Ofcom tables proposals for faster, simpler mobile network switching

Quote:

---

Should switching be a 'gaining provider-led' process?

---

Read more.

Rather than dealing with the real issues of speed/connections which suppliers keep getting 'delayed' (I still can't get 3G in most of my county) ofcom goes on to make a change to something where I can't say I've ever had an issue...

Having said that.... I do like the line about axing line rental although I'm sure BT will find another way to get their money fix.

Why can't we just do away with this 'temporary number' stage?

If we can do an instant bank transfer, we can do an instant number transfer.

OTOH transferring a number is so painful that anything will improve it. Last time I asked Three for a code, they sent it to me, then they cancelled it and refused to honour the transfer, so I ended up living with the new 'temporary number' that was sent to me. For that, Three will never get my business again.

Heavily in favour of the removal of forced line rental, assuming the companies don't then just tack it on to their broadband pricing as "part of the service". We have KC Lightstream Fibre here, and we don't use our landline phone at all, in fact we don't even have one plugged in. They already list theirs as one price with "Monthly Line Rental Included" as opposed to BT and the like listing it separately, so maybe they preemptively dodged the bullet, but it would be nice to do away with that extra charge.

That said, it wouldn't be the first time KC has flown under Ofcom's radar, its more convenient I imagine to just assume BT runs the whole country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jag272

Heavily in favour of the removal of forced line rental, assuming the companies don't then just tack it on to their broadband pricing as "part of the service". We have KC Lightstream Fibre here, and we don't use our landline phone at all, in fact we don't even have one plugged in. They already list theirs as one price with "Monthly Line Rental Included" as opposed to BT and the like listing it separately, so maybe they preemptively dodged the bullet, but it would be nice to do away with that extra charge.

That said, it wouldn't be the first time KC has flown under Ofcom's radar, its more convenient I imagine to just assume BT runs the whole country.

---

The problem is that that infrastructure hasto be maintained, regardless of how much or little it is actually used. It's a bit like the standing charge for utilities.

You could do away with it, but meter your data useage and bill you per gigabyte. Arguably that would be fairer because light users would pay very little, while heavy users would pay the most.

Is that a charging model you would like to see?

LSG touched on it... From my personal experience the issue is not switching, nor is it often the prices but the simple availability - when I'm in my house for most instances I can use Wi-FI for high speed data transfer. The only mobile provider that can provide mobile signal in my house without having to buy a booster each time i switch is Vodafone. Even for them we've already invested in a booster to get more than a 2G signal and I'm only 15 minutes from a town on the mainline to London.

If they really want to free up competition we need the coverage first and none of this 90%, 95% we need 99.9%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peterb

The problem is that that infrastructure hasto be maintained, regardless of how much or little it is actually used. It's a bit like the standing charge for utilities.

You could do away with it, but meter your data useage and bill you per gigabyte. Arguably that would be fairer because light users would pay very little, while heavy users would pay the most.

Is that a charging model you would like to see?

---

Well thats the thing, thats already how KC operates. They somewhat dip their hand in both sides.
http://www.kc.co.uk/products/broadband/

We're currently forking out £65 a month for unlimited 250Mbps fibre, just got fibre a few days ago, only upgraded to 250 instead of 100 unlimited because when youre already spending £60 a month, what difference is an extra £5 and we want unlimited. Copper unlimited is £50 a month including line rental. To the best of my knowledge, and from searching around the major ISPs, KC appears to be the only major ISP still operating on a data cap system, outside of the basic packages the likes of BT, plusnet etc offer for say 50GB on the cheap.

KC are an oddity though because of the effective monopoly they have in Hull means they are essentially immune to any of the effects of competition. So take that fact into account when you look at their pricing and plan structures.