Price Increase

[Alexleonard2]

When the 10% plus 3.9% increase was announced, I spoke to an EE rep who assured me the 10% part would not apply. Hard to credit that level of competence. Real reason for calling was because main part of my bill related to the phone which was a fixed price when purchased. Why should that part of the bill increase? This is little short of theft and shows that profit is more important than the customer.

[Gareth43]

EE contracts are usually the phone and tariff all billed as one so when a price increase happens it happens on all of it. I know some other company’s charge for the phone and tariff separately so to speak to that when a price increase occurs, it’s only the tariff that gets the increase and not the phone aswell. I believe I’ve seen someone mention on here that EE are starting to do this aswell but not certain 

[Alexleonard2]

The phone doesn't increase by 14% after I bought it. Nor would any other
form of hire purchase for goods because that's what it is. EE are ripping
off its customers and they get away with it when the increase is small as
in recent years but more evident this time. They should be ashamed of
themselves.

[WS1995]

This is exactly my argument. EE buy their handsets. There is no "monthly" handset cost to them. If the airtime cost to them increases (i.e electricity costs to power their masts), then fair enough, that I agree with. But how on earth is it legal to suddenly then charge MORE each month for the handset, which was a one-off fixed fee for EE at the point of purchase from the manufacturer... to be honest I fail to see how this isn't fraud. EE are profiting on this massively, the handsets depreciate each month and yet somehow they can continue to charge MORE each year for the same handset that the customer has owned, typically for x amount of months or in some cases a year to 18 months.... the handset is now worth 50% of it's original value but yet EE are still charging more each month each year for the same handset. It's honestly such a scummy way to conduct business.

I have a device with Virgin Media, the device costs £40 a month, and the airtime was £7 a month. The airtime is now about £8.40 odd if I recall, but guess what? Yes - that's right, having just paid this month's device bill on VM, the device cost is still £40 a month..

Absolute scum and con artists. 

[XRaySpeX]

@WS1995 : You haven't worked it thro'.

---

@WS1995 wrote:

But how on earth is it legal to suddenly then charge MORE each month for the handset, which was a one-off fixed fee for EE at the point of purchase from the manufacture

No, it isn't! You're forgetting the, increasing, interest on the loan to enable you to buy the handset over a period of time. It's not like they bought from the manufacturer & sold outright directly to you!

[Alexleonard2]

Oh dear are you telling me that other service providers such as Virgin
Media are missing a trick by not including handsets in their price
increase? Wow I think we should all leave EE and join these other silly
service providers. Sir may I respectively point out that it may be you who
hasn't worked it out.

[WS1995]

Even so, with all respect, and without being rude, you can "dream on" if you think the interest EE accrue, given the size of the company and no doubt the preferential business interest rates they will get on any capital required is anything close to the 14.3% rise that customers are being expected to pay.

[bristolian]

EE did not impose the highest price rise across the industry, but all customers are free to factor annual price rises into buying decisions. It's as valid a factor to consider in choosing providers, as network coverage and others.

Virgin Mobile use O2.

[WS1995]

The problem is, and this is the main problem, there is NO way for a customer to know what the price rise is likely to be. EE stated CPI + 3.9% but there's no way for a customer to know what the CPI is likely to be each year going forward when they take out a contract. For instance, CPI now is around 10%.... but what's to stop CPI increasing to 20% next year? Nothing.

If EE's price rises have gone from 5-6% each year, year on year, to a whopping 14.3% in one single year, anything's possible. That's nearly 3 years worth of price increases in one single year, that's not "business", that's a "disgrace" and ripping people off. Answer this, because so far nobody has been able to.

If EE have been able to sustain growth since the merger of T-Mobile and Orange (which i've both used in the past) each year, why all of a sudden do they need a massive increase in one single year? If EE promised that it was going to increase 14.3% this year, but for the next 1-2 years they wouldn't increase prices at all, it wouldn't be so bad, but we all know that's never going to happen and there will be an annual price increase. 

Explain why I am expected to pay an EXTRA £84.40 a month on my bill, when my service coverage continues to be utter crap? If EE are going down the route of "You all signed contracts" to argue that we're in breach if we refuse to pay the additional, then surely we can argue EE are in breach, as for many of us they aren't providing the service we pay for.

I've been with EE for nearly 3 years, the service has NEVER improved and has stayed exactly the same as it was, despite year on year price increases. So this so called "investment".... benefits me how? It certainly doesn't provide better coverage. There's numerous masts all within 1/2 mile from my address yet cellular coverage in this area is somehow atrocious.

If EE want customers to pay fair, then it's about time they did too. 

[bristolian]

I have no idea on the geography of your specific location so can't comment.

Network investment broadly falls in two categories. Expansion of new coverage into rural & remote "not-spots" where previously no operator had any coverage - EE are industry-leading here.

Addition of capacity and extra spectrum onto existing sites, this has no perceivable impact on the coverage footprint but allows for increasing data usage within existing coverage areas.