We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Line Rental, Why ?

Why does BT charge a line rental fee everymonth & be allowed to get away with it for so long ?

I think this is grossly unfair & a draconian charge.

We should be able to buy our phone lines.

Does anyone know what happens in other countries ?
«1

Comments

  • cajef
    cajef Posts: 6,283 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    hootie wrote: »
    Why does BT charge a line rental fee everymonth & be allowed to get away with it for so long ?

    Because they have a huge infrastructure of exchanges, lines and equipment to maintain and employee salaries to pay.

    Without line rental the system would start to breakdown with no money to invest in modernisation or for repairs to the network.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,187 Community Admin
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    It's not line rental: it gives you no right to do anything at all to the wires, and it's independent of the cost of maintaining the wires you use. It's just the established custom to charge a minimum flat monthly fee for access to the network, even if you make no calls. The cartel of Originating Providers (including Virgin) all charge pretty well the same for this. They could, of course, fund their fixed costs through the call charges, just as shops fund their fixed costs through selling you stuff.

    Arguably, charging only in proportion to usage, without a minimum monthly charge, entails a subsidy from large users to light users. Tesco would love to charge a flat fee for entering their supermarkets, to cover their fixed overheads. This would enable them to lower their price tickets. People who buy a lot would be better off, and little old ladies would pay a lot more per item - exactly as happens now with telephone calls.
  • topherxp
    topherxp Posts: 267 Forumite
    YoungNick wrote: »
    It's not line rental: it gives you no right to do anything at all to the wires
    So it's not line rental because you can't do anything to the wires - Are you nuts? If you rented a TV, a car or even a flat there would be very little you could do with it because you rent it. You could redecorate a flat but you wouldn't be able to change the structure in anyway.
    YoungNick wrote: »
    it's independent of the cost of maintaining the wires you use.
    Maintainence costs are factored in to the rental and are not independant - You seriously believe money made from telephone calls is enough to maintain the structure of the telecoms network plus all the other costs of running a telecoms business.
    YoungNick wrote: »
    It's just the established custom to charge a minimum flat monthly fee for access to the network, even if you make no calls.
    How do you expect the lines of people who don't make any calls to be maintained?
    YoungNick wrote: »
    The cartel of Originating Providers (including Virgin) all charge pretty well the same for this.
    Hardly a cartel, the main network is open for any provider to supply telecommunication services.
    YoungNick wrote: »
    They could, of course, fund their fixed costs through the call charges, just as shops fund their fixed costs through selling you stuff.
    Fixed cost could be funded by call costs, but the cost of calling would have to increase by a big margin - On top of which is it fair for people who make a lot of calls to fund the maintainence of the lines of people who don't use the line - Thats why it's fair to charge a fixed fee for everybody.
    YoungNick wrote: »
    Arguably, charging only in proportion to usage, without a minimum monthly charge, entails a subsidy from large users to light users. Tesco would love to charge a flat fee for entering their supermarkets, to cover their fixed overheads. This would enable them to lower their price tickets. People who buy a lot would be better off, and little old ladies would pay a lot more per item - exactly as happens now with telephone calls.
    That whole statement is complete rubbish. Little old ladys are charged exactly the same for there calls as people who use their phone a lot, they are not charged more - they would still pay the same for there call costs as people who use the phone a lot if there wasn't a rental.
    If saved £2710 and only spent the interest (Based on a return of 5%), you would have enough money to pay your TV Licence every year. Saving you £7452.50 over a period of 55 years, based on you buying a license from the age of 20 until your 75 at a cost of £135.50.
  • topherxp
    topherxp Posts: 267 Forumite
    hootie wrote: »
    Why does BT charge a line rental fee everymonth & be allowed to get away with it for so long ?

    I think this is grossly unfair & a draconian charge.

    We should be able to buy our phone lines.

    Does anyone know what happens in other countries ?
    As mentioned in the second post it's for maintainence and running costs.

    Other countries also charge for rental.
    If saved £2710 and only spent the interest (Based on a return of 5%), you would have enough money to pay your TV Licence every year. Saving you £7452.50 over a period of 55 years, based on you buying a license from the age of 20 until your 75 at a cost of £135.50.
  • It's a con & a matter of time before this farcical situation is surely changed.

    It does say line rental on the bill, not maintenance & running costs !

    If it's for maintenance & running costs, why can't the customer at least be able to buy a line if they so wish, then if there's a problem with the line, it's up to the customer to pay someone to get it fixed.

    Why should we pay maintenance & running costs for a phoneline that doesn't neccessarily need maintained.
  • Incisor
    Incisor Posts: 2,271 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    hootie wrote: »
    It's a con & a matter of time before this farcical situation is surely changed.

    It does say line rental on the bill, not maintenance & running costs !

    If it's for maintenance & running costs, why can't the customer at least be able to buy a line if they so wish, then if there's a problem with the line, it's up to the customer to pay someone to get it fixed.

    Why should we pay maintenance & running costs for a phoneline that doesn't neccessarily need maintained.
    This is just barmy. Who cares what it is called on the bill?

    As for having your own line, where would it go to? Would you have the street dug up for your line? Would you take it to an exchange or just to your friends and family numbers? Do you want to have an incoming line from everyone who might want to talk to you, each with its own phone, or would you prefer that the lines go to an exchange and are switched there so that you only need one phone to speak to anyone in the world?The line itself is just 2 wires carried in a cable often with several hundred pairs in it. If someone else's pair broke down, would you be happy with them choosing the cheapest bidder to fix the pair in the same cable as your pair?
    After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?
  • Bufflowbill
    Bufflowbill Posts: 381 Forumite
    hootie wrote: »
    It's a con & a matter of time before this farcical situation is surely changed.

    So are you suggesting that the Universal Service Conditions (‘USCs’) that ensure that certain basic fixed line communications services are available at an affordable price to all citizens of the UK,should be waived and that everybody should pay the going rate for their particular installation.
  • niccy
    niccy Posts: 597 Forumite
    i pay Sky for my line rental
    living on the "edge"
  • littleboo
    littleboo Posts: 1,630 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    hootie wrote: »
    It's a con & a matter of time before this farcical situation is surely changed.

    It does say line rental on the bill, not maintenance & running costs !

    If it's for maintenance & running costs, why can't the customer at least be able to buy a line if they so wish, then if there's a problem with the line, it's up to the customer to pay someone to get it fixed.

    Why should we pay maintenance & running costs for a phoneline that doesn't neccessarily need maintained.

    If you follow the argument through, then you'd be able to buy a gas and electricity connection and have lower unit costs.
  • cajef
    cajef Posts: 6,283 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    hootie wrote: »
    Why should we pay maintenance & running costs for a phoneline that doesn't neccessarily need maintained.

    So what happens if your line goes down maybe through storm or flood damage, are you are willing to pay a bill for several hundred pounds or maybe even thousands when there is a fault on your line which may necessitate digging up a road or new cables, or when your broadband goes down through an exchange fault, I think you would soon be screaming about exorbitant BT charges.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 347.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 251.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 451.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 239.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 615.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.1K Life & Family
  • 252.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.