sky Mobile is a coming

Faust · 04-11-2016, 23:21

Quote:

BT are really worried SKY could kill their mobile sales. I remember speaking to someone high up in EE that said SKY buying over a network would allow them to ultra competitive as they would run the mobile side at almost a loss but make it up with Broadband/Landline/TV costs. Which would kill sales from EE/BT unless they really react, I expect it to be not as bad seeing it's an MVNO deal, but their sim only existing customer prices should shake things up a little for the other networks.

How's that work when they are offering free BB?

Aye Up · 04-11-2016, 23:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan

BT are really worried SKY could kill their mobile sales. I remember speaking to someone high up in EE that said SKY buying over a network would allow them to ultra competitive as they would run the mobile side at almost a loss but make it up with Broadband/Landline/TV costs. Which would kill sales from EE/BT unless they really react, I expect it to be not as bad seeing it's an MVNO deal, but their sim only existing customer prices should shake things up a little for the other networks.

BT has deeper pockets than Sky. Sky is riddled with debt, where as BT isn't, got billions in the bank. BT could out spend Sky and then some, should Sky pose a threat commercially then BT will go toe to toe with them as they have done since they won EPL rights.

Sky/Mobile will not be a threat to BT, they can get equally as competitive, as can Vodafone (who also have deep pockets).

Gigabit · 04-11-2016, 23:55

Shame Vodafone never want to actually invest any money in better service. They just spend it on more middle managers.

Everything Goes · 05-11-2016, 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

BT has deeper pockets than Sky. Sky is riddled with debt, where as BT isn't, got billions in the bank. BT could out spend Sky and then some, should Sky pose a threat commercially then BT will go toe to toe with them as they have done since they won EPL rights.

Sky/Mobile will not be a threat to BT, they can get equally as competitive, as can Vodafone (who also have deep pockets).

BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed

clewsy · 05-11-2016, 02:33

Well it could get interesting as look at the prices Tesco offer. That gives an idea of what an MVNO can offer I guess on o2.

Aye Up · 05-11-2016, 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed

God not that tired old story again

kirstiemcnabb · 05-11-2016, 07:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by benster

Did anyone else get this email from EE

Hi Paul,

Sky is set to launch a new mobile service this winter called Sky Mobile. Existing Sky customers are able to register their interest in the service from Monday 31st October. So far, no details of prices or packages have been released… this is where you come in!

If you are an existing Sky customer, we would like you to keep an eye out for any promotions you receive from Sky about Sky Mobile offers and let us know about it on our new forum:

Yes did
Interesting tactics

frejus19 · 05-11-2016, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by errea

O2 isn't worse then EE in Edinburgh.

I tried it out for a month and 4G was a joke. Thought my phone was faulty then the guy in the EE store reluctantly admitted that they were having ongoing technical issues in the city.

I stuck my phone on 3G only, and it worked slowly most of the time except for occasional Android message that the network didn't support mobile data, that I've never seen with a O2 or 3 sim card.

That's disappointing to hear. Edinburgh seems to be poor for 4G in general - mainly in terms of capacity. Bizarrely, Three seems to be the most reliable, even though their 4G is less extensively deployed.

Gigabit · 05-11-2016, 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed

They're a business, not a charity.

jchamier · 05-11-2016, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

They're a business, not a charity.

Anyone can order a fibre line from BT; if they have the hundreds of thousands to pay for it. (Worst case).

clewsy · 05-11-2016, 11:34

Sky could run mobile as a loss leader , however I wonder if it will be a success? People tend to be quite loyal on phone networks, especially the higher end users. EE have the network and all the extras to keep the higher end customer happy.

Does any MVNO have WiFi calling yet?

Also I suspect Tesco won't sit back if Sky come on the market, given they have the same network and access to 4g as Sky will have.

stone tape · 05-11-2016, 12:27

I was all for it until I found out it runs on O2, terrible network, I have had a personal mobile on O2 and also a work phone, sometimes the calls would not go through, had signal issues, terrible.

And I'm in London.

Everything Goes · 05-11-2016, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

God not that tired old story again

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

They're a business, not a charity.

Yes they would rather spunk it all on Football rights giving over paid and over sexed footballers more money than even world leaders get. All for kicking a ball around a park for 90 minutes a week.

Glad you two are happy to defend the lazy useless monopoly.

moox · 05-11-2016, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigabit

They're a business, not a charity.

That doesn't mean they're making the right long term decisions, though. Spending billions on FTTC was all well and good in the short term - it's just a shame that most of the equipment is obsolete from the day it goes in, because BT chose to go with a technology that is several years old (and a network architecture from the 90s)

BT will realise that FTTH is the future. I mean, they did - in the 80s - and it looks like they'll have to rediscover it. Other legacy telcos are already there and are crowing on about how much cheaper it is to run a fibre network vs copper - not to mention how it enables increased revenues (you can sell those ultra expensive leased lines without having to lift a finger to provide them - just change the boxes at the ends of the pre-existing fibre)

clewsy · 05-11-2016, 16:22

But the majority of the public are perfectly happy with their speed - current fibre pleases the customer on the whole, so that will suit BT.

Why fit FTTP when people are happy with the current super fast offering?

WelshBluebird · 07-11-2016, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by clewsy

But the majority of the public are perfectly happy with their speed - current fibre pleases the customer on the whole, so that will suit BT.

Why fit FTTP when people are happy with the current super fast offering?

At the moment, yeah you are right.
But the majority of the public were perfectly happy with 2Mbps ADSL just a few years ago.
So it is fairly sensible to think that in a few more years, the number of people unhappy with FTTC speeds will increase.

Short term, yeah FTTC is fine. But if you are looking long term (more than just a few years), then doing FTTH from the start would have been more cost effective.

Aye Up · 07-11-2016, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Glad you two are happy to defend the lazy useless monopoly.

Where you or someone else whinges about BT & fibre..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by moox

That doesn't mean they're making the right long term decisions, though. Spending billions on FTTC was all well and good in the short term - it's just a shame that most of the equipment is obsolete from the day it goes in, because BT chose to go with a technology that is several years old (and a network architecture from the 90s)

BT will realise that FTTH is the future. I mean, they did - in the 80s - and it looks like they'll have to rediscover it. Other legacy telcos are already there and are crowing on about how much cheaper it is to run a fibre network vs copper - not to mention how it enables increased revenues (you can sell those ultra expensive leased lines without having to lift a finger to provide them - just change the boxes at the ends of the pre-existing fibre)

This fella inevitably follows. This thread is about Sky and their mobile offering, keep on topic if you don't mind

samuel79 · 08-11-2016, 12:22

It would not be a shock if 02 sold them giffgaff its a ready made network for them and iirc 02 want out

Mystic Eddy · 08-11-2016, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by samuel79

It would not be a shock if 02 sold them giffgaff its a ready made network for them and iirc 02 want out

Telefonica (the parent company of O2) want to divest the entirety of O2 UK to help pay down company debt. This will either be via a sale or an IPO. I'd imagine a sale of giffgaff would take place after one of the two options for the parent company have been exercised.

The Lord Lucan · 09-11-2016, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by frejus19

That's disappointing to hear. Edinburgh seems to be poor for 4G in general - mainly in terms of capacity. Bizarrely, Three seems to be the most reliable, even though their 4G is less extensively deployed.

Totally have to disagree.. consistently getting fast speeds and coverage bar say inside Ocean Terminal is great. O2 has issues at peak, Three the same.

Regularly get these speeds in the city centre nowadays.
http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/i/1790783339

noise747 · 10-11-2016, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Yes they would rather spunk it all on Football rights giving over paid and over sexed footballers more money than even world leaders get. All for kicking a ball around a park for 90 minutes a week.

Glad you two are happy to defend the lazy useless monopoly.

Agree with you there, but this is the problem with privatising the main network, BT had the network for pittance, sure they may have spent a lot of money on so called modernising it, but still not enough.

Saying all of that, would we be better of if the network stayed in government hands? But even in private hands there have a been a load of tax money spent on the network over the last few years which BT will benefit from.

noise747 · 10-11-2016, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by clewsy

But the majority of the public are perfectly happy with their speed - current fibre pleases the customer on the whole, so that will suit BT.

Why fit FTTP when people are happy with the current super fast offering?

I do agree with you to be honest, there are still a lot of places that Fibre do not cover, some that even ADSL do not cover, these places need to be sorted first.

Even some people who do have FTTC, have a pretty naff speed for the price they are paying.

Faust · 10-11-2016, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed

They have already started with FTTP, problem is the average consumer will never pay those prices. No need to really as many families don't even bother with FTTC and are still content with their ADSL.

jonmorris · 10-11-2016, 16:11

I can live with ADSL to a degree, but it is a pain if I need to upload video to YouTube (when I switch to 4G).

But I'm considering buying an Ultra HD TV and for streaming, I have to get a faster connection. I don't fancy buying physical media to play, so I'm stuffed as using 4G would be far too expensive.

clewsy · 10-11-2016, 17:57

Yes it's the upload that is the killer on ADSL.

If you had an ADSL router for downloads, but it also had the facility to switch to a 4g sim for uploads, many people would just stick with ADSL.

There are not that many residential users who are brothered about the potential max speed that they can get from FTTC, let alone FTTP.

04-11-2016, 23:21	#51
Faust Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: UK Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan BT are really worried SKY could kill their mobile sales. I remember speaking to someone high up in EE that said SKY buying over a network would allow them to ultra competitive as they would run the mobile side at almost a loss but make it up with Broadband/Landline/TV costs. Which would kill sales from EE/BT unless they really react, I expect it to be not as bad seeing it's an MVNO deal, but their sim only existing customer prices should shake things up a little for the other networks. How's that work when they are offering free BB?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2016, 23:30	#52
Aye Up Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: North West Posts: 4,885	Quote: Originally Posted by The Lord Lucan BT are really worried SKY could kill their mobile sales. I remember speaking to someone high up in EE that said SKY buying over a network would allow them to ultra competitive as they would run the mobile side at almost a loss but make it up with Broadband/Landline/TV costs. Which would kill sales from EE/BT unless they really react, I expect it to be not as bad seeing it's an MVNO deal, but their sim only existing customer prices should shake things up a little for the other networks. BT has deeper pockets than Sky. Sky is riddled with debt, where as BT isn't, got billions in the bank. BT could out spend Sky and then some, should Sky pose a threat commercially then BT will go toe to toe with them as they have done since they won EPL rights. Sky/Mobile will not be a threat to BT, they can get equally as competitive, as can Vodafone (who also have deep pockets).

04-11-2016, 23:55	#53
Gigabit Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,887	Shame Vodafone never want to actually invest any money in better service. They just spend it on more middle managers.

05-11-2016, 00:36	#54
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by Aye Up BT has deeper pockets than Sky. Sky is riddled with debt, where as BT isn't, got billions in the bank. BT could out spend Sky and then some, should Sky pose a threat commercially then BT will go toe to toe with them as they have done since they won EPL rights. Sky/Mobile will not be a threat to BT, they can get equally as competitive, as can Vodafone (who also have deep pockets). BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed

05-11-2016, 02:33	#55
clewsy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Midlands Posts: 2,860	Well it could get interesting as look at the prices Tesco offer. That gives an idea of what an MVNO can offer I guess on o2.

05-11-2016, 04:00	#56
Aye Up Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: North West Posts: 4,885	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed God not that tired old story again

05-11-2016, 07:51	#57
kirstiemcnabb Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 455	Quote: Originally Posted by benster Did anyone else get this email from EE Hi Paul, Sky is set to launch a new mobile service this winter called Sky Mobile. Existing Sky customers are able to register their interest in the service from Monday 31st October. So far, no details of prices or packages have been released… this is where you come in! If you are an existing Sky customer, we would like you to keep an eye out for any promotions you receive from Sky about Sky Mobile offers and let us know about it on our new forum: Yes did Interesting tactics

05-11-2016, 09:09	#58
frejus19 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 22	Quote: Originally Posted by errea O2 isn't worse then EE in Edinburgh. I tried it out for a month and 4G was a joke. Thought my phone was faulty then the guy in the EE store reluctantly admitted that they were having ongoing technical issues in the city. I stuck my phone on 3G only, and it worked slowly most of the time except for occasional Android message that the network didn't support mobile data, that I've never seen with a O2 or 3 sim card. That's disappointing to hear. Edinburgh seems to be poor for 4G in general - mainly in terms of capacity. Bizarrely, Three seems to be the most reliable, even though their 4G is less extensively deployed.

05-11-2016, 09:16	#59
Gigabit Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 2,887	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed They're a business, not a charity.

05-11-2016, 09:24	#60
jchamier Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: This forum Posts: 3,392	Quote: Originally Posted by Gigabit They're a business, not a charity. Anyone can order a fibre line from BT; if they have the hundreds of thousands to pay for it. (Worst case).

05-11-2016, 11:34	#61
clewsy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Midlands Posts: 2,860	Sky could run mobile as a loss leader , however I wonder if it will be a success? People tend to be quite loyal on phone networks, especially the higher end users. EE have the network and all the extras to keep the higher end customer happy. Does any MVNO have WiFi calling yet? Also I suspect Tesco won't sit back if Sky come on the market, given they have the same network and access to 4g as Sky will have.

05-11-2016, 12:27	#62
stone tape Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 350	I was all for it until I found out it runs on O2, terrible network, I have had a personal mobile on O2 and also a work phone, sometimes the calls would not go through, had signal issues, terrible. And I'm in London.

05-11-2016, 14:49	#63
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by Aye Up God not that tired old story again Quote: Originally Posted by Gigabit They're a business, not a charity. Yes they would rather spunk it all on Football rights giving over paid and over sexed footballers more money than even world leaders get. All for kicking a ball around a park for 90 minutes a week. Glad you two are happy to defend the lazy useless monopoly.

05-11-2016, 14:55	#64
moox Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,645	Quote: Originally Posted by Gigabit They're a business, not a charity. That doesn't mean they're making the right long term decisions, though. Spending billions on FTTC was all well and good in the short term - it's just a shame that most of the equipment is obsolete from the day it goes in, because BT chose to go with a technology that is several years old (and a network architecture from the 90s) BT will realise that FTTH is the future. I mean, they did - in the 80s - and it looks like they'll have to rediscover it. Other legacy telcos are already there and are crowing on about how much cheaper it is to run a fibre network vs copper - not to mention how it enables increased revenues (you can sell those ultra expensive leased lines without having to lift a finger to provide them - just change the boxes at the ends of the pre-existing fibre)

05-11-2016, 16:22	#65
clewsy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Midlands Posts: 2,860	But the majority of the public are perfectly happy with their speed - current fibre pleases the customer on the whole, so that will suit BT. Why fit FTTP when people are happy with the current super fast offering?

07-11-2016, 10:21	#66
WelshBluebird Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 720	Quote: Originally Posted by clewsy But the majority of the public are perfectly happy with their speed - current fibre pleases the customer on the whole, so that will suit BT. Why fit FTTP when people are happy with the current super fast offering? At the moment, yeah you are right. But the majority of the public were perfectly happy with 2Mbps ADSL just a few years ago. So it is fairly sensible to think that in a few more years, the number of people unhappy with FTTC speeds will increase. Short term, yeah FTTC is fine. But if you are looking long term (more than just a few years), then doing FTTH from the start would have been more cost effective.

07-11-2016, 12:59	#67
Aye Up Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: North West Posts: 4,885	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes Glad you two are happy to defend the lazy useless monopoly. Where you or someone else whinges about BT & fibre.......... Quote: Originally Posted by moox That doesn't mean they're making the right long term decisions, though. Spending billions on FTTC was all well and good in the short term - it's just a shame that most of the equipment is obsolete from the day it goes in, because BT chose to go with a technology that is several years old (and a network architecture from the 90s) BT will realise that FTTH is the future. I mean, they did - in the 80s - and it looks like they'll have to rediscover it. Other legacy telcos are already there and are crowing on about how much cheaper it is to run a fibre network vs copper - not to mention how it enables increased revenues (you can sell those ultra expensive leased lines without having to lift a finger to provide them - just change the boxes at the ends of the pre-existing fibre) This fella inevitably follows. This thread is about Sky and their mobile offering, keep on topic if you don't mind

08-11-2016, 12:22	#68
samuel79 Forum Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 87	It would not be a shock if 02 sold them giffgaff its a ready made network for them and iirc 02 want out

08-11-2016, 13:34	#69
Mystic Eddy Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,885	Quote: Originally Posted by samuel79 It would not be a shock if 02 sold them giffgaff its a ready made network for them and iirc 02 want out Telefonica (the parent company of O2) want to divest the entirety of O2 UK to help pay down company debt. This will either be via a sale or an IPO. I'd imagine a sale of giffgaff would take place after one of the two options for the parent company have been exercised.

09-11-2016, 21:20	#70
The Lord Lucan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,966	Quote: Originally Posted by frejus19 That's disappointing to hear. Edinburgh seems to be poor for 4G in general - mainly in terms of capacity. Bizarrely, Three seems to be the most reliable, even though their 4G is less extensively deployed. Totally have to disagree.. consistently getting fast speeds and coverage bar say inside Ocean Terminal is great. O2 has issues at peak, Three the same. Regularly get these speeds in the city centre nowadays. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/i/1790783339

10-11-2016, 10:20	#71
noise747 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Herefordshire Posts: 22,810	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes Yes they would rather spunk it all on Football rights giving over paid and over sexed footballers more money than even world leaders get. All for kicking a ball around a park for 90 minutes a week. Glad you two are happy to defend the lazy useless monopoly. Agree with you there, but this is the problem with privatising the main network, BT had the network for pittance, sure they may have spent a lot of money on so called modernising it, but still not enough. Saying all of that, would we be better of if the network stayed in government hands? But even in private hands there have a been a load of tax money spent on the network over the last few years which BT will benefit from.

DS Forums

sky Mobile is a coming

10-11-2016, 10:22	#72
noise747 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Herefordshire Posts: 22,810	Quote: Originally Posted by clewsy But the majority of the public are perfectly happy with their speed - current fibre pleases the customer on the whole, so that will suit BT. Why fit FTTP when people are happy with the current super fast offering? I do agree with you to be honest, there are still a lot of places that Fibre do not cover, some that even ADSL do not cover, these places need to be sorted first. Even some people who do have FTTC, have a pretty naff speed for the price they are paying.

10-11-2016, 15:52	#73
Faust Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: UK Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes BT could spend money on doing proper fibre to the home but they cant be arsed They have already started with FTTP, problem is the average consumer will never pay those prices. No need to really as many families don't even bother with FTTC and are still content with their ADSL.

10-11-2016, 16:11	#74
jonmorris Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: a land filled with trolls Posts: 12,018	I can live with ADSL to a degree, but it is a pain if I need to upload video to YouTube (when I switch to 4G). But I'm considering buying an Ultra HD TV and for streaming, I have to get a faster connection. I don't fancy buying physical media to play, so I'm stuffed as using 4G would be far too expensive.

10-11-2016, 17:57	#75
clewsy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Midlands Posts: 2,860	Yes it's the upload that is the killer on ADSL. If you had an ADSL router for downloads, but it also had the facility to switch to a 4g sim for uploads, many people would just stick with ADSL. There are not that many residential users who are brothered about the potential max speed that they can get from FTTC, let alone FTTP.