I'm not sure unethical is the right word. If Three were forcing people still in minimum term contracts to change to the new plans then that could be, but the only people contacted are well outside their minimum contract term.

It shows the One Plan was a) too popular, and b) put too much strain on the network per subscriber to be financially sustainable - and c) the owners in HK want more return

I couldn't disagree more.

It frustrates me incredibly that we see networks around the world "grandfather" people in to tariffs that they claim are economically and technologically unviable.

Neither can be true if you're happy to let existing customers continue on those tariffs.

I think it's very innovative of Three to move people onto modern tariffs, even if that means that they will lose some customers and ruffle some feathers doing so.

A business is there to make money. Three is making a business decision. There is nothing unethical about it.

Innovative? It's precedent setting and every company will start doing the same thing unless Ofcom (already a toothless wonder when it comes to regulation) does something about it. I don't want to see consumers getting consistently hit with lesser data allowances and higher prices for the privilege. And then such business practices will spread to landline broadband, line rental providers, subscription TV providers and so forth. It's anti-consumer.

It's an open market, they don't owe you a plan in the future for the price you want to pay and the amount you want. They can change what they offer at any point, that's the benefit of signing up to a contract, that it's fixed.

Once you're out of contract (minimum term) then either party can give 30 days notice. There's a whole range of MVNOs and networks out there to choose from, but you can't insist they do what you want.

Thing is...I can, and will, make them give me what I want. If they don't have me (ie the customer) then there's no business. It's pretty simple.

That's not the way it works in the real world, there are plenty of customers and they can never satisfy every one. If they're ending the plan then they're ending the plan for good business reasons, you can try as hard as you want, but you won't get unlimited tethering from them or a plan at the same price. They are not compromising and they don't have to because nobody else in the market is offering it at that price.

Giffgaff have cut back what they offer significantly over the last 5 years due to heavy user issues, Three are actually acting in the interests of the majority when it comes to the end of the unlimited tethering, as 98% didn't cause them major issues, but a small amount actually negatively impacted the network for the majority of customers.

Good luck going to Tesco and 'making' them give you that bottle of wine at the price you insist you want to pay for it. If you can't get what you want you'll have to compromise and have less, or buy from elsewhere. Not everyone is after cheap cheap cheap, I'm certainly not always looking for the cheapest deal.

That's a bit arrogant don't you think? Just because you don't want to pay that for unlimited data doesn't mean that others don't. I suspect I'll pay a higher amount when my letter comes just because I like having feel at home (even in its limited form) and because it offers unlimited data on a 4G network.
Last edited by lightspeed2398 : 31-01-2016 at 15:58

I'm also going to pay for it too, because I have thought it's been very cheap for years with no price increases since I went on the plan in what must have been 2012 / 2013? I'm also happy that the people using it for mobile broadband are finally getting the boot as it should mean better performance for the majority of customers. If the extra money in part goes towards more investment then that's another good thing.

That would work only if you were a union representative with collective bargaining powers for all their customers. In that situation you probably could get a good deal and which would allow their business to continue operating viably (but at a lot less profit than the shareholders want).

As it is you are one individual. You can demand as much as you like, and they can say "no", and that is the end of the discussion.

What do you think about people who get 35 and 50% discounts from Sky by threatening to leave?

And what do you think about people who are getting the £30 plan for £20 from retentions, while others don't? Will you seek to get the £10 discount or just pay the full £30?

Dear Ofcom,

My supplier Three has recently ended my price plan outside of my minimum term contract when I'm on a 30 day rolling contract. They have offered me 2 alternatives, one of which is £5 more and I am getting less value than I used to. Please can you force Three to keep supplying me at the same price I have paid since 2012 and with the same allowance. I am aware that virtually no other operator offers unlimited data and a don't lot allow anywhere near as much as 12GB of tethering, but I want things to stay the same as they have always been and don't want to pay more.

Kind regards,
Betty

Dear Betty,

No.

Regards,
Ofcom.

Virgin Media is alleged to be offering 60% discounts in some places (!!).

I assume Three will have their target numbers, which of course will be business confidential.

Exactly it was cheap then when I got it and I've had a bloody good run with it. The situation has changed since then business and network wise. o2 and Vodafone are steaming ahead and EE is in orbit. The network has collapsed in some places, especially round London and it needs wide scale investment.


I think there's a slight difference, the Sky plans are often sold as a promotional retentions deal, whereas Three sold this as their main plan for a long time. They also tell you that it's going to end and there will be a price increase at the end or whatever.

I'll seek to get the best deal possible that they offer, that's just logical but I think that people are being delusional if they think the network could continue to offer that stupid deal with the 1TB usage police with tethering at such a low rate for a long period of time, we should instead see it as it was, a desperate attempt to boost their market share quickly, and this is where I go into conspiracy theories maybe this was to show Hutchison back in Hong Kong that their network was growing enough to justify the 4G investment or something like that.

What's the limit now on AYCE data? This is mostly about the price hike, not the loss of tethering, remember.

Thing is they shouldn't need to justify 4G investment, they need to take a look at EE who are steaming ahead and leaving other networks in the dust.

Not all companies are targeting the same market though, BA are going for a different customer than Easyjet or Delta. To assume that Three should be doing exactly the same as EE is wrong, they are going after their own customer, pricepoint, etc EE is clearly going for speed, which isn't what everyone is sold on, a lot would prefer bigger data plans or the lower pricing.

So what is it then? Three can't cope with heavy data usage so kicking people off a plan is justified? But if they pay a bit more they can still keep unlimited data that can cause problems and is why other networks won't offer it?

From people I've spoken to (fairly recently), I am of the belief that unlimited data is going to end. How Three decides to do this is up in their air, as that's a major marketing advantage eradicated and even more people will 'hit the roof' even if many will be rushing to defend Three by saying unlimited handset data was silly etc.

If Three were going to end unlimited data then they wouldn't be selling it now, assuming they followed the pattern of stopping selling something for a couple of years before moving people off.

I think it's a combination of the plan being so cheap from their era of trying to buy up customers and also the need to cut off unlimited tethering users who used a huge amount of capacity.

They don't want the O2 / Three thing to begin badly as well, so I think part of it is levelling the playing field as anything they do post sale will be blamed on that. This isn't a new decision like people are making it out to be, this has been going on for 2 years and we're really raking over old coals because of a very vocal minority.

We'll see what Three's numbers are like when they report the next financial statement in February.

BA, Easyjet or Delta will jump at the chance to buy new planes that are more efficient or can carry more passengers, though.

They won't spend years flying obsolete, expensive to run planes if they don't need to.

That's what not investing in 4G means

Moox, the planes themselves are not the business, the customer doesn't choose the aircraft, that's the whole point.

You're buying a service, the user experience and cost is what matters, different networks are going after custoemers with different wants, needs and affinities. A lot of people really like not being on fixed plans and not having to worry about their handset data use, many don't care at all about the speed and don't run regular speed tests as long as their apps work and their data works.

You realise that many don't know the difference between H and 3G and 4G and 3G+ they barely notice the difference between the symbols that they see on Three as you typically always just get working data that allows you to do what you want with your phone, unmetered and always on, and for a relatively low price, even after this price hike it's still competitive.

That's a fair point for most phone user's. I suspect the people targeted with this heavy data know all about the network speed as they are using it most of the time.

It will be interesting to see if people really are leaving because of it? Also if they leave will the network actually improve for most users?

Exactly. The idea that I should just sit and take a 100% price rise overnight just because I've had a good run - which is the suggestion here - is laughable.

And you're spot on with this issue by the way.

On a Sky thread in this very forum, there are people accusing those who secure a discount to stay as being immoral and even forcing up charges for other people who are more honest.

It's interesting how people can defend the actions of some businesses. I've never said Three can't legally do what it is doing, but that's not the point. I think it's a crazy thing for it to do and it has now seen what a lot of customers think (and they're not all moaning because of my blog - I'm not THAT popular!).

I also remember people slating those who dared complain about the new charges introduced by Ryanair, and more recently the fee to get something ordered online delivered to the store for collection. John Lewis said it could do it because it felt the industry as a whole would do the same, and it seems that's exactly what is happening.

Three now makes it possible for all special offers to become very temporary. Once you're out of contract they can do what they like, and because you can cancel without penalty you can do absolutely nothing.

PS. The main reason the papers were so interested in this story was that the #makeitright hashtag was being used by angry customers, and it makes a mockery of the whole campaign.