MSE News: BT to cut landline costs for up to one million customers...

Caddyman

dggar wrote: »

Caddyman wrote: »

apart from scammers, does anyone actually every use a Residential telephone directory these days? [/QUOTE]

I trust you don't really think scammers sit thumbing through a telephone directory and the phone up each entry in turn.

Clearly not, it was a little tongue in cheek Scammers mostly use random number generators and you undoubtedly know that.

I was merely labouring the point that the Residential Telephone Directory is a total waste of paper in the 21st century and that we as customers are being charged for something that I suspect the majority of use never use.

Anyway, I remember as a kid in the 1970's, standing in telephone boxes, bizarrely sticking 2 pence into a slot, paying for the 'joy' of making random nusiance calls to people I didn't know using the telephone directory. It isn't inconceivable that other idiots, just as I was as a child (and probably I'm still an idiot as an adult! ) don't still do the same occasionally!

Caddyman

spenderdave wrote: »

Clearly we have a lot of people on here who only use their mobiles for calls. But a lot of us do still use the phone every day for what it is designed for. Here my PAYG mobile is only used for emergencies, the landline is an essential part of my life. I also object to having to pay to call all you mobile only chaps.
The problem nowadays is compounded by bundling line rental into the broadband package cost, at apparently Jo Public's request. Many of us do still want phone and broadband from different companies for various reasons and it makes comparing packages far from easy.
This is a step in the right direction for some but more is clearly needed.

I believe that the mobile phone, is now the most widely used communication device there is. Sorry, I don't have the figures to back it up, but I suspect landline use is not what it was 20 or 30 years ago. I respect your own position that the landline is essentially your lifeline to the world, but for many of us now, it is fast becoming an irrelevance in everyday life. The last time I used any form of 'landline' was whilst staying at a hotel to call down to Reception. I guess if I worked in an office, I'd use a landline fairly frequently, but I don't. I certainly don't use one at home even though I have the line and capability to do so.

My own partner's Mum and Dad, now in their 70's, rarely use their own landline anymore. Their primary way of keeping in touch with their own children these days, but probably, more importantly, their grandchildren, is using the mobile phone. Even they can manage messaging apps.

As for using different providers for the landline element I never use and the fibre broadband element I use daily, for phone messaging and streaming hours of TV, well I would love to, but it's difficult getting different providers to provide the level of service I require.

iniltous

Caddyman wrote: »

I believe that the mobile phone, is now the most widely used communication device there is. Sorry, I don't have the figures to back it up, but I suspect landline use is not what it was 20 or 30 years ago. I respect your own position that the landline is essentially your lifeline to the world, but for many of us now, it is fast becoming an irrelevance in everyday life. The last time I used any form of 'landline' was whilst staying at a hotel to call down to Reception. I guess if I worked in an office, I'd use a landline fairly frequently, but I don't. I certainly don't use one at home even though I have the line and capability to do so.

My own partner's Mum and Dad, now in their 70's, rarely use their own landline anymore. Their primary way of keeping in touch with their own children these days, but probably, more importantly, their grandchildren, is using the mobile phone. Even they can manage messaging apps.

As for using different providers for the landline element I never use and the fibre broadband element I use daily, for phone messaging and streaming hours of TV, well I would love to, but it's difficult getting different providers to provide the level of service I require.

How many people using their smart phone for non voice communication are actually using their own or someone else's WiFi , or put another way, if a typical home consumed 100Gb/month , how much would that cost if you were paying your mobile provider for it ?


Why associate 'landline' with voice services and not the medium to allow access to calls/data/whatever ?, just because voice calls are in decline , suggesing landlines are a thing of the past is a bit premature (IMHO) , if mobile 'broadband' was the same price (or cheaper) than landline broadband , and it reliably delivered the same or better performance, then perhaps landlines will become a thing of the past, but we are not close to that happening.
Over time the copper pair landline will become a fibre to the home, the PSTN telephone network will become entirely VOIP , but their will still be a cost associated and it doesn't matter if it's called ' line rental' or its given a new name 'network access' or whatever it, it will still exist, hopefully the ' I don't use it for the phone so I should pay less' will become a complaint that becomes a thing of the past .

Caddyman

iniltous wrote: »

How many people using their smart phone for non voice communication are actually using their own or someone else's WiFi , or put another way, if a typical home consumed 100Gb/month , how much would that cost if you were paying your mobile provider for it ?


Why associate 'landline' with voice services and not the medium to allow access to calls/data/whatever ?, just because voice calls are in decline , suggesing landlines are a thing of the past is a bit premature (IMHO) , if mobile 'broadband' was the same price (or cheaper) than landline broadband , and it reliably delivered the same or better performance, then perhaps landlines will become a thing of the past, but we are not close to that happening.
Over time the copper pair landline will become a fibre to the home, the PSTN telephone network will become entirely VOIP , but their will still be a cost associated and it doesn't matter if it's called ' line rental' or its given a new name 'network access' or whatever it, it will still exist, hopefully the ' I don't use it for the phone so I should pay less' will become a complaint that becomes a thing of the past .

You are clearly knowlegeable and passionate about the telecomunications industry, and the analyses you have chosen to inject into the discussion is creditable.

Imho, I don't at all believe it is premature to suggest that residential 'landlines are becoming a thing of the past'. I personally know many, many people in my wide social circle, including family members, some of whom are somewhat advancing in years, who rarely, if at all, use the landline at home. As I said previously, I haven't used a residential landline since 2006.

Similarly, the same can be said for public telephone boxes. There's a reason why BT have removed thousands of them throughout the country. They make very little money any more and those that remain, often get vandalised, but crucially, a very large section of the population (forgive me if I don't have accurate data!) have their own mobile device and many of them don't just use their mobile phone for emergencies only.

I'd like to comment on your first paragraph. As a BT customer, I was auto enrolled into BT Fon hotspot. I subsequently and rather quickly, opted out when I started having kids hanging around outside my house using the 'Free wifi hotspot' that their parents were also obviously signed up to as BT customers thus enabling the kids to use the Free wifi network piggybacking off other customers bandwidth. Believe it or not, I also had people parking up outside my house piggybacking off the wifi my router was providing through BT Fon. It's not that I objected to them actually using it, more of the fact it became an utter nuisance people hanging around outside my home until 10 at night or later. The moment I opted out, the problem stopped. Perhaps they'll be people out there that think I'm a selfish miserable git lol!

Right at the start of the thread, I made my point that I would like a discount on line rental for the fact I have a landline which I do not make calls on, but for which I clearly do still require a broadband connection. You can make the case all you wish, as is your right, for the reasons why customers like myself cannot possibly in any way have a discount on line rental for a service that I and undoubtedly many others never use, i.e. the voice element. The reality is that's the way I feel. Others may not like my reasoning, they may not agree with it, but it won't change my point of view.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

iniltous wrote: »

The point is that the likes of Talk Talk and Sky for years have disguised the true cost of their broadband , it was never 'free' or £5/month.
They took a product (an OR local loop ) it's wholesale price has decreased year on year , to around £8-£9/month, and charged £17-£20/month for it, to make their broadband look cheaper than competitors broadband , and cheaper than it actually costs them to provide it .
The problem of course , is quite a proportion of the population think that broadband really is £5/month out of a £25/month bill, and if they didn't have to pay 'line rental' they would save £20 per month, and those providers have a pretty obvious reason for perpetuating this misinformation, because it's 'BT' that gets the bad press for £20 line rental not them, even though that £20 is split £9 to OR and £11 to the ISP

This company must represent the true cost of internet browsing then???

https://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-home1.html

£25 a month plus line rental for a 200GB browsing allowance

iniltous

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

This company must represent the true cost of internet browsing then???

https://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-home1.html

£25 a month plus line rental for a 200GB browsing allowance

Not quite sure the point you are making ( agreeing with me ?), the ISP you use is a highly regarded 'premium' provider and not considered a 'stack em high and sell em cheap' company,
My ( probably laboured ) point, was that by offering 'free' or below actual cost broadband , by inflating the price of the line rental element, gives the false impression that 'broadband' is a very cheap commodity and line rental is overly expensive , and as shown , because lots of people associate line rental with 'telephony' which they may rarely use , a fair percentage of the population feel they are being ripped off, and if it were not for the line rental they would be on 'on line' for £0 to £5 a month, instead of £20-£30...
My personal preference would be to require providers to produce their bills a little more honestly , something like;
Your Talknetsky Bill

Network access £7.04 ( this is the same charge all providers pay)
Our services to you ( broadband/tv/phone) £18.
Total £25.04
Total including Vat £30.48
The price for 'network access' the bit OR get is accurate and taken from the OR price list today.
Presented with a bill like this , I think the number of people who complain 'what do I bl**dy well pay line rental for ' would reduce as it's obviously a smaller percentage of the total bill, than saying out of your £30 bill £25 is line rental and VAT, but it's pretty obvious why Talknetsky wouldn't want you to think OR ( or BT as most still assume) get less than you think out of the deal.

iniltous

Caddyman wrote: »

You are clearly knowlegeable and passionate about the telecomunications industry, and the analyses you have chosen to inject into the discussion is creditable.

Imho, I don't at all believe it is premature to suggest that residential 'landlines are becoming a thing of the past'. I personally know many, many people in my wide social circle, including family members, some of whom are somewhat advancing in years, who rarely, if at all, use the landline at home. As I said previously, I haven't used a residential landline since 2006.

Similarly, the same can be said for public telephone boxes. There's a reason why BT have removed thousands of them throughout the country. They make very little money any more and those that remain, often get vandalised, but crucially, a very large section of the population (forgive me if I don't have accurate data!) have their own mobile device and many of them don't just use their mobile phone for emergencies only.

I'd like to comment on your first paragraph. As a BT customer, I was auto enrolled into BT Fon hotspot. I subsequently and rather quickly, opted out when I started having kids hanging around outside my house using the 'Free wifi hotspot' that their parents were also obviously signed up to as BT customers thus enabling the kids to use the Free wifi network piggybacking off other customers bandwidth. Believe it or not, I also had people parking up outside my house piggybacking off the wifi my router was providing through BT Fon. It's not that I objected to them actually using it, more of the fact it became an utter nuisance people hanging around outside my home until 10 at night or later. The moment I opted out, the problem stopped. Perhaps they'll be people out there that think I'm a selfish miserable git lol!

Right at the start of the thread, I made my point that I would like a discount on line rental for the fact I have a landline which I do not make calls on, but for which I clearly do still require a broadband connection. You can make the case all you wish, as is your right, for the reasons why customers like myself cannot possibly in any way have a discount on line rental for a service that I and undoubtedly many others never use, i.e. the voice element. The reality is that's the way I feel. Others may not like my reasoning, they may not agree with it, but it won't change my point of view.

TBH, my intention isn't to try and change people's minds necessarily,
but to offer a ( hopefully ) a balanced counter argument.

You are quite correct that the penetration of landlines is probably overall (slightly) in decline, because for some , mobile communications are perfect , and although many may give up a landline and rely on mobile, very few would give up mobile and rely just on landline, but , unless mobile gets better/cheaper , landlines are not yet quite dead, you yourself are a perfect example, presumably you only keep a landline for broadband, yet you haven't switched to mobile for broadband , so why not ?, is it cost or performance or both ? and presumably millions of others have come to the same conclusion as you, ditch the landline ?, maybe in the future but not just yet.

Phone boxes that are removed don't make small amounts of profit , they cost more money to run than they generate, there was a case of a box removed in my area where a not a single call was made in a year
I quite agree that the reason BT can remove these loss making boxes without the regulator complaining too much is because of the availability of mobile phones, interestingly only BT have to foot the bill for phone boxes, the likes of Sky , TT etc make no contribution at all to this (loss making) public service .

As you have found BT Fon is optional, opt out and others cannot log onto your router, but obviously you cannot use the 'FON' network yourself.
I do accept that having to out out rather than opting in may be irksome, presumably you were the only BT hotspot near you , if the marauding kids have disappeared once 'your' hotspot extinguished.

An admittedly poor analogy ( most don't bear close scrutiny ) for a discount for not using something that is bundled with a service that you do want , is Sky Box Office.
I have Sky TV ( no films or sport ) and have access to Sky Box Office on a pay per view basis, it sounds ridiculous to suggest they should reduce my TV subscription just because I don't want , need , or will ever use Box office, but if I had a broadband 'line' that had a 'free' dial tone on it for calls, that I don't want, or need or will ever use, expecting a discount on my 'line' payment doesn't sound as ridiculous , but it probably should, if the dialtone is 'free' it's only if I make a call that a charge is raised,
So should they be made to remove 'dialtone' and you get the line cheaper ?,
should Sky have to remove 'box office' from my menu, and I get a discount on the regular TV ?..
The answer to both questions should (IMHO) be the same, and if you think removing Sky Box Office and giving a discount is 'daft' because you only 'pay' if you watch a movie, what's the difference ??

tottiefish

firstly, am not online at home, and don't have a mobile!
(I mainly use community computer, and occasionally landline)
have an answerphone which I always leave on, which seems to deter scammers etc - though am also registered with Telephone preference
secondly, I pay upfront yearly - why don't I get the price drop? (luckily it expires in may, so won't lose much - but others not so lucky)

Overload

In my house (well my parents house, I still live at home) the landline and telephone package is with BT and my Da pays for that separate. I pay for the broadband as I'm the only one who uses it and its with Sky.

So my query is will my Da get the line rental discount? as the BT package he is on is for calls only even though I'm getting my broadband through the same line with Sky?

steveE2

Overload wrote: »

In my house (well my parents house, I still live at home) the landline and telephone package is with BT and my Da pays for that separate. I pay for the broadband as I'm the only one who uses it and its with Sky.

So my query is will my Da get the line rental discount? as the BT package he is on is for calls only even though I'm getting my broadband through the same line with Sky?

Unfortunately not

The cut applies to customers who only have a landline and don't have broadband from BT or another provider.