Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on February 27, 2019, 05:17:45 PM
-
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/02/isp-zen-internet-slashes-uk-adsl-and-fttc-broadband-prices.html (https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/02/isp-zen-internet-slashes-uk-adsl-and-fttc-broadband-prices.html)
Rochdale-based UK ISP Zen Internet has informed us that they’ve introduced a number of big price reductions (i.e. these are permanent changes, not temporary discounts) across their standard ADSL and superfast Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC / VDSL2) based broadband and phone bundles. Plus there’s a lifetime price guarantee!
The prices are;
ADSL 10 / 1 = £28
FTTC1 35 / 6 = £37
FTTC2 66 / 17 = £38.99
FTTC3 145 / 30 = £52 (+ £55 setup)
FTTC4 300 / 50 = £59.99 (+ £55 setup)
Can someone explain why there is a £9 jump in price between the ADSL service and FTTC1 ? Why does it cost £9 more?
I wonder if these prices include line rental? if they do then I'm paying over the odds.
-
I wonder if these prices include line rental?
According to the article you referenced, they do.
-
My current deal with Zen is for unlimited 40/10. The new deal, at exactly the same price, seems to be unlimited 35/6, not exactly sure in what way that is a “price slash”.
My actual connection is around 28/8 so to keep the same (upstream) performance, I might even need to upgrade - costing me more... ???
-
My current deal with Zen is for unlimited 40/10. The new deal, at exactly the same price, seems to be unlimited 35/6, not exactly sure in what way that is a “price slash”.
My actual connection is around 28/8 so to keep the same (upstream) performance, I might even need to upgrade - costing me more... ???
I think they are quoting average speeds, rather than the usual max possible.
-
Vultura is right, due to new advertising standards which came in last year they have to use average speeds rather than the up to figures we are all used to. So we just need to round up to the standard package speeds.
-
I think they are quoting average speeds, rather than the usual max possible.
That does seem to be the case, but then how can I tell whether on 35/6, if I’ll still be allowed to get 8Mbps upstream?
I assume their product is actually limitted by absolute maximums, otherwise a customer with a fantastic line could purchase 35/6 and then “achieve” 80/20. But do they actually tell us what the limits are? And if not, how do we know what they are actually selling?
As said, for me, best case scenario would be I pay exactly the same as last year. Worst case is, I need to pay more, to sustain my current upstream, which is more than their advertised “average”. :'(
-
Vultura is right, due to new advertising standards which came in last year they have to use average speeds rather than the up to figures we are all used to. So we just need to round up to the standard package speeds.
Sorry Ronski, posts crossed.
Blasted political interference, dumbed down for the dumbest common denominator, I might have guessed. >:(
All the same, stressing again, how can I assume “standard” package speeds are anything in particular, if the seller does not quantify them?
-
Perhaps you have figured it out now but 35/6 is actually 40/10 i.e. your existing service so your speeds would not change. It would never give anybody 80/20. The use of average speed values is unbelievably stupid.
-
If you proceed to enter your details on Zen's site then it will give you estimated speeds, mine are as follows:
Typical Download Speed 35Mbps
Maximum Download Speed 53.83Mbps
Minimum Download Speed: 32.21Mbps
Typical Upload Speed: 7.56Mbps
But it doesn't appear to say what the maxium package speeds are, we just have to use our knowledge to know that.
-
I wonder if these prices include line rental? if they do then I'm paying over the odds.
As per the question of ISPs having now to advertise average speeds, the rules now also require firms to advertise prices/packages including line rental.
-
Is it less confusing for the average Joe to be given an average speed, rather than an up to 80 download, 20 upload figure which possibly raises expectations too high?
Just run a quick check for my line -
Typical Download Speed 59.99Mbps
Maximum Download Speed 80Mbps
Minimum Download Speed 56.2Mbps
Typical Upload Speed 19Mbps
If only I could see 60 to 80 on it.
-
The use of average speed values is unbelievably stupid.
Couldn't agree more, absolutely insane. I'd heard it mentioned,and probably seen the odd forum thread, but never thought for a minute the regulators would be stupid enough to make it happen. Normally, in daft situations like this, I'd blame Brussels. But I assume this is something the UK has achieved all on its own?
As per the question of ISPs having now to advertise average speeds, the rules now also require firms to advertise prices/packages including line rental.
Again, bad, bad, bad, bonkers. My existing Zen package excludes line rental, so that's the figure I want to see. Fortunately however, Zen's website detail does still provide a prices with/without line rental, so not an immediate problem for me. If they are politically forced to completely remove that detail as well I think I'll have to emigrate, but not sure where to? Or where'd have me. :D
Is it less confusing for the average Joe to be given an average speed, rather than an up to 80 download, 20 upload figure
The way to address that is to educate that average Joe people in use of the English Language, in particular the meaning of the words "up to". My own download is high 20s - telling me "the average is 35" is arguably even more confusing, and building more false expectations, compared with citing a meaningful "up to" figure. If I do emigrate as above I must remember to make sure it's to somewhere they speak English, and to a higher standard than the UK. >:(
-
Again, bad, bad, bad, bonkers. My existing Zen package excludes line rental, so that's the figure I want to see. Fortunately however, Zen's website detail does still provide a prices with/without line rental, so not an immediate problem for me. If they are politically forced to completely remove that detail as well I think I'll have to emigrate, but not sure where to? Or where'd have me. :D
The way to address that is to educate that average Joe people in use of the English Language, in particular the meaning of the words "up to". My own download is high 20s - telling me "the average is 35" is arguably even more confusing, and building more false expectations, compared with citing a meaningful "up to" figure. If I do emigrate as above I must remember to make sure it's to somewhere they speak English, and to a higher standard than the UK. >:(
The change to show packaged prices alongside broadband only was brought in to make it easier for consumers to compare suppliers.
-
The change to show packaged prices alongside broadband only was brought in to make it easier for consumers to compare suppliers.
But in what way does it make it easier?
I know that my line is currently capable of around 28/8 over FTTC. The ISP play no part in that, it is what it is, unless and until some other factor causes it to change. I do not expect it to change any time soon so when choosing an ISP, I simply need to find one that provides at least 28Mbps downstream, and at least 8Mbps upstream. The "average" figures simply do not provide me with that required information.
I'd say it actually creates a greater gulf between the technically expert, and the dumb population. We Geeks & Techies can look at the "average" figures and make a good educated guess that, for example, 35/6 really means 40/10, which is the useful data. The "average Joe" however knows nothing about standard packages, so he cannot make that educated guess at equivalence with 40/10. So Joe is deprived of the useful data, unable to make use of it, even if he were to subsequently attend further education classes that allowed him to understand the words "up to". >:(
I do appreciate that I should have noticed this sooner, this rant is probably too late as it's decision made, all done & dusted. Apols for that. :'(
-
I need to talk to Zen, I currently pay 40 pound/month for an 8 Mb down 1Mb up and since our exchange upgrade my line is now capable of 50 Mbps.
:-[
Chunks
-
I am not a fan off "up to" been used for access speeds, in my view it should only be used for throughput purposes to indicate speeds may slow down due to congestion.
I mean I dont know what was ever good e.g. thinking you brought a up to 24mbit/sec service that ran at 5mbit/sec on a good day, in this situation you can never hit the 24mbit/sec its impossible if the line isnt capable and as such the up to is massively misleading. The use of estimated speeds partially corrects it.
However I believe we talking about this new trend of using average speed across customer base to indicate the product spec, this I think is stupid when done on a national level, as it takes no account of local variables, and hides the underlying package spec. This I think is what you guys are complaining about? However for me the fix isnt going back to a generic "up to" package, but rather the average should apply to your postcode so the package essentially be matching what people at your postcode actually get.
-
But the problem is that until you enter your information the websites advertising the products don't know where you are so can't give an accurate speed. Using a postcode is also useless, they can cover huge area's and even in small areas speeds can vary greatly - different cabinet, line route etc.
Given the above I can see what they were trying to do with average speeds, but I don't think there is an easy answer as they are selling products that can vary greatly due to what's on the ground, or aren't even available at a lot of locations.
-
I wonder if part of the problem is that widespread use of “up to” seems to have been redefined to mean “approximately”?
For example BBC news, when reporting on a storm, will often say something like “up to 3,000 homes are believed to be without electricity”. I’m sure they don’t really mean “up to 3,000” as that would include “no homes at all”. They probably mean “about”, so why say “up to”?
Whatever the reason, people seem to have come to misunderstand these words “up to”. And that is a shame as they are perfectly good, nice short, and very meaningful words, if taken literally. I still think the answer lies in education, as to what the words “up to” actually mean.
If we are going to ban innapropriate use of “up to” then I’d prefer to ban the likes of BBC reporting, that I hear every day, rather than ban the genuinely useful data conveyed by ISP package descriptions.
-
Indeed, my idea certainly is not perfect and I dont know what would be perfect.
One rule could be to ban the use of speed in product spec unless your technology allows guaranteed access speeds such as FTTP and cable or fixed speed DSL. This also could encourage faster rollout of FTTP from the likes of openreach. Instead they would have to use generic terms such as copper broadband, hybrid broadband or fibre broadband.
I would also ban fibre broadband from been used on g.fast, cable and fttc products, those are hybrid broadband.