Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Has anyone on the website heard of any recent discussions on that matter?
Well I had an internal discussion between myself and myself during which I swore profusely at the money grabbing gits who feel like they can just whack 3.9% on for no apparent reason. An inflationary increase? Fine. They're costs are impacted by inflation just as everyone else. 1% even maybe, they're investing in infrastructure and whatnot. But RPI and 3.9%? That feels like a mickey take.
I shall adjust my ire accordingly!It may well feel like a mickey take but it's effectively a policy that's been laid down by Ofcom. I think it came in at the same time as comms providers were forced to become more transparent with how their bundling options were priced. Doubtless the money grabbing gits actively lobbied for the 3.9% figure but it's Ofcom who implemented it. IOW if you're slinging mud make sure to aim some at all those deserving of it.
I think the March 2023 BT price increase was really a total increase of around the 14% mark, as the RPI calculation itself was in double figures.BT/EE has announced it has scrapped the CPI+3.9% system, but - funnily enough - it won't stop this year's increase. They'll be changing the method after April.
Ofcom does not have the power to regulate the charges (or level of price increases) to consumers/small businesses unless a single provider has a significant influence on the overall market. Their powers include enforcing standard consumer law in the sector, which doesn't cap/bar these types of rises and protecting interests of consumers. Where protecting interests of consumers they need to consider the proportionality of their actions, it is a free and open market which they shouldn't restrict unless it's required to prevent harm to consumers.Did Ofcom mandate these charges, or did they simply impose a requirement for the providers to be transparent about them?
So that justifies them billing a customer for more than the cost of the line rental and calls then?They ara a PLC, therefore have Shareholders who expect Dividends.
Did Ofcom mandate these charges, or did they simply impose a requirement for the providers to be transparent about them?
Just like when Three categorically stated that they wouldn't be bumping people off plans when EU roaming was withdrawn, and then very shortly after saying that they had been reviewing their product offer and decided they were withdrawing the legacy plans including EU roaming as part of their normal product review procedures.The networks agreed but then pretty much failed to advertise or promote those plans, but obviously all agreed to charge CPI+3.9% - even networks like Three that had a whole marketing campaign about NOT increasing charges mid-contract, but then when management changed did a total U-turn. Easy money I guess.
No-one forced you to use them, did they?So that justifies them billing a customer for more than the cost of the line rental and calls then
No-one forced you to use them, did they?
It’s counteracted by prices to new customers, and to existing customers who won’t accept the price rises and move instead, in a market in which the cost to the service provider for the same thing goes down every year.If all the companies do the same thing, and put their prices up by the same amount, what is the point of having all the companies. My understanding from proponents of the free-market is that it is supposed to bring around competition to provide the best price and services. However, much like when oil prices dropped sharply, and petrol prices didn't, it seems like there is no motivation for these organisations to be the competitive one, and instead try and exploit the market as much as possible.
Why are you apparently trying to defend them? Just curious.No-one forced you to use them, did they?
The day I retired I changed to a different ( and much faster supplier )
The free market penalises those who think that loyalty to a particular supplier is rewarded.
For home internet, I agree with you, I have been with BT since 2000 and I do not trust an alternative supplier to provide the same service, but I pay a premium for this I am sure. Mobile service I switch all the time.True, and I think what the free-marketeers fail to realise is that not all of us have got time to spend faffing around with changing suppliers, which (presumably) brings with it the risk of losing home internet for a period - which could be a seriously big deal.
If loyalty to a supplier is not rewarded, why have multiple suppliers?The free market penalises those who think that loyalty to a particular supplier is rewarded.