Do I actually need my house phone now?

Detail_Merchant

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025176#Comment_82025176

I am going to try and argue the unarguable.
Certainly I've noticed that a number of broadband providers offer the same price for just broadband as for the same broadband + a payg phone line.

At first thought you would expect broadband on its own to be cheaper.
But generally I don't think broadband providers differentiate between the routers they send out to pure broadband customers vs. broadband + landline customers.
So they are sending routers out to all their customers with the extra socket in that a phone can be plugged in to.
If the customer makes and receives no phone calls then there is no cost to the broadband provider in terms of data.
If the customer receives phone calls, then there is revenue there from terminating the calls.
If the customer makes phone calls, there there is revenue there from charging the customer - the PAYG calls rates on such landlines tend to be on the pricier end of the scale.
The broadband provider are already billing the customer for the broadband, so there is little, if any, marginal cost re also billing for the landline and calls.

I have even heard of cases where customers, when trying to renegotiate to cut costs, have said they would drop the landline, only to be told it would cost more to get just broadband.
Not sure I fully believe that, but it could be the case sometimes, if the provider are making money from phone calls which they would not make if the customer went broadband only.

Anyway, just some thoughts - feel free to argue with them or not.

Caddyman

I don't have this issue at all because my mobile phone is on silence unkown callers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That way, only the people who actually have my number, call me. Everyone else has to suffer being directed straight to voicemail whether they like it or not. Scammers rarely if ever, leave a voicemail. Those that for some reason have a massive aversion to leaving voicemail, just don't bother anyway and quite frankly, I couldn't care less if they want to speak to me or not. The one thing I never ever get stressed over, is that missed call that 'might be important'. If it's that important, they'll leave a message or send me a text, if not, I ignore, block and delete.

So I hear people say "Well what about the NHS? Doctors, Government departments etc" the departments who utilise number blocking. So, I have a choice to answer them or not, but mostly, if it's anything to do with the NHS, I've already told them, leave a voicemail or send me a secure message through the NHS App or email me, and to be honest, it's not proved to be a problem. Certainly the last time I needed a prescription change, I was sent a text message by the local Minor Injuries Unit of all places. It isn't insurmountable.

So, there is no 'stress' of being contactable 24 hours a day because I choose to guard my own privacy on my terms.

iniltous

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025198#Comment_82025198

You are missing the point , Sky don’t offer you the choice to remove telephony, but if they did your total price must fall as they would have removed a facility , as stated there is no such thing as a free lunch , basically you are paying for a phone service that you may not want and may not use …it doesn’t matter if it’s a good price , the price would be even better if they offered the option to remove telephony for those that didn’t want it .

molerat

I think we are currently in a period of change over landline pricing and more providers will be charging separately.

iniltous

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025222#Comment_82025222

So if that’s a reasonable cost of providing the facility, then Sky could be £5 cheaper if they offered to remove telephony for customers that just want broadband, even if you are of the opinion that £5 is too much and BT are taking the mick (and TBH most BT PAYG customers like me pay £3 not £5 ) then even if the true cost is £2 or even £1 to provide the telephone service, that’s £2 or £1 Sky could afford to reduce its prices for Sky customers that don’t want telephony, I’m not saying Sky is expensive, but they could be cheaper if the telephony were optional and allowed customers to remove it , even if the saving were minimal.

JSmithy45AD

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025268#Comment_82025268

Who do you think would force Sky to lower the price for broadband only? They would argue that it's included at no cost to the customer, which whether you agree with them or not is a fact.

iniltous

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025281#Comment_82025281

The regulator Ofcom examines every BT price , to make sure they don’t offer services below cost to disadvantage competitors, so every BT price has to be justified, basically saying these are our costs of providing the service , this is profit , this is how we arrive at the retail price , if BT said telephone was free with broadband like Sky do (when it can’t be free it has costs associated) then the regulator would say your broadband service must cheaper than broadband and phone otherwise you are forcing customers to take a telephone service they may not want and your broadband can’t be less than cost price ….BT are the only company that Ofcom examines financially in this way to make sure costs are not hidden, or have cross subsidising , or offered below cost , put it this way , if BT said we will in areas where competition is strong , offer service for £1 a month just to kill off the competition, thats predatory pricing and Ofcom would say that’s not allowed as it’s to simply put competitors out if business , competitors of course do offer below cost pricing and Ofcom don’t get involved, only BT have this level of ‘interference’ when it comes to pricing (and you may say that’s perfectly fine and you agree with it ) .

I’m not saying Sky should be forced to or should voluntarily provide a broadband only service which is cheaper than broadband and phone , that’s a matter for them , Ofcom don’t see it’s their job to force that on Sky or anyone else (but they do think it’s their job to force it on BT ) , the only point I’m making is that it’s not really free ,it’s naive to think it is , you are paying for it as part of the broadband cost , it’s undeniable that those Sky customers that don’t telephony are paying for something they don’t want because it’s impossible for it to be genuinely free , even if it’s a relatively small amount , providing telephony is not free so broadband without telephony must be cheaper than broadband and telephony.

Albermarle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025222#Comment_82025222

For new customers they propose a charge of £18 per month for unlimited calls to UK Numbers, including mobiles, at any time of day or night.

Although we have that with EE, for £11 a month.

Eco_Miser

iniltous said
providing telephony is not free

That doesn't actually follow. There may be sunk costs from the original installation, but no measurable monthly costs from a phone line that is not used, and therefore no reduction in charge available for not taking the landline. If the line is used there are explicit costs for using it, as @Detail_Merchant explained.

To answer the OP's question, my landline was very useful a few years ago, when I lost my mobile, and resulted in my being reunited with it. I live alone so there wasn't anyone whose phone I could borrow.

iniltous

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025864#Comment_82025864

You are wrong, there are costs associated with providing VoIP telephony , even something as relatively trivial as designing and manufacturing a router with an ATA on board , like Sky do , costs more than a designing and manufacturing a router that doesn’t have one , development is a cost , manufacturing is a cost , what about the billing software, and billing system hardware for telephone charging , does that have a cost , a system that didn’t have any telephony would be cheaper to develop snd. Implement and ? …..billing defaults, chasing customers that are in debt, obviously more opportunities for Sky customers to get into debt with telephony (as calling charges are not a fixed debt , say a Sky customers kid could called a premium rate service for example, and run up an unexpected debt the customer then refuses to pay ) even if that’s a tiny number of customers , it clearly more costs for Sky resolving that , because if they had no telephone service they wound have no need to chase telephone related debt , so more staff….you may say ‘small potatoes’ , but that’s not the point , your assertion is it’s no more more expensive to provide telephony , but even if its a few pence per customer per month it costs more than not providing it.