B Gas insists on a standing charge

matelodave

Andy_WSM wrote: »

I've just come off the phone to BT having had that exact argument!

I don't use my phone line for a phone, there isn't even one plugged in to it. I have it, because I have to have it to get Broadband.

There is no cable service in this area, so it's phoneline or no broadband.

In the states you can have a data only connection which doesn't incur phoneline standing charges, but not so in the uk.

Whether you've got a phone or a modem hanging off the end of the line it still has to be installed and maintained together with what is sitting in the exchange.

Who do you think pays for the exchanges,power supplies and connections between exchanges and the data centres. What about all those Openreach vans and the people to drive them.

It's not just voice comms that has to be handled. Perhaps you should get a big bill for "your share" of all the infrastructure between you and wherever you want to be connected - the other way is to pay a standing charge, line rental or whatever and share it out.

If you don't want to pay for line rental then get satellite broadband or use mobile data, it's your choice.

Nada666

But low usage contracts have always been available for telephone lines.

The broadband is not an issue - you are choosing to use ADSL which uses the same network. If you need a couple of hundred gig each month then pay for it. If you don't you can choose mobile or satellite.

America is also irrelevant - they had bundled calls include automatically decades before that migrated to Britain. That is why broadband-only options were 'cheaper' in U.S..

Anywhence the OP has had thirty years of having his second supply for free and has had a massive subsidy for his holiday home. He has even managed to have some of the standing charges written off this year. Does not really have much to complain about.

MegaMiniMouse

Nada666 wrote: »

But low usage contracts have always been available for telephone lines

Thanks for mentioning that - I have been meaning to look into it for some time (I am already on a low-user tariff with my water company).

Google didn't come up with any low-user tariffs, and I've never seen them mentioned on any of the comparison sites. But I have now discovered that BT offer a low-income tariff called BT Basic for which I can qualify due to the fact that I receive pension guarantee credit.

My current contracts finish at the end of February, so I will keep my fingers crossed until then!

Andy_WSM

matelodave wrote: »

Whether you've got a phone or a modem hanging off the end of the line it still has to be installed and maintained together with what is sitting in the exchange.

Thanks for the response, however, as a FTTC customer I am not using the miles of copper cabling in the ground that has to be maintained, in fact, it's not 20M of cable to the cabinet from the point of entry in my house and most of that is under my driveway. I pay dearly for the FTTC technology, precisely because it is a different network - yet I still pay the same line rental, for a line, which in effect is 20M long? I would happily not have a phone number, I have no interest in the phone and therefore no interest in paying to maintain their exchange.

I'm only suggesting it should be an option where the alternative technology is being installed.

matelodave

Andy_WSM wrote: »

Thanks for the response, however, as a FTTC customer I am not using the miles of copper cabling in the ground that has to be maintained, in fact, it's not 20M of cable to the cabinet from the point of entry in my house and most of that is under my driveway. I pay dearly for the FTTC technology, precisely because it is a different network - yet I still pay the same line rental, for a line, which in effect is 20M long? I would happily not have a phone number, I have no interest in the phone and therefore no interest in paying to maintain their exchange.

I'm only suggesting it should be an option where the alternative technology is being installed.

I somehow doubt that the fibre, ducting, terminal equipment, cabinets, power supplies etc got into the ground between the cabinet and the exchange all by itself and at no cost to who ever owns or maintains it.

The copper cables between you and the cabinet have to be reconnected. The cabinets have to have a power supply (something the old copper cabinets didn't require) which had to be installed and is an ongoing cost which has to be shared by all the users of that cabinet.

Then there's the exchange equipment which connects the other end of the optical fibres to the broadband network, just like the copper cables had to connect to the broadband network. There's a hell of a lot of equipment and technology out there just to give you your broadband and it's a lot more complex and expensive than the old stuff used to be.

In what way do you think that all that stuff costs less to install, monitor and maintain.

Andy_WSM

matelodave wrote: »

In what way do you think that all that stuff costs less to install, monitor and maintain.

I worked in telecomms so know exactly what is involved. My point is that the £16.80 monthy line rental cost is applied to cover the cost of a telephone line and the equipment associated with it. If I want broadband ADSL on top of that I can get it for as little as £2 extra. However, I pay £30 a month on top to use the new fibre broadband, making most of the legacy equipment unneccessary. I fully appreciate the costs involved - and I am indeed paying my share, some 15 times more than a standard ADSL subscriber.

We only have standing charges on utilities now because OFGEM interferred in a market that was working well for most. Why is it a hard stretch to imagine we can lose the standing charge on telephone lines and incorporate the costs in the usage just the same? I think it's called forward thinking, something OFGEM should have looked up.

Furthermore: A phone number on my line only exists because BT choose to connect me to their telephone network - it is NOT required to get an FTTC signal to a home, so should be something that can be opted out of to save money.

SoletraderSteve

MegaMiniMouse wrote: »

There are two crucial differences between the standing charges of the phone companies and those of the energy suppliers -

The first is that the different phone companies mostly offer similar standing charges to all the others, and do not continually roll out ever-changing price structures which create more confusion than clarity.

The second difference is that the phone companies express their standing charges as a monthly figure which gives a meaningful comparison between different offers. The energy companies express their standing charges in fractions of a penny per day which helps them to mask the significant differences between them all.

The phone companies also reliably generate accurate monthly bills which are much easier to deal with than the rather random billing habits of the energy companies.

Times the standing charge by 365 days and divide by 12 simple

Cyberman60

I use Ebico because I use little gas or electricity and there is NO standing charge.

MegaMiniMouse

SoletraderSteve wrote: »

Times the standing charge by 365 days and divide by 12 simple

That's a small step for the likes of you and me, but a huge leap for mankind in general.

MegaMiniMouse

Cyberman60 wrote: »

I use Ebico because I use little gas or electricity and there is NO standing charge.

Correction (extremely pedantic!) - the energy companies are now required to impose a standing charge, and to charge a single price for the energy consumed. They are, however, free to impose a standing charge of £0.00.