Homepage » News Archive » View News Item 4122

BE Broadband to offer £7.50/month broadband service
Friday 01 January 2010 09:15:34 by Sebastien Lahtinen

This morning, BE Broadband has reduced the price of its BE Value product from £13.50 to £7.50 making it the UK's cheapest standalone ADSL2+ broadband service. The package will not be subject to any traffic shaping but does include a 40GB usage allowance.

The service is an 'up to 8 meg' product but unlike most other entry level packages, features a free ADSL2+ modem, 24x7 support and an up to 1.3Mbps upstream rate which is becoming increasingly important as users generate more content by uploading photos and videos. As before, a 12 month contract applies but at £90 per year, it's still a bargain. BE Broadband was recently in the news following their success in our Customer Service Awards which are based exclusively on ratings by users, showing that its value services are still backed with excellent customer support.

"The trends we're seeing are for no traffic management allowing more freedom and of course lower prices. Our members demand the freedom to prioritise and think for themselves, not have their broadband provider do it for them. We believe there a lot of customers that will leap at the chance to get a service that doesn't slow down based on the content of their downloads but don't use the internet enough to justify an unlimited product."

Tom Williams (Head of Operations), BE

BE had run a half-price offer in 2009 which ended a few days ago which proved popular. It consulted customers over the last few months and concluded that users preferred to have a fixed 40GB usage allowance with no traffic shaping, prompting the change.

Any customers exceeding 40GB will be contacted by BE to discuss their usage and will be offered an upgrade onto an unlimited package if appropriate.

Note: We are in the process of updating VAT on our ISP listings which may take a couple of days before figures reflected are correct. The price for BE Value is nevertheless £7.50 inclusive of 17.5% VAT.

[ Topic: Internet Service Providers | 111 comments | link to this item ]

Comments

Posted by cyberdoyle over 3 years ago
I wonder what will happen at peak times? Without traffic management what happens when someone is trying to download t'internet on your card in the exchange? It would be interesting to find out the contention ratios needed to support such a low price.

Posted by RepairExpert over 3 years ago
Totally agree cyberdoyle; more expensive ISPs have serious problems, or should I say their users do, with low speeds at peak times. I'm not sure what sort of service they will be able to supply at that price. And 40GB per month is a lot for low users like myself (average around 3GB). If enough people take up this offer I can see speeds crash at peak times. You generally get what you pay for with ISPs and what good is an service with 'no traffic management' if the speed drops to 100kB? I remain to be convinced that this low price can be maintained.

Posted by Dixinormous over 3 years ago
So long as Telefonica keep sucking up the cost of backhaul it'll stay good. No idea how profitable or otherwise it is, they seem to have just added bandwidth as required up to now, thanks to Telefonica's funding.

Posted by pigfister over 3 years ago
no traffic shaping yet! haven't o2 always sold their access package as "we will never traffic shape or throttle unless you are causing detriment to another subscribers connection"!

funny how o2 now virtually blocks p2p by reducing it to between 0 & 5kbps destroying skype & then purchases their own voip service.

Posted by rasczak over 3 years ago
In stories like this it would be good if you could make it clear that these products have restricted availability to the cherry picked exchanges of these limited offering providers.

Posted by rasczak over 3 years ago
BE are very misleading on their signup page for this, the only line requirements it gives are you need a BT line. I have a BT line, but if I use that line in the order process they say, "Sorry, but your phone line is unable to support our broadband. Please contact your telephone provider if you require further details."

This has nothing to do with my line provider and all to do with BE's restricted availability, it is not my line that can't support their broadband, it is their broadband service that does not support my line.

Posted by RepairExpert over 3 years ago
Thought there would be a catch somewhere!
If it sounds too good to be true it usually is.

Posted by chrysalis over 3 years ago
probably not sustainable pricing, I expect O2 has put pressure on for signups and this is the result.

Posted by jhchicks_853 over 3 years ago
Sorry BE but I get Plusnet for £5.99 /month, which is cheaper than £7.50?!

Posted by Gzero over 3 years ago
LLU product, only available to those who have Be's kit at their exchange.

Ignore the usual trolls, Be are doing this to bring their pricing in line with O2 but with a cap. Interestingly this leaves a gap in their product pricing for another service.

Posted by AndrueC over 3 years ago
@jhchicks:PlusNet appears to have only a 10GB allowance and the price seems to rise to either £16 or £20 after three months.

Not as good and nowhere near as cheap.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
LOL @ the BT defenders...... Get over it LLU forever! Cheaper, faster, better :)

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
CB - Why isn't there some LLU in every exchange???

Posted by cyberdoyle over 3 years ago
some exchanges don't have enough customers for ISPs to invest in LLU. Only the bigger areas (urban) have LLU. So rurals don't have choices basically.
Just found a page of traffic management info from Virgin, thought I would post it here for reference if anyone is interested: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html

Posted by rasczak over 3 years ago
Carpetburn, as Somerset says why is there not LLU at every exchange, if it is so much better, then surely they would want everyone to have it ?
No you keep defending the LLU cherry picking, if they had to pay BT what it actually costs you wouldn't get it either.

Posted by wirelesspacman over 3 years ago
"some exchanges don't have enough customers for ISPs to invest in LLU."

And there is the rub - the exchanges currently with LLU will not doubt be high on BT's list for FTTC rollout which will then canabalise the LLU business.

Posted by cyberdoyle over 3 years ago
yep, the only ones who get the best service are in densely populated areas. BT is a business when all is said and done. Its a shame the policy makers don't realise this and cut this crap about 'everyone' having broadband when we know we don't. It also makes me cross when the next gen being rolled out by BT is currently the same footprint as virgin have already done with cable.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Carpet - Well yes, this is what happens when services get to defray a good chunk of their running costs onto BT.

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
What's the smallest exchage with LLU?

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
They get to what Dawn? BT still get the £11+ it costs to rent a fone line from them so where exactly are BT having to defray costs? They charge LLU operators rent to use their exchange, they charge to allow connections to be made. They aren't defraying anything.

It seem to me the only people complaining in here are those who don't live within range of a BE enabled exchange.

Those people will soon be seeing the benefit of me paying £6 a year so they don't have to put up with the pollution that comes with a densely populated area

Posted by rasczak over 3 years ago
The charge LLU operators pay BT to use the exchange and make connections is a fraction of what it actually costs BT to provide that service to the LLU operator, regardless of whether BT gets their PHone line charges. So BT has to cover the part of the cost of supplying the service to the end user. So these LLU providers get to provide a cheap service, to cherry picked areas where they make most profit, and that profit is increased as the costs they have to pay are lower than the actual cost to provide the service.

Posted by rasczak over 3 years ago
Now if these providers had to pay the actual cost of the service they get, without any markup, then this might either make the cherry picked areas less profitable, or it might make it more profitable to cover more areas, and so provide more of the competition we keep hearing is needed.
Of course I will be accused of defending BT by this post, but I am confused how wanting to have access to BT's competitors' services is a defence of BT.

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
Rubbish. They pay a fraction of what BT would like them to pay. I assume you are talking about the prices OFCOM said that BT had to charge LLU operators. That went when LLU connections passed a the figures set by OFCOM a couple of years ago.

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
And you can't force any company to provide a service at a loss much as you like to call it "cherry picking". Move out of the sticks dude.

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
kamelion - heard of USO?

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
yeah see how much it applies to any other company than BT. Remember GPO? it's what BT used to be before Thatcher sold all our family silver.
USO only applies to BT because of the unique way it came into being in order that the newly formed monopolies commision didn't make the freshly privatised companies the number one target on their list

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
in case you were wondering, im 43 not 13

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"Carpetburn, as Somerset says why is there not LLU at every exchange, if it is so much better, then surely they would want everyone to have it ?
No you keep defending the LLU cherry picking, if they had to pay BT what it actually costs you wouldn't get it either."

Cyberdoyle explains your first paragraph perfectly. AS to the second spoken with true jealousy.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"They get to what Dawn? BT still get the £11+ it costs to rent a fone line from them so where exactly are BT having to defray costs? They charge LLU operators rent to use their exchange, they charge to allow connections to be made. They aren't defraying anything."

Ive tried explaining that to Dawn Falcon several times.... Being a BT defender though they just dont get it.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"The charge LLU operators pay BT to use the exchange and make connections is a fraction of what it actually costs BT to provide that service to the LLU operator, regardless of whether BT gets their PHone line charges. So BT has to cover the part of the cost of supplying the service to the end user. So these LLU providers get to provide a cheap service, to cherry picked areas where they make most profit, and that profit is increased as the costs they have to pay are lower than the actual cost to provide the service."

Tripe, provide a NON-BT source that it costs them more than they charge.

Posted by jelv over 3 years ago
@ AndrueC From the Plusnet website:

"Plusnet Value broadband starts at £5.99 a month for the first 3 months. If you live in one of our low cost areas you'll then pay this price every month. If you live outside of one of these areas you'll then pay £11.99 a month thereafter."

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
Its clear here some are very jealous some will benefit from BEs cheap 40gig 8Mb service. May i suggest to the stupid people that have issues, that they either move home, or beg BT for similar prices.
As to all this Cherry Picking nonsense, thats absolute rubbish, more exchanges year upon year become LLU activated. BE thereself enabled a further 40 exchanges in 2009, source...
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/llu-league.php?status=2&sortfield=enabledate&sortorder=DESC&type=be

Posted by wirelesspacman over 3 years ago
@Somerset:

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange.php?ecode=WNBC

I think this is the smallest I have come across.

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
I'm using Plusnet Vaue @ £5.99/month on Market 3 exchange. As I can manage with 10Gb allowance and don't do many uploads it's perfect for my requirements.

Posted by seb ( staff member) over 3 years ago
As Jelv has pointed out, the price point isn't cheapest overall. I missed ADSL2+ from that sentence. PlusNet's £5.99 service does cost more if you use your allowance, and it has a longer contract, but on strict price point, it can be cheaper with the slower upstream speed option.

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
Have to challenge your statement, Seb, that Plusnet Value has a longer contract. You can pay a one off setup fee of £40 and leave when you chose, at 10 days notice, with no penalties.

Obviously it's horses for courses and it's certainly great value from my point of view.

Posted by Oldjim over 3 years ago
@seb
Be contract 12 months
Plusnet 10 days and if you stay for 12 months all initial charges (free router etc.) are waived.

Posted by embarkell over 3 years ago
Great product from BE but surprised at the poor reporting in the article.

"making it the UK's cheapest standalone ADSL2+ broadband service"

"The service is an 'up to 8 meg' product"

Firstly the former statement is incorrect and the implication from the ADSL2+ pitch becomes confused with the up to 8 meg statement. The ADSL2+ comment could set an expectation?

Plusnet remains the cheapest standalone BB product on price point, it does not have a 12 month contract unlike BE's offering.

Posted by movie over 3 years ago
The plusnet Value offering is more expensive over 12 months and is little better than dial-up. It's simply not comparable to a proper broadband service.

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
If currently syncing at 7,616kbps, 3km from exchange, is little better than 56kbps dial-up then so be it [:¬)

My simple maths tells me that my £5.99 x 12 is less than £7.50 x 12

Having had broadband since March 2002 I do feel experienced enough to judge the service I receive.

Posted by movie over 3 years ago
Plusnet Value broadband starts at £5.99 a month for the first 3 months, you'll then pay £11.99 a month thereafter. Pity about your maths :)

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
Stays at £5.99/month permanently if you are, as I said, on a Market 3 exchange.

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
Just noticed that TBB details of Plusnet Value are slightly out of date.

Posted by movie over 3 years ago
So its cheaper IF you don't use more that 1GB IF your in a selected area IF you dont pay for connection and modem up front IF you stay for a year otherwise its more expensive. Its just like dial up like I said.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
Why are people even comparing this to Plusnet when its a totally different package for your money?

Posted by AndrueC over 3 years ago
Ah, yes, sorry about that. It was a bit difficult following their web site.

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
Plusnet Value gives 10Gb allowance.

Making a comparison with dial-up is rather a strange remark - I recently suffered line card failure at exchange and had to use dial-up and it hurt.

Like I said, it's horses for courses, and I'd rather pay £72pa than £90pa.

I'm fortunate in that Leighton Buzzard exchange would allow me to use BE but I'm happy with what I've got.

Posted by nadger over 3 years ago
@Carpetburn - only point I'm making is that there are other cheap alternatives on the market.

As such I'm not knocking BE product.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
I wasnt really moaning at you Nadger, but the other mis-informative comments. The BE product for example is ADSL2+, The BE product has a higher monthly included usage, The BE product does not have throttles to certain traffic.... And loads more... I agree Plusnet products can also be had cheap but in terms of value there is no comparisson. They shouldnt even be compared as they are both so different with regards to targetted customers.

Posted by RepairExpert over 3 years ago
I'm not being pessimistic about this new Be package, and if it makes a profit and doesn't drop speeds drastically at peak times good luck to all those who sign up to it. However over the past years we've seen lots of these super-dooper schemes and most of them have unfortunately ended up with 'tears at bedtime'.

Fast UK, which is considered by many at the present time to be the best ISP for fast speeds at peak times has to charge around 3 times or more for a reliable service.

Just wondering how Be can do it so cheaply and still make a profit?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
kamelion - Of course BT is forced to offer services to LLU companies at a loss. It's been documented on this very site over and over again.

It distorts the market.

Carpetburn is wrong again, because he hasn't read those stories ofc. Oh, and unlike you I am not a multiple personality and "they" is incorrect. Wrong more?

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
DF - do have some links?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Somerset - Amusing

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
Yes, some links about BT making a loss on LLU.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
Dawn Falcon spouting random gibberish again without evidence...... Still waiting for it to ping a games company server via pingtest to show off their so called awesome ping times.

There is no story on this site which shows EVIDENCE BT make a loss on LLU. There has been stories on here of BT thereself saying they make a loss, that though is hardly evidence, unless we are suppose to take BTs word, which lets be honest is as much use as a one legged horse. Expect Dawn to either not back up the claim or link to BTs own screwy figures.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
I will also have to report Dawn Falcon to staff if they persist in accusations i have more than a single username at this site, something they have done on previous news stories.... The bile Dawn Falcon likes to vomit out is getting pretty boring. A BT defender that always refuses to backup their claims even with simple pingtests or links to prove what they state. A typical BT drone.

Posted by chrysalis over 3 years ago
LLU isnt sold at a loss, just the profit isnt BT's usual huge markup.

Posted by herdwick over 3 years ago
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/openreach/summary/
"BT has provided evidence that the current, regulated prices for wholesale access services (WLR, MPF and SMPF) are out of balance with the underlying costs."

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
it also says

"We also believe that there is a need to look at Openreach’s current efficiency level"

and does not mention that BT run at a loss, more that they are out of balance, ie in profit % terms.

it does make not that the prices may need to be looked at over and beyond any projected efficiency gains, but still does not mention BT are forced to sell LLU at a loss.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
^^^ LOL As i said NO evidence apart from BTs word, which of course those that defend BT on here leap to defend LOL

Maybe if the BT fans are so concerned about them losing money and not making enough profit they should write to BT and tell them to stop handinng out hundreds upoon thousands in bonuses, unless BT fans are stating BT are in the financial merde like the banks were and those at the top should still have £300,000 bonuses... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1189054/Chiefs-300-000-windfall-BT-crashes-loss.html

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
I spose he thought oh well BT global has cost us 2 billion i may as well have a bonus and screw the company WHOLE a bit more.... (BT fans insert dribble about seperate companies below LOL sooooooooo predictable).

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
Chrysalis is correct with his statement of "LLU isnt sold at a loss, just the profit isnt BT's usual huge markup." BT cry like little girls as there is a part of the market they cant rip off to their usual standards, when they attempt charges like this...
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3768828-bt-quoted-me-22000-to-keep-my-old-number-when-i-moved.html
I say thank god Ofcom for once had the guts to tell them on your bike with regards to LLU charges.

Posted by mishminx over 3 years ago
It is comparable to plusnet in so far as plusnet were pioneers of aggressively pernicious marketing. With any other ISP such tactics would have the alarm bells ringing and people looking for alternate providers in anticipation of the proverbial hitting in the fan.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
^^^ I dont agree the products ae not similar in any way shape or form.
I also highly doubt O2 (who own be) will be going anywhere overnight, not excatly a one man band internet provider.

Posted by sevecook over 3 years ago
I've read all the postings and, whilst, for the most part informative, it seems some people are more interested in argument than anything else. As someone who is pretty ignorant when it comes to technical matters may I ask what, if anything, will be the effect of BT's WBC on prices? Is the reduction in BE's price reflect a reaction to this release?

Posted by sevecook over 3 years ago
I am looking to move ISP's and my exchange will be upgraded in February for WBC.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
What a surprise, when you can't make decent margins because of government-forced subsidies of the competition (LLU is good, but should pay its way IN FULL) what suffers? Oh that's right, investment.

The people whining about this have no right to open their traps, ever, when it comes to infrastructure. They've deliberately forfeited that right.

Somerset - Why are you acting like CB? This. Site.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
I'd also like to report CB to the mods for being wrong every time he makes a statement. Every. Single. Time.

Posted by dirtyh over 3 years ago
I think o2 and BE share all resourses, could be wrong but i have been with o2 for about 20 months paying £7.34 a month as i have a o2 mobile and get £5 off,the exchange is llu and i get unlimited broadband syching at 4m/b upload 95kbs.
I have never had a problem at peak times and p2p has not been throtled.

Posted by cikaba over 3 years ago
People make spurious comments about a service without any first-hand experience of the service. A lot of people commented seriously about sky broadband services(prices). Last I checked, they are still running. BE has been around for a while now. They certainly know what they are doing, otherwise they would not offer such low prices. Innovation and efficiency are the tools for running a successful 21st century company.

I find lethargy among most UK companies and it reflects on their customers. That explains why people make baseless commentaries without any EVIDENCE.

Posted by seb ( staff member) over 3 years ago
@embarkell - it's ADSL2+ even though the download speed is 8Mbps.. The upload speed is several times the plusnet example quoted; that said which product is better for you depends on what your preferences are. Others have pointed correctly to slightly more flexibility on PN one contract wise.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"I'd also like to report CB to the mods for being wrong every time he makes a statement. Every. Single. Time."

Why dont you back up your statements with proof LLU costs BT money like Somerset, myself, chrysalis and others would like to see? The only one spouting nonsense and not backing up their statements is you. Prove your remarks or stop boring the planet with your dribble.

Posted by GordonWilkie over 3 years ago
Having got the Plus.Net £5.99 product as a backup / test service, with 21CN can get up to 20Mbps / 1.3mbps. We get 832kbps upstream as we are a long way from exchange on not great BT line. It has 10GigaByte per month restriction and does traffic shaping (but we do not do P2P so who cares). No set up costs, so works well for us. BE is also good product - but slightly more expensive but does have 40GByte per month allowance.

Posted by TLMC over 3 years ago
Disappointed as I thought that I met the criteria, have BT line, don't exceed 40GB per month. So I checked if I could get it. It's not available to all BT exchanges. I have a stable full speed 8M connection just wanted a cheaper option. Using their checker I get the following:

Sorry, but your phone line is unable to support our broadband. Please contact your telephone provider if you require further details.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Why don't you read this site, Carpet? Oh right, that'd mean reading rather than skimming and being wrong. Again.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"Why don't you read this site, Carpet? Oh right, that'd mean reading rather than skimming and being wrong. Again. "

Link me to proof please or shut your gob and your unproven rumours.
You do know what the term all gob no proof means? If not please find a mirror.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
No, I am not a linkbot. This site, read. You know, where you look at every word and not just the first and last in the sentence.

Do you know what the term wrong is? You are, again.

Posted by seb ( staff member) over 3 years ago
EVERYONE - Please can you de-personalise this discussion and stop shouting. We want everyone to be able to comment but this is really getting out of hand..

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
'shut that liar gob'. Must use that expression in meetings.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
Appologies seb. It really bugs me when people make claims and wont back it up though. Especially when it is a claim this site has written something which AFAIK is totally untrue.
I will try to refrain from reading what they state in future.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Yep, why do you make these claims Carpet? Repeatedly? I only, very reasonably, refer to stuff on this very site without linking.

And no, the article you refer to does not in any way support your conclusion.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
^^^ So you cant read staff requests either *sigh*
You have shown yourself to be a liar and continue to try and make trouble.
Long live LLU, I will now ignore you and your lies about things which have never been stated on this site.

Posted by seb ( staff member) over 3 years ago
Last warning.........

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
Ok DF, why not move the debate forward and link then?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Because there isn't a "debate". It's an unfortunate fact that much of the cost of LLU has been absorbed by BT, and this has had entirely predictable effects on it's rollout plans, especially when you bear in mind the government's restrictions (now mostly lifted, very late in the day) on BT offering bundled services themselves.

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
So, it's not a fact that BT are running LLU at a loss then? ;-) (the debate about that started about 20 posts ago when you mentioned it)

BT might have absorbed some of the costs, but that's a bit like saying LLU companies have absorbed their own costs that are involved in business as well.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Of course they're running at a loss, the costs of LLU are not one-time. Ofcom has refused to adjust the rates in accordance even with inflation, let alone the true costs.

And BT should not of had to absorb any of the direct costs of LLU at all!

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
Well they should if they're making money off it.

But all we need is a link to demonstrate they are running at a loss, unlike the ofcom one which demonstrates they're not.

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
Not being able to charge outrageous markups is not the same as absorbing the cost

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Nope, which is why Ofcom set many values at cost. Then refused to adjust them for inflation, let alone real costing changes.

And BT have had to eat the expense of adapting exchanges to take a wide range of kit entirely. This is decidedly not cheap. And let's not forget the issues with exchange space either...

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
But they still make money on LLU.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
^^^ Forget it, ignore their mis-information, IT being here still is obviously a sign they are allowed to lie and annoy other users. Obviously they are more special than any of us could dream.

Grass is purple, Pigs do fly and anyone that denys it ill show you by not proven a thing.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
They make some money from some aspects of LLU. If the overall cost has been positive or negative, given the extremely large bills for adapting exchanges, is a tossup. It's...possible but not probable, I'd say.

Regardless, it does not excuse elements of LLU being effectively funded by BT.

And you have some interesting beliefs, Carpet.

Posted by TGVrecord over 3 years ago
It appears that both CB and DF are both off topic! Can we please Be on topic?

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
Clearly you haven't seen the price list for LLU provision and maintenance

Posted by sevecook over 3 years ago
&.50 per month seems extremely good value to me. I hope that speeds do not suffer due to BE not being able to support the number of people who take up the offer. I read somewhere that their (and O2) speeds have suffered in the past year due to large take-up of new customers, even though they are still right up there in the top flight for service/speeds.

Posted by sevecook over 3 years ago
That's 7.50 of course.

Posted by sevecook over 3 years ago
That, I think, is firmly back on topic without a single nasty remark about anyone. Discussion is much better than argument, people.

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
"It's...possible but not probable, I'd say."

So you don't actually know that LLU runs at a loss and cost BT. Which is a bit of a flaw for all your ranting about how it's the antichrist.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
^^^^^^^ ROFL it changes its mind like the weather.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
DF arguement as follows..... LLU costs BT money im sure of it, errr maybe, errr cant prove it, erm ok they might, errrr errrrr worrm, worm, worm
lie, lie, lie

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Carpetburn's argument: It's acceptable for one business to be forced to provide work at below-cost to fund their competitors.

Lovely. Can I sell you a USSR-era bridge?

And that's a nasty comment to make about whatever2.

whatever2 - Again: We know that BT has to provide some services below cost. This is wrong. The only debate should be about the size of the markup allowed.

Posted by kamelion over 3 years ago
Which services DF?

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"Which services DF?"

The ones in DFs deluded head that they cant prove... The same services that one minute they babbled cost BT money over a period of days and then in the next breath only thinks its "possible". Care in the community obviously failed them.

Posted by whatever2 over 3 years ago
Which services DF?

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 3 years ago
Kamelion, once more, this was in the news article on THIS SITE. It's been done to death.

Carpetburn is simply wrong, as usual. Es's multiples have lost track of es's arguments again...

Posted by 2doorsbob over 3 years ago
I think CB and DF should get married

Posted by TGVrecord over 3 years ago
What about a civil partnership?

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
quote"I think CB and DF should get married"

You must be joking, id sooner put up with just plain old normal nagging rather than nagging unproven nonsense.

I guess we are all waiting for Dawn Falcon to point to these "services" and probably will be into the next century. I think the poor think actually believes itself, proof expensive dementia meds are still hard to get on the NHS maybe?

Posted by Somerset over 3 years ago
DF - please just give a link.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 3 years ago
Seriously speaking id like to see real evidence that and i quote DF "...BT is forced to offer services to LLU companies at a loss. It's been documented on this very site over and over again." I can find no such documentation on this site.