Fraudulent pricing

[Antony73]

Sky and its supplier refuse to install full fibre where I live. My only choice is slow 65 speed broadband for which the only renew price available was £38 a month. I have to buy a dish package so as to not use the limited broadband available and so I have to pay £113 a month. 900 speeds cost £43 a month with broadband TV packages starting at £40 a month. . Since it is Sky that provides the slow service why are their prices not proportional. In any other busines this extortion from existing customers would be fraudulent.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Antony73 wrote:

Sky and its supplier refuse to install full fibre where I live. 

---

You appear to misunderstand the nature of the national FTTP rollout: Sky and any other similar ISP has no choice over where FTTP infrastructure is deployed, and are not permitted to have any influence over the process.

[Antony73]

I know that but their pricing takes no account of the speed variation when you are forced to buy a dish package to free up what little speed is available.  I repeat £38 for 65 and £43 for 900

However nothing will ever create fair pricing when the dish + 65 is the only game in our town.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Antony73 wrote:

 I repeat £38 for 65 and £43 for 900

A significant proportion of what a terrestrial ISP charges its subscribers is to cover the cost which it is being charged by the wholesale network owner for circuit rental, support and maintenance, and that cost is largely unrelated to bandwidth. 'Up to' 80Mbs FTTC cannot be ten times cheaper than 900Mbs FTTP  (or really much cheaper at all) because both have similar physical data bearers, ducts, poles and other infrastructure to install and keep working and a large number of people (35,000 in the case of Openreach) to do that work.

Likewise the ISP incurs similar cost per subscriber for its own staffing and other expenses whether that customer is on ADSL, G.fast, FTTC or FTTP.