|
||||||||
3/O2 Quad Play... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Stamford
Posts: 72
|
3/O2 Quad Play...
How does 3 taking over O2 get them nearer to Quad play the media seems to keep banging on about?
O2 got rid of home BB to Sky. Or are 3 never going to be interested in TV or home broadband? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
It doesn't quadplay is the BT, Sky, Virgin Media argument. A lot of analysts have already said they don't buy into the quadplay argument, especially not working for everyone, only 17% of Virgin media's customers take quadplay for example.
It is really about quadplay for BT, but not so much with Hutchison buying O2. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,392
|
Quote:
A lot of analysts have already said they don't buy into the quadplay argument, especially not working for everyone, only 17% of Virgin media's customers take quadplay for example.
I want choice to pick the products I need at the best price. I don't want bundled packages where each component is generic and bland. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,966
|
I'd never get my Broadband through the same supplier as my Phone. If they have a large network fault you are totally shafted. Even if they gave me both for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
Quote:
I hate the quadplay push. Every time I talk to EE they want to sell my their broadband (no, I don't buy on price, I want technical features and you don't have static IP) and they want to sell me their TV (no I have sky).
I want choice to pick the products I need at the best price. I don't want bundled packages where each component is generic and bland. I should imagine if we fast forward 5 years that so many devices will come with nano sims in, that the networks will be IPV6 just so that they can offer huge numbers of deals with satnav devices, book readers, alarm clocks and all sorts of devices that send and receive little bits of data that won't cost the consumer a subscription fee, but that are sold with the connectivity built in. We'll also see mobile payment get bigger I think and lots of other revenue streams for the mobile networks to look at, it won't be necessary for them all the compete. Who wants an old landline anyway in 5 years? Will we be getting a lot more content on demand, probably, can the likes of O2 / Three bundle x amount of netflix hours into the deal in 3-5 year when we begin getting 5G... I would imagine so.... There's nothing to stop Three / O2 from partnering like Virgin does with mobile to sell subscription online TV services. All new TV's have basic smart TV and freeview built in, so why wouldn't you just get an internet 'box' of some kind to be able to watch premium subscription series etc, If anything Virgin, Sky and BT have a challenge on their hands keeping the 'old stuff' going, set top box TV and old fashioned telephone services will become less desirable and are dying markets. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Stamford
Posts: 72
|
I personally dislike the idea of a Quad play, it's bad for the consumer & once hooked in difficult to divorce...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,249
|
Who wants a landline now honestly mine isn't even plugged in lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 636
|
I'm pretty sceptical about quad play too.
The first point is that quad play is really a household thing, whereas mobile is very much an individual / personal thing. Perhaps some households would fit in with the concept of all the members of the household being served under one account, with one bill, but for many it'll more be a case of just trying to have one or two people take mobile services in addition to the household services (broadband, TV, landline... though the latter is increasingly less important). Secondly, there's then the question of whether all the various component parts of the quad play package will be suitable - perhaps particularly the mobile element, e.g. will it have a sufficient data allowance for heavier users? Or indeed is the data service up to scratch (thinking particularly of the Sky MNVO on the O2 network). Plus if there's no coverage on the relevant network in important places for the individual then the whole thing's a bit pointless anyway. Thirdly, will it actually genuinely be cheaper to take it all (the quad) as a package? I dare say that for many it won't be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: a land filled with trolls
Posts: 12,021
|
It probably would be cheaper in many cases to sign up for quad play, but as mentioned before, it's the limitations.
For one, Sky using O2 rules them out for me. I'd hardly ditch Three/EE to go with O2 and drop down to GPRS for most of the time in my house (if I lock to LTE, my O2 phone can give a pretty good service, but allow it to use 2G-4G and it eventually drops to GPRS or EDGE and stays there). As for broadband, I am with TalkTalk and like the service because I can go on their forum and easily get them to look at my service and adjust the ADSL profile etc. I am not sure if Sky lets you do that. If I did go to Sky, I'd pay less for broadband (in fact, it would be free bar line rental) but I choose to stick with TalkTalk. In other words, people might actually not mind paying a bit more for the services they want and feel gives them value. In some cases, they might be misguided, but it's an open market. In the long term, the big companies seeking to tie you in to everything are hoping to force rivals out of business, which will then remove that open market. It's probably a good idea to make sure that doesn't happen! |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56.


