This is a bit sneaky......

We are also making some changes to your BT service.


We'd also like to make you aware of some changes to our prices, terms and conditions, effective from 1st April 2010. These include changing what we define as the evening call period for all types of calls: at the moment from 6pm-6am, but changing to 7pm-7am.


Also I note that they are not  advertising the inclusive evening calls on their web site

http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-HOME-PHN-R1

---

~ Edited by Dave: Thread title amended

sherbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

This is a bit sneaky......

An article in the Guardian and a conversation with BT confirms a three-pronged approach to encouraging yet more customers to move onto the Unlimited Anytime Plan.

1. The effective shortening of the useful time when the evening plan is in effect
2. Increasing the charges (per minute and setup) for non-inclusive calls.
3. A special offer (3 months free) on the Unlimited Anytime plan.

I am assured that the absence of the Unlimited Evening and Weekend plan from the website is not indicative of its forthcoming demise. In fact it is still available as a free upgrade for Unlimited Weekend customers who commit to a 12 month contract. The fact that this feature of a 12 month contract for the Unllimited Weekend plan is not mentioned is a further indication of BT's attempts to push Unlimited Anytime.

The latest breakdown of subscriptions by the 13M BT residential customers is said to be-
Anytime: 2M, Evening and Weekend: 4.7M, Weekend: 5.3M, Other (BT Basic etc.): 1M

(Apologies for any pedantry seen in correcting the subject, which was nearly 20 years out of date)

Thanks for the clarification and research  SCV :)

I have to say that was one of the first posts that you have made that I could actually understand through out!!!!!!! ;D

I finally received the long awaited e-mail today. What a rip-off BT have become! Aside from the definition of evening calls, their standard call rate is now 10p+6p/min! It's actually cheaper to make 3-minute calls from my PAYG mobile during the daytime!

Of course, on the rare occasion I have to make daytime calls, I use 18185 and pay 5p. This will now apply to any calls I have to make before 7pm. We should campaign loudly so that people know about such services. As we know, if they are using BT, prefixes have to be allowed by law. No-one should ever pay BT's rip-off daytime date!

I would consider switching my landline provider, but am concerned about not being able to use prefixes any more. I'm also concerned that it will muck up my broadband (which is with a third party supplier I'm 100% happy with). The only time I tried moving a landline between suppliers, the phone was dead for about two weeks! I'm sure this isn't typical, but even if the line is transferred seamlessly, does an ADSL connection just stay on the same line as if nothing had changed, or does it have the potential for the connection to be lost? Does anyone have any experience?

jrawle wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 3:29pm:

No-one should ever pay BT's rip-off daytime date!

Yes, that is the whole point; BT would agree with this statement.

Clearly some will be disadvantaged and odd effects will be created in the process, but the whole idea behind this sequence of tariff changes (a continuing 30% per annum price hike) is to eliminate call charges for ordinary calls. Some people do not use their landline during the day, so there is a distinction between "Anytime" and "Evening and Weekend", although the terms of this concession have now been narrowed. Those who only make the odd daytime call pay what I call a "penalty rate", also described as a "rip-off". This is part of BT's undisguised (and somewhat bullying) efforts to get people to stop paying for each ordinary call that they make.

For those who make regular weekday daytime calls - Anytime is the BT product. Calculations are difficult because there are two elements in the non-inclusive charge, but simple examples are relatively easy. If you made at least one 3-minute daytime call on each of the 20 weekdays in a month this would cost £5.60, so it would be worthwhile to subscribe to Anytime at £4.99. To beat 18185, one would need to make an average of more than 5 calls per weekday.

For many there is also the important psychological element - once having decided to go for an inclusive package one does not have to think about the cost of each ordinary call, unless it goes on beyond 60 minutes. Our engagement on this site may mean that we are happy to think about the cost of everything that we do very carefully, however I suspect that most people would rather spend their minute by minute energies on other things.

One does however, quite rightly, have to think about the cost of calls to premium rate numbers (I include 0844, assuming that the present mess with 0845 will shortly be resolved). That is as it should be, those who offer premium rate services should be proud of the fact and happy to be judged on the basis of the value for money that they offer!

I support the principle of what BT is trying to achieve, although the method has to be somewhat heavy-handed. The way that we pay for usage of the telephone system has grown up as it has for a variety of reasons, not least because call billing technology was implemented as an inherent (and costly) feature from the early days. The total costs have now fallen sufficiently so that (essentially) unlimited access can be provided to all, without concerns about this being unacceptably inequitable. Apart from special provision for low volume and disadvantaged users, it is now reasonable to start moving away from charging according to what you use. Complications remain with access to mobile phones, because of the arrangement under which callers subsidise what would otherwise be "line rental". In time this could be resolved and the cost of international calls could also fall sufficiently to be handled similarly.

Whilst premium rate services remain (as I suspect that they will) they will have to be treated separately because this is an arrangement between the caller and the particular person being called, with the telco simply acting as an intermediary, (just a delivery agent) providing only part of the service.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 5:25pm:

Clearly some will be disadvantaged and odd effects will be created, but the whole idea behind this is to elimate call charges for ordinary calls. Some people do not use their landline during the day, so there is a distinction between "Anytime" and "Evenings and Weekends". This means that those who only make the odd daytime call pay what I call a "penalty rate", also described as a "rip-off". This is all part of BT's undisguised (and somewhat bullying)efforts to get people to stop paying for each ordinary call that they make.

The so-called "penalty rate" has always been used by mobile providers where they offer bundled minutes. That is, the "per minute" charges outside of allowances are higher than the equivalent pence per minute of those within them. They are broadly the same as basic pay as you go charges. If they were lower, then there would be less incentive to switch to an allowance with more minutes.

Has BT announced an increase in line rental at this time?

I have mentioned here that Virgin will include calls to Virgin Mobile numbers but although labelled as free, it coincides with what looks like a line rental increase to £11.99.

Now this line rental increase will mean, unless BT also increase their line rental charges (and they probably will), then Virgin will have a more expensive line rental charge than BT!

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 5:40pm:

Has BT announced an increase in line rental at this time?

Not according to the email I got from them today, I see no mention of that


(sorry about the previous two posts, something went wrong :-[)

Here is part of the email that BT sent....



Changes to home phone calling plan prices in April 2010.

 Daytime and Evening call period.


From 1st April 2010 we will be changing the evening call period: currently from 6pm-6am, changing to 7pm-7am. As a result, calls made between 7pm and 7am will be charged at the evening rate. This change will affect all call types, including calls to mobiles, international numbers and 0845 and 0870 numbers. If you are on the Unlimited Evening & Weekend Plan, your inclusive calls will start at 7pm instead of 6pm.


Call set-up fee.


From 1st April 2010, the call set-up fee for non-inclusive calls from landlines and for non-inclusive Broadband Talk calls will increase from 9.3p to 9.9p per call. The existing call set-up fee of 3p per call for BT Basic, Light User Scheme and In-Contact Plus customers remains unchanged.
Call set-up fees will not apply to:


• Inclusive weekend calls for customers on the Unlimited Weekend Plan.
 
• Inclusive evening and weekend calls for customers on the Unlimited Evening & Weekend Plan or the Broadband Talk Evening & Weekend Plan.
 
• Inclusive any time calls on the Unlimited Anytime Plan or the Broadband Talk Anytime Plan.
 
• Calls to Freephone services and other inclusive calls not mentioned above.


Daytime UK calls.


From 1st April 2010, the cost of UK landline calls made during the daytime will increase from 5.4 pence per minute to 5.9 pence per minute. This change does not apply to BT Basic, Light User Scheme and In-Contact Plus customers. The changes to the evening call period, set-up fee and daytime UK landline call price do not affect inclusive calls of up to an hour made with the Unlimited Anytime Plan.

bbb_uk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 5:40pm:

Has BT announced an increase in line rental at this time?

No.

BT has just launched a "three months free" offer on the Anytime call plan and confirmed that the free upgrade from "Weekend" to "Evening and Weekend" remains in place for those who commit to a 12 month contract.

These only apply to new and upgrading customers of course. This (unnecessarily early) announcement is clearly about getting more people to upgrade. The option remains for a price increase to be announced once this has been achieved - could BT be that cynical?

P.S. A note on the figures in my previous posting. The cost differential between "Anytime" and "Evening and Weekend" is only £2 after the first year (when "Weekend" does not really exist as a sensible option). This means that for those past their first year who have reverted to "Weekend", one could include some evening calls in the calculation of what is necessary to make Anytime worthwhile. If paying for "Evening and Weekend", it only takes at least one daytime call of any duration on each of the 20 working days in a month (or one 7-minute weekday daytime call per week) to make the upgrade worthwhile (for the first year this upgrade only costs, on average, £0.75 per month = a single 11-minute weekday daytime call per month).

(The point of these figures is not to indicate how cheap or expensive BT is, but simply to indicate that if choosing BT one is pressed to chose Anytime. The significant point being that BT's "penalty rates" are exceptional and not a valid point of reference for call charge comparisons.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 5:25pm:

Yes, that is the whole point; BT would agree with this statement..

But for many people, they are rarely at home during the daytime on weekdays, so it makes no sense to pay for inclusive calls then. It's the rare occasion people find themselves at home (phoning to chase up that delivery they were waiting at home for, Bank Holiday Monday, etc.) that they may need to make a call. This could be a few a year.

Obviously, if people do make a lot of daytime calls, inclusive calls might make sense, even before BT's rip-off price rises.

Incidentally, no-one has answered my other questions. Do other providers block codes such as 18185, and does changing phone provider interrupt ADSL broadband?

jrawle wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Do other providers block codes such as 18185

Some do.  I know Sky do and I believe TalkTalk and I assume a few others but not sure.  Maybe someone could clarify this?


Quote:

and does changing phone provider interrupt ADSL broadband?

Not certain.  Changing CPS providers then highly unlikely but if changing landline providers then I guess maybe.  Someone will need to clarify this as well.

jrawle wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 9:15pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 5:25pm: Yes, that is the whole point; BT would agree with this statement.. But for many people, they are rarely at home during the daytime on weekdays, so it makes no sense to pay for inclusive calls then. It's the rare occasion people find themselves at home (phoning to chase up that delivery they were waiting at home for, Bank Holiday Monday, etc.) that they may need to make a call. This could be a few a year.

Exactly, that is why there are cheaper alternative packages for those who only make calls during Evenings and / or Weekends.
Whether it is fair that people should incur a penalty for rare or exceptional behaviour is an interesting moral point. The favouring of majorities is what consumerism delivers; I would not argue against it being applied in this case.

The suggestion that the occasions on which a customer would incur these penalties "could be a few a year” helps to make what I refer to as being the significant point.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 6:47pm:

BT's "penalty rates" are exceptional and not a valid point of reference for call charge comparisons.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2010 at 12:57am:

Exactly, that is why there are cheaper alternative packages for those who only make calls during Evenings and / or Weekends. Whether it is fair that people should incur a penalty for rare or exceptional behaviour is an interesting moral point. The favouring of majorities is what consumerism delivers; I would not argue against it being applied in this case.

I don't have an objection to the current system, where it's possible to have free calls at evenings and weekends, and just pay extra on the rare occasion a daytime call is necessary. I thought you were saying that BT are trying to stop people taking calls packages other than the "anytime" package. This is what I would object to, as I don't want to pay for inclusive calls at a time I'm unlikely to use them.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 6:47pm:

BT's "penalty rates" are exceptional and not a valid point of reference for call charge comparisons.

Perhaps a better way to compare services is now for features other than the price. For example, anyone who works all day but likes to come home at 6pm and talk on the phone for an hour or so would now certainly be better off with a service that has a more reasonable definition of the evening.

jrawle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 11:16am:

Perhaps a better way to compare services is now for features other than the price. For example, anyone who works all day but likes to come home at 6pm and talk on the phone for an hour or so would now certainly be better off with a service that has a more reasonable definition of the evening.

Remember from April 1st that is changing to 7pm

jrawle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 11:16am:

I thought you were saying that BT are trying to stop people taking calls packages other than the "anytime" package.

There is no question that BT is pushing the Anytime call plan very hard. The figures show that you do not have to make “a lot” of daytime calls for it to be worthwhile. It is only in cases where daytime calls are truly exceptional that the exceptional penalty charges apply.


jrawle wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 11:16am:

Perhaps a better way to compare services is now for features other than the price.

Fair point, however I was not thinking about comparisons between different services providers, but different types of call.

I was referring to the fact that the non-inclusive charges levied by BT are commonly used as a way of indicating “the cost of a phone call”. These “penalty charges” could be (indeed they are) set against the regulated cost of calling 084 numbers from BT, which thereby appear very cheap. Nobody should be misled into thinking that 9.9p plus 9.3 ¹5.9p per minute is the “normal” cost of a “normal” weekday daytime phone call. BT’s charges for calls to 084 numbers are also exceptional, because they alone are regulated.


sherbert wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 11:20am:

Remember from April 1st that is changing to 7pm

We do not yet know whether other landline providers will follow BT. I have suggested that there is no reason to suspect that Virgin Media will do so, indeed it has hinted that it will not. I have not yet seen any indication of whether BT will be applying this change to the termination fees it charges others for originating calls to its network. This would have a considerable effect, if it were to happen - other providers could dispute such a change with Ofcom.

¹ oops - typo corrected [smiley=embarassed.gif]

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 3:02pm:

Nobody should be misled into thinking that 9.9p plus 9.3p per minute is the “normal” cost of a “normal” weekday daytime phone call.

Where has that come from? My email from BT says ....

From 1st April 2010, the cost of UK landline calls made during the daytime will increase from 5.4 pence per minute to 5.9 pence per minute. (plus 9.9p set up fee)

sherbert wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 11:20am:

Remember from April 1st that is changing to 7pm

That's what I meant by, "...would now certainly be better off with a service that has a more reasonable definition of the evening." i.e. a service not provided by BT that considers the evening (still) to start at 6pm.

sherbert wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 3:16pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 3rd, 2010 at 3:02pm: Nobody should be misled into thinking that 9.9p plus 9.3p per minute is the “normal” cost of a “normal” weekday daytime phone call. Where has that come from? My email from BT says .... From 1st April 2010, the cost of UK landline calls made during the daytime will increase from 5.4 pence per minute to 5.9 pence per minute. (plus 9.9p set up fee)

A slip on my behalf, please retain the quote. I have however corrected the posting to avoid further confusion.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2010 at 3:02pm:

There is no question that BT is pushing the Anytime call plan very hard. The figures show that you do not have to make “a lot” of daytime calls for it to be worthwhile. It is only in cases where daytime calls are truly exceptional that the exceptional penalty charges apply.

I didn't see this post yesterday for some reason! The only reason you don't need to make a lot of daytime calls to make the Anytime package worthwhile is because BT are charging a rip-off rate (your "penalty charge") for daytime calls. Yet for the extra £5 per month, I can make 100 calls through 18185 or similar - a total I'll never reach. That's why I think we should promote such services loudly. If your daytime usage is always exceptional, it's possible to have the best of both worlds: the lower line rental cost and the ability to make calls for only 5p each.

Incidentally, I just looked at the BT site to check the prices, and despite the assurances they gave you, I do find it extremely ominous that there is no mention of the evening calls package. If they really wanted to promote this as an option for people signing up for a long contract, it'd be mentioned at the bottom of the weekend package's calling plan information. There's simply no mention of free evening calls at all on this page.
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-HOME-PHN-R1&s_intcid=con_intban_overview_anytime

jrawle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Incidentally, I just looked at the BT site to check the prices, and despite the assurances they gave you, I do find it extremely ominous that there is no mention of the evening calls package. If they really wanted to promote this as an option for people signing up for a long contract, it'd be mentioned at the bottom of the weekend package's calling plan information. There's simply no mention of free evening calls at all on this page. http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-HOME-PHN-R1&s_intcid=con_intban_overview_anytime

jrawle.....see my original post and SCV's reply #1

jrawle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

Incidentally, I just looked at the BT site to check the prices, and despite the assurances they gave you, I do find it extremely ominous that there is no mention of the evening calls package. If they really wanted to promote this as an option for people signing up for a long contract, it'd be mentioned at the bottom of the weekend package's calling plan information. There's simply no mention of free evening calls at all on this page. http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-HOME-PHN-R1&s_intcid=con_intban_overview_anytime

There was no mention of the BT Standard tariff on the main BT.com website for a few years before its demise.

The point about the web page for new customers is that they get a free first year upgrade to Evening and Weekend if they sign up for 12 months.

All three packages are also available without a 12 month commitment, but on different terms, which are not mentioned on the page. The only options presented are those for a 12 month contract. Given the special offer, it would not make sense to sign up to Evening and Weekend for the first 12 months at the normal price, because you can get it for free.

This is how the marketing people chose to present the options simply to new customers. They want them to sign up for a year, hopefully with Anytime!

After your first 12 months with BT you become an “existing customer” and so have a separate web page - http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-BTLIFE-PHONE-I. This shows all 3 plans and their terms.

Details of the special offers available are not shown, they are available by following the link at the top of the page. The point is that you cannot benefit from a special offer by downgrading - e.g. you cannot switch from Anytime to Weekend and get the free first year upgrade.

One can argue for ever about the way the deals are constructed and presented. One can always find some element of dishonesty in marketing as there will always be some point of detail that has been omitted.

Different people will chose different packages and providers for all manner of reasons. That is a fair point for discussion in this area of the forum, however my concern is purely about the impact of this move on revenue sharing numbers.

These damned “penalty charges” can make calls to 084 numbers appear to be cheap, if they are presented as being typical. I am anxious to try to get across the point that very few people will actually pay them, because they will be likely to sign up for Anytime. This is very important, given the way in which the Department of Health has framed the regulations for the NHS, which refer only to relative cost, rather than the prohibition of use of all revenue sharing and premium rate numbers which would have been much simpler and more effective.

I cannot rely on the suggestion that BT customers would, or ought to, use 18185 when making an appointment with their GP, thereby making a geo or 03 number cheaper.

There may well be many people who will now choose to take a £5 discount on their BT Bill and pay for their weekday calls as they make them through another provider. There may indeed be many of the 5.3 million Weekend only customers who already do this. I am however most reluctant to start getting into details about exactly what people actually do as I do not have the relevant figures.

The simple point that I wish to make is that the non-inclusive charges for calls that would otherwise be included in a package are NOT the true standard charge and should not be seen, or presented, as such. BT’s heavy promotion of Anytime serves to assist and strengthen that point.

There may be some who will say that Anytime is an expensive load of nonsense, used by only a few people, and the so-called “penalty rates” are BT’s normal charges. They will continue by saying that they are actually saving people money by giving them a 0844 number to call more cheaply, as well as giving them a better telephone service.

That is what I am trying to fight. I am not seeking to promote BT, a Swiss bucket-shop or any other provider, so I may be out of order in this area of the forum. I do not necessarily expect members of this forum to share my views on this, or any other, matter, so it may be best if we simply agree to differ.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

The point about the web page for new customers is that they get a free first year upgrade to Evening and Weekend if they sign up for 12 months. All three packages are also available without a 12 month commitment, but on different terms, which are not mentioned on the page. The only options presented are those for a 12 month contract. Given the special offer, it would not make sense to sign up to Evening and Weekend for the first 12 months at the normal price, because you can get it for free.

So what is the normal price SCV? I have been on 'evening and week end' for a couple of years and they have never ever charged me for this package, indeed on their web site they advertise this package as £0 per month plus the £11.54 line rental

sherbert wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

So what is the normal price SCV? I have been on 'evening and week end' for a couple of years and they have never ever charged me for this package, indeed on their web site they advertise this package as £0 per month plus the £11.54 line rental

Yes, I understand that the "free evenings" offer is sometimes extended beyond the first year.

Now that evenings are getting shorter in the Spring (except for early risers who call other early risers), it may be that "free evenings" will become a lasting feature.

Given the above, you can look on the "normal price" in two ways. I say that the normal price is Anytime, with a discount available for those who do not use their phone during weekday daytime (up to 7pm). This includes all "normal" calls to landlines, although those who take the discount and then make calls are penalised. That is how I see BT presenting its position - how else can it justify continually increasing the cost of non-inclusive calls at 30% per annum, whilst the only package price increase was to accommodate the inclusion of 0845 calls.

A 0844 user would say that the line rental includes "normal" calls to landlines, except during the weekday daytime, although you can pay extra to avoid the rip-off rates that BT charges for normal calls during the day. They could add that callers to their 0844 numbers are not only paying less, but they can also avoid the scam of an additional charge for inclusive daytime calls, because the 0844 calls are not included. Many people are out and about on their mobile phones during the day, so this extra charge is pointless anyway, because mobile calls are not included. I have colour-coded my view against that which I am fighting, so as to make my position clear.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

All three packages are also available without a 12 month commitment, but on different terms, which are not mentioned on the page. The only options presented are those for a 12 month contract. Given the special offer, it would not make sense to sign up to Evening and Weekend for the first 12 months at the normal price, because you can get it for free.

I understand that all BT "packages" have a minimum 12 month contract.



sherbert wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 1:02pm: The point about the web page for new customers is that they get a free first year upgrade to Evening and Weekend if they sign up for 12 months. All three packages are also available without a 12 month commitment, but on different terms, which are not mentioned on the page. The only options presented are those for a 12 month contract. Given the special offer, it would not make sense to sign up to Evening and Weekend for the first 12 months at the normal price, because you can get it for free. So what is the normal price SCV? I have been on 'evening and week end' for a couple of years and they have never ever charged me for this package, indeed on their web site they advertise this package as £0 per month plus the £11.54 line rental

sherbert, you are on Evening and Weekend Calling Plan and get it for the price of the Weekend Plan which is the basic line rental option. For this, you have signed up for a so-called 12 month rolling contract whereby after 12 months, you are automatically signed up for another 12 months.

BT is essentially buying you into the rolling contract. That is, you get the discount of £2.99 inc VAT every month, if you agree to its terms. As you do, then you might like to decide whether you make enough daytime calls at the "penalty rate" to make it worthwhile paying the extra £4.99 to go on the Anytime package.

Dave wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

sherbert, you are on Evening and Weekend Calling Plan and get it for the price of the Weekend Plan which is the basic line rental option. For this, you have signed up for a so-called 12 month rolling contract whereby after 12 months, you are automatically signed up for another 12 months. BT is essentially buying you into the rolling contract. That is, you get the discount of £2.99 inc VAT every month, if you agree to its terms. As you do, then you might like to decide whether you make enough daytime calls at the "penalty rate" to make it worthwhile paying the extra £4.99 to go on the Anytime package.

Yes indeed I am on 'week end and evening' as I make very few day time calls and if I do I use my mobile where I get 75 free minutes a month. Ok I know I can't dial 0845 & 0870 numbers for 'free' from my mobile. I agree I am on the '12 month rolling contract'. They do send you an email before it runs out giving you the option of 'pulling out', if you do nothing you just carry on. I guess that is what a rolling contract is.

I am sure I could get it cheaper, my BT quarterly bill comes to about £75, and that includes line rental, a few chargable calls (about £1.50 a quarter) Broadband and VAT. That is just under £6 a week and for the amount of fun and use I get out of my computer, and for the use of my telephone, for the price of a couple of pints, I don't think it is dear. I don't think BT is as bad as everyone makes out. Also their help lines are now 0800 or 0808 and to tell you the truth, I very rarely phone them. You have to speak as you find and to tell you the truth, BT have never caused me any problems.

Anyway I know many people on our site disagrees with me.

sherbert wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 3:26pm:

Yes indeed I am on 'week end and evening' as I make very few day time calls and if I do I use my mobile where I get 75 free minutes a month. …

Mobile inclusive minutes are not "free", but part of the package. You say you "get" 75 minutes a month, but that is what you pay for. The less of the call allowance used, the more the cost of each inclusive minute sets you back. There will be a point where you use only a certain amount of these minutes that it will be cheaper to pay for these calls as you use them on a "per minute" basis.

Dave wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

Mobile inclusive minutes are not "free", but part of the package. You say you "get" 75 minutes a month, but that is what you pay for. The less of the call allowance used, the more the cost of each inclusive minute sets you back. There will be a point where you use only a certain amount of these minutes that it will be cheaper to pay for these calls as you use them on a "per minute" basis.

Yup, I agree with with everything say Dave. My mobile contact costs about £45 a year (less than a pound a week) for my package, so I still think I have got a reasonable deal.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

The point about the web page for new customers is that they get a free first year upgrade to Evening and Weekend if they sign up for 12 months. All three packages are also available without a 12 month commitment, but on different terms, which are not mentioned on the page. The only options presented are those for a 12 month contract. Given the special offer, it would not make sense to sign up to Evening and Weekend for the first 12 months at the normal price, because you can get it for free.

Right, but what I don't understand is why they bother to offer the Evening and Weekend package as a free upgrade if they aren't going to promote it at all. Surely the point of giving a good deal is to attract customers, not to reveal it to them after they've already signed up. There is no mention of this free upgrade, unless you've found a different page from me. (Edit: actually, I think I've answered the question myself lower down: it's to retain existing customers by making them take 12 month contracts)



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 2:42pm:

sherbert wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 1:20pm: So what is the normal price SCV? I have been on 'evening and week end' for a couple of years and they have never ever charged me for this package, indeed on their web site they advertise this package as £0 per month plus the £11.54 line rental Yes, I understand that the "free evenings" offer is sometimes extended beyond the first year.

This is not, and has never been, an introductory 12-month offer. The deal is that if you sign up for 12 months, you get the free evening calls. At the end of the 12 months, you automatically get signed up for another 12 months unless you tell them otherwise in advance. The benefit to BT is presumably that it makes it harder for people to switch to another provider.

I found the following pages offering this deal through Google, but goodness only knows where it is linked from on the BT site:

www.bt.com/dealterms
www.bt.com/friendsdeal



Dave wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

I understand that all BT "packages" have a minimum 12 month contract.

I think that's only the case now if you have a new line installed by BT, not just if you switch your calls to them. The pages linked earlier for new customers certainly say no minimum contract.



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 2:42pm:

Given the above, you can look on the "normal price" in two ways. I say that the normal price is Anytime, with a discount available for those who do not use their phone during weekday daytime (up to 7pm). This includes all "normal" calls to landlines, although those who take the discount and then make calls are penalised. That is how I see BT presenting its position - how else can it justify continually increasing the cost of non-inclusive calls at 30% per annum, whilst the only package price increase was to accommodate the inclusion of 0845 calls. A 0844 user would say that the line rental includes "normal" calls to landlines, except during the weekday daytime, although you can pay extra to avoid the rip-off rates that BT charges for normal calls during the day. They could add that callers to their 0844 numbers are not only paying less, but they can also avoid the scam of an additional charge for inclusive daytime calls, because the 0844 calls are not included. Many people are out and about on their mobile phones during the day, so this extra charge is pointless anyway, because mobile calls are not included. I have colour-coded my view against that which I am fighting, so as to make my position clear.

What all this shows is that the telecoms market is very complex, and rarely is any situation black and white. Back before the distinction between local and national rate calls was removed, and long before inclusive calls were invented, a group such as ours might have campaigned for public services to use 0845 numbers. When inclusive calls and cheaper rates for geographical calls came in, it really motivated me to campaign against NGNs, which were then a rip-off. Now the market is changing again. There are still plenty of good reasons to campaign against NGNs, but there are also some people for whom certain NGNs may actually be cheaper to call at certain times of day. One of our aims should be to educate the public more about the cost of different types of calls so that they can choose the best number to dial.

I was certainly not suggesting that it's good for organisations to use NGNs so that people can avoid paying BT's geographical rates in the daytime. What I was suggesting is that people not on the Anytime package should be encouraged to use 18185 if they occasionally make calls in the daytime, rather than being ripped off by either (1) paying for Anytime; (2) paying the BT "penalty" rate; (3) paying to call an NGN.

jrawle, with regard to your penultimate paragraph, the vast majority of people just want/need to pick up a phone and dial without having to do a calculation for which one would need a maths degree & the investigative powers of a top detective before deciding when and how to make the call.   I think simplicity is the key, I think inclusive call packages are good because they allow one to budget without individual call calculation or checking the time (if on Anytime), this is the problem with NGNs, there is a proliferation of slightly differing codes and tariffs, seemingly dependant upon the number following the four digit initial code and this is surely designed to muddy the waters to the stage where people have to give up and just make the call.   If there were no NGNs (other than overt premium rate like 09 which is generally used by organisations one doesn't have to call) and there was a standard per minute charge for those calls where people did not have inclusive packages, life would be as it should be - simpler!

Barbara wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

jrawle, with regard to your penultimate paragraph, the vast majority of people just want/need to pick up a phone and dial without having to do a calculation for which one would need a maths degree & the investigative powers of a top detective before deciding when and how to make the call.   I think simplicity is the key, I think inclusive call packages are good because they allow one to budget without individual call calculation or checking the time (if on Anytime), this is the problem with NGNs, there is a proliferation of slightly differing codes and tariffs, seemingly dependant upon the number following the four digit initial code and this is surely designed to muddy the waters to the stage where people have to give up and just make the call.   If there were no NGNs (other than overt premium rate like 09 which is generally used by organisations one doesn't have to call) and there was a standard per minute charge for those calls where people did not have inclusive packages, life would be as it should be - simpler!

I could not have put that better myself!  ;)

sherbert wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:54pm:

I could not have put that better myself!

This is getting dangerously close to consensus, as I too find myself happy to endorse almost all of what was said.

It is inappropriate use of “revenue sharing” numbers that we object to, i.e. all beginning 084. I would say that the propriety to which I refer demands a clear declaration of a) the fact of revenue sharing and b) the likelihood that this will lead to a premium charge, a standard which almost all current users fail to meet.

I hope that we can accept 03 numbers for use in cases where there is some genuine benefit in having a NGN. This causes no additional cost to the caller, so the only grounds for objection to the use of the number are for those who wish to take issue with the fact that a relatively expensive item of telephone technology has been deployed. Centralisation of call handling, which is commonly the reason for use of a NGN, is a quite different topic.

There cannot be a standard per minute charge whilst 1) there is competition in the market for telecoms services, 2) users of mobile phones are subsidised by those who call them, and 3) revenue sharing numbers remain as an unregulated lower tier of PRS. The forthcoming work by Ofcom may address related issues and perhaps one aspect of the latter point. It will not however seek to undermine the first, as Ofcom is bound to encourage competition under the terms of its second principle duty; the second issue is a different topic altogether.

I am not sure what we would wish Ofcom to do about the first two of these issues, or how happy we would be if progress on the third is slower and less comprehensive than we would wish. There is fun to come.

Because the cost of providing a telephone network are mostly in the capacity required when under peak load, rather than in connecting individual calls, it has always been accepted that call charges will differ according to the time when the call is placed - a further dent in the idea of a "standard charge". Callers are encouraged to call at times when the network is relatively quiet by being penalised for calling when it is busy. This can never be very precise, as tariffs have to be relatively simple, however this has been tweaked from time to time. One might wonder if the hour between 6pm and 7pm has been found to be a peak, whilst continuing business calls and (inclusive) domestic calls overlap, thereby requiring the change that has been announced.

The cost predictability derived when subscribing to a fully inclusive package is mirrored by the revenue predictability on the other side. This not only provides financial security, but also, and thereby, makes it easier to invest in increased capacity, should this be necessary.

Oh dear, oh dear, SilentCallsVictim, no one can doubt that you put a lot of hard work, enthusiasm and effort into your various causes, even if some of us here are confused as to what they are. I have to say that some of your responses are so confusing, ‘long winded’, baffling  & difficult to comprehend,  that if it was not for the premium rate numbers at my local hospital & doctor’s, I would be telephoning them to say I was losing the will to live, by the time I get to the end of some of your posts. :'(

There is an excellent web site http://www.plainenglish.co.uk  which gives some excellent examples of précis writing.
As an example


Before

High-quality learning environments are a necessary precondition for facilitation and enhancement of the ongoing learning process.


After

Children need good schools if they are to learn properly.



I have a funny feeling that in a previous life (or may be in this one) you must  have been (or are) a politician or a civil servant as some of you your responses are typical Yes Minister ‘speak’, Sir Humphrey would have been proud of you!! ;)

Sometimes I have to re read your posts several times just to get an 'inkling' to what you are on about

Could you perhaps in future when making responses, make them easier for some of us to understand?

Thanks & best wishes

Sherbert  :)

Can I please echo sherbert's comments?    It is a relief to know others feel as I do.  I too have problems with understanding SCV's posts, having to re-read them many times (I have similar problems American novels and American political speeches!)   My mother, whose English was superb, always impressed most forcibly upon me that the purpose of language, whether written or spoken, was to communicate effectively with others, if one's "audience" had problems understanding, then one had failed; this point was also made both at school and (in my distant working past) in the workplace.    PLEASE could we have clear and concise posts which we can all understand at first reading?

Our differences may actually be found in the depth of understanding that we wish to apply to the issues.

One uses language appropriate to the audience. I urge those who may challenge my recognition of this point to refer to my contributions to the debate in the media. In this open public discussion forum, I seek to connect with those able to follow what I have to say and perhaps to help promote a clearer understanding of the complex issues and positions that we have to address as campaigners.

There are many dumb and stupid comments made on both sides of the argument in which we are engaged. Those from our opponents have too often swayed decisions. I believe that we have to lift the level of debate a little to achieve our objectives.

If I ever fail in my efforts to make my points as clearly as is possible in good English, as I surely do from time to time, then please accept my apologies. If the level of understanding that I seek to promote is greater than that which other members are willing or able to achieve, then I must express regret, but cannot apologise.

I am happy to engage in private clarification of specific points by email or PM, or, if appropriate, here. I would rather not engage in personal arguments with particular members in the forum. I see the public forum as a place to discuss ideas, not people. As stated previously, I recognise that I may be in a minority in this respect. I offer an email address (as well as the option for a PM) for those who wish to engage with me directly.

I am tempted to respond to the request for only simple comments, by requesting only comments from those who have clearly thought through the issues and have something relevant and worthwhile to contribute. I MAKE NO SUCH REQUEST; this is a public forum, not a private club. All should be free to express their views as they wish. They must be ready to accept argument, but should not expect personal attack, unless they clearly make themselves the subject of their contribution.

There are a number of inferences in post no 35 which many readers of this forum may see as less than complimentary, partciularly to those other posters who have merely sought to make posts accessible to all users of this forum, as I hope no one would seek to promote elitism where only a select few can understand all or certain posts.   I do not see any purpose in any kind of impolite exchange but I will state, again: clarity and brevity must always be admired as tools in the clear communication of facts and ideas, conversely, abtruseness can never be of any benefit unless the writer wishes deliberately to conceal meaning, an odd tool for a forum where one seeks to exchange ideas and perhaps influence others.  To cast aspersions on the intelligence or understanding of those who prefer clarity and brevity and who seek to promote same is, in my view, unhelpful to say the least.

Completely agree with that Barbara. It seems to me that  you have hit the nail on the head.

I think most of us here put our views over pretty well and straight to the point and also very helpful to others, who may be confused about the whole of the premium/revenue sharing set up.

I don't think many of us here  either, give the impression that 'I am  always right and everyone else is wrong.'

All what I was asking for in my post, is to make the posts easier to understand, rather than to read the thing, two or three times to work out what the hell it means.

I certainly do not intend to start a slanging match here and all I did was put in what I thought was a reasonable request.

Thank you, sherbert.   Let's hope we can have a new beginning where everyone can understand and join the exchange of information and views, surely the best way for knowledge and understanding to grow.

It is no less easy to hide or lose meaning in brevity than in verbosity.

Important and comprehensive ideas are best expressed in simple words. It does not follow that simple words always express important and comprehensive ideas.

In an open public forum, not aimed at any particular audience, it is inevitable that not all readers will be able to fully or adequately comprehend all contributions. I repeat my opposition to the suggestion that contributions should be aimed at some particular elite group. Every contributor should feel free to contribute in whatever way they wish, being ready to have their ideas discussed.

If one had to go back to basics with every posting then we would never be able to advance understanding beyond a certain point. Perhaps we need a "new readers start here" section.

I have contributing to this thread essentially to make one point:

Quote:

BT's "penalty rates" are exceptional and not a valid point of reference for call charge comparisons.

This has demanded some explanation, notably the relevance of the increased promotion of the Anytime call plan.

I have responded to points made in response to my comments and have adressed broader points raised. I however find myself unable to continue this interesting discussion as I need to repeat a point I have made before:

Quote:

I see the public forum as a place to discuss ideas, not people

To be fair, we are now discussing the idea of how forum postings should be drafted, rather than who they are psoted by. I wold however rather discuss ...

If we want a "standard charge":

• Should we force mobile users to pay the full cost of being connected to the network?
  
• Should we seek to stop compeition, that enables some providers to offer cheaper calls than others?
  
• Should we demand that dial-up ISPs levy charges, and charities (and businesses) obtain subsidy for their telephone costs, other than through use of revenue sharing numbers?

If anyone understands my points and feels that I could have expressed them more clearly or is interested in learning just exctly what I was trying to say, then please drop me an email, or make your own clearer posting for the benefit of other readers.

jrawle wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:02pm:

Dave wrote on Feb 4th, 2010 at 3:03pm: I understand that all BT "packages" have a minimum 12 month contract. I think that's only the case now if you have a new line installed by BT, not just if you switch your calls to them. The pages linked earlier for new customers certainly say no minimum contract.

Thanks jrawle. The link you posted, [url=www.bt.com/dealterms[/url]]www.bt.com/dealterms[/url], says that a BT customer can switch to the most basic tariff, the "Unlimited Weekend Plan", or "Unlimited Evening & Weekend Plan" (paid for) and not enter into a minimum term contract. Of course, they can only do this if they are not in such a contract. As you point out, there is also a minimum 12 month contract for new customers and existing customers who move their service to another address.



Barbara wrote on Feb 4^th, 2010 at 4:47pm:

jrawle, with regard to your penultimate paragraph, the vast majority of people just want/need to pick up a phone and dial without having to do a calculation for which one would need a maths degree & the investigative powers of a top detective before deciding when and how to make the call.   I think simplicity is the key, I think inclusive call packages are good because they allow one to budget without individual call calculation or checking the time (if on Anytime), this is the problem with NGNs, there is a proliferation of slightly differing codes and tariffs, seemingly dependant upon the number following the four digit initial code and this is surely designed to muddy the waters to the stage where people have to give up and just make the call.   If there were no NGNs (other than overt premium rate like 09 which is generally used by organisations one doesn't have to call) and there was a standard per minute charge for those calls where people did not have inclusive packages, life would be as it should be - simpler!

Simplicity existed when BT was the only provider. As jrawle has pointed, the changes are down to the changing market.

If, as you imply, all NGNs that cost more than the package were to disappear and all numbers were part of an inclusive package, it stands to reason that the marketeers within each telephone company will be busy devising some other way to set themselves apart from the competition.

Previously it was different call rates for geographic calls, but now it is moving towards the cost of included calls. Meanwhile, the cost of calls that are outside of packages, such as 0844 and 0871, have been rising, what with the "call set-up" fee which is proliferating everywhere.

Going a bit off-topic, but I still think relevant to this thread.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 5:23pm:

If we want a "standard charge": Should we force mobile users to pay the full cost of being connected to the network? ...

I don't support calls for a "standard charge", which sounds to me to be what BT are calling for with their Terminate the Rate campaign. BT have to support such a campaign because, as a landline provider, they are slowly losing customers, so they are looking to make the cost of owning/using a mobile higher to make people think again.

The only way I'd support such a campaign is if, at the same time, BT were forced to offer a line-only product that could be used for ADSL. Otherwise, if everyone had to pay line rental to keep even at PAYG mobile, I'd no longer have a mobile phone. I don't need two phones, and I have to have a landline so that I can have ADSL.

The only reason I tolerate having a mobile phone is because it doesn't cost me anything to keep it. I avoid using it to make calls other than in exceptional circumstances. If I had to pay line rental, I wouldn't have one, and if I had to pay to receive calls, there would be no point in having one as I would never answer it (particularly as most calls I seem to receive these days are from scammers and spammers).

By forcing people to pay for an expensive inclusive calls package with a landline, BT are simply attempting to maintain their outdated business of providing fixed-line phone services, in a world where people would be better served by freeing up the infrastructure to provide advanced data services where the cost doesn't have to include paying for an unwanted, outdated landline.

jrawle wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

Going a bit off-topic, but I still think relevant to this thread.

I see it as perfectly acceptable to respond to the points made and to develop related themes.


jrawle wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

I don't support calls for a "standard charge", which sounds to me to be what BT are calling for with their Terminate the Rate campaign.

The Terminate the Rate campaign has support from some unexpected organisations, who seem to believe that money grows on trees. They subscribe to the suggestion that the only effect of success for the campaign would be to the advantage of customers. There is an assumption that mobile operators would meet the loss of termination rate income by diminishing the size of a slush fund they have been holding, rather than preserving their income in some other way - e.g. stopping their customers from benefitting from this subsidy, which has kept their charges artificially low.

In principle it is fair that the user should pay for a service, rather than having it subsidised by others. The problem in this case is with the way in which the telecoms market in the UK has been allowed to develop, with “new” technology being favoured. A swift change back now would have considerable social consequences for those who have come to rely on using a mobile phone under the current terms. This is a tricky matter, where what is right in principle may not be right in practice.

Such matters are of no concern to BT, which is naturally in favour of mobile customers paying for their service, rather than them being subsidised by its customers. It is however disturbing to see organisations such as the NUS, RNID, RCN, GMB, Unite and Age Concern / Help the Aged taking a position that seriously threatens the interests of many less well off people.

The primary sponsor of the Terminate the Rate Campaign is “3”. Better informed contributors may be able to offer a clear explanation for its maverick position on commercial issues amongst the mobile network providers. It is however clear that this is all about some beef that it has with the other four.

---

jrawle wrote on Feb 6^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

... I have to have a landline so that I can have ADSL. ... The only reason I tolerate having a mobile phone is because it doesn't cost me anything to keep it. I avoid using it to make calls other than in exceptional circumstances. ... most calls I seem to receive these days are from scammers and spammers ... their outdated business of providing fixed-line phone services ... people would be better served by freeing up the infrastructure to provide advanced data services where the cost doesn't have to include paying for an unwanted, outdated landline.

The most interesting suggestion, that standard format voice telephony, and even SMS, is outdated, having been superseded by use of the internet, is certainly worthy of discussion.

If this were to be now, or to become, true then I do not agree that there should be an emphasis on access to communications technology only being provided through fixed point connections, which are only suitable for those who are housebound. Whilst some people may have no use for a mobile communications device, I am not sure that the potential for communications through the internet is really so great that it will prevent us all from ever needing or wanting to leave our homes. That is a very “brave” idea, which has many supporters, not least amongst the ranks of those concerned for the environment.

I personally believe that standard (i.e. not relying on a user ip connection) interactive voice telephony, both fixed and mobile, does have a future, if only of perhaps 20 or 30 years. It certainly retains a major place in the lives of most people today.

As VOIP develops, along with other subscription based services, the emphasis on “pay as you use” fees, i.e. call charges, will diminish as the overhead of call billing mechanisms will probably not be entertained as being economic, because the total cost will be so small. I see the current moves by BT and others as being part of this trend.

This will eventually kill off the option for “Premium Rate” services (including those presently classified as simply “revenue sharing”). We do however have some way to go before this point is reached and odd effects will be created in the course of the long drawn out transition. The original topic of this thread has served to point out examples of this.

(I would be delighted if someone with a better knowledge of VOIP, its current penetration, especially on mobile devices, and likely development of both this and other internet based interactive communications services, perhaps voice and image, could contribute some helpful thoughts.)


As most members of this forum are keen users of voice telephony, it is very interesting to hear the views of one who is not, and finds that he has to pay for it nevertheless. It is perhaps unfortunate that those who are not users of the internet are unable to contribute to our discussions! This means that we may not get a balanced view of its merits.