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

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

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

again?

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

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



I completely agree qtel.

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

As you say, everything has to be paid for.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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