Mobile operators should stop 'bundling' phones and airtime

DoaM

JJ_Egan said:

Thats nonsense as the facts show the majority are not on sim only .

You know someone will call you out on that and say "where are these 'facts'?"  

JJ_Egan

OFCOM  facts  easy to find .Posters facts not easy to find .

. Bundled contracts have fallen as a proportion of pay-monthly contracts from 74% in 2014 to just 46% in 2019. In this period, 12-month SIM-only contracts have risen from 15% to 34%.22 Jul 2019

DoaM

So, technically, you're right ... but so is the other poster with their "impression". Bundled contracts have fallen sharply yet SIM-only has more than doubled in the same period, such that the difference is much smaller. The rate of increase of SIM-only is far greater than the rate of decrease of bundled, so the trend is towards SIM-only. But yes, bundled contracts are still higher than SIM-only.  

(There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics)  

chistery

I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who suddenly find after 4 years they've been paying over the odds for their mobile contract and are now "fuming". OFCOM have forced networks to send out of contract notifications and offer extremely small discounts but people should take some responsibility themselves for their actions and consequences.

kangoora

I think with the change to SIM only contracts the providers may start losing profitability unless something changes. Even 46% bundled contracts is still, potentially, a lot of people getting ripped off if they fail to keep abreast of their contract and charges. Divorcing the cost of the phone from the airtime charges simply ensure if you get a new phone/contract you only ever pay an agreed amount for your device. Imagine buying a TV bundled with Sky subscription and getting told the TV is worth £1k but if you forget to change your Sky subscription after 2 years we'll still keep charging you £400/year for that TV.

Incidentally, I think mobile phones now are going the way of PC computers. Back in the late 80's, 90's & 2000's it was almost mandatory to upgrade/replace your PC every 2-3 years if you wanted to keep playing the latest games or they'd just keel over and die if you tried. The last several years the NEED to upgrade your PC has really slowed down, you can still play the most recent games with an older PC simply by turning down the graphics options and they are reasonably playable. Of course, there will always be people who will splash out £2k every two years because they want to play the latest games at the highest settings but my 5 year old PC is still running the latest games (with reduced settings).

I view phones the same now, why pay around £1k (upfront or bundled) to have a phone that has a slightly better camera, can photo in the dark or folds in two; when my Samsung s6 (bought secondhand from BIL) does everything I need. I can take photos, run apps, browse web, read books AND make and receive phone calls also   Again, there will always be those blinded by the hype or rushing to show off their latest bling, maybe some whose phone has broken, who will fork out for the latest and greatest - just look at those fanboys/girls that queued overnight for the latest Apple phone when released.

Personally, only one of two phone upgrades would interest me enough now to consider buying a new mobile phone before my current one dies. One being vastly better battery capacity and the second being vastly better signal reception. Another pet peeve of mine, not a single phone company ever detail or sell their phones on how well they actually receive a signal - which is pretty much the most important part of a phones operation to me as I live in a very rural area with patchy coverage (on pretty much all operators). 5G, ha, you're having a laugh - I rarely see or am able to use a 4G signal still.