[Gllug] OT Internet connection

[John Winters]

John G Walker wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:35:17 -0000 (UTC) "John Winters"
> <john at sinodun.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> Or does the proposed £25/year include the Sky subscription charge?
>>
> 
> Without knowing the details (eg which council, never mind anything more
> specific) I'd speculate that they're thinking of two sets of costs:
> 
> Firstly, they have to get Sky to fit the dish and cabling. This
> involves one or more council employees writing letters, making
> appointments, checking that the work is done, etc.
> 
> Secondly, they're going to have to field complaints from people that
> probably should go direct to Sky, but won't. If you think council
> tenants aren't going to complain to the council if there's a problem
> with their Sky subscription, you don't know human nature,

You're self-awarded sagacity about human nature is probably mis-placed. 
  People won't complain to the council about their Sky service unless 
the council give them some reason to believe that the Sky service is 
something to do with them, like for instance by charging their punters 
£25 a year for it.  Do you complain to the council when your phone goes 
on the blink?

Provided the council behave sensibly and simply arrange for the physical 
infrastructure to be installed, then tell everyone, "OK - it's there. 
If you want to subscribe to the service then contact Sky on 0870 ....." 
then people will see themselves as buying the service from Sky and will 
complain to Sky in the event of problems (even if the problems are with 
the local infrastructure and thus nothing to do with Sky).  Any half-wit 
who does complain to the council is easily dealt with, in the same way 
that the council would deal with a complaint about taxis not arriving on 
time, or mail-order goods being faulty - by saying "Why are you talking 
to us?"

Only if the council try to cream off a margin, by making a regular 
charge of the punters are they liable to find themselves in trouble. 
Once people start paying for a service they expect to be able to 
complain to the body they're paying.  It's a silly thing, but charging 
punters £25 a year would probably leave the council worse off (because 
of the need to field complaints) than not charging at all.  Bean 
counters don't tend to be that sensible though.

John
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug