Kingston Communications Monopoly over areas of Yorkshire

2»

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 247
    Forum Member
    It's a pity more ISP's don't take that approach.
    No doubt no ambiguity no cries of "they're throttling my connection" go against FUP thus spoiling others' internet speeds and you get cut off!
    WTG Kingston Communications!

    It's all very well having a "fair use policy". But then the service is advertised as being "unlimited, ideal for high demand users such as gamers and people downloading music and videos".

    The whole thing stinks of double standards and false advertising.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,718
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's all very well having a "fair use policy". But then the service is advertised as being "unlimited, ideal for high demand users such as gamers and people downloading music and videos".

    The whole thing stinks of double standards and false advertising.
    That's another thing that wants curtailing...the use of 'unlimited' in advertising Broadband connections.
    To get a truly UNLIMITED service you would need to be paying somewhere in the region of £70 per month ...But really are we the consumer so thick as to believe that if we are paying a bargain price that we are gonna get unlimited use of the service?
    No I guess it is greed of the customer that the ISP's are playing on... to good effect as well judging by the amount that sign up only to complain when they can't download the Internet in its entirety!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 247
    Forum Member
    winactive wrote: »
    How are people not getting this?

    There will be no competition because it is not economically viable. Just read the wikipedia entry referred to earlier.

    You can moan all you like about competition and freedom of choice, but this is the fundamental problem with opening things up to competition, in that the most profitable opportunities are fought over, whereas the rest is neglected, unless it is regulated that companies or consortiums landing the chioce contracts are forced to maintain a minimum service level (which is usually run at a loss) in the non-desirable (to the operators) areas.

    Fierce competition leads to a dominant supplier or provider effectively paying an over-inflated price for the contract which it then cannot recoup the outlay, the less successful operators are gradually marginalised and taken over or merged until you arrive at a monopoly and then artifical competiton is introduced (usually by a regulator).

    Whatever you do, you end up with the same - a monopoly. It's just a question of how long it takes. The economies of scale are then translated into profits when not regulated, but when this is the case, people moan that it is a rip-off and start bemoaning the lack of choice.

    Think Sky, think what is now Virgin Media, for the examples in TV (Satellite and Cable). Internet service provision, mobile phone and landlines will end up the same way.


    But of course someone not in Hull, able to pick and choose any ISP at will would say that :mad:
  • winactivewinactive Posts: 2,705
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But of course someone not in Hull, able to pick and choose any ISP at will would say that :mad:

    So, you get to choose. At the end of the day it's down to the copper wire that comes in the home.

    You can buy on price and get rubbish service, you can get good service but pay through the nose. You can pay a lot for rubbish, or get lucky and get the same as everyone at the lowest possible price - if you're lucky.

    Your mileage may vary. And at least you don't have the 'smoke and mirrors' enticements to change ISP. You have a few price plans I believe to choose from. Makes the choice easier and to compare like with like. If you are on the same service as Johnny down the street, your yardstick is what he gets.

    A lot easier IMHO. :D
  • biscitbiscit Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    Has it. thank you. i just dont see how a company can tell her she is not allowed to have AOL or Virgin or even BT . .

    Kingston aren't stopping her from using other providers, the providers are by chosing not to operate in the Hull area.
    In May 2008, the "Review of the wholesale broadband access markets" report published by Ofcom determined that KCOM was not acting in a way that would keep out rival companies, and that pricing for wholesale broadband and access to LLU was within the market range. The main reason cited by rivals for not providing services in the Hull area was rather one of overall cost effectiveness, given the relatively small number of potential customers (190,000 homes), and the fact that many of these would be likely to remain with the incumbent supplier.
  • coopermanyorkscoopermanyorks Posts: 21,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OLDSOAK wrote: »
    That's another thing that wants curtailing...the use of 'unlimited' in advertising Broadband connections.
    To get a truly UNLIMITED service you would need to be paying somewhere in the region of £70 per month ...But really are we the consumer so thick as to believe that if we are paying a bargain price that we are gonna get unlimited use of the service?
    No I guess it is greed of the customer that the ISP's are playing on... to good effect as well judging by the amount that sign up only to complain when they can't download the Internet in its entirety!

    Isn't Sky Max now truly "Unlimited" ?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29
    Forum Member
    OMG! the price of karoo is silly. BT charge £30 a month, but at least on BT i could search for a better service. like Free internet with Sky+. or £19.99 for TV, Internet, And phone... KC seem to think they can charge the high rates and force people to pay it, as they are forcing us, as theres no one else. its just stupid. i hate KC. and were suppost to be proud of it...lol


    The faster that place closes the bloody better:mad:
  • Ray266Ray266 Posts: 3,573
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pressure should be put on Kingston it's 2009 not 1959 if I lived in the Hull area I would not be a happy bunny to say the least:(
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29
    Forum Member
    biscit wrote: »
    Kingston aren't stopping her from using other providers, the providers are by chosing not to operate in the Hull area.

    :( kingston are stopping her from getting a better deal, as they wont rent out there lines. and if they did rent them out they would be so expensive its not worth the time...
    but at least we have mobile internet now. £15 for 15GB from 3G. 2MB download speed. fast enough for most people. :D
  • JAS84JAS84 Posts: 7,430
    Forum Member
    The only competition in Hull is mobile Internet dongles. :( I don't know why KC bothered putting Karoo's name on Hull City's football shirts, since if you want the Internet in Hull, Karoo is your only choice through a landline. Also, KC should be made to charge the same as BT for line access, not more - and the same goes for customers - from what you've said, my £16 10GB a month package is undercut by mobile providers, and I believe the same goes for ISPs Hull can't access. The EU should deal with the line access pricing, as it's preventing competition, and breaks monopoly laws. :mad:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 497
    Forum Member
    JAS84 wrote: »
    The only competition in Hull is mobile Internet dongles. :( I don't know why KC bothered putting Karoo's name on Hull City's football shirts, since if you want the Internet in Hull, Karoo is your only choice through a landline. Also, KC should be made to charge the same as BT for line access, not more - and the same goes for customers - from what you've said, my £16 10GB a month package is undercut by mobile providers, and I believe the same goes for ISPs Hull can't access. The EU should deal with the line access pricing, as it's preventing competition, and breaks monopoly laws. :mad:

    KCOM are regulated by OFCOM and have to offer the access pricing as BT. It's the other ISP's choices not to go there.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29
    Forum Member
    GTL wrote: »
    KCOM are regulated by OFCOM and have to offer the access pricing as BT. It's the other ISP's choices not to go there.

    Its not sadly like that, i used to work for tiscali and they was wanting to enter hull, same as AOL,
    first AOL was offering dial up connect for free and ''unlimited'' download/uplaod. but KC was not happy with that so the number your modem called had a charge slapped on it. 1p per minute this was not the choice of AOL as they wanted to charge £15 a month for there service. but KC told them they had to charge on a minute basis.

    secoundly, Tiscali was going to enter hull, but then was told no by KC, but when they was told they had to open there lines, they put the hire price sky high, and tiscali would of had to of charges the same price if not more just to brake even.


    this is how i know it to be, as in 1904 KC and hull city councel had an agreement, that they would run telecomes in hull, only....

    are under hand payments going to people that could let other isps in to hull?


    In no way is this 100% true, this is what we was told at tiscali, because KC are ok, not cheap but its sure fast. just expensive, and its annoying that theres loads of people in hull that would dive at the chance to get a cheaper deal. i would stay with KC and they would have to lower there prices, i mean where did the £18.99 a month internet go? i could download untill my heart was content.

    But on a darker side, my mother is with BT internet she pays £28.99 a month, and she only gets 1.3MB at least i get 9.8MB and thats thanks to all the money KC have pumped back into upgrading its lines.
  • JAS84JAS84 Posts: 7,430
    Forum Member
    I assume you mean GB, not MB, if you're talking about monthly data limits. Your mother's being ripped off, she should be paying £9.99 for that service. Unless the price also includes her phone and maybe BT Vision as well?

    You got KC's history wrong - Hull Corporation Telephones, as it was originally, was owned by Hull City Council (formerly Hull Corporation, hence KC's original name) until recently. Not an agreement, full ownership. It was floated on the stock market about a decade ago.

    And there's no rule saying KC have to charge the same access charge as BT. If they did, Tiscali and AOL would probably be available here.
  • JAS84JAS84 Posts: 7,430
    Forum Member
    Someone set up a facebook group to stop the monopoly.

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=106419624418&ref=nf
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29
    Forum Member
    JAS84 wrote: »
    I assume you mean GB, not MB, if you're talking about monthly data limits. Your mother's being ripped off, she should be paying £9.99 for that service. Unless the price also includes her phone and maybe BT Vision as well?

    You got KC's history wrong - Hull Corporation Telephones, as it was originally, was owned by Hull City Council (formerly Hull Corporation, hence KC's original name) until recently. Not an agreement, full ownership. It was floated on the stock market about a decade ago.

    And there's no rule saying KC have to charge the same access charge as BT. If they did, Tiscali and AOL would probably be available here.

    no mate, 1.3mb and 9.8 mb = download speed
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29
    Forum Member
    :D I retract everything, i took the time to look into what i was complaining about, and this is why other ISPs wont come into hull.

    KC do sell there lines, no problems there
    but KC cant just loan lines here and there,
    lets say tiscali wanted to enter hull, they would have to buy 10,000 lines and this is where things get ugly, as quite right KC cant rent lines here and there as that would be a pain in neck, anyway, so tiscali dont think its worth there time as tiscali dont think anough people would join tiscai to make a profit and pay the line rent. erm: same line rent as BT... it all comes down to theres not enough people that live in hull to pull it off.:D
Sign In or Register to comment.