen. This is not right. They should be up front about it.

[#7]

They are upfront but consumers want someone to blame when they do not read the small print. Much of this comes from our own greed - we all want more for nothing whilst the cost of wages and everything rises driving up the CPI baseline.

What we really need is to pay honest prices. You need a circuit over which to run broadband which has a cost … but we wish to pretend there is none. There are wholesale charges for the services … as retail consumers, we should have to pay no more than the wholesale cost plus a fair margin. The real outrage is ISPs have to pay BT Openreach for repairs to their own broken equipment.

[#8]

woe speak for yourself. It's not greedy to expect to pay the price you agreed to, no more and no less. Giving in so easy just makes way for them to move the goal posts more.

[#9]

But are the goal posts being moved or do we as consumers fail to read the rules and then seek to claim, "It is all unfair".

The advertising price does not say "£x perm month for the full 24 months" it says "from £x per month for a 24-month contract with annual price increases".

That might be fairly reasonable in recent years, but the consequences arising for wage demands has driven the CPI baseline to eye watering levels.  What is the answer here?  "I do not want to pay the price increases to allow staff delivering the service to have a pay rise like the one i expect?".

I agree, it is not comfortable, but to cite just one cost driver, commercial power costs have more than doubled this year and when we send data over the internet, we are consuming electrons.

[#10]

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I have no problem paying for a service I need, and I have no problem agreeing to pay a price. What I’m objecting to is that the rule is being misused by the providers. They have the option to put the price up in March, but there’s no obligation to put it up. They’re not providing an accurate price quote when you sign up, and now they’re offering me a ‘special deal’ right now, but the price is going to increase by some indeterminate amount in a few months time.

This isn’t particularly a dig at PlusNet, but is aimed at the system in general. Although PlusNet could choose to do something different, and live up to their marketing hype, and actually care about what the customers think of them.

I’m not asking for the earth here, or free Internet. I don’t care if it costs me £5/mth or £50/mth, it’s the manner in which the pricing is being presented during the time I’m forced to stay with any given provider (they’re all still trying their hardest to hide the variable nature of the pricing), and the fact that it could conceivably change in price by almost any amount as long it it complies with inflation guidelines - who knows where that’s going to end.

As far as I’m concerned, the whole point of putting a guideline limit on the price increases is to protect the both consumer from unfair policies, and to protect the providers from excess running cost increases. However, I don’t believe that they’ve done this isn a sensible way. It should at least allow for a customer to be protected from any price increase for the first year at least. Then it should be up to the providers to factor in any cost increases as they plan their annual pricing policies.

I don’t suppose you’d expect them to automatically reduce your in contract price if their running costs decreased would you? No, they expect us to make a call and start a fresh contract at a new ‘special’ price.

I’m fully aware that these policies are made known - up front - but they’re still all too easy to miss as well if you’re someone a little less tech savvy (plenty out there still). The reality is though, how many do actually read every word of, and understand, all the T&Cs small print? Of course you should, ignoranti non defendi and all that. Certain conditions need to be in plain sight though, and not hidden away under a tiny little asterisk marker.

All IMHO of course 🙂

Cheers.

[#11]

It's not particularly small print.  It's right across the bottom of the home page (amongst many other pages) in the same size text as the rest of the main text:

I'm not a fan of these price increases myself, but can see why they are necessary.  They aren't hidden though.

[#12]

Andy,

You raise many good points, but what might solutions look like in reality?  If we want fixed prices for an initial 12 months, then are we prepared to accept a different price to join each month, which factors in the latest projections?

"Then it should be up to the providers to factor in any cost increases as they plan their annual pricing policies"

That requires cost increases (or decreases) to be predictable.  They are not.  I set the budget for a small charitable body £100k pa.  Some stuff can be projected with confidence, but substantial factors cannot, notably income from all sources and power costs.  Our October power bill rose 121% compared to September (£350 to £774) with higher costs expected through the winter months.  I had already budgeted for a significant increase from October, but that estimate undershot the rise by £5 per day.  We do not make a surplus; we eat in to reserves year on year.

No, we do not like the rises, we might wish that price planning was more predictable, but at the moment, that is not a realistic expectation.  The optimal action here is to not renew a contract until just after the annual price rises ... then get a similar deal as that on offer just before the price rise.

In an ideal world, the price for these services would be same from all suppliers, for all users ... and the quality of customer service being the factor which drove market share.  Whilst buying is predicated on bottom basement bargain price, suppliers will continue to cut their throats to stay viable.  A pan market fixed price could drive better customer service, increased proficiency and cost reduction.  However, that would require BT Openreach to ditch their nationalised industry outlook ... which is what is fundamentally driving the retail prices.

[#13]

Hi Townman

You raise many good points, but what might solutions look like in reality?  If we want fixed prices for an initial 12 months, then are we prepared to accept a different price to join each month, which factors in the latest projections?

It is the uncertainty that is the issue. As the consumer we have the least resource available to withstand weathering uncertain times.

I have little sympathy for the larger corps to be honest. From our perspective, it does seem that they’re happy enough to make huge profits when times are good, but unwilling to use those profits to ease the burden of the harder times. Of course I could be wrong, but that’s what I see as Joe Public. Right now I see reports of obscene profits in some companies, despite the hardship of their customers.

Most of our current issues are due to years of short-sightedness, greed, and poor decisions, and started long before any of the recent events. Of course there are different kinds of business, such as the charities, but they’re not usually out for plain profiteering. I of course sympathise there, as like us as a customer, they don’t have the ability to ride out such conditions either.

But, as I say, I’m not convinced with regard to ISPs, they’re playing this cost of living increase card, yet can still offer ‘special’ deals to renew contracts, or come in as a new customer, and many are still offering very low prices, so something doesn’t add up with the annual price increase policy that it couldn’t wait until your contract is up.

I’ve just had a message from my mobile provider stating that they’re fixing prices until the end of 2023, and I’m now also getting more data. So for the Comms industry, this is all about being on the band wagon, and clever marketing. So yes, I believe my broadband could be fixed for at least the first year.