I've been looking at the karooforums site. I would have posted this there, but I get an error when I try to register.

Whisper is a new one to me, prices don't look the best, but better than karoo. Don't like it when they advertise unlimited downloads and then add a fup stating 250GB. Why not just say 250GB!



Have to give them a call and see if they cover my postcode.

Nobody in West Hull with EE?

I live in HU5 and I have been with KC for 14 years here. Yes KC are far from perfect but the figures you give for alternative suppliers are far better with KC. I regularly look whether there are better packages than I subscribe to at present but these so called faster suppliers have appalling reviews when you delve into it. KC should be far better but I don't have big problems with them. Cannot understand what your problem with KC is in HU5 and my download limit is far greater than 20GB. I pay around £40 a month which includes landline and other benefits. Download speeds are between 4 to 5 mbps.

My issue with KC is simply value for money. The speeds and download limits they offer are not worth the price being asked, and that price keeps going up. netindex.com has Hull 857 out of 954 in the UK, yet it is in the top 20 largest (just). Download speeds of 4 or 5 are very poor for a large city, it should be averaging 40 - 50 like our friends in Cas. Yes Lightstream is great if you are one of the lucky few to have it available, with the rollout being more of a crawl. I'll be surprised if I see it before 2020.

For comparison, if virgin media was available, speeds of up to 50 meg with unlimited downloads would cost £25.99 for first 12 months and £31.49 after. I currently get speeds of 8 meg with a 35GB limit for £32. For your £40 a month you could have speeds 20x faster with no download limit.

You have to remember the costs i give for EE includes mobile phone usage. Unlimited calls and texts on a brand new smartphone that's worth £350. I rarely use much more than 20GB anyway, so wouldn't need more unless speeds are much faster. Unfortunately, EE's 4G is broken so i've had to cancel the contract.

Just been looking at netindex again and noticed it also covers mobile broadband speeds. A quick click shows that Hull is 363 out of 368. Outstanding.

I've managed to get in touch with Wisper, they're sending an engineer next week to check coverage and install the receiver. 10 - 20Mbps claimed speeds with 350GB fair usage limit. Factoring in installation costs over 12 months works out at just over £37 a month. Over 24 months comes in cheaper than KC's cheapest deal. Although that doesn't include phone, I found I was using my mobile more than landline anyway. Also fed up of nuisance calls on landline.

I've gone with Pure.. £22.50 per month (monthly rolling contract), unlimited downloads, £95 installation fee..
A friend just got it and said its far better than Karoo but at half the cost, I don't really mind. I even get an 01482 number to use!

KC network is open to anybody, just like BT. It's not KC's fault that few deem Hull as worthwhile of investment in terms of providing alternative broadband services.

Have used KC for many years, having lived in Bristol and London. Speeds are great here in Hessle, and from next week I will have 100mb down and 10mb up via Fibre. I agree, the cost is a little higher than the rest of the UK, although pretty comparable to Virgin deals when you consider line rental is bundled with KC deals. But frankly if you had no competition through no fault of your own, what would be your motivation to reduce prices?

How much do KC charge for use of their lines? Is it in line with what BT charge, because if it is I can't see why others wouldn't be offering services here.

I'm sure you are very happy with KC if you are getting fiber. I would be too. But I can't get fiber. I won't be getting it next week. Or next month. Probably not for several years. We are in a ridiculous situation where the largest population centre has the slowest speeds while the outlying areas are on fiber. We are trying to sell ourselves as a futuristic city and the capitol of renewable energy, yet our communications system is stuck in the dark ages. Again, netindex show Hull as 826 out of 954 for home broadband, and 316 of 321 for mobile broadband [urlhttp://explorer.netindex.com/maps[/url Try putting Beverley or Brough into the search and then see if you are happy with broadband in Hull. Bristol you say? Averaging 35.43 Mbps, 235 of 954. Much better than hull.

Sorry, but KC's prices are not a little higher than Virgin, they're nowhere near. The prices I quoted earlier for Virgin (£25.99 for first 12 months and £31.49 after) include line rental. And that's for fiber speeds and unlimited downloads. KC are asking £32 for slow cable broadband with a 35GB limit, and it keeps going up in price! Lightstream is better value, but still no comparison to Virgin.

KC may not technically hold a monopoly, but as someone trying hard to find an alternative, it sure feels like one. Whisper don't cover my area and EE's 4G is shocking. My ONLY alternative is Pure, and they can't install till next year

Yes. Exactly the same in fact, its regulated. They were investigated a few years ago by Ofcom. Hull is a small, low income market.



I agree. I fully support any efforts to increase competition in the area. However your shouting at the wrong people, it's not KC's fault. Indeed, the only thing that is surprising is that KC's prices are so low in what is a low competition market, fair play to them for that. Incidentally, there are large parts of the country, indeed, by far the majority that do not enjoy fibre speeds including large parts of cities like Bristol, even London. And the rural situation is even worst, the fastest speed I could get at an accommodation I rented outside of Manchester (Knutsford) maxed out at about 0.7mb, and that was on BT. Indeed, I've checked and where i use to live still only has ADSL as an option, and the average connection speed on that is lower than I get in Hessle on KC. Frankly its luck of the draw, and in an age that relies on connectivity, it needs to be addressed as a national issue and I understand and sympathise with your frustration.

Sorry if I got the Virgin prices wrong, I was looking at 100mb. It is indeed £31.49 per month (£15.50 subscription, plus £15.99 line rental). The comparable KC deal which includes line rental, and the same inclusive calls (indeed KC is better as it includes evening calls and Virgin doesn't), with 50mb connection is £36.99 per month. So £5.49 per month difference, which I suppose we can put down to the cost of no competition and the evening calls.

So £11 p/m cheaper for the first year, and after that you could switch provider (





). You don't mention what KC's download limit is either at that price. Virgin is unlimited (although I suspect there may be a fair usage policy attached to that) while KC is limited to 70GB. That might seem a lot to those of us on cable, but at 50Mbps you [ucould[/u use that up in just over 3 hours.

But neither are available to me, so I instead have to look at the value of what is available. At £32 a month for slow cable and a 35GB limit (still 50p p/m more expensive than Virgin incidentally), I was not getting good value. There is an article in the mail today stating that an equivalent service can be had for £19 - £20 p/m.

It is undeniable also that Hull has been left behind in terms of broadband. As the sole provider in the area, the blame for that lands squarely at KC's door. Although I will admit that things might be a little better if Offcom weren't such a waste of space.

On a sidenote, maybe KC should have used the sponsorship money from a certain rival clubs stadium to instead provide that service to people or reduce their prices. Why spend such vast amounts on advertising when most people can't get the service being advertised, and for those that can, you have no competitors?

Yep, squarely at their door, unless you know, you ignore facts and stuff.

It does in fact land entirely away from "their door" as access to the network is regulated and under exactly the same conditions for all providers as the rest of the country via BT. Also, it is very much deniable that Hull has been "left behind" in terms of broadband, mainly because there are no facts to support that either given many in Hull and the surrounding villages can get up to 100mb if they are one of the lucky ones, and further my bet is that the percentage per 100 people that can is higher than many other areas in the UK.



OFCOM can't regulate KC into an unfair condition, by making it cheaper to provide internet in Hull than via the BT network, whereas I believe Virgin have exclusive access to their network(?).

Unfortunately the cost of plugging into our infrastructure is apparently making it too unappealing. Not helped the fact that London based ISP's like Sky don't actually seem to know where Hull is.

Incidently, I don't know if you have had a look at the complaints regarding Virgin? However many complain the service is at time irritating to say the least, as Virgin apply hourly fair use thresholds. Some as low as 1250mb per two hours apparently. Meaning that they ramped your speed down after that limit for 2 hours. Meaning downloading a HD movie takes a lot longer than it should.

HDM article [url=http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Best-worst-internet-speeds-Hull-East-Riding/story-24488645-detail/story.htmltoday.[/url You'll need plenty of bandwidth to cope with all the adverts.