Kitz Forum

Broadband Related => ISPs => Topic started by: NewtronStar on January 05, 2016, 08:32:06 PM

Title: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 05, 2016, 08:32:06 PM
Found this page on Plusnet as seen below in bold, find it discriminatory now before I ring up my local MP to complain about this the first thing i would like to to know who controls regulated and non regulated ?

1. Why does the price change depending on where I live in the UK?

We can supply broadband to all parts of the UK but the cost may be higher for a small amount of our customers depending on where they live in the UK. This is due to the fact that the price we pay in these areas is regulated and costs more for us to provide to our customers. This constitutes approximately 10% of the UK (defined by our regulator as Market A and to us a non-low cost area) whereas the other 90% of the UK is not regulated (known as Market B and to us a low cost area).

Please note: Plusnet reserves the right to reclassify non-low cost areas to low cost areas at its discretion; it shall not reclassify a low cost area as a non-low cost area unless required to do so under UK law. Prices, content and terms may change at any time during your contract. We'll tell you about important changes in advance, and if a change is detrimental you'll be able to end your contract without any fees.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on January 05, 2016, 09:10:46 PM
The answer to your question is Ofcom (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/).

Funnily enough I was discussing on the Plusnet forums today, whether or not the non-lost cost Market A regulated prices actually apply to FTTC, I got the impression from the published BTWholesale price lists, and the WBA Statement (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/review-wba-markets/statement/) pdf, paragraphs 7.70 and 7.71 in particular, that the regulated pricing only applies to IPStream Connect, not FTTC nor even WBC ADSL2+.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 05, 2016, 09:40:04 PM
Oh yes Ofcom but they only have a small limited thor hammer on BTw, the last time i checked with plusnet this line would be market A yet this exchange shows as BTw Pricing Band E  ??? as you can see i'm getting cheesed off with my local exchange.

So I'm going to call my local MP and see if they can investicate BTw and get some answers why this local exchange has not been regulated because this exchange does not provide me with the xDSL service it only provides me with the PSTN !

Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on January 05, 2016, 09:50:54 PM
The regulated prices tend to be higher, this was supposed to encourage LLU investment, who could set up and undercut the high BT prices, and so get lots of customers, but this didn't really work.

It's the de-regulated exchanges that ended up with lower prices, where there was enough competition from LLU suppliers to not need price controls on BT.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 05, 2016, 09:54:44 PM
FYI Andrews and Arnold have the same thing, low and high cost areas. I used to be on a high-cost exchange because it was 20CN. With A & A, 20CN ADSL is charged at twice the rate per MB downstream compared to 21CN exchanges for daytime weekday 8:00-18:00 usage. Outside these times it's the same. There's no distinction for other types of access.

I'm now converted to 21Cn on this exchange, so this halves my weekday traffic bill. The saving is roughly £8 per month, perhaps less.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 05, 2016, 10:05:13 PM

It's the de-regulated exchanges that ended up with lower prices, where there was enough competition from LLU suppliers to not need price controls on BT.

Well this local exchange has no competition at all it's a BTw exchange no 21CN but the fttc/vdsl comes from a larger exchange which has competition 21CN and LLU suppliers but it's not passed down to me because of PSTN exchange.

Could I request a transfer of PSTN line number to larger fttc headend exchange it's 4.3km from me where as local PSTN exchange line is 1.8km ?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Chrysalis on January 05, 2016, 10:27:54 PM
Ofcom wont do jack about it sorry.

It was them that enforced the higher prices, as all they care about is allowing competitors to get a foothold rather than the consumers buying the service.  They have a weird motto that competition solves everything so thats all they care about.

On the flipside these areas are more expensive to provide services to and before the regulation were likely been subsidised by other areas anyway.

Also plusnet's own pricing isnt regulated, only the wholesale pricing is.  They are the only xDSL isp I am aware off that adjusts pricing for these areas.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 05, 2016, 10:45:49 PM
Could I request a transfer of PSTN line number to larger fttc headend exchange it's 4.3km from me where as local PSTN exchange line is 1.8km ?

Truthfully, yes you could request it. You would have to commit to paying a significant sum of money for it to be set up and then a significant monthly rental charge over and above the normal fee.  :(

If I wanted to have an Aberdeen telephone number, here at The Cattery in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk -- or even a number that maps to San Francisco, California -- I could have one.  :D
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 05, 2016, 10:51:59 PM
Truthfully, yes you could request it. You would have to commit to paying a significant sum of money for it to be set up and then a significant monthly rental charge over and above the normal fee.  :(


Why the extra costs it's only a difference of 2.5km ?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 05, 2016, 11:01:42 PM
Why the extra costs it's only a difference of 2.5km ?

Because it is not normal practice and would probably be fulfilled by the installation of a private circuit.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 05, 2016, 11:25:18 PM
Why the extra costs it's only a difference of 2.5km ?

Because it is not normal practice and would probably be fulfilled by the installation of a private circuit.

That seals the call to MP Sylvia Hermon why should small exchange customers pay more for broadband than larger exchange customers something just dosn't smell right lets get this voiced in the house of commons  ;)
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 05, 2016, 11:31:23 PM
Why indeed, agree with Newtronstar. Seems insane.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 05, 2016, 11:36:21 PM
I assume that in Andrews and Arnold's case the difference in costs between 20CN and 21CN exchanges is to do with the costs they are charged by BTW. So it's perhaps BT's fault, or A & A's in not doing wealth redistribution ( ;D ).

It's not right though. I can't say for sure who's at the bottom of it.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 05, 2016, 11:53:07 PM
Could I request a transfer of PSTN line number to larger fttc headend exchange it's 4.3km from me where as local PSTN exchange line is 1.8km ?

A further comment on the above. Just supposing it is agreed. What good would it be to you? If you then decide to revert back to G.Dmt/ADSL2/ADSL2+ instead of your current VDSL2 service, it would be absolutely appalling. Think of the attenuation for a metallic pathway of that length. Both Walter (from his helping of the residents of Ewhurst and the Surrey Hills) and Weaver will be able to give you first hand experiences of local loops of such sort of length (and longer).
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 06, 2016, 12:03:11 AM
A further comment on the above. Just supposing it is agreed. What good would it be to you? If you then decide to revert back to G.Dmt/ADSL2/ADSL2+ instead of your current VDSL2 service, it would be absolutely appalling.

I'll never go back to ADSL it would be like going back to ZX Spectrum computing it was nice in the day and when it comes to technology never look back only if your having one of those nostalgic days.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 06, 2016, 12:11:57 AM

It's not right though. I can't say for sure who's at the bottom of it.

The costs are 100% down to BT Wholesale that's who the regulator is when you look back at my plusnet bold post (defined by our regulator) and who is that it's BTw
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Al1264 on January 06, 2016, 11:38:03 AM
why should small exchange customers pay more for broadband than larger exchange customers something just dosn't smell right
By the same token, should those living in villages & countryside also receive subsidy so they don't pay more than urban dwellers for bus fares into town?
In fairness, many services to those in more remote areas are subsidised in some way or another.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: renluop on January 06, 2016, 01:55:38 PM
why should small exchange customers pay more for broadband than larger exchange customers something just dosn't smell right
By the same token, should those living in villages & countryside also receive subsidy so they don't pay more than urban dwellers for bus fares into town?
In fairness, many services to those in more remote areas are subsidised in some way or another.
Similarly, why should a letter from Lands End to John o Groats not cost more than one from Bournemouth to Christchurch? I suppose it depends to some extent on what society decides is the social value of having a same cost service available to all.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on January 06, 2016, 03:27:16 PM
The thing that seems bizarre to me is that they claim that regulation sets a minimum price that BTW or OR are allowed to charge in these high cost areas. 
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 06, 2016, 03:57:57 PM
Vote with your feet then.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on January 06, 2016, 04:30:56 PM
It's all in that Ofcom WBA-Statement.pdf I linked to earlier. As far as I could tell, the regulated prices are only for IPStream Connect i.e. 20CN ADSL1.

Apparently there's no cease charge in Market A.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on January 06, 2016, 04:42:48 PM
Vote with your feet then.
By moving house to an area served by a low cost exchange?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 06, 2016, 06:04:29 PM
No, by changing ISP.  ;D
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on January 06, 2016, 07:39:07 PM
Yes there are some ISPs that don't change their pricing between high and low cost areas.  I'm not sure how that works because they'll be paying more for (say) my connection than they would for one in a low cost area. 

By the way I'm not sure that discussions about subsidies are quite on the ball, the oddity in this case is that regulation dictates a minimum price, and that's unusual because it works towards some goal that the regulators have in mind, but against the interests of the end users.   The only beneficiary I can think of is BT.   In effect their subsidy is the other way round, BT cutting prices to compete with LLU, but clawing some of this back by their charges where they have a monopoly.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Chrysalis on January 06, 2016, 09:40:18 PM
Newt sorry I dont agree with you on this.

Obviously it costs BT more money to provide broadband to a remote village than it does to a city.

But for several years that cost has been subsidised by city dwellers hence most services having the same price regardless of location, BT pass on cost savings to isp's for the big areas to isp's but most isp's choose to use it to subsidise people in areas like yours so basically people like me pay more so you can pay less if that makes sense.

Plusnet is the odd one out in this instance, they chose to not subsidise and hence they have regional pricing.  Your MP will get nowhere, ofcom will 99% chance tell you to choose a competitor instead who subsidises your area.

As for moving your line not only will openreach say no, it would also be a very bad idea, a longer line will suffer more problems, especially on performance.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 06, 2016, 10:51:46 PM
There are plenty of ISPs to choose from. If you feel it's wrong what's happening, then just go for it.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 06, 2016, 11:02:05 PM
@NS

Just seen this thread, and as Chrys said..   its OFCOM to blame for this.   It was to promote LLU provision and open up the market place.   I said at the time it would create a two-tier broadband system and it did.   

Im not sure how far you will get.   I wrote about it at the time here Broadband access market (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadband_access_market.htm).   
A few years ago (5/6?) I was approached by someone from the BBC who were doing an article on it and wanted some more info as they thought it was unfair.   However I dont think much came of it.   iirc they were stonewalled by OFCOM who said it was better for the industry and opened up competition.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Chrysalis on January 06, 2016, 11:12:45 PM
yeah that wouldnt surprise me kitz, ofcom dont like been told they wrong.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 06, 2016, 11:53:58 PM
There are plenty of ISPs to choose from. If you feel it's wrong what's happening, then just go for it.

In a way that made me laugh.   
Before OFCOM started messing with the Broadband Access Market Fees and the Margin Squeeze Test, we actually had much more choice when it came to ISPs.

Both of the above had some consequences that OFCOM never foresaw, yet some of us did.  As expected the LLU providers would only enter the profitable exchanges - cherry pick..  and those in more remote locations would suffer.   It also serves to keep the BTw prices higher than they could be.   BTretail never participated in location based fees, nor prior to OFCOM making them do so had BTw.   Most of the other ISPs at some time or other have had two tier pricing based on the Access Market. 
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 07, 2016, 12:01:51 AM
@kitz my apologies
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 07, 2016, 12:07:00 AM
no..   it wasnt a poke at you.

It was an ironic laugh..  ie your mention of plenty of other ISPs.   
The fact is now there are far less choice and ISPs than before OFCOM started poking their noses in areas supposedly to encourage diversity and choice.   Its had the opposite effect and now there is comparatively very little choice. :(
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Chrysalis on January 07, 2016, 10:15:40 AM
and the market has moved from 1 month contracts to 12/18/24 month contracts with a heavy push of voice services due to ofcom letting that get abused.

The line rental situation is the big flashing light to show ofcom dont care about consumers, but only what resellers can profit on.  Regulated wholesale pricing pinned down but retail pricing allowed to sky rocket.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Oldjim on January 07, 2016, 02:05:55 PM
@kitz
As you know far more about this than I do and as I was the main protagonist with ejs over at Plusnet Forums could you advise whether, from your knowledge, the price controls on Market A apply or don't to 21CN and FTTC
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: sheephouse on January 07, 2016, 04:58:43 PM
There are plenty of ISPs to choose from. If you feel it's wrong what's happening, then just go for it.
I live in a Market A area - what plusnet call High Cost. There are actually very few ISPs available to choose from - for example, TalkTalk refuse to supply phone or broadband, as do quite a few of the smaller ISPs too. Those that are available all cost the same (maybe +- £1 line rental) - the minimum price is set by Ofcom. Those of us in Market A areas pay far more for a poor service (ADSLMax Premium) than people in Market B area pay for FTTC.
Changing ISP, even if possible, doesn't solve the problem.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: gt94sss2 on January 07, 2016, 05:21:38 PM
I live in a Market A area - what plusnet call High Cost. There are actually very few ISPs available to choose from - for example, TalkTalk refuse to supply phone or broadband, as do quite a few of the smaller ISPs too. Those that are available all cost the same (maybe +- £1 line rental) - the minimum price is set by Ofcom. Those of us in Market A areas pay far more for a poor service (ADSLMax Premium) than people in Market B area pay for FTTC.
Changing ISP, even if possible, doesn't solve the problem.

You should have the choice of all ISP's who use BT Wholesale to provide their services (i..e carry their traffic) - the vast majority of ISPs.. most of who do not do location based charging.

What you won't have access too are those ISP's which use LLU connections such as TalkTalk and Sky (or their resellers) who have decided not to LLU your exchange despite it being made a more viable proposition for them (by the regulator making BTW charge a higher price)

Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 07, 2016, 06:56:10 PM
See ispreview.co.uk

One good one and one cheap one is a start.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 07, 2016, 10:14:06 PM
@kitz
As you know far more about this than I do and as I was the main protagonist with ejs over at Plusnet Forums could you advise whether, from your knowledge, the price controls on Market A apply or don't to 21CN and FTTC


It applies to 21CN.   
FTTC IMHO is a grey area, because many of the cabs connect to a head end exchange which isnt necessarily the same exchange as PSTN and could have different Market ratings.  The local exchange could be Market A, yet the head end exchange could be market B where an ISP such as Sky could take the the dsl if they wanted because they have a presence there... but not the phone line to do Full MPF.  Ive seen price lists for the charging differences when it comes to 21CN but not for FTTC, but that isnt to say there isnt one for fttc.   

TBH I think the whole thing is now out dated and needs a total overhaul.   Too much has changed within the UK broadband industry since the last review.     There have been too many mergers which mean that things like "Four or more principal operators" for a market 3 exchange is a bit ridiculous and there isnt any clarification about fttc and use of head end exchanges.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 07, 2016, 10:17:13 PM
Quote
Regulated wholesale pricing pinned down but retail pricing allowed to sky rocket.

This annoys me.   Even more of a ripoff is the cross subsidy between phone line and dsl.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 07, 2016, 11:08:43 PM
FTTC IMHO is a grey area, because many of the cabs connect to a head end exchange which isnt necessarily the same exchange as PSTN and could have different Market ratings.  The local exchange could be Market A, yet the head end exchange could be market B where an ISP such as Sky could take the the dsl if they wanted because they have a presence there... but not the phone line to do Full MPF.

It is exactly that situation which is bugging N*Star and prompted him to start this thread. As he has previously mentioned his local telephony serving exchange and his fibre head end exchange in the open forum, then for a real-life example take a look at the Ofcom classifications of Helens Bay (telephony) and Bangor (fibre head end) in Northern Ireland.  :-\
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Chrysalis on January 07, 2016, 11:44:47 PM
Well if you were to ask me would I have an issue if BTw became deregulated at those market 1 exchanges, I would say no.

That would probably only affect plusnet tho as all other isp's dont have regional pricing.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 08, 2016, 04:14:23 PM
btw.   I found something interesting.

This (https://www.btwholesale.com/assets/documents/Service_Provider_Price_List/WBC_Price_List_Entry_1_Jan_2016_v2.xlsx) is taken from the most recent WBC pricing and obviously on there is the cost of bandwidth for the EPs on the MSILs, but it also quotes the basic adsl components for EU monthly rental.   These particular components are usually the same regardless if its WBC or WMBC etc as they are the port costs on the MSAN/DSLAM at the exchange. 

I note that both market A and Market B are both £5.88.
According to the price list the FTTC port component is non geographic.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on January 08, 2016, 04:18:02 PM
It applies to 21CN.   
FTTC IMHO is a grey area, because many of the cabs connect to a head end exchange which isnt necessarily the same exchange as PSTN and could have different Market ratings.  The local exchange could be Market A, yet the head end exchange could be market B where an ISP such as Sky could take the the dsl if they wanted because they have a presence there... but not the phone line to do Full MPF.  Ive seen price lists for the charging differences when it comes to 21CN but not for FTTC, but that isnt to say there isnt one for fttc.   

Why is it then that in the published WBC price list, the only difference between Market A and B is that the cease charge is zero in Market A, and there are no other differences? The WBMC Shared price list isn't published but I found one anyway, the only difference between Market A and B was for IPsC capacity.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 08, 2016, 04:42:25 PM
It looks like they scrapped it at some point.   In which case then Plusnet shouldnt really be passing the fees on.

All indications now are that aside from some things such as the cease charge then there isnt any difference in pricing. - certainly not for the port cost.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: sheephouse on January 08, 2016, 04:50:27 PM
You should have the choice of all ISP's who use BT Wholesale to provide their services (i..e carry their traffic) - the vast majority of ISPs.. most of who do not do location based charging.
Unfortunately that isn't the case.
A growing number of ISPs no longer provide any service at all for 20CN exchanges - which are commonly Market A.
Even those that don't do location based charging do charge a higher rate for 20CN - which is effectively the same thing as 20CN and Market A tend to be closely related.
For example, Sky will resell BT in non-LLU areas, and have a free broadband offer - unless you're on a 20CN exchange in which case they charge £17 pm. And they don't support ADSLMax Premium at any price.
I've been through almost the entire list at ISPReview, and there are no ISPs that are more than £1/month cheaper than Plusnet for ADSLMax Premium, and most are significantly more expensive if you want a fixed IP address and unlimited downloads.
And disregarding price there is no choice that would affect the quality of the connection as the backhaul is the same for all ISPs - there is effectively no choice.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 08, 2016, 05:57:35 PM
@sheephouse take a look at Andrews and Arnold and their Home::1T (Terabyte allowance) deal. Iirc this FTTC deal uses only TalkTalk Wholesale special backhaul, so that they can provide such a high traffic allowance at a half reasonable cost.

There are good ISPs out there, there is also BTW Premium for an extra £12 per line per month. (aka 'elevated' on 21CN iirc? Something like that.)
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: sheephouse on January 08, 2016, 06:06:16 PM
@sheephouse take a look at Andrews and Arnold and their Home::1T (Terabyte allowance) deal. Iirc this FTTC deal uses only TalkTalk Wholesale special backhaul, so that they can provide such a high traffic allowance at a half reasonable cost.

There are good ISPs out there, there is also BTW Premium for an extra £12 per line per month. (aka 'elevated' on 21CN iirc? Something like that.)
Unfortunately A&A would cost me £178 per month for an unlimited ADSLMax Premium connection. There is no ADSL2, FTTC, or any LLU available - that's what makes it a Market A area.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 08, 2016, 06:58:40 PM
FTTC IMHO is a grey area, because many of the cabs connect to a head end exchange which isnt necessarily the same exchange as PSTN and could have different Market ratings.  The local exchange could be Market A, yet the head end exchange could be market B where an ISP such as Sky could take the the dsl if they wanted because they have a presence there... but not the phone line to do Full MPF.

It is exactly that situation which is bugging N*Star and prompted him to start this thread. As he has previously mentioned his local telephony serving exchange and his fibre head end exchange in the open forum, then for a real-life example take a look at the Ofcom classifications of Helens Bay (telephony) and Bangor (fibre head end) in Northern Ireland.  :-\

Indeed Kitz thats my issue the montly cost of broadband is nearly twice the price per month than 90% of the UK if those percentages are correct  :-\

Contacted MP and was advised to gather up a petition in this area which is not my thing  :no: but you did give me a glimmer of hope when you posted this ->

I think the whole thing is now out dated and needs a total overhaul.   Too much has changed within the UK broadband industry since the last review.     There have been too many mergers which mean that things like "Four or more principal operators" for a market 3 exchange is a bit ridiculous and there isnt any clarification about fttc and use of head end exchanges.   :)
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on January 09, 2016, 08:04:09 AM
There is no ADSL2, FTTC, or any LLU available - that's what makes it a Market A area.

Is that the case?  If so then it stinks even more, because BT would have a clear incentive not to upgrade exchanges to 21CN.   I actually thought it was the presence of absence of LLU that made the distinction, but I can see the logic for including FTTC because once that's available presumably nobody's going to be interested in LLU.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on January 09, 2016, 08:14:47 AM
Just did a quick sample and it appears that 21CN does not change matters.   Checking a local exchange (Udny NSUDN) it shows as 21CN with FTTC in some areas, however it's still listed as "Market 1" "Market2014 A", same as our own exchange.  Checking Plusnet price for the local pub, yes it's a high priced area.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 09, 2016, 08:25:58 PM
Checking a local exchange (Udny NSUDN) it shows as 21CN with FTTC in some areas, however it's still listed as "Market 1" "Market2014 A", same as our own exchange.  Checking Plusnet price for the local pub, yes it's a high priced area.

Well then it must be ISP LLU equipment that classes an Exchange as a low priced area for broadband even if the a provider like Plusnet which is not a LLU'd provider as far as I know unlike TT or SKY then it's classed as B
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 09, 2016, 08:52:24 PM
Can anyone shed light on an exchange that is classed as E ?

Broadband Access†

Market 1

BTw Pricing Band

Band E
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 09, 2016, 09:55:00 PM
Can anyone shed light on an exchange that is classed as E ?

No, sorry.  :no:  Where have you seen that classification?

For comparison purposes, here are links to what SamKnows about --
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 09, 2016, 10:55:09 PM
Can anyone shed light on an exchange that is classed as E ?

No, sorry.  :no:  Where have you seen that classification?

For comparison purposes, here are links to what SamKnows about --
  • EABSE (https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/EABSE) (Market 3)
  • NSBFD (https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NSBFD) (Market 1)
  • NIHB (https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NIHB) (Market 1)
  • NIBA (https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NIBA) (Market 3)

From my local exchange using http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadbandchecker.php (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadbandchecker.php)
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 09, 2016, 11:31:43 PM
From my local exchange using http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadbandchecker.php (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadbandchecker.php)

Ah, I see. Kitz uses, I believe, the same database as SamKnows but with further processing, etc.

So for comparison purposes, I attach the same screen-scraped data block for NIBA (using the telephone number & the postcode of the Green Chilli Indian Restaurant, 32 Dufferin Av, Bangor, BT20 3AA), for EABSE (using the telephone number & the postcode of The Cattery) and for NSBFD (using one of the telephone numbers & the postcode for Weaver-land).

So we need to know about the different BTw pricing bands and the criteria thereof.

Also, notice that Sam's database is incorrect -- for NSBFD, it shows 21CN is not available. We know it is now available, as Weaver has had his circuits migrated across. :)
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on January 10, 2016, 01:14:52 AM
Many thanks for doing the compare.com stuff  ;) as you can see the BTw pricing falls into two bands A & E low price and high priced areas.

As first thought it's BTw that decide which exchange is a low or high priced area thats who we need to probe to get this down right discrimination issue changed  :fingers:
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: gt94sss2 on January 10, 2016, 02:55:39 AM
Many thanks for doing the compare.com stuff  ;) as you can see the BTw pricing falls into two bands A & E low price and high priced areas.

As first thought it's BTw that decide which exchange is a low or high priced area thats who we need to probe to get this down right discrimination issue changed  :fingers:

I think you are comparing apples with oranges. Ofcom and only Ofcom decide if an exchange is a high cost or low cost one.

When they first launched this system years ago they used Market 1, 2 and 3 (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/wholesale-broadband-markets/summary#1) (and 'Hull' which most ignore) to categorise exchanges.

They then changed to using Market A and B in 2013 (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/review-wba-markets/) - so even references to Market 1,2 and 3 which one still sees used are not really correct any more.

Even if an exchange gains more LLU etc between each Ofcom review it does not move categories until Ofcom carries out its next review - its not an automatic/dynamic process. This issue used to come up quite a bit when LLU was being actively rolled out as some wondered why the category of their exchange didn't change sooner.

BTW Pricing Band E is nothing to do with this process -I stand to be corrected but I believe it reflects how far you are from the nearest fibre node - with the distance determining the charge band one faces if they want FTTPoD (https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=0WyIM7tTGGgucFf0dXUIWK4XSAplAmgrRZNg5Pk%2B5%2F%2BkRgB7BL4KNYn%2FlKx2YB4Qe6YShZ82RgLO%0AGLsH2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D) (at least in areas where it is available so not Weaver-land)
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: Weaver on January 10, 2016, 04:25:05 AM
Sobs quietly . :no: :'(
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on January 10, 2016, 07:01:20 AM
The column headings in the WBC Price List spreadsheet are:

Market B (billing exchange band A)
Market A (billing exchange band E)

as if to imply that they are just different terms for the same thing.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 10, 2016, 04:28:38 PM
Thank you.  :)

So, essentially, where SamKnows shows Market 1, we should read it as Market A with a billing exchange band E and where SamKnows shows Market 3, we should read it as Market B with a billing exchange band A.

Quote from: Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto VI, XVII
    Oh, what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practise to deceive!
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 10, 2016, 07:50:01 PM
I just noticed something else which could muddy the water further.

Whilst the port costs for the 2 markets may now be the same, the AP costs (which form part of the MSIL) vary depending upon the Market type.
Im going from the WBC price list as I dont have a current WBMC one... but it will have to be factored into WBMC and will form part of the WBMC charges.

Look

Code: [Select]
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00

So if this is the case then, although port costs are now the same, it looks like the pricing differential is now made at the access point to the backhaul, rather than on the ports.  AP costs will apply to both 21CN and FTTC  :(



Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 10, 2016, 08:14:50 PM
Market A and Market B have been around long before 2013 and are what OFCOM rule the pricing should be

It is entirely different to market 1,2,3 etc, which is the current market type based on the original  criteria laid out here (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/broadband_access_market.htm)

The market numbers 1,2,3 form the base critera used by OFCOM to decided if the price band should be A or B.   They used to project some exchanges at review.. ie although an exchange may now be market 2, OFCOM may project that within 'x' months it will be market 3 and therefore place it in price band B.

Originally it was envisaged that OFCOM would undertake regular reviews, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside with the last review being 2010 :(
My own exchange was moved to Market B in about 2007 by OFCOM.    Market 2 exchanges could be either A or B based on OFCOMs decision.

TLDR;

Market Numbers [1,2,3] = Market Type based on number of operators.
Market Letters  [A or B] = Market Price Banding decided by OFCOM.

Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on January 10, 2016, 08:18:50 PM
I just noticed something else which could muddy the water further.

<snip>

So if this is the case then, although port costs are now the same, it looks like the pricing differential is now made at the access point to the backhaul, rather than on the ports.  AP costs will apply to both 21CN and FTTC  :(

And that is a significant pricing differential!  :'(
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: gt94sss2 on January 10, 2016, 08:58:40 PM
Market A and Market B have been around long before 2013 and are what OFCOM rule the pricing should be

Market Numbers [1,2,3] = Market Type based on number of operators.
Market Letters  [A or B] = Market Price Banding decided by OFCOM.

Actually, I am pretty sure one replaced the other in 2013 - which is when Market A and B were introduced.

From the Ofcom 2013 consultation (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/review-wba-markets/summary)

Quote
1.10 This is now the fourth such review of the WBA market, the last of which we completed in 2010/2011. In that review we defined four markets:

    the Hull Area, where KCOM was the sole supplier of fixed broadband access;
    Market 1: exchanges where only BT was present or forecast to be present;
    Market 2: exchanges where two Principal Operators (including BT) were present or forecast to be present or where three were present or forecast to be present, but BT's market share was 50% or more; and
    Market 3: exchanges where four or more Principal Operators were present or forecast and exchanges where three Principal Operators were present or forecast but where BT's share was less than 50 per cent.

and in 2013, this was replaced by the following which now determines if its a high cost area or not:

Quote
1.18 We propose to identify three distinct geographic markets, to reflect the geographical differences in competition and supply conditions:

    Market A: exchange areas where there are no more than two Principal Operators (POs) present or forecast to be present, which accounts for 9.6% of UK premises.
    Market B: exchange areas where there are three or more POs present or forecast to be present, which accounts for 89.7% of UK premises.
    The Hull Area: 0.7% of UK premises.

Its the reference to BTw Pricing Band E which was new to me but I guess thats another way of saying Market A in this context

Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on January 10, 2016, 09:37:08 PM
Apologies, I did not spot the difference in AP costs between market A and B. Wouldn't those AP costs be kind of "fixed" though, in the sense those AP costs wouldn't vary depending on the number of market A end users an ISP had, so long as they had at least one market A end user on each AP?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 11, 2016, 01:30:15 AM
There has definitely been something since before 2013 which has been used to differentiate the Market and the Pricing.

Many years ago (circa 2008) there was a long thread on TBB because I got my mits on information and a pricing list that showed some market 2 exchanges should be paying the cheaper rate and I updated by checker to show the new exchange data.   The huge thread on the TBB Plusnet forums erupted because Plusnet were only charging the cheaper rate for Market 1 exchanges.   The new pricing bands meant that many Market 2 exchanges should be paying the cheaper rate, but weren't.   
The result of this was that Plusnet changed their billing system to include all Market 2 exchanges at the cheaper rate, regardless if it was Band A or Band B.   I think it must have been quicker & easier for them to do it this way than start a new database for billing.   The CS person who had to deal with the backlash at the time was called Mandy. I think some of this is still historic in their systems even today.

I cant recall the exact date, but it happened at around the time I was about to, or just had migrated to Be in March 2008.   It was installation of the Be MSAN that took us into the cheaper pricing bracket and why I was so aware of it despite being Market 2. 
ETA:  It was probably OFCOMs full review 21/05/08.

Because I was now showing different info to Sam, I emailed Sam with the latest info and copy of the data so he could update his records too.
Sams API was rewritten in early 2009 specifically to include both the Market Classification and the Price Banding

Code: [Select]
Version 3.71
23 January 2009

Starting with version 3.71, an additional option named “market” may be passed to the API.
This adds a “market” node beneath the “exchange” node, which contains sub-elements
detailing the market classification of this exchange. At present there are two possible subelements
of the market node:
1. BTBand – The “band” that BT deems this exchange belongs to. This is used by BT
Wholesale to set 21CN pricing. Bands range from A-E, although B and D are unused
at this time. An empty string for the band indicates that the band is unknown.
2. OfcomMarket – The market classification that Ofcom has assigned to this exchange.
Broadly speaking, Market 3 is defined as those exchanges with a heavy LLU/cable
concentration, Market 2 is those where there is some LLU/cable presence, and
Market 1 is where only incumbent (BT) services are available.


Example of raw data output from Sams checker v 3.71 Jan 2009 showing both the market no and the pricing band.

Code: [Select]
<Market>
<Btband>A</Btband>
<Ofcommarket>3</Ofcommarket>
</Market>
</Exchange>

An email was also issued to anyone using the API

Quote
Wed 18/02/2009 13:20

Hi,

As you are now no doubt aware, PlusNet are now pricing their products based on geographical location and hence the Ofcom Classification of an exchange needs to be known. This has been included in the API, and information on this can be found on page 23 of the documentation.

I have quite a lot of correspondence in my mail archives from 2008/2009 regarding the two separate Market classification databases. iirc Sam called the other one BT banding, because that is what BT were charging the ISPs.



----
I used to hold the Market info in my own database, but since Oct 2011, I replaced it to pull data Market data from Sam's database rather than me having to keep an eye on what was going on with OFCOM & BT.

----

Quote
Its the reference to BTw Pricing Band E which was new to me but I guess thats another way of saying Market A in this context
Me too..   
... and just to muddy the water further, happened to notice mine is Band C although no idea when it changed  :-X

Note that it still fits in though with the original description dating back to 2008.
Out of interest are those on C & E all FTTC?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on January 11, 2016, 01:30:53 AM
Apologies, I did not spot the difference in AP costs between market A and B. Wouldn't those AP costs be kind of "fixed" though, in the sense those AP costs wouldn't vary depending on the number of market A end users an ISP had, so long as they had at least one market A end user on each AP?

Yep..  fixed per AP.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on February 15, 2016, 01:13:41 PM
I just noticed something else which could muddy the water further.

Whilst the port costs for the 2 markets may now be the same, the AP costs (which form part of the MSIL) vary depending upon the Market type.
Im going from the WBC price list as I dont have a current WBMC one... but it will have to be factored into WBMC and will form part of the WBMC charges.

Look

Code: [Select]
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00

So if this is the case then, although port costs are now the same, it looks like the pricing differential is now made at the access point to the backhaul, rather than on the ports.  AP costs will apply to both 21CN and FTTC  :(

I've just looked at the latest WBC price spreadsheet, and noticed that the market A and market B prices for those things are now the other way around:
Code: [Select]
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market A 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £6,532.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market B 12 Months 01/07/2014 Month £20,968.00

To try and see which is correct, I looked back at the older price lists with markets 1,2,3:
Code: [Select]
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market 1 12 Months 01/04/2011 Month £8,057.50
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market 2 12 Months 01/04/2011 Month £4,400.00
AP national coverage (combined with IPsC CP Handover option) - Market 3 12 Months 01/04/2011 Month £15,042.50

It seems like the main justification for Plusnet's higher WBC / FTTC prices outside the low cost areas was actually a mistake in the price lists, and it's Market B that has the higher cost in that part of the price list.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: kitz on February 15, 2016, 03:33:03 PM
Now Im totally confused at the reversal of those figures.

The exchange bands are:-

Quote
Market 1: exchanges where only BT was present or forecast to be present;
Market 2: exchanges where two Principal Operators (including BT) were present or forecast to be present or where three were present or forecast to be present, but BT's market share was 50% or more; and
Market 3: exchanges where four or more Principal Operators were present or forecast and exchanges where three Principal Operators were present or forecast but where BT's share was less than 50 per cent.

The really old price bands were A,C,E -> Dense, Mid, NonDense.
Then OFCOM redefined as

Quote
   
Market A: exchange areas where there are no more than two Principal Operators (POs) present or forecast to be present, which accounts for 9.6% of UK premises.
Market B: exchange areas where there are three or more POs present or forecast to be present, which accounts for 89.7% of UK premises.

As we propose that there is effective competition in Market B we do not propose any regulation.

I thought that the original idea was supposed to mean that Market A pricing could not be offered too cheaply and thereby discouraging other providers entering the market at that particular exchange.  BT could charge what they liked on market B and lower prices to compete with the LLU providers who arent subject to regulation.   It was supposed to encourage LLU providers to put their kit in exchanges where BT had a monopoly.

However I read this from 11th July 2013 review (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/review-wba-markets/summary)

Quote
1.20 In 2010, we found 77.6% of the country to be effectively competitive.   ../snip/..

Based on our proposed finding of market power in Market A, we consider there is a risk of various competition problems including: refusal to supply, undue discrimination, margin squeeze and excessive pricing. We propose to place general access and non-discrimination obligations on BT. These obligations would ensure that other CPs have the opportunity to use wholesale products supplied by BT to compete effectively at the retail level.

../snip/..

We also propose that BT's services in Market A should be subject to a price control in order to ensure that BT does not set excessive prices for wholesale broadband services which would ultimately be passed on to consumers.

../snip/..

 1.24 We are also proposing to set sub-caps on the following services:

   Contracted bandwidth.  [ie the APs]
   End-user access rental. [port costs]
   Some ancillary services: migration, re-grade and cancellation charges.


Now OFCOM seems to be saying Market A should be cheapest. :hmm:
Surely this discourages new LLU investment?
Have I got that right?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on February 15, 2016, 04:20:06 PM
I thought those Ofcom documents say it only applies to IPStream Connect bandwidth. Table 7.1 in that 2013 PDF lists all the aspects of IPStream Connect with the charge controls. Regarding WBC or FTTC, it only says things like where IPSC is withdrawn (after WBC arrives), consumers should not be made worse off. I have been mainly reading the final statement (WBA-Statement.pdf) from June 2014.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: renluop on February 17, 2016, 12:05:52 PM
Has anyone a good guess as to the proportions of high and low cost area users, and what revenue neutral price adjustments would be needed to achieve equal EU pricing?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: gt94sss2 on February 17, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
Has anyone a good guess as to the proportions of high and low cost area users, and what revenue neutral price adjustments would be needed to achieve equal EU pricing?

Market A (high cost)covers about 9.5% of UK premises. Market B is 89.8% of premises (the rest is Hull @0.7%).

In trying to work out the number of customers, you will have to take account of the fact that the population density will be a lot less in Market B areas - one of the reasons they are unattractive for LLU operators.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on February 17, 2016, 01:40:36 PM
I thought the percentages of UK premises already took into account the population density.

Low costHigh cost
Unlimited (ADSL)9.9917.49
Unlimited Fibre14.9922.49
Unlimited Fibre Extra19.9927.49

The high cost area is an extra £7.50 for each package. So, if Plusnet get an extra £7.50 from 1 in 10 customers, they would have to increase the low cost area prices by 75p to get the same revenue from giving everyone the low cost prices.

It seems like it can't possibly be that simple, so I've probably missed out far too much and it's totally wrong.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on February 17, 2016, 01:50:37 PM
Now OFCOM seems to be saying Market A should be cheapest. :hmm:
Surely this discourages new LLU investment?
Have I got that right?

I'm not sure, perhaps Ofcom have figured out the LLU operators aren't increasing their coverage that much, so the Market A exchanges are likely to remain with only BT present.

The other thing I did notice, from the price lists, is that IPSC bandwidth in Market A is cheaper than IPSC bandwidth in Market B, in case there are a few Market B exchanges that are only IPSC. WBC bandwidth is cheaper than Market A IPSC bandwidth though.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on February 17, 2016, 03:02:42 PM
We were discussing Zen elsewhere, their difference is even greater.

Low cost = £16/month unlimited ADSL
High cost = £25.80 for 200GB, £42.50 for 500GB, with no unlimited on offer
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: ejs on February 17, 2016, 03:42:59 PM
Is that because you've only got 20CN ADSL1 available though?

Plusnet seem to get away with making people outside the low-cost areas pay more for FTTC, and everyone just accepts that it must be because the wholesale costs are higher due to Ofcom regulation. But the wholesale costs don't seem to be any different, and the Ofcom price regulation only seems to apply to IPStream Connect (20CN ADSL1), which FTTC does not use.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on February 17, 2016, 03:54:53 PM
Is that because you've only got 20CN ADSL1 available though?
That was my guess, but Zen said otherwise.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: renluop on February 17, 2016, 05:49:02 PM
I make that were PN to equalise costs at the current low cost area rate, the revenue loss for ADSL (all types) would be ~6.75%

However, the question is whether the current price loading on low cost end users is/ is meant to be a be a deterrent; would equalisation be to PN's commercial advantage. If not the common price might be higher than we might imagine. What do you think of my thoughts, I wonder?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: gt94sss2 on February 18, 2016, 04:09:55 PM
There are ISPs who charge the same fee regardless of whether an exchange is Market A or B  - including ironically Plusnet under the John Lewis (https://www.johnlewisbroadband.com/unlimited/) brand.

They even advertise it as a selling point:

Quote
Same price wherever you live

Unlike some other broadband providers, our prices are the same for everyone regardless of where you live.

Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: renluop on February 18, 2016, 05:53:32 PM
@gt94sss2
 Of course we all know that, but what those companies do must be for the sake of their individual commercial needs. I would dare suggest that enforcing common pricing might have on PN EUs different from those expected from pure mathematical calculations.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on February 19, 2016, 07:19:35 AM
However, the question is whether the current price loading on low cost end users is/ is meant to be a be a deterrent; would equalisation be to PN's commercial advantage. If not the common price might be higher than we might imagine. What do you think of my thoughts, I wonder?

Do you think end users in high cost areas may be on longer/worse lines and therefore cost more to support?   However if this was the case they could just as easily not offer service in those areas.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: renluop on February 19, 2016, 07:26:58 AM
Not sure I understand question. is there a typo or whatever in the post?
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: gt94sss2 on February 19, 2016, 09:12:30 AM
However, the question is whether the current price loading on low cost end users is/ is meant to be a be a deterrent; would equalisation be to PN's commercial advantage. If not the common price might be higher than we might imagine. What do you think of my thoughts, I wonder?

Do you mean the current price loading on high cost end users?

Surely, low cost users (the majority) are where BTw have more freedom to set prices - its the high cost areas where they have to charge more than they might otherwise?

Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on February 19, 2016, 11:27:10 AM
Not sure I understand question. is there a typo or whatever in the post?
Yes - two typos, which I'll correct because otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on February 19, 2016, 11:34:44 AM
By the way, another high cost/low cost operator is Pulse 8 although they have a price difference for phone line as well as for DSL making the total difference greater than Plusnet.   Low cost area, ADSL and phone line = £25/month.   High cost is £41/month.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: renluop on February 19, 2016, 05:54:02 PM
However, the question is whether the current price loading on low cost end users is/ is meant to be a be a deterrent; would equalisation be to PN's commercial advantage. If not the common price might be higher than we might imagine. What do you think of my thoughts, I wonder?

Do you mean the current price loading on high cost end users?

Surely, low cost users (the majority) are where BTw have more freedom to set prices - its the high cost areas where they have to charge more than they might otherwise?
My post wasn't well checked was it? :-[ Definitely the loading on high cost end users was meant.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on March 14, 2016, 07:16:23 PM
Was just using the Kitz advert on the forums and it was PlusNet so gave it a go with postcode and telephone number and this is what I get.

Just interested to see other forum users price plan using the link 
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: burakkucat on March 14, 2016, 08:31:58 PM
I used the link, entered some details and then tried to find the equivalent page of output.

Here follows the best I could find (for EABSE) --
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: NewtronStar on March 14, 2016, 09:11:13 PM
Six months free the same as me then the difference is seen you are charged £14.99 per month and me I get charged £22.39 a difference of £7.40 monthly then multiply £7.40 X 18 months = £133.2.

that is how much I pay being in a high cost area for broadband & phone this is just downright discrimination any way you look at it.

Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.
Title: Re: Plusnet Low & High cost area
Post by: aesmith on March 15, 2016, 06:54:15 AM
Running the check for a neighbouring address ...