It's not April 1st!


Quote:

BT will slash costs for customers who only have a landline, after a review by regulator Ofcom. From April 2018, the telecoms company will reduce the price of its monthly line rental by £7, a 37% decrease from the current cost of £18.99.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41759189

Not sure about the scope. Looks like it doesn't apply if you've got broadband on the line.

Maybe, just maybe, it's the start of line rental charges stabilising or going into reverse after several years of above inflation hikes.

Or pigs might fly. Cynical? Moi?

More about that from Ofcom here

Seems Ofcom feel only those with a "landline" only package should have this change made....  :o

Do you think landline providers will be able to justify charging a higher line rental if you also take broadband than if you do not?

It is important to appreciate that this is for landline-only subscribers – it does not apply to those taking broadband as well.

The cost of line rental is £18.99, and this is with inclusive calls only at weekends. Calls made outside of an inclusive plan are expensive to the degree that one needs only make a few to break even on an inclusive call plan. The rule, therefore, is that one should have an inclusive plan for times calls are made. Where the person is at home at all times then this is likely to be the Anytime option.

The cost at the present time for line rental plus Anytime calls is £27.98 (made up of £18.99 line rental plus £8.99 for Unlimited Anytime Calls).

However, the same service is offered under the Home Phone Saver package. This covers line rental and anytime calls and is £21.99.

Thus, line rental with calls only at weekends is currently £18.99 with line rental plus anytime calls available for an extra £3 (if purchased as the Home Phone Saver package at £21.99).

The questions are:

• How many people have line rental only service and would be better off with anytime calls?
  
• With those who should otherwise have inclusive anytime calls excepted, how many customers will really benefit with this price reduction?
  
• Will Home Phone Saver have to come down because, with the price reduction, line rental plus Unlimited Anytime Calls will be £20.98?

It may well see a rebalancing of costs between line rental and broadband. LR down, BB up. Most of us will probably pay more in the end.

However look back a few years to when 512K ADSL was sheer luxury and we willingly coughed up £24 or so per month for it. For me it replaced Home Highway and the overall costs came down as I was paying 2 lots of line rental any more.

Not that I'm defending BT et al.

As the cost of line rental for broadband lines is now £7 more than without, the extra cost of adding broadband has now gone up by this amount.

It's worth thinking on the fact that the providers split up their charges into constituent parts. They then engaged in moving some up and some down. We saw this with line rental versus anytime calls. Gradually, over time, the differential was reduced while the base line floor that is line rental was increased. The same thing has happened with the cost of voice service versus broadband.

It's cost offsetting meaning that the additional cost to move from a lesser service to a greater one (e.g. to go from having a voice line to voice+broadband) has drifted downwards. QED that's why the providers chose to move to quoting subscription charges in constituent parts (as well as the fact that it helps muddy the water anyway for those seeking to make comparisons when choosing provider).

From The Guardian: BT to slash landline charges for 1 million customers


Quote:

The price cut, which will automatically be appiled to the accounts of 800,000 BT customers, will apply for three years from April. A further 200,000 customers on BT’s “Home Phone Saver” package will also be eligible but will have to apply.

If this number is all who are on Home Phone Saver then isn't this low?

To have four times as many subscribers either on line rental with no inclusive daytime calls or line rental plus Unlimited Anytime Calls (which is more expensive but essentially the same thing as Home Phone Saver) leaves me wondering whether there are lots of people paying through the nose for calls when they should have inclusive calls.

The fact that Home Phone Saver customers (those are already signed up to it) will be eligible implies that the cost of Home Phone Saver will come down as well.

When might BT start to offer calls to mobiles on the same basis as calls to geographic rate numbers? This could be as an extra add-on or as part of the inclusive calls add-ons for geographic rate numbers.

A large proportion of these 1 million customers will no doubt be elderly. They will not be likely to have a mobile phone which they use to make calls to mobile telephone numbers. They should be able to make calls to loved ones from their telephone line, irrespective of whether they are at home or in the office, or not. They should not be incurring high charges for calling mobile phones, akin to penalty charges for calls to geographic rate numbers made outside of a plan.

The figures for the various number of subscribers reveal that hundreds of thousands of BT customers are either paying £27.99 for unlimited anytime calls when they could be paying £21.99 for the same thing on Home Phone Saver or are on a lesser call plan (with line rental at £18.99 per month) that exposes them to call charges of more than £7 per hour for weekday daytime calls. Those who are spending more than £3 per month above the current line rental in such circumstances would save money by being on Home Phone Saver or swapping to the new deal with unlimited anytime calls.

As for those currently on Home Phone Saver, it appears the new deal with unlimited anytime calls will be £1 per month cheaper than Home Phone Saver. Not sure why BT needs those customers to call up to change over. Maybe the change restarts a one-year commitment or maybe some of the things that come included with HPS become chargeable under the new deal?


The termination rate for calls to mobile numbers is now lower than for calls to 03 numbers (0.49p per minute vs. 0.56p per minute). BT is now the only major landline provider to not offer inclusive calls to mobile numbers.

Home Phone Saver 2019 remains in place for customers who subscribed before 7 April 2017 and the 2017 version still has months yet to run.

There is however no 2020 version and customers can no longer subscribe.


It may also be worth noting that Home Phone Saver included (includes, for us lucky few) a price cap, effectively protecting consumers from rises in line rental (in addition to the £3 per month add-on charge to the line rental at the time of introduction).

Furthermore, as well as the equivalent of Unlimited Anytime Calls, Home Phone Saver also included: BT Privacy Caller Display, Anonymous Call Reject and Free 1471 Call Return. The former is available free of charge to some (and must be in all cases from October 2018). The second is of questionable benefit, but of value to some, and the latter is much appreciated.

Those considering the option of the switch next March will have to bear these factors in mind, notably the possibility of inflation-linked line rental price increases before 1 Jan 2019.


See also the fair telecoms campaign news release - The BT rip-off Part II – The Penalty Charge.

We were also quoted in the initial Daily Mail coverage (leaked ahead of the Ofcom announcement) - BT is ordered to cut landline bills by £84 a year for one million customers 'trapped in rip-off deals'.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

There is however no 2020 version and customers can no longer subscribe.

I posted earlier this year (in April) that Home Phone Saver 2019 had come to an end and that Home Phone Saver 2020 had started, for which there are details on BT's website.

The current BT Consumer Price Guide (Effective from 17th September 2017) includes Home Phone Saver 2020.

Within the BT Price List Section 55:Personal (Residential) Customer Options there are the following:

• Part 9:Calling Plans - Home Phone Saver 2019 - not available for new supply from 7th April 2017
  
• Part 10:Calling Plans - Home Phone Saver 2018 - not available for new supply from 3rd April 2016
  
• Part 11:Calling Plans - Home Phone Saver - Not available for new supply from 6th June 2015

However, there is indeed no Home Phone Saver 2020. Has it been quietly dropped, perhaps owing to this ruling by Ofcom? :-?

Dave wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

The current BT Consumer Price Guide (Effective from 17th September 2017) includes Home Phone Saver 2020.

Indeed, this is correct. I had been referring to the official BT price list - Section 55:Personal (Residential) Customer Options, which would normally be considered to be the more formal of the two in the case of discrepancy. The issue, however, remains in doubt.

I will get a resolution of this tomorrow.

My energies today have been focussed on trying to get media exposure of the Penalty Charge issue, whilst the matter of BT Rip-Offs is fresh. If members are able to help in any way (e.g. by re-tweeting or passing on our news release - see this tweet) I would be very grateful.


There is a point to add to my previous post. One feature of Unlimited Anytime Calls that is excluded from Home Phone Saver is the 50% discount on the per-minute element of the charge for calls to mobile numbers.

If we consider the population at whom Home Phone Saver is targetted, this may not be seen to be of great significance. Their kids, grandkids and great-grandlkids should be calling them, because they benefit from inclusive calls to ordinary numbers.

It is only BT that does not consider mobiles to be "ordinary" numbers, despite owning the largest mobile provider and now offering a mobile service of its own. All other providers of mobile and landline services make no distinction (apart from some restrictions on what is reasonable) when it comes to inclusivity.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

It is only BT that does not consider mobiles to be "ordinary" numbers, despite owning the largest mobile provider and now offering a mobile service of its own. […]

BT Mobile Consumer numbers are included for the first 1,000 minutes each month with Unlimited Anytime Calls and with Home Phone Saver 2020, according to the BT Consumer Price Guide.

I'm not sure whether the word 'Consumer', in 'BT Mobile Consumer' (which is as it's written in the Guide) means consumer (personal) mobiles as opposed to ones on business contracts.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 26^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

I will get a resolution of this tomorrow.

Part 1 of the resolution has been achieved.

Contrary to the information on the formal Price List, Home Phone Saver 2020 exists (as advised elsewhere) and orders are still being taken. We do not know when it will be be withdrawn or replaced by Home Phone Saver 2021. Given that the Ofcom measures have addressed the problem that HPS was introduced to address, more comprehensively, it seems likely that there will be no replacement. It is an open question as to whether it may be withdrawn.

This leaves the question of the omission from the formal BT Price List. I understand that Ofcom will be looking into this.

In previous years, the "new" Home Phone Saver deal seems to have taken effect in the first week or so of April of each year.

It says that the reduction will also apply to Home Phone Saver customers, although they will have to opt in to get it. Subparagraph 2.2.1 of BT's committments says that the discount will not apply to Home Phone Saver customers, therefore should they opt-in they will be migrated, presumably, to Line Rental plus Unlimited Anytime Calls.

Those on Home Phone Saver packages where the price is guaranteed come April will be on Home Phone Saver 2019 and Home Phone Saver 2020, both at £21.99. The cost of Line Rental plus Unlimited Anytime Calls will be £20.98, if the latter's price doesn't increase. However, what's to say that it will not go up 50p or maybe £1 by then? The cost could perhaps be £21.98, meaning that Home Phone Saver customers could opt-in to save one whole penny per whole month.

So, around 200,000 of the 1 million (that's 20%) could actually end up no better off.

This reduction has come about through BT agreeing to an offer, rather than Ofcom decreeing what BT must do. It comes into effect in April next year, which is five months away. April is also the time that Home Phone Saver offers expire and usually renew. So a possibility is that Home Phone Saver 2020 will lapse with no replacement Home Phone Saver 2021 proposition in its place.

Those who signed up for Home Phone Saver (2017) and Home Phone Saver 2018 are paying £19.99 and £20.99 respectively. BT could potentially increase the price of those, perhaps to £21.99 bringing them into line with HPS 2019 and HPS 2020, in order to claw back some revenue.

And some people actually say these companies use smoke and mirrors.


Having had a read through Ofcom's Statement for Review of the market for standalone landline telephone services it is clear that this review relates only to line rental-only customers. Ofcom had previously put into one category those who only have a line (without broadband) and those who take the line from one supplier and broadband from another. By the Statement its opinion had changed, and nothing will be done for the latter class of consumers.

What it talks of is the lack of engagement line rental-only customers tend to have in choosing supplier. These are typically elderly people who do not use the Internet and therefore are not likely to see offerings from other suppliers via that mode. Clearly Post Office Home Phone is in a great position because it can potentially reach these people easily by advertising in post offices.


What might this do to the broadband market? As I say, the Review apparently hasn't considered this. But how can it be that BT will offer Line Rental of £11.99 for landline-only customers and higher Line Rental of perhaps £18.99 for broadband customers? Surely the differential won't be taken from the figure said to be line rental and put onto the cost of the broadband. But if it were then that might result in more pressure for lower broadband prices. If it weren't then there would be two classes of BT line rental.

There is another way of looking at it.

Those who are already on BT Home Phone Saver have benefitted from the reduced rate for (up to) four or five years, and now Ofcom is forcing BT to extend the discount to all of its landline-only customers.

It has been clear for some time that the retail cost of broadband has been understated, subsidised by inflated charges for line-rental and with those inflated charges borne by all customers including those who do not have broadband. I would now expect an adjustment to the pricing, with broadband going up by £7 per month and the line rental going down by £7 per month and the total staying much the same.


The next item to tackle is those who are on a deal with inclusive weekend calls or inclusive evening and weekend calls and who spend more than £8 per month on weekday daytime calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers (at 21p per call plus 12p per minute) need to change to the deal with inclusive calls at any time. See: http://www.fairtelecoms.org.uk/docs.html?btroii

Also, at some point BT need to catch up with everyone else and offer inclusive calls to UK mobile numbers.

I do wonder whether the cost of inclusive call plans will just continue to go up and up and up. And up. This is alongside the incessant increases in out-of-plan penalty charges, both per whole minute and per call fees. When might it stop?

As you rightly say Ian01, providers have been offsetting the cost of broadband onto the cost of line rental which is borne by both broadband and non-broadband customers. Perhaps there may be tendency to do the same for inclusive packages now that the avenue to do it via line rental has been closed.

The price increases on inclusive packages (and penalty charges) will make it easier to include calls to mobiles. That is, the step up to include mobile calls may have been mitigated because the increase has already happened (in small steps).


It is worth remembering that prior to the abolition of BT Standard in 2004, line rental on that tariff was effectively £9.50. The cost was £10.50 with £1 worth of calls included.

With falling termination rates, charges for inclusive call plans should not be going up very rapidly - not unless callers are making dramatically more calls.

On landlines, inclusive call plans with "unlimited anytime" calls cost around £8 per month. Contrast this with the termination rates currently charged:
- 0.21p per minute for UK 01 and 02 numbers
- 0.56p per minute for non-geographic 03 numbers
- 0.49p per minute for UK 071-075 and 077-079 numbers.

On mobile phones, and excluding handset costs, unlimited calls and texts costs around £10 to £15 per month on contract. On pay-as-you-go a top-up of £15 to £20 comes with unlimited calls and texts. Mobile plans usually also come with an allowance of data usage.

Ian01 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 9:39am:

With falling termination rates, charges for inclusive call plans should not be going up very rapidly - not unless callers are making dramatically more calls.

Emphasis on should there, I think. Line rental should not have gone up as it did, but it did in spite of falling wholesale costs.

My research suggests that there are thousands of telco customers paying monthly fees for unlimited call charges and they do not fully understand the unlimited call concept. The majority of teklo customers do not compare the cost of the monthly charge against the call cost saving. In every case that I have carried out a comparison the customers call usage does not cover the monthly cost.

I just goes to show that people will pay a set fee for peace of mind and not checking to see if it is cost effective.

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 10:00pm:

In every case that I have carried out a comparison the customers call usage does not cover the monthly cost.

That is a very interesting piece of research, given that the break-even points are so low. (See the examples in our briefing.)

I suspect that your sample only covers people who make very few calls, and may not therefore be representative.

Could you please advise us of the case having the greatest usage that was covered by this research, so that we can understand the limits of its scope.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 29^th, 2017 at 11:15pm:

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 29th, 2017 at 10:00pm: In every case that I have carried out a comparison the customers call usage does not cover the monthly cost. That is a very interesting piece of research, given that the break-even points are so low. (See the examples in our briefing.) I suspect that your sample only covers people who make very few calls, and may not therefore be representative. Could you please advise us of the case having the greatest usage that was covered by this research, so that we can understand the limits of its scope.

My research was only in my local area and it was limited to my neighbours but in every case where there was low usage it was not cost effective to pay the call unlimited charge.

In my opinion the telco’s just promote the calls unlimited programmes and do not take into consideration the fact that it may not be cost effective for their customer, surely this is not GOOD PRACTICE and there may be a case under the mis-selling rules.

I do not know how it is determined that a company is mis-selling but I am more than happy to contact the necessary organization and file a complaint in this regard.

Back in the day I recall us all campaigning about the miss use of the 08 numbers maybe there is now a case for the miss-use of the calls unlimited programme.

Edit: Quote at top amended - Dave

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 5:15am:

In my opinion the telco’s just promote the calls unlimited programmes and do not take into consideration the fact that it may not be cost effective for their customer, surely this is not GOOD PRACTICE and there may be a case under the mis-selling rules.

I think that if you looked more closely at the reality, you would find that telcos are UNDER-selling inclusive plans. If, as you claim, you have researched this matter in a meaningful way so as to support an alternative conclusion, then please share some of this research, as requested.

We are all free to hold and voice opinions, based on nothing other than wild assumptions. This does not however serve measured debate.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 9:43am:

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 30th, 2017 at 5:15am: In my opinion the telco’s just promote the calls unlimited programmes and do not take into consideration the fact that it may not be cost effective for their customer, surely this is not GOOD PRACTICE and there may be a case under the mis-selling rules. I think that if you looked more closely at the reality, you would find that telcos are UNDER-selling inclusive plans. If, as you claim, you have researched this matter in a meaningful way so as to support an alternative conclusion, then please share some of this research, as requested. We are all free to hold and voice opinions, based on nothing other than wild assumptions. This does not however serve measured debate.

The only information that I have is from my local vicinity a number of us have cancelled the calls unlimited because it is more expensive as most of our calls are made via our mobiles, what I was attempting to explain was the fact that maybe there are others that just pay the monthly charge for calls unlimited not realising that in fact they are low users and the monthly fee outways the call charges.

I apologise for any inaccuracies 

Edit: Quote at top amended - Dave

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 10:45am:

a number of us have cancelled the calls unlimited because it is more expensive as most of our calls are made via our mobiles

If your pattern of BT landline calling is below that equivalent to the examples given in our briefing, then you are indeed doing the right thing. I do however hope that you are choosing the correct inclusive calls plan on your mobile, because the same situation exists with both contract and PAYG mobile tariffs.

The cost of inclusive plans is commonly presented without a parallel indication of the alternative Penalty Charge.

Our fear, indeed our strong suspicion, is that many fail to recognise the high level of the Penalty Charges and are misled by statements such as
"if you just love to chat on your home phone day and night, go for our anytime plan".

There may be those with very low usage who choose the unlimited anytime plan in error, but we feel that this exaggeration of the calling pattern necessary to justify subscription to the plan represents under-, rather than over-, selling, leading to far too many Penalty Charges being incurred.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Our fear, indeed our strong suspicion, is that many fail to recognise the high level of the Penalty Charges and are misled by statements such as "if you just love to chat on your home phone day and night, go for our anytime plan".

I think that this statement is misleading in respect of who it says needs this product. It implies a smaller target consumer group than would actually benefit from it, thereby implying that it would not be of benefit to a portion of the entire group that it would actually be of benefit to.

Those who "just love to chat" implies "those who love to talk a lot", when in actual fact the threshold is so low as to being tending close to "those who talk at all". Substituting "on your" with "during the" would alleviate this issue.

I take on board all your comments and indeed callers usage and needs will differ but it is only the plans that I have examined that benefit. It is also true that some callers may get caught out but in my examples all have a Virgin Mobile package for £5 per month not exceeding their 250 minute quota, other callers that were paying for calls unlimited on their land line are low users and it was not beneficial to them to pay the monthly fee as in some cases it worked out at £1.00 per call. This example will not work for all but it was beneficial to those call plans I looked at.

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 2:44pm:

it was not beneficial to them to pay the monthly fee as in some cases it worked out at £1.00 per call.

For a BT user, a weekday daytime non-inclusive call to a 01/02/03 number costs £1.00 if it is just over 6½ minutes long. Many people would be shocked to learn that this is all you get for a Penalty Charge of £1. If the nine calls made each month were shorter than this then the unlimited package is indeed a waste of time. (Some may have been made at weekends, when these calls are free to all, or during the evening, when lower Penalty Charges apply - but we just use the simple case.)

When the option of making all calls from a mobile comes into the picture, the situation is further complicated. The fact that BT stands alone by not including calls to mobiles in its plans, naturally drives many customers away from using a BT landline at all.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 30th, 2017 at 2:44pm: it was not beneficial to them to pay the monthly fee as in some cases it worked out at £1.00 per call. For a BT user, a weekday daytime non-inclusive call to a 01/02/03 number costs £1.00 if it is just over 6½ minutes long. […]

This is incorrect. No weekday daytime non-inclusive call to a 01/02/03 number costs £1.00 exactly.

The minimum charge for a call is 33p and this applies for calls that last anything up to exactly 1 minute.
A call lasting anything from 1 minute and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 2 minutes costs 45p.
A call lasting anything from 2 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 3 minutes costs 57p.
A call lasting anything from 3 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 4 minutes costs 69p.
A call lasting anything from 4 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 5 minutes costs 81p.
A call lasting anything from 5 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 6 minutes costs 93p.
A call lasting anything from 6 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 7 minutes costs £1.05.
A call lasting anything from 7 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to exactly 8 minutes costs £1.17.

All of the above are subject to whatever the tolerances in measurement of duration happen to be.

My take on giving examples of thresholds of usage would be to take the £8.99, multiply by 12, divide by 365 and multiply by 7. This takes account of differing numbers of weekdays in each month. Rounding the result of the calculation to the next whole penny gives a spend of £2.07 per week.

Remember that the Unlimited Anytime Calls at £8.99 is for inclusive calls Monday to Friday (at any time of day or night). As calls are included at weekends by default, then they should not be included in any example.

£2.07 divided three ways is 69p, which happens to be exactly the cost of a call in duration of anything greater 3 minutes and up to 4 minutes exactly.

Dave wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 3:59pm:

This is incorrect.

Thank you Dave; I was incorrect.

Penalty Charge call durations, unlike those for calls to 084/087/09/118 numbers, are indeed rounded up to the next minute.

Apologies for the factual error, although my point stands - it is actually strengthened a little. Any call of over 6 minutes dead costs more than £1. To avoid spending more than £1 you have to hang up on or before 6 minutes.

With respect to example durations that have to be met exactly – or more commonly exceeded – to make the inclusive package worthwhile, we can now make a list of possibilities to choose from. Assuming that for simplicity's sake we wish to stick to giving the quantity of same-duration calls rather than mixtures of different lengths, then there are only a small number of possibilities:

More than 6 calls (7 or more calls) lasting anything up to 1 minute exactly (break-even is at 6.27 calls).
More than 4 calls (5 or more calls) lasting from 1 minute and a part-fraction of a minute to 2 minutes exactly (break-even is at 4.6 calls).
More than 3 calls (4 or more calls) lasting from 2 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to 3 minutes exactly (break-even is at 3.63 calls).
More than 3 calls (3 or more calls) lasting from 3 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to 4 minutes exactly (break-even is at 3.00 calls).
More than 2 calls (3 or more calls) lasting from 4 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to 5 minutes exactly (break-even is at 2.56 calls).
More than 2 calls (3 or more calls) lasting from 5 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to 6 minutes exactly (break-even is at 2.23 calls).
More than 1 call (2 or more calls) lasting from 6 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to 7 minutes exactly (break-even is at 1.97 calls).
More than 1 call (2 or more calls) lasting from 7 minutes and a part-fraction of a minute to 8 minutes exactly (break-even is at 1.77 calls).

Continuing with durations 9 minutes and upwards, the inclusive package is worthwhile where more than 1 call of duration up to and including 15 minutes exactly is made.

The cost of a single 16-minute call (durations greater than 15 minutes up to 16 minutes exactly) is £2.13 and thus the inclusive package is worthwhile even for one such call per week.

There is the question as to whether to present quantities as "more than x calls" or "x+1 or more calls". I probably favour the former.

Over the years the cost of the anytime inclusive package has risen, along with penalty charges for non-inclusive calls. If someone has a note of these then it would be possible to plot how the break-even point has changed over time.

Unlimited call packagea are close to being the new normal on landlines. They are also commonplace on mobile deals where the main distinguishing feature is amount of data allowance, alongside large or unlimited phone & text allowances. Presumably reflecting how a lot of people use their mobiles mainly for data.

If I look back to what I was paying for landline telephony in the 1990s and early 2000s it's a lot less now than then. Unlimited call deals certainly gave me a large reduction in bills.

Unlimited call deals are great for the callers that use them I just wanted to point out that there are millions of landline low users that are duped into paying this excessive fee when they do not use it.

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 31^st, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Unlimited call deals are great for the callers that use them I just wanted to point out that there are millions of landline low users that are duped into paying this excessive fee when they do not use it.

Such low users – which includes those who tend to make calls from their mobiles when at home – would be better off with providers that have low call charges. Such operators may not offer inclusive plans, and instead utilise the model of billing calls on incidental basis. That way, should a subscriber make a call it won't cost as much.

allegro wrote on Oct 31^st, 2017 at 7:33am:

Unlimited call packageas are close to being the new normal on landlines.

We believe that this we arrived at this point some time ago.

---

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 31^st, 2017 at 1:09pm:

there are millions of landline low users that are duped into paying this excessive fee when they do not use it.

There are many BT broadband users who have no handset connected, but pay for unlimited weekend calls.

Aside from them, we feel that the number of BT customers who are duped into paying excessive Penalty Charges is much greater than those who are duped in the opposite direction.

Dave wrote on Oct 27^th, 2017 at 11:14am:

Those on Home Phone Saver packages where the price is guaranteed come April will be on Home Phone Saver 2019 and Home Phone Saver 2020, both at £21.99. The cost of Line Rental plus Unlimited Anytime Calls will be £20.98, if the latter's price doesn't increase. However, what's to say that it will not go up 50p or maybe £1 by then? The cost could perhaps be £21.98, meaning that Home Phone Saver customers could opt-in to save one whole penny per whole month.

Well, stop the press! Unlimited Anytime Calls will be going up from £8.99 to £9.50 on 7 January 2018.

Dave wrote on Oct 31^st, 2017 at 2:35pm:

Such low users – which includes those who tend to make calls from their mobiles when at home – would be better off with providers that have low call charges. Such operators may not offer inclusive plans, and instead utilise the model of billing calls on incidental basis. That way, should a subscriber make a call it won't cost as much.

This quote is fine for those of us who understand the telco programmes but there are millions of users (older users mainly) that are duped into taking on unlimited call deals by telco aggressive sales staff - just wondering if there is any way we could educate them in the same way that we educated and assisted users of 0845 and 0870 users. Prior to learning about this site way back in 2005 I was totally unaware of the premium rate 0870 call charges

Edit: Quote at top amended - Dave

I find that landline phone providers usually seem to under-sell their anytime inclusive call plans. They advertise inclusive weekend calls as the default package. This exposes callers to rates of around £8 per hour for weekday calls and it is this that fuels the perception that "landlines are expensive".

I suspect there are a significant number of people paying a large amount for weekday calls at high per-minute rates on their landline who could benefit from swapping to an unlimited anytime call plan on their landline.

I would also contend there are many people who could save money by taking an unlimited anytime deal on their landline and cutting the deal on their mobile phone down so that it covers only the calls they will make while away from home.

Landline providers offer unlimited anytime calls for around :£9 per month. Those deals include calls to UK geographic numbers starting 01 and 02, non-geographic numbers starting 03 and, usually, UK mobile numbers starting 071 to 075 and 077 to 079.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Dave wrote on Oct 31st, 2017 at 2:35pm: Such low users – which includes those who tend to make calls from their mobiles when at home – would be better off with providers that have low call charges. Such operators may not offer inclusive plans, and instead utilise the model of billing calls on incidental basis. That way, should a subscriber make a call it won't cost as much. This quote is fine for those of us who understand the telco programmes but there are millions of users (older users mainly) that are duped into taking on unlimited call deals by telco aggressive sales staff - just wondering if there is any way we could educate them in the same way that we educated and assisted users of 0845 and 0870 users. Prior to learning about this site way back in 2005 I was totally unaware of the premium rate 0870 call charges

I agree bazzerfewi. Such providers I alluded to are outliers in the market, and therefore only the most astute will find them.

If they were more mainstream then they might give the providers that used the inclusive model a run for their money.

But it would require understanding of the effects of call set-up fees and whole minute billing upon the cost of calls charged incidentally.

Ian01 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 6:04pm:

I would also contend there are many people who could save money by taking an unlimited anytime deal on their landline and cutting the deal on their mobile phone down so that it covers only the calls they will make while away from home. Landline providers offer unlimited anytime calls for around :£9 per month. Those deals include calls to UK geographic numbers starting 01 and 02, non-geographic numbers starting 03 and, usually, UK mobile numbers starting 071 to 075 and 077 to 079.

Perhaps. But at the side of the monthly subscription for their mobile service, the handset offered may be an attractive carrot plus call bundles aren't that expensive plus people don't tend to make voice calls any more, preferring to communicate with friends via social media. So would it really make a difference? And then set it at the side of the fact that people prefer to make calls when they want and not tend to be restricted when at home.

It is my belief that if more users of mobiles didn't believe they had to change their handset when their contract ended the revenue to mobile networks and hand set providers would be greatly reduced. I recently came across a group of people that all believed they had to dispose of their handset when the contract ended. I am pleased to say that now they have been re-educated they are all going to opt for a sim only package and purchase their next hand set outright, they are also going to contact a number of providers to get the best deal. IF ONLY MORE PEOPLE REALISED THIS THEY WOULD COLLECTIVELY SAVE MILLIONS.

When the landline-only BT line rental reduction comes into effect in April 2018, the rate will be set at £11.99 per month with increases limited to inflation. Using a working estimate of 2.5%, we may expect £12.30 in April 2019 and £12.60 in April 2020. (BT price increases are generally well ahead of inflation, but this is capped for three years.)

Those affected will have to choose between paying for just that and the option of paying for Home Phone Saver 2020. (I am assuming, for now, that there will be no Home Phone Saver 2021.)

Home Phone Saver 2020 costs £21.99 per month, but offers the following array of additional benefits – with its price guaranteed as fixed until 1 January 2020, with the possibility of it extending beyond that date (as other similar offers have).

All of the following, in addition to line rental are included in Home Phone Saver 2020. Prices are shown as at 7 Jan 2018, or as projected if the new price is not yet known (*). These prices may be expected to increase further before January 2020.
[list bull-blackball]

Unlimited calls, at any time, to UK landlines and 0845 and 0870 numbers, for up to an hour (£9.50 per month).
Projected cost at January 2019: £9.75 per month (although the inflation cap does not apply to this).

BT Privacy with Caller Display (£1.85 per month, although inclusive on some deals).

Anonymous Call Reject (£6.50 per month *).

Free 1471 / 1571 Call Return (30p per use).

1000 free minutes to BT Mobiles, excluding BT Business Mobile (not available as an item).

Call Minder with Enhanced BT Call Protect (£5.00 per month).

Any or all of the following calling features - Call Waiting, Call Diversion, Call Sign, Call Barring, Three-way Calling, Ring Back, Reminder Call (1 feature: £5.00, 2-4 features: £9.25, 5+ features: £12.25, all per month).
If we consider Unlimited Anytime Calls to be the only worthwhile benefit, Home Phone Saver 2020 is 50p more expensive in April 2018, but 6p cheaper than the projected charge in April 2019.

All those features listed (with per month rates) total £35.10, giving a potential clear saving of up to £25.10 per month in April 2018, by subscribing to Home Phone Saver 2020, rather each of the features separately. There are also the additional benefits of inclusive calls to BT Mobiles and unlimited use of Call Return.

I think it fair to say that use of any one of the many features listed would tip the balance in favour of Home Phone Saver 2020, after the threshold of call usage to justify Unlimited Anytime had been crossed.


There then opens up the complex matrix of combinations of valued features and call usage to justify subscription to Home Phone Saver, in the event of very low call usage.

Noting recent contributions to this thread, I think we can say that those who get very little benefit from very little use of their landline should simply rip it out and get a mobile! We can then stop wasting our time talking about them in this thread and perhaps open another to discuss mobiles.

Thanks SilentCallVictim, that is an excellent explanation, I appreciate your comments and I have followed your suggestion and discarded my landline but I am not having much success convincing some of my older friends and colleagues to do the same. as for starting a thread in regard to the benefit of using mobiles over landlines I am all for that. If we had the same success in convincing people to use mobiles in this scenario as we did the 0870/0845 number it would be fantastic.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 8:29am:

… starting a thread in regard to the benefit of using mobiles over landlines I am all for that. …

I look forward to reading your opening post.

I will also be interested to hear your views in relation to those with wire or fibre broadband (who are outside the scope of this thread) or cable. They are already paying rental on a line that can carry voice telephony.


So far as consumers are concerned, the fair telecoms campaign seeks only to inform, never to convince people to follow a course of action that it has decided is best for them. We have been very successful in convincing many businesses to stop using 084/087 numbers, by various means. We have sadly not (yet) been successful in persuading BT to stop treating 0870/0845 numbers as if they were in some way "ordinary".

This website, by its very name, invites consumers to avoid 087 and 084 numbers. Perhaps you need to register SayNoToLandlines.com, and invite the mobile companies to support it by advertising.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 4^th, 2017 at 10:41pm:

[…] IF ONLY MORE PEOPLE REALISED THIS THEY WOULD COLLECTIVELY SAVE MILLIONS.

Is this really true or, like when one squeezes a balloon, would the savings pop out in the form of charges elsewhere…?

---

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 3:53am:

Home Phone Saver 2020 costs £21.99 per month, but offers the following array of additional benefits – with its price guaranteed as fixed until 1 January 2020, with the possibility of it extending beyond that date (as other similar offers have). All of the following, in addition to line rental are included in Home Phone Saver 2020. Prices are shown as at 7 Jan 2018, or as projected if the new price is not yet known (*). These prices may be expected to increase further before January 2020. [list bull-blackball] […] BT Privacy with Caller Display (£1.85 per month, although inclusive on some deals). […]

I think I am right in saying that caller display is included for free with all (or at least the vast majority of) services when under contract, as this is one of the carrots BT uses to entice subscribers into contracts, or else beat them with the stick of the monthly charge when they're not.

Caller display will have to be made available by CPs at no extra charge from 1 October 2018. Therefore, in all practical sense, all signing up to a BT contract from now onwards will have caller display provided at no extra cost indefinitely.

I accept that this may actually be a little point for which a response of the length of two paragraphs may be seen as a little unjustified – now three paragraphs, with this paragraph saying that it might not be worthy of the two! ;D

---

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 3:53am:

Noting recent contributions to this thread, I think we can say that those who get very little benefit from very little use of their landline should simply rip it out and get a mobile! We can then stop wasting our time talking about them in this thread and perhaps open another to discuss mobiles.

The implication of getting very little benefit from a product implies that it might be a wise idea to not buy it any more. However, many people who have a landline for voice service only (which is the topic of this thread) do get a benefit – and this is because it is a landline. The elderly typically fall into this group, and they most certainly do value their landline because they would never dream of having a mobile phone, or at least a mobile as sole mode of communication.

It is only a waste of time talking about landlines for those who don't want them. With this thread being about people who have a landline for voice use only, that includes those actually want one.

---

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 12:04pm:

I will also be interested to hear your views in relation to those with wire or fibre broadband (who are outside the scope of this thread) or cable. They are already paying rental on a line that can carry voice telephony.

The encouragement of naked broadband (a line with broadband and no voice) would seem to be the answer.

But then, isn't the voice market subsidising the broadband market anyway? So removing voice would reduce the price a bit but not a lot. The cost of the local loop would still have to be paid for (although to differing degrees with fibre). Voice equipment in exchanges would become idle to greater tendency.

The balance would tip more from PSTN voice telephony, to VoIP and mobile. This is what the landline providers are defending by not offering naked broadband.

---

I think the whole saga of this thread is rooted in the providers offsetting costs of broadband on to non-broadband users. Ofcom's position implies its agreement, even though its review may have been compartmentalised, by looking solely at voice-only subscribers. This implication comes from fact that the regulator has chosen not to seek for an outcome of line rental being reduced for all landline users.

So, to return to the first statement in this posting, could there really be savings made by having a landline for broadband only (were it widely available) or mobile only? Or are we (forever?) chasing a utopian 'saving'?

A great deal to take in for the likes of me!

But if my understanding is correct the solution is to discard of the land line and use the mobile as a viable alternative with the correct package.

As suggested in the earlier thread it may take some time to convince (low use) callers to discard their landline but for every user that does it will be a small victory.

I recall back in the day when we were attempting to  convince both businesses and callers not to use 0870 numbers, that was an up hill struggle with slow progress but it worked in the end.

My reference to "BT Privacy with Caller Display" was only for completeness, and qualified by the "inclusive on some deals" comment.


Dave wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 1:07pm:

… all signing up to a BT contract from now onwards will have caller display provided at no extra cost indefinitely.

As I read the revised General Conditions, charging for provision of CLI data will be simply prohibited with effect from 1 October 2018. This will apply to all customers, not just those said to be "under contract" begun at any particular time.

There is, of course, no requirement, nor offer, to provide the equipment to display the CLI data. This will perhaps become an issue in time to come, if and when CLI text data starts to become more significant. More on this will be published on @fairtelecoms in time to come.

bazzerfewi wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 2:08pm:

… the solution is to discard of the land line and use the mobile as a viable alternative with the correct package.

That solution is the obvious conclusion to arguments that you were presenting. I understood that you agreed.

Other contributors, including myself, do not share your belief that a lot of people are paying for a landline, without broadband, but not using it much, because they are using their mobile phones to make calls. There may be some who need to be told that they are wasting their money, but one risks being rather patronising by pointing out something so obvious.

The focus of this thread has been on those who benefit from having a landline without broadband, who will be covered by the BT reduction in line rental. We have been addressing the tricky issue of how best to help them understand how to secure the best deal for their needs.

The case of those who would be best advised to cease their landline, in favour of use of a mobile, is an interesting topic for another thread. It does however have to be pointed out that this option is not available to those with broadband or cable TV. This then has opened up another line of discussion, which is tangentially relevant because it relates to the reason behind the forced BT move, although it is a big topic in its own right and does not apply only to BT.

Perhaps a moderator could steer us.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Oct 30^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

bazzerfewi wrote on Oct 30th, 2017 at 10:45am: a number of us have cancelled the calls unlimited because it is more expensive as most of our calls are made via our mobiles If your pattern of BT landline calling is below that equivalent to the examples given in our briefing, then you are indeed doing the right thing. I do however hope that you are choosing the correct inclusive calls plan on your mobile, because the same situation exists with both contract and PAYG mobile tariffs. The cost of inclusive plans is commonly presented without a parallel indication of the alternative Penalty Charge. Our fear, indeed our strong suspicion, is that many fail to recognise the high level of the Penalty Charges and are misled by statements such as "if you just love to chat on your home phone day and night, go for our anytime plan". There may be those with very low usage who choose the unlimited anytime plan in error, but we feel that this exaggeration of the calling pattern necessary to justify subscription to the plan represents under-, rather than over-, selling, leading to far too many Penalty Charges being incurred.

I pay £5.00 a month for my mobile package and I never exceed my 250 minute or exceed data and web allowance. For callers that do not exceed these limit it is more economical than a land line.

Edit: Quote at top amended - Dave

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 2:22pm:

Dave wrote on Nov 5th, 2017 at 1:07pm: … all signing up to a BT contract from now onwards will have caller display provided at no extra cost indefinitely. As I read the revised General Conditions, charging for provision of CLI data will be simply prohibited with effect from 1 October 2018. This will apply to all customers, not just those said to be "under contract" begun at any particular time.

The point wasn't to suggest that the requirement of the GCs to offer caller display for free applies to "under contract" customers only.

As this discussion is about the value offered by each package as against the cost I think that inclusive caller display should be regarded as the default, rather than the exception. Should out-of-contract customers wish to get better value then they can opt in (and stop paying the £1.85).

That thought having occurred to me, I then realised that anyone who subscribes to or renews a contract from now will get inclusive caller display but will never ever pay the £1.85 once the contract has come to an end (and not renewed), unlike those who signed up before 1 October 2017 (for 12 month contracts). Then it occurred to me that this tends to strengthen my assertion that the general rule is free caller display with £1.85 the exception (a point I alluded to).

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

The focus of this thread has been on those who benefit from having a landline without broadband, who will be covered by the BT reduction in line rental. We have been addressing the tricky issue of how best to help them understand how to secure the best deal for their needs. The case of those who would be best advised to cease their landline, in favour of use of a mobile, is an interesting topic for another thread. It does however have to be pointed out that this option is not available to those with broadband or cable TV. This then has opened up another line of discussion, which is tangentially relevant because it relates to the reason behind the forced BT move, although it is a big topic in its own right and does not apply only to BT. Perhaps a moderator could steer us.

I make this post as Moderator.

If we think – at the outset, before we start the thread – that the subject will be broad, as to meander giving up landline in favour of mobile and the implications for landline-broadband users, then I think it should be started on that basis, which means its title must encompass those areas, rather than having it narrow and to one sector. Gosh, that's a long sentence. Definitely won't be winning any awards from the Plain English lobby for that one.

I'm inclined to say: start the thread in the Geographical Numbers Chat section rather than the Call Providers one as it's not about one provider specifically. If anyone has any thoughts, particularly in favour of it being the other way, then post comment.

Put a link to the new thread at the end of this one and a link to this thread from the inaugural posting in the new thread.

We have having great fun with a very minor issue (by comparison with other points being discussed).


Dave wrote on Nov 6^th, 2017 at 5:22pm:

… anyone who subscribes to or renews a contract from now will get inclusive caller display but will never ever pay the £1.85 once the contract has come to an end (and not renewed), unlike those who signed up before 1 October 2017 (for 12 month contracts).

That assumes that BT waits until the last moment before withdrawing this charge.

---

A key point in relation to CLI, as a means of identifying callers before accepting a call - which currently only applies to numbers that one recognises, was covered by my comment -


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 2:22pm:

There is, of course, no requirement, nor offer, to provide the equipment to display the CLI data. This will perhaps become an issue in time to come, if and when CLI text data starts to become more significant. More on this will be published on @fairtelecoms in time to come.

The issue of CLI text is however a matter for discussion in another thread.

There is quite enough going on in relation to nuisance calls at present. This issue will however come up when the matter of applying more sense to CLI is raised in connection with the other obligations on telcos that will apply from 1 October 2018.

---

In response to Reply #52 - I have views on the other issues raised, as on many issues related to fair telecoms, and will be pleased to respond, should any member of this forum wish to open up discussion on them.

Dave wrote on Nov 6^th, 2017 at 5:51pm:

I make this post as Moderator. If we think – at the outset, before we start the thread – that the subject will be broad, as to meander giving up landline in favour of mobile and the implications for landline-broadband users, then I think it should be started on that basis, which means its title must encompass those areas, rather than having it narrow and to one sector. Gosh, that's a long sentence. Definitely won't be winning any awards from the Plain English lobby for that one. I'm inclined to say: start the thread in the Geographical Numbers Chat section rather than the Call Providers one as it's not about one provider specifically. If anyone has any thoughts, particularly in favour of it being the other way, then post comment.

I agree about it being in that location, and I also speak as a Moderator. Is anyone happy to start a thread, or any suggestions for a suitable title?  Maybe "Is it worth keeping a landline?"

Please feel free to comment.