BT are to increase their line rental charges on opt 1 package on the  1/1/2006 from £10.50p to £11.00 a month.

See  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/15/bt_wlr/    

Also  http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=64b356d0-9494-422f-ac41-ffa84e328d15

Quote:

According to regulator Ofcom this is important because if telcos want to compete effectively with dominant telco BT - which has some 18m punters - they need "a clear margin between the wholesale price they pay to rent a telephone line from BT, and the price that they charge their retail customers for line rental".

Only Ofcom could possibly view such price rises as "a good thing."  ::)

So that's a 50% increase in BT's most basic residential line tariff in the last 18 months.


Quote:

"Increasing this margin will mean greater competition in the calls and line rental market, expanding consumer choice and increasing value for consumers as more providers compete for their custom," said the regulator today.

Ah yes, force up the amount most pay for line rental and then that magical force known as competition will work. Now why does this remind me of the way in which 0870 is charged at BT's 'non-discounted' national rate, just so that there'll be plenty of the pie left for all those competiting 0870 telcos?  ::)

again?

This just prooves that OfCon doesnt give a sh** about us consumers.

I hope that some sort of WiMax may turn up in the southern Surrey countryside in the next 12 months and then it will be bye bye BT line rental and hello WiMax and Voip phone calls.

It may also be worth everyone reading this thread filing a complaint with BT Complaints Review service (more like BT Couldn't Give a Toss About Complaints in my experience) about the fact that it is only possible to be on the BT Light User Scheme if you don't have broadband on a phone line.  This becomes a more and more disgraceful requirement as BT Compulsion 1's cost spirals upwards and out of coutrol.  It would be worth taking such a complaint to deadlock with BT and then taking this on to www.otelo.org.uk for adjudication.

See www.bt.com/customerservices/cust_details.jsp?parentcat=cs_complaint_service&childcat=complaint_review for more details on how to file a complaint.  As BT Complaints Review is so shockingly incompetently that it routinely fails to take any further action on the complaint you will need to take a record of the date you complain and then chase them again one month later.

qtel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2005 at 4:49pm:

For those who believe geographic calls are free of charge, the point I was trying to make is that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has to paid for.

I completely agree qtel.

I seriously doubt, however, that few people on this forum believe geographic calls are free of charge.  Even those of us who have an inclusive call plan understand that it is only by paying a monthly figure, we then recieve  'free calls'.  More accurately these 'free calls' are merely 'prepaid calls'.

As you say, everything has to be paid for.

But the £33 a quarter or £132 a year line rental BT want won't pay for a penny piece of the calls I make with 1899, 18185 etc.  It will only pay BT to continue to run its grotesquely inefficient and bloated BT Retail with its endless pointless customer call centre workers etc.  The only thing you can do with an outfit like BT is to shoot it, write off its debts and start again.  Then we might start to see some vaguely sensibly priced line rental for the millions of customers living in rural areas who cannot take their line rental from anyone other than BT.

How is it that BT used to be able to rent me a line at £22.20 or so a quarter (after calls rebated) but now it charges it competitors nearly £6 more than this for wholesale line rental.  WLR is a scam which Ofcom has as usual signed off because it is a totally and utterly corrupted organisation that never ever takes a brave or radical approach to dealing with unfair anticompetitive behaviour by BT. >:(

Don't get me wrong, NGM, I'm in no way supporting BT's increase in line rental.  I was merely countering qtel's suggestion that forum members believe that geographic calls are free (which I'm sure no one here thinks anyway!).

It seems to me to be a desperate measure by BT.  Either they want to lose customers (unlikely) or they bank on the vast majority of their customers not being aware of this increase (or at least not until their next bill) and so in meantime pocket 50p x many million per month.  Easy money when you get away with it. Thanks again Ofcom for looking after our interests here.

It follows, in a twisted sort of logic, that the only way this line rental increase can be in the interests in competitions, is if BT line rental customers en masse buy their line rental elsewhere.  But is this going to happen ?  I doubt it (unfortunately).

gdh82 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2005 at 11:21pm:

It follows, in a twisted sort of logic, that the only way this line rental increase can be in the interests in competitions, is if BT line rental customers en masse buy their line rental elsewhere.  But is this going to happen ?  I doubt it (unfortunately).

This thread on the MSE site http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=125791 gives some good reasons not to move your rental.

bigjohn wrote on Dec 17^th, 2005 at 9:13am:

This thread on the MSE site http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=125791 gives some good reasons not to move your rental.

Basically BT Caller Display will cost you more than the so called line rental saving per quarter with one of these other WLR firms so unless you can live without caller display (and that is the one BT Network Service I cannot do without) there is no saving on the line rental.  Then the incomptent and toothless regulator has allowed all these WLR companies to stop you making calls with anyone but that company using indirect access codes - so no 1899 or 18185.  The only workaround is either Voip or alternatively using dial through phone services on 0844 and 0871 etc (dialaround, abroadtel etc).   I don't like the latter services for most of my calls because when you look at a bill you have no idea who you were calling.  Also they charge you for calls that are not answered.

If the regulator wasn't totally useless it wouldn't have allowed these WLR firms to block indirect access because it means these WLR firms aren't offering the same service.  Not forcing them to at least allow the 1280 code to route calls with BT is quite outrageous.

With regards to the BT Line Rental increase they are only doing it because Ofcom are twisting their arm to do so in order to make it looks as though it is achieving something with the Unfit for Purpose WLR product.  Ofcom think we would be better off with TalkTalk who are doing their damndest to let the 084/7 call charge ripoff continue.

However as the WLR firm doesn't deliver the broadband service I assume there is no way they can block the Voip ports on the broadband part of the line?

wrote on Dec 17^th, 2005 at 9:53am:

Basically BT Caller Display will cost you more than the so called line rental saving per quarter with one of these other WLR firms [...]

I think that it's a complete rip-off to have to pay extra for caller ID. Does it really cost that much, or is this private companies holding us all to ransom? What's more, the saving with having 'free' caller display has now be negated by the increases in price of the line rental.

The way in which mobile providers are allowed to charge far higher prices to 0845/0870, and freephone especially, than geographical numbers only serves to illustrate that this 'choice' that we all supposedly have is a complete nonsense.

Another example is the plethora of directory enquiries services. Why do we pay a complete fortune for all this? Before all this 118, Talking Pages was on a freephone number. Now it is "new and improved" for which you have to pay for it! What's more, with the internet you can look it up for free. Surely this is a dying market.

Dave wrote on Dec 17^th, 2005 at 8:46pm:

Another example is the plethora of directory enquiries services. Why do we pay a complete fortune for all this? Before all this 118, Talking Pages was on a freephone number. Now it is "new and improved" for which you have to pay for it! What's more, with the internet you can look it up for free. Surely this is a dying market.

Help pay voice Directory Enquiry services die by calling 0800 0192190 for directory enquiries instead.  That still seems to be free for DQ even though Onetel isn't any longer

Although I normally use www.192.com or www.yell.com for looking up phone numbers one still has to call the voice service for someone who is not in the directory but available "on request".  I also used to need to call the voice based service to do a nationwide company search but now I find that www.192.com does allow nationwide searches, unlike www.bt.com/directoryenquiries

Dave wrote on Dec 17^th, 2005 at 8:46pm:

wrote on Dec 17th, 2005 at 9:53am: Basically BT Caller Display will cost you more than the so called line rental saving per quarter with one of these other WLR firms [...] The way in which mobile providers are allowed to charge far higher prices to 0845/0870, and freephone especially, than geographical numbers only serves to illustrate that this 'choice' that we all supposedly have is a complete nonsense. Another example is the plethora of directory enquiries services. Why do we pay a complete fortune for all this? Before all this 118, Talking Pages was on a freephone number. Now it is "new and improved" for which you have to pay for it! What's more, with the internet you can look it up for free. Surely this is a dying market.

It's the obtuse outcome of the type of selective 'Competition' in this country, which only serves to Drive UP prices.  The extra we pay of course is required to cover the costs of maintaining the illusion, that it's actually good for us.

Putting aside those people who are still paying for it, has anyone stopped to think how this move of making caller ID free coupled with the 50p increase in monthly line rental benefits BT?

Put it this way, the 50p increase on every line is the equivalent of 2 lines in 7 paying £1.75 for caller ID. I doubt that the uptake of paid-for caller ID was that great, so I think that BT, yet again, quietly increased its revenue by more than it appears at first. Oh, and ironically it has undercut other providers who still charge for such services.

Dave wrote on Jan 8^th, 2006 at 9:40pm:

...so I think that BT, yet again, quietly increased its revenue by more than it appears at first. Oh, and ironically it has undercut other providers who still charge for such services.

So it is no coincidence that Ofcom Towers, 2a Southwark Bridge Road was previously BT's Riverside House...

If Ofcom wasn't so utterly useless at protecting the consumer they would have made it illegal to charge for any fixed line Network Service for which the original development and equipment cost has long since been written off, as is clearly the case with Caller ID which was developed back in the 1980s.  Also how does Ofcom justify fixed line networks being able to charge for a service that every mobile phone product provides for free?  Given that Caller Display protects customers against nuisance calls you would have thought Ofcom would have insisted on this and would also have stopped the Number Unavailable (as opposed to Number Withheld) nonsense that applies to so many calls from corporate and hotel switchboards.

If Wholesale Line Rental was to be Fit for Purpose (which it most definitely is not) then all call providers would have to allow routing through indirect access codes (1899, 18185 etc and even 1280 for BT) although I would not force them to offer CPS which I think is only an obligation that needs to be imposed on BT.  In addition BT would be forced to rent Network Service products to other carriers at costs which ensured that the other telcos could offer them at prices no higher than those chaged by BT.

Wholesale Line Rental is an utter disgrace because at the back of it is Ofcom just accepting BT's utterly distorted figures for how much it claims it costs to provide a copper wire phone line to each uk household per quarter.  Also utterly disgraceful is that Ofcom haven't forced BT to ablished the out of date Light User and In Contact Plus schemes and replace them with a simple low cost minimal standing charge line rental product available to any customer not routing many calls with BT.  My mother was told she couldn't have Light User Scheme on her second line that is there only for a burglar alarm link because she was foolish enough to admit to owning a Pay as You Go mobile on the Fresh network.  But what has this got to do with BT's operating costs for the line or the use my mother gets out of that line?  Answer - precisely nothing at all.

Tanllan wrote on Jan 8^th, 2006 at 10:31pm:

So it is no coincidence that Ofcom Towers, 2a Southwark Bridge Road was previously BT's Riverside House...

As you know I was already always an ardent conspiracy theorist so far as the relationship between OFTEL (who originally took on 2a Southwark Bridge Road from BT I imagine) and BT was concerned but to now learn of this disgrace only further enhances my pre-existing conviction of Ofcom and OFTEL before it being basically in BT's pocket.

wrote on Jan 8^th, 2006 at 10:45pm:

If Ofcom wasn't so utterly useless at protecting the consumer they would have made it illegal to charge for any fixed line Network Service for which the original development and equipment cost has long since been written off, as is clearly the case with Caller ID which was developed back in the 1980s.  Also how does Ofcom justify fixed line networks being able to charge for a service that every mobile phone product provides for free?  Given that Caller Display protects customers against nuisance calls you would have thought Ofcom would have insisted on this and would also have stopped the Number Unavailable (as opposed to Number Withheld) nonsense that applies to so many calls from corporate and hotel switchboards.

And Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR) should not be charged at the current punitive rate, but free. You want to talk to me? Release a real number (yup, real, so no scamming).
Rip-Off Britain (ROB) again.
"Unavailable" was a valid compromise before the CLI rules were rewritten. It accommodated all manner of commercial, police and security requirements, but has now been superseded. Come on Ofcom - help the citizen-consumer.

I've just received my latest telephone bill and contained within it is BT chief propaganda leaflet, BT Update.

Why is it that it is always behind in those pesky price increases? No mention of the latest; the minimum charge going up. However there is talk about the increase in line rental of 50p. Shouldn't this have been printed at least three months ago before the increase?  ::)

The booklet starts with a message from Ms Jillian G Lewis, Customer Services Director, entitled "Important information for BT customers - our commitment to value." The first paragraph mentions the aforementioned increases:

Quote:

At BT, we are committed to providing great value for all our customers, by constantly developing innovative new products and delivering high quality services. To continue to do this, it's occasionally necessary to raise some of our prices a little. So from 1st January 2006, our basic line rental price increased by 50p for some customers. We understand that price rises are never welcome, so we will continue to innovate and introduce new products like BT Privacy and Friends & Family Auto Update, which give you extra benefits and help you save money.

Let's look at this statement in more detail:
At BT, we are committed to providing great value for all our customers, by constantly developing innovative new products and delivering high quality services.
Business speak for "We are providing a service."

To continue to do this, it's occasionally necessary to raise some of our prices a little.
Just how occasional are price rises that seem to be occuring every month? The sentence ends by saying that prices are being raised "a little."

So from 1st January 2006, our basic line rental price increased by 50p for some customers.
So all of those little but occasional changes have resulted in BT's effective basic line rental increasing by 50% within two years.

We understand that price rises are never welcome, so we will continue to innovate and introduce new products like BT Privacy and Friends & Family Auto Update, which give you extra benefits and help you save money.
More business speak for "We will allow certain 'reductions' to counteract those price increases for those customers who generate the most revenue for us." BT Privacy being a new 'innovative product' combining caller display that has been charged for all these years and inclusion on the Telephone Preference Service list, something that any UK citizen may register for regardless. Friends & Family Auto Update, a service that conveniently excludes 0845 numbers such as those used (by fewer and fewer) pay as you go ISPs.

Now I agree with Ms Lewis that price rises are never welcome. However, the common ground stops there. If the water companies put up rates and made an effort to curb leaks by taking on extra staff, then I think we would agree that the increase is a worthwhile one.

But BT waffles on about creating 'products' which, IMO, aren't worthy of such increases and are invariably ways of charging the low user more and giving the benefits to high users.

Dave wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 3:08pm:

Now I agree with Ms Lewis that price rises are never welcome. However, the common ground stops there. If the water companies put up rates and made an effort to curb leaks by taking on extra staff, then I think we would agree that the increase is a worthwhile one.

This Jillian G Lewis seems to be a fictional computer derived image to represent the nice cuddly female face of BT instead of the reality of its avowedly exclusively male main board of directors.  I have tried emailing both Jillian.Lewis@bt.com and Jillian.G.Lewis@bt.com and the emails bounce back. Emails to Ben.Verwaayen@bt.com and Ian.Livingston@bt.com do not bounce and indeed I regularly receive short replies from them on their Blackberries as they jet around the globe.

And don't knock the water companies there Dave.  They only charge me £5.50 a quarter for my meter standing charge and the water only costs about £20 on top a quarter even though they are a monopoly.  Electricity standing charge per quarter is also £5.50 and gas is £11 per quarter.  I suspect gas is more expensive to maintain the network on because any leaks requre a visit by Transco within 1 hour.  So against all that how do we explain BT charging £33 per quarter for their 30 year old copper wire line even if you don't use it for calls but only need it because you are in the countryside and want a broadband connection.  And they have the cheek to charge for features like Call Diversion and Call Waiting, which in any case earn them extra calls money if you use them.

BT Option 1 my foot.  Its BT Compulsion 1 as far as I'm concerned and the line rental is propping up all of their huge. bloated and massively inefficient BT empire.

bill wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 6:12pm:

....... bloated ......... but 'boated' may fit just as well.

Due to an edit of my earlier post you will find that your comments have been left high and dry. ;) ;D

wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 4:06pm:

And don't knock the water companies there Dave. ...

I wasn't knocking them; my point was that price increases should be justified. Ms Lewis has not justified these increases as far as I am concerned. She has confirmed similarly to BT 'compulsion' 1, caller display, the principal and only BT provided service in BT Privacy will be paid for whether we want to or not. So all those 50ps from everyone will generate more income than the £1.75 from those who BT held to ransome all these years.


wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 4:06pm:

... So against all that how do we explain BT charging £33 per quarter for their 30 year old copper wire line even if you don't use it for calls but only need it because you are in the countryside and want a broadband connection. ...

So are we actually benefiting from privatisation within the telecommunications industry or is it all just an illusion?


wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 4:06pm:

BT Option 1 my foot.  Its BT Compulsion 1 as far as I'm concerned and the line rental is propping up all of their huge. bloated and massively inefficient BT empire.

I was under the impression that competition within the telecommunications industry was to make it work more efficiently.

Dave wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2006 at 3:59pm:

So all those 50ps from everyone will generate more income

I believe part of the reason for the 50p increase was due to bloody useless ofcon insisting that there should be a wider difference in price between basic residential line rental (BT Compulsion 1) and what BT charge for WLR.  This is fine but had Ofcon thought in advance or used a little anticipation then they could have made BT do this and force BT to keep the cost of the basic residential line rental the same so in other words force BT to reduce their profit margins slightly instead of BT increasing costs elsewhere to make up for the shortfall in revenue.

Ofcon, as usual, didn't use their brains!  Something similar happened when they forced the mobile networks to reduce their connection rates for calls terminating on their own networks.  The mobile networks reluctantly agreed to this but at the same time increased rates in other areas such as texts, etc.

In my opinion, it is pointless Ofcon forcing any of price changes on telecom providers unless they (ofcon) stipulate that they can't increase prices in other areas to compensate the loss of all those revenues they receive.

From the telecom companies point of view, they don't want to lose all that revenue so if they're forced to reduce their prices in one area then they simply increase them in other areas to compensate.  This of course applies to all companies and not just telecom companies.