Worrying about broadband

[badass]

and my option for that would be to get it from who exactly?

Zen or Andrews and Arnold or any other high quality provider.

[ik9000]

Zen or Andrews and Arnold or any other high quality provider.

so limited to the adsl connection then, or virgin cable. Not much choice is it?

[badass]

so limited to the adsl connection then, or virgin cable. Not much choice is it?

This thread is about rubbish customer service. Going with Zen or Andrews and Arnold or any other high quality provider would solve that problem.

I'm struggling to see what kind of point you're trying to make? You've got a choice of multiple different providers using at least three different delivery technologies (unless you have literally zero mobile signal)

[ik9000]

No I have a choice of virgin or 2mb ADSL because the line here is so poor. I can pay for a better package bit as soon as someone tests the line....

So I have no choice. And each year virgin acre me over with price rises and bsi can do nothing about

[DanceswithUnix]

No I have a choice of virgin or 2mb ADSL because the line here is so poor. I can pay for a better package bit as soon as someone tests the line....

So I have no choice. And each year virgin acre me over with price rises and bsi can do nothing about

I think you want the noisy copper thread, this is the poor customer service thread. You have a choice with your 2Mb line of customer service who are responsive and helpful or one of those companies that will put you on hold for five minutes before silently disconnecting you.

You could always pay an eye-watering amount to get optical fiber pulled right to your house and then sell broadband services to your neighbours who I presume are in the same boat?

[ik9000]

I think you want the noisy copper thread, this is the poor customer service thread. You have a choice with your 2Mb line of customer service who are responsive and helpful or one of those companies that will put you on hold for five minutes before silently disconnecting you.

You could always pay an eye-watering amount to get optical fiber pulled right to your house and then sell broadband services to your neighbours who I presume are in the same boat?

I actually looked into getting FTTP and was told to jog on as it wouldn't be worth their effort/investment. Puzzled me that given the number of properties here - it's not like I'm on a farm in the back-of-beyond. But what would essentially happen is I'd be made to pay ££££££ and then they would use the line to sell to everyone else and I would essentially subsidise internet for everyone else. I would possibly pay the install cost if it was then my line, but not to prop up their profiteering and deplete my service by flogging the bandwidth to everyone else who will suddenly want to pile in.

[matts-uk]

This is where it gets complicated. For there to be a true free market, each house would need to have 5 or more different ducts owned by different companies all competing for your business. That's not practical at all.

For the markets to be truly free you need to go a lot further.

One of the thoughts that struck me when Boris was taken into hospital. In a truly free market the nurses would be able to ask, "How much are you wiling to pay." This reveals one of the big problems with the free market fantasy. In a truly free market where nurses can auction their services at the point of need, exploiting the misfortune of patients for profit becomes a professional skill. Hands up, who wants to be treated by a callous nurse? No one, not even the free market advocates.

Free markets are great for regulating the price of tangible 'things' with intrinsic value. For services where the real value is in the intangibles like expertise, empathy and compassion free markets create a race to the bottom. The winner is the service provider who offers the least possible service while maintaining a competitive price. The pikey roofers business model as I sometimes call it.

However privatisation of BY has forced it to cut out a huge amount of waste and thus enabled it to provide the service cheaper.

That is what we are told and it sounds very plausible, it may even have been the case in the very early days of privatisation.

When BT started to face real competition they did indeed start to cut things. First went the proper (indentured) apprentices. The next to go were the R&D staff at Martlesham. Then the front line workforce was restructured. The small army of well trained engineers in the exchanges were laid off and call centre operators recruited. They increased investment too, in marketing and advertising.

Imagine you are a talented youngster deciding on your career. Are you going to risk your future to a front line STEM career or admin and finance?

However free markets are not responsible for the OP's customer situation. Them getting cheapo broadband is. They simply wouldn't have these problems with a High quality but more expensive provider.

[/quote]
As you say it is complicated. The days of simple 'cost plus' prices, where the retail price is the cost of supply plus a margin, are long over. Modern retail prices use 'value pricing' The retail price is based on customer expectation and the margin is created by driving down the cost of the supply.

Service suffers because the free market rewards those who do the least. When costs are driven down it is the head counts, training and wages that are cut. Cut enough and you create a margin large enough to drop the retail price and that forces competitors to follow suit. The price customers expect to pay, the value price, follows the price the big boys charge.

The kicker is when debt is used to create a short term margin that smaller competitors can not possibly match. Competitors are driven out of the market and the companies that can carry the loss long enough win. A few smaller players may be able to manage the debt storm by adaption and innovation, until the big boys gobble them up. A market that has less than about 10 players competing is 'virtually' cornered and prices start to go up. Openreach had the advantage of the market being cornered when BT was sold off.

[badass]

No I have a choice of virgin or 2mb ADSL because the line here is so poor. I can pay for a better package bit as soon as someone tests the line....

So I have no choice. And each year virgin acre me over with price rises and bsi can do nothing about

And if BT had never been privatised, you expect that you would have had a better choice?

Yes, your situation is poor and you have to choose between bad or bad in a different way but the root cause isn't free markets or privatisation. In fact even thinking there is a root cause is a fallacy. There are many contributing factors, none of which alone is responsible.

[badass]

For the markets to be truly free you need to go a lot further.

One of the thoughts that struck me when Boris was taken into hospital. In a truly free market the nurses would be able to ask, "How much are you wiling to pay." This reveals one of the big problems with the free market fantasy. In a truly free market where nurses can auction their services at the point of need, exploiting the misfortune of patients for profit becomes a professional skill. Hands up, who wants to be treated by a callous nurse? No one, not even the free market advocates.

That's a straw man argument. Free markets are not identical to auctions at the point of need. Auctions can be a part of a free market but not necessarily exclusively. Supply contracts are allowed (You supply me with x 8 oranges per day and I pay you a fixed price per orange. We both require to provide one months notice of when we intend to terminate or modify this contract.) which are of course is pretty similar to a contract of employment.

However of course as per the example I gave about the 5 ducts, free markets are not some cure all. Nor are they the root of all evil. Even though it's fashionable to think so during this Covid-19 clusterscrew

[matts-uk]

That's a straw man argument. Free markets are not identical to auctions at the point of need. Auctions can be a part of a free market but not necessarily exclusively. Supply contracts are allowed (You supply me with x 8 oranges per day and I pay you a fixed price per orange. We both require to provide one months notice of when we intend to terminate or modify this contract.) which are of course is pretty similar to a contract of employment.

I take it you do not disagree that commercial interests conflict with the nursing skills on offer.

I would characterise the argument as purist. The only truly free market is a negotiation of value at the point of need. Such was the basis of the barter system, which is at the base of all commerce and trade. You want something I have and I want something you have and we negotiate the exchange. Neither party can exploit the other much as we are free to walk away from the transaction. You want to introduce a contract you say, which we are both 'bound' by. Maybe I supply you with sour oranges. I have fulfilled my side of the bargain and you now have 240 oranges you can't eat. The contract introduced a layer of abstraction and risk that can be exploited.

Roll forward 8000 years and commercial exchange is still negotiated at point of need but it happens in a stock exchange rather than 1:1 in a field. In between the parties there is a small army of middle men shuffling contracts around. Oranges still need to be picked but by the time all the middle men have taken their cut, and they keep reassuring themselves they are worth it, there is very little left for the desperate old soul having to pick the oranges.

However of course as per the example I gave about the 5 ducts, free markets are not some cure all. Nor are they the root of all evil.

During the 8000 years we skipped over, we passed through the slave trade, colonialism and two world wars. The root of all evil is not the exchange, it is the abstraction that lies between the parties and more precisely, the exploitation it leads to when left to it's own devices.

Even though it's fashionable to think so during this Covid-19 clusterscrew

The cycle is well established in history. Periods of Laissez Faire commerce (free markets) precede social stratification and end with a major catastrophe that triggers a rebalancing. The rebalancing comes about when the population realise it's not the middle men but the orange pickers who are pulling them out the mire. Laissez Faire clearly did not cause the nCov mutation but has contributed to the mess and to the number of nurses dying. Money simply isn't as important today as it was in January.

I have no idea whether nCov will be the rebalancing event but with the socio-economic situation looking so similar to the 1930s, it could be.

[badass]

I take it you do not disagree that commercial interests conflict with the nursing skills on offer.

I'd certainly agree that commercial interests can conflict with the nursing skills on offer.

I would characterise the argument as purist. The only truly free market is a negotiation of value at the point of need. Such was the basis of the barter system, which is at the base of all commerce and trade. You want something I have and I want something you have and we negotiate the exchange. Neither party can exploit the other much as we are free to walk away from the transaction. You want to introduce a contract you say, which we are both 'bound' by. Maybe I supply you with sour oranges. I have fulfilled my side of the bargain and you now have 240 oranges you can't eat. The contract introduced a layer of abstraction and risk that can be exploited.

Roll forward 8000 years and commercial exchange is still negotiated at point of need but it happens in a stock exchange rather than 1:1 in a field. In between the parties there is a small army of middle men shuffling contracts around. Oranges still need to be picked but by the time all the middle men have taken their cut, and they keep reassuring themselves they are worth it, there is very little left for the desperate old soul having to pick the oranges.


During the 8000 years we skipped over, we passed through the slave trade, colonialism and two world wars. The root of all evil is not the exchange, it is the abstraction that lies between the parties and more precisely, the exploitation it leads to when left to it's own devices.


The cycle is well established in history. Periods of Laissez Faire commerce (free markets) precede social stratification and end with a major catastrophe that triggers a rebalancing. The rebalancing comes about when the population realise it's not the middle men but the orange pickers who are pulling them out the mire. Laissez Faire clearly did not cause the nCov mutation but has contributed to the mess and to the number of nurses dying. Money simply isn't as important today as it was in January.

I have no idea whether nCov will be the rebalancing event but with the socio-economic situation looking so similar to the 1930s, it could be.

What you've done here is take an extreme definition of free markets, falsely argued that your extreme definition of free markets is identical to Laissez Faire commerce and that your now extreme definition of Laissez Faire commerce is identical to what's been happening in the UK over the past few decades. The sheer number of government/BoE interventions that have occurred in the last decade makes your "Free Markets are identical to Laissez Faire commerce which is identical to how the UK economy has been managed over the last x years" conclusion incorrect.

I'm not saying each step is incorrect as such. That would be arguing semantics and pointless. It's the multiple steps without perfect overlap that leads to a demonstrably false conclusion.

I would characterise it more like this:

Imagine a venn diagram with 3 circles. The first one is free markets, the second one is Laissez Faire commerce. They overlap a lot. Then we have the UK economy over the last ~ 40 years. It overlaps with Laissez Faire commerce but does not touch free markets at all. Why? By definition free markets are unregulated and do not contain monopolies. What we have had is in some cases a centrally manged economy and in others regulated markets.

Do I believe that free markets have contributed to the problems the NHS is currently experiencing? No. Because they are purely theoretical and can never exist in practice.

Do I believe regulated markets have contributed? Yes. They have.
Do I believe the government(s) have contributed? Yes. All the way back to Thatcher and every one in between.
Does that make either the cause? No.

However I do agree to a point with your sentiments around middle men overall.

[Zak33]

Sky - along with the other dross providers of crap internet, don't pay BT enough to get a proper service from them.

you gotta pay for good quality internet and good quality service.

Zen is expensive.. and everytime I have to call them they get it solved.

Matt... bless you for trying

you cannot fix all the world's ills buddy....