Let's not confuse two seperate issues, I referenced human rights in regards to a service provider assuming the mantle of big brother, this is ethically wrong. Regarding access itself that is simply a question of trade descriptions, if I pay for it, then I can expect service and any problems to be dealth with 'reasonably'.
EDIT:
As previously stated on these forums, no I dont have a TV licence ...
An internet service is sold as a product, it can be regarded as a product. It's even described by ISPs as a product in their fiscal statements and on many of their websites. You seem to be under the false impression that services are not products, and they can be sold with different provisos and/or expectations, and you are absolutely wrong.
I disagree, and so does our government FYI. Internet access is a right to be afforded every British individual. You can multiply the font-size on that many thousands of times once you've actually PAID for access to the connection.
I agree, but feel that you are mixing the distinction between product and service somewhat.
As you state a product should be sold on the basis of being fit for purpose and should be costed accordingly with expectations on performance being based purely on the quality that you as a consumer were prepared to pay for. A service however is slightly different. Apart from "extras" that you may get with a business service, (such as back ups and the like as you mentioned), there is the continuity element that is present. As in, you pay for knowing that your connection is less likely to be interrupted, (because of differing prioritisation for business customers), and if/when it is interrupted it will be fixed a lot more quickly. Why is it more expensive? Well as I'm sure you're aware, people cost money and in order to guarantee that a service is repaired quickly more resources are required to be put in to the effort of doing so. It really is as simple as that.
Human rights violation? Do you think that paying for something means that you're entitled to dictate terms, no matter what those terms are? Irrespective of the impact on the employees of that "nameless corporation" that you feel is violating your human rights? Ever stopped to think of what "putting the customers wishes and whims first" means to the guy having to do the actual work of fixing your network? Ever thought that maybe it's demanding customers that expect to get whatever they want just because "they payed for it", (and usually for as little as possible), that are pushing down the working standards and pay awards for the ordinary worker? I think you've got your concept of human rights just a little bit out of whack if you think being told what you can and can't use your internet connection for constitutes a violation of those rights.
sorry bud. but a telephone is a luxury. how many people do you call "just for a chat". how many emergency services would you call in one year on your phone?
You still own the BBC, FTR, whether you pay for a licence or not. Whoever is thinking that paying for a TV licence is the same as renting ownership of the BBC is wrong. It belongs to every British citizen, including ex-pats - hence the huge amount of money being chucked annually at the World Service.
Alarms for example. At least in Norway there is a law, if custommer wants that ofc, that there shal be a telephone line to the custommer. Some custommers only has alarms connected to this line, and I guess that is one of the reasons for at least here in Norway there is a law that gives people the right on a PSTN line if they want/need.
i hear ya sam. but a service package (broadband+tv or what ever) can easily be mistaken for a product. but at the post office (where i work) their services are never refered to as products. this is because it only causes confussion (this thread is a great example).
Internet access is a right to be afforded every British individual. this means that people have the right to a fair price(trading standards). not the service.
TVE; an alarm system is a 3rd party product that uses you telephone service to increase responce time for the police. example, your alarm goes off. it sends an email (type thing) to the alarm copmpany who then alert the police. this has nothing to do with the phone provider.
I'm afraid you are superimposing definitions that don't withstand challenge on top of what's actually established in law. You cannot diminish the expectations that customers can expect by creating "higher" packages. Statutory consumer law doesn't allow for that. You can specify LOWER expectations in exchange for discounts - like 90 day warranties to replace 1-year warranties in explicitly agreed discount packages, but in law there is absolutely nothing to support the current lack of service standards being offered by UK ISPs. The only reason the courts aren't packed, as I'm sure you know, is because of OFCOM's failure to UPHOLD CURRENT LAW.
I think you need to start making the distinction between service and support. That seems to be where you're stumbling on the concepts of what is and is not acceptable. I'm assuming you're not doing that deliberately.
A lease on a car is a service rather than a product, but you can regard the car as a product even though it's provided to you in a service agreement, and if it breaks down you can expect to be "serviced" appropriately.
But to add to the confusion, the lease agreement is legally a product that you pay for on a rolling basis. So you know, British service industries are counted as part of Britain's "GDP" - gross domestic product.
You live in a free society, last I checked Oliver Cromwell was dead (and I happen to think he wasn't a hero and was little more than a historical equivellent of Sadam Hussein), you are free to get another job.
I pay for the top BT package, unmetered internet access and an unguaranteed 8mb/sec, I actually get
This is the fastest it has ever tested at, in the evenings I get 0.2mb/sec and 600ms pings.
I pay £50 a month for this.
Just what planet are you on when you suggest to me that I am inflicting low wages on you? You made your own bed you go lie in it.
As for me, I pay a lot of money for a service that only just suffices, I soon move, and I think it is fair for me to expect nothing short of a 'reasonable' downtime during the move. I use that word carefully, because it's the one the law says I am entitled too under the Trade Descriptions Act 1984.
Now I use my home connection for some work data, and an aweful lot of lfsforum.net. Earlier you suggested I had no right to do this as I have a home broadband package.
My position on this remains unnaffected by the argument you have put forward. My position is that any company, particularly a service provider, who wishes to impose restrictions on my life is ethically in the wrong.
The Western world has moved on from the time when employees where owned and we lived in towns wholly at the proviso of the managing director of the nearest big company.
This isn't Africa, this is Europe. We're a G8 nation. If you believe that BT has the right to dictate whether I work from home or not then you can toddle off back to the 19th century and catch the rest of us up when you're ready.
but anyways, (sorry for double post) back to ranting about ISP's. what get right up my nose is when you get the generic "from time to time your speed will decrease depending on how many people are online in your area" b-jezuz that does my nut in.
i had to call virginmedia last week because i was only getting 5% of the speed i was paying for. i am currently on their 20Mb/s package and was only getting 0.50Mb/s (my uipload was faster than my download)
long story short, it was a battle of the call center agents. i ended up getting a new modem out of it and made sure that this was not an attempt to renew my contract with them. BT are upgrading their network (as we speak) to the fibre-optic network (should speed up 40% of the UK by 2012) so VM will not have the fastest network in the uk for much longer. once this happens, youi're gonna see alot of customer retention call being made from VM in an attempt to keep as many customers as possible. should be fun.
BT hasn't got the right to dictate whether I work from home or not. but they do have the power to control what you use their network for (fair usage policy anyone).
i don't know why i'm speaking for the ISP's, i don't get on with them just like everyone else. am i the only one who reads the term and conditions on the back of my bills?
The confusion seems to be that you believe that services and products have different expectations placed on them by default. The fact is that they don't. Whether what you're paying for is a service or a product, you have a right to a level of service. The only relevent differentiation is that a product has a different guarantee life (you buy a car or a printer and in 3 years the warranty is expired, you pay for an internet connection for a month and at the end of the month the warranty expires.. or you never stop paying and it never expires). That is the differentiation. However, while ever you're paying for a service, it is legally a product with guarantee provisions.
That's not the limitation, but I'll roll with it.. but I'll add to it that a fair price does actually incorporate into it the expectation that you receive, with reasonable expectations on reliability, what you pay for. There is no provision in law for paying for something and being expected or required to not receive it.
Becky, you say you live in a geographically hard place for ADSL, do you know any information about the line itself, to your appartment? Has the company given you that information? Like, line length, diametre and such?
Just curious, and do you know how the lines will be at the new place?
About the moving part, guess it won't happen anything faster than normal
What does CS tells you when you call in to them expressing the problems with the line? Does they say anything about it?
Just one thing too, when they say 8mbit they probally (alltho with little writing) tells it's up to 8mbit. Meaning..well any speed is ok, since it totally dependable on the infrastructure, lenghts ++++...
I live in the ass end of a quiet village, the exchange is several miles away in the nearest town. Whilst my letting agent did indeed break the trade descriptions act when I took the place, "The whole of Brampton has excellent broadband", BT didn't. They said they might be able to guarntee me 1mb/sec, and 2mb/sec at a push. As things turned out I get a fraction of that, but I accepted it because i'm clued up enough to know the limits of technology and effects of decades of under investment.
It took BT 17 years to prove the transistor worked, i'm not expecting miracles. The whole of my estate is the same, and whilst I might despair over my connection at times, i'm not about to go on a crusade to fix it.
The village i'm moving too is closer to the nearest town, practically a part of it, and i'm going to be nearer the centre of the village, my place will be 1-2 miles from the exchange and i'm hopeful that this will equate to better broadband.
I'm not after normal, i'm after reasonable. Here is where consumer expectations probably exceed the franchising and licence infrastructure in the UK at this time.
After hearing the horror stories of my neighbours I decided not to pursue a complaint path myself, I accepted I have a poor connection here.
Yah absolutely, and infact whilst the package is "upto 8mbit/sec" the girl I spoke too to sign up for the package was only optimistic of 2mbit/sec and guaranteed only 1mbit/sec. The fact I typically get around 20% of the speed I was guaranteed is not something i've pursued on the grounds that I already know nothing can be done without sorting out better lines into the village, and Brampton wont be getting fibre optic until long after more civilised parts of the country get it.
the whole "up to" thing is a strange thing. could you imagine ford selling their fiestas with "up to 4 wheels". the reason ISP's have to use terms like "up to" is beacuse the technology in which the service/product is supplied is old, and i mean really old. a telephone line was never originally designed to carry such vast ammounts of data. once the fibre optic upgrade has completed (in the uk), the whole "up to" BS will be dropped.
sam, could you explain to me (in as simple form as possible) what you feel is the difference between a service and a product?
i feel a service is something you can't touch (if you get me), a bit like software.
i feel a product is something you can touch, i bit like hardware.
I think the ISPs have had long enough now, without OFCOM on their backs. It's time we had proportionate pricing. If you pay for an 8Mbit connection and they deliver a lousy 1Mb, you should be required to pay 1/8th the monthly charge.
That'd get the ISPs pulling their fingers out to provide customers with what they're paying for.
That sucks, only good part was the their informed about it, sadly seen some cases where sales people don't inform people about their crappy lines and then the people get pissed of due to crappy internet. Things turns out shit, court and stuff, and in the end of the day - the lines are crappy kthxbye.. Companies should be better giving realistic info to the custommers, not optimistic or "sale" info. "Yeah you SURE can have 1 mbit", instead say "I need to infor you that your living in a troublesome area, and we cano gurantee any speed or normal stability. Still wish to proceed?" . Silly written, but the generall knowing about the lines itself makes a lot of cinfusion and anger both ways.
When that is said, try to call them, maybe there is something they can do. Beeing nice helps a lot, and just ask them on a normal way actually give you more back than you would belive in first place.(but again, that can go both ways).
They get around this Sam because they offer 1mbit/sec packages, the problem is that these are limited in other ways too - in my case I exceed BT's download cap for the next package down (their middle one) in 2 days of typical usage, and as those defending the ISP's earlier have so adamantly stated, you don't get good service unless you are paying for the top package.
for sure, but i was trying to put it in such a way that it was easier to understand
i 100% agree with you there sam. broadband is one of the very few things in the world where you expected to pay 100% of the price regardless of the % you receive. i actually brought this up when i called VM about my speed decrease. i said that i was reluctant to pay my bill as i felt paying £40 for only 5% of my "usual" speed was not acceptable. to which i was met with the generic from time to time statement.
The USO (Universal Service Obligation) states that users should be able to expect connection speeds of at least 28.8 kbit/s, although they are pushing to up this to 2mbit and having most areas with crappy phone lines covered by 'mobile broadband'.
Even still, ADSL is not a guaranteed service, no SLAs ever apply.
If you need a bombproof connection, you need a leased line.
Legally there's barely any, if any. The distinction is really what is left with the consumer at contract termination. With services, there's usually nothing tangible.. the car (the product) goes back to the lease-hire company. With a product, possession of something tangible generally stays with the consumer.
*cries* I checked mobile broadband coverage and on the map there is this one little square covering 3 houses where, due to a strange quirk of geography and antenna positions or whatever, there is "no to poor" coverage. Guess who lives there?
The really frustrating part of me is there is a field behind me with crops in that has "normal" 3G coverage, apparently people speeding down the dual carriageway over yonder need the ability to surf facebook whilst they're driving.
and if you check your modem/router supplied by your ISP there was be a sticker of some sort stating that this equiptment remains property of xxxxxxxxxxxx. that's why at the end of your contract/service (if you do not want to continue) the ISP will send you a jiffy bag so you can send their property back to them.
I think the way things are now is untenable. Considering so much of t'internet was devised by Brits or British companies (even the TCP/IP protocol), Britain really is a consumer backwater in regards to the internet.
Many ISPs are packaging "free modem/router", some even packaging laptops, with their internet service products based on minimum contract durations.
aye i know, but read the terms carefuly, although they provide you with free equiptment, it still belongs to them. not too sure about laptops (mobile broadband maybe) so i couldn't comment on that aspect of ISP sales techniques.
...
