Rival ISPs rubbish BT Broadband Basic
By Tim Richardson
Posted: 01/03/2004 at 15:36 GMT
The Register Mobile:

BT's rivals have been quick to rubbish its new sub-£20 offer for a
capped broadband service by pointing out that BT Broadband Basic is
just as expensive as the monster telco's other no-frills offer.

Although BT Broadband Basic costs £19.99 a month, the £80 up-front
set-up cost means that for the first year punters will be forced to
cough up a few pennies short of £320 for the service.

Subscribing to its full no-frills, access only service, BT Broadband,
(£27 a month, no set-up or modem charges) means that in the first year
punters pay £324 - just a few quid more.

Other ISPs which offer full 512k broadband services with no usage caps
say that - with installation and hardware costs thrown in as part of
their deals - they are even cheaper.

A spokeswoman for Freeserve (where 512k currently costs £15.99 a month
for the first three months, £27.99 thereafter plus free modem and
activation: total first year cost £300) told The Register: "We welcome
any move to drive the UK broadband market but we don't quite
understand BT's pricing, given that this offer is only six quid
cheaper than their current offer and Freeserve is a whole twenty quid
cheaper a year for a full service."

Likewise, a spokeswoman for Tiscali (currently costs £24.99 a month
plus free modem and activation: total first year cost £300) said:
"We're happy that BT is recognising that people want cheap broadband.
But our full service is still £20 a year cheaper and there is no
capping."

A spokesman for AOL said: "In theory, this is exactly the kind of
product innovation we believe would be possible for all service
providers if BT, or focused regulation, enabled greater wholesale
broadband competition.

"In practice, because of the substantial up front charges this product
is virtually the same total cost as BT Retail's original service over
the first year - and more than many rivals - but with the additional
severe restrictions on usage."

Sheffield-based PlusNet couldn't resist having a dig as well. It's
already been offering its own sub-£20 entry-level 512k broadband
product (Home Surf) for the last 20 months.

Said Marco Potesta, marketing director: "...it is surprising that BT
are claiming to take the lead on a sub-£20 product, especially when
everyone is aware of each others' product offerings - and we have been
offering Home Surf for almost two years.

"It's encouraging to see someone else joining us in selling a true
broadband product at under £20 and not just promoting their low-speed,
low-priced broadband products, the emphasis on which only serves to
confuse and take the whole market in the wrong direction."

BT Openworld MD Duncan Ingram denied that the telco was trying to
mislead people, insisting that the different prices were set out
clearly for everyone to see. Many ISPs use a range of special offers
to help bring down the cost of their services, he argued.

"£19.99 is a sustainable price - it is a breakthrough for a half meg
service," he told us. And he didn't rule out special offers for the
'Basic' service at some time in the future.

Today, Telewest launched a 256k cable service (£17.99 a month) to
tempt customers who are wary of switching to broadband. ®

"scuffler" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:605e9264.0403011114.2e9b643c@posting.google.c om...
not sure why everyone is banging on about up front fees.
you take a lower tariff you get less subsidised kit.
its the same with mobile payg versus pay monthly
to call this a 'scam' is a bit ott

fat bwoy wrote:

I agree. Its not as if they are hiding costs. Its up to the customer to
decide what they can afford. To me, an upfront payment and lesser monthly
payments would be a better option than a higher monthly payment. Its
greater options for more people. As long as the pricing structure is clear,
then its not a scam.

Beck wrote:
How would that be better? Excuse me for being stupid but surely spreading the
cost is easier?

"Beck" <becksnews@removebtopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c2221d$fr6$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
the same outfit as the BTOpenworld who publicly denied port-throttling their
broadband service and then had to humiliatingly climb down when the BBC's
Watchdog program announced it had proof they were and were going to publish
it.

Oh, hang on........BT, BTYahoo, BTOpenworld.....the money all ends up in the
same pot doesn't it?

dd wrote:
Less to pay per month

Beck wrote:
So you'd rather pay BT £80 and 12 payments of £19.99 (£319.88) instead of just
12 payments of £24.99 (299.88) to Tiscali (or one of the many other providers)
just because you pay less monthly?

"dd" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:Udg1c.7646$Db4.1434@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
100% correct. Always best to take into consideration any special offers etc
and the cost for the whole year. It could be one pence per month. Doesn't
mean it's economical in anyway.

scuffler <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[]

I've had a look around, and a lot of the other ISPs which offer
broadband around the £20 a month mark have substantial sign-up fees,
which make me think I'm just as well staying with BT Broadband. Any good
ISP's that don't have such a fee?

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

dd wrote:
Its a matter of budget isnt it? I would prefer a lower monthly payment and a
one off charge because that is what fits in with my budget. I dont want to
save money if it means having to fork out more each month. I have other
bills to pay so its easier to spread things around.

That's if you find BTYahoo/Openworld provides a competent, secure,
adequately supported and pain free service. Right now thay damn well
are not. I don't want lost mail, unasked for exposure to spam, random
problems with email servers, and most importantly absence of security
for existing user websites.

Mark

Audrey <thethieves@btinternet.com> wrote:

I wouldn't know. Like I said, I use BT _Broadband_, and the only thing I
care about is connectivity and speed. On both fronts, no problems.

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk