Maybe so but even without the "Standing Charge" you will pay at a significantly higher rate for, say, the first 225 KwH used per quarter so if you use it at all you get shafted by higher prices. :mad:
With some ethical suppliers the price difference is only a couple of pence per kWh.
As BT Openreach is a monopoly to most consumers in the country they should be hived off from BT and nationalised like rail track, which would make then equal to other countries in the EC who are also government owned companies.
As BT Openreach is a monopoly to most consumers in the country they should be hived off from BT and nationalised like rail track, which would make then equal to other countries in the EC who are also government owned companies.
Which countries in the EU have state-owned telephony infrastructure, I'm not aware that any do?
Surely it should be part of the price of either having a phone or BB?
BT Openreach owns the line, and the ISP has to rent that line from BT so that they can use it to send you your broadband. They call it out as a separate charge for the same reason that airlines try and list the taxes separately from the fares, it's to show that the charge isn't part of their income but is a mandatory fee that gets paid to someone else.
Interesting thread, People who are with BT & have online billing why not pay up 12 months in advance Line Rental Saver that works out at about £10.75 a month that's better than nearly £15 a month isn't it.
I have not had a land line for years as I use three 3g , I phoned BT to ask about BT broadband and for a slower connection but perhaps more reliable ? It was much mere expensive with the line rental added .
Just wait till 4g rolls out over the UK -- I certainly wont be buying any BT shares !
switch to Virgin, no need for a phone line for the Internet. Which is great as ive been playin the BT landline / internet on someone else game for years an it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth as i never used the phone line besides the internet, was never a phone connected to it, was no need. Back onto virgin an bam the phone lines gone, just have internet.
switch to Virgin, no need for a phone line for the Internet. Which is great as ive been playin the BT landline / internet on someone else game for years an it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth as i never used the phone line besides the internet, was never a phone connected to it, was no need. Back onto virgin an bam the phone lines gone, just have internet.
So you dont pay line rental with your VM broadband but you do pay £22-£26 per month, you could easily match or better this with a line rental/broadband package(and also have a phone line ) and you think you are getting a better deal because you don't pay line rental....
I personally am getting a better deal from what I was getting paying before 16mb (theorectial) Internet with sky an line rental to 100mb (actual) line no line rental for less than what I was paying
Is that the "free" caller ID thing? The threshold is pathetically low, something like 5 chargeable (or inclusive) calls per month or something. They've done that for years.
No, it's across the board now as part of the terms and conditions of your line rental.
No its not, with your water rates you arent also paying a pipe rental are you.
My water company charges a significant amount as a standing charge - and that does not include any water consumed or sewerage discharged. Presumably some of this is used to pay for network maintenance.
My phone line rental includes calls to UK landlines and certain non-geographic numbers are certain times of the day, as well as paying to maintain the line.
Interesting thread, People who are with BT & have online billing why not pay up 12 months in advance Line Rental Saver that works out at about £10.75 a month that's better than nearly £15 a month isn't it.
You can do that with Talk Talk and Sky, but sky don't advertise it much. the problem here is that not everyone can afford to pay 12 months in advance.
The other problem is that people may want to separate their line rental from their broadband. I got line rental for around £11 from First telecom, without paying 12 months in advance, but if I wanted to get broadband from sky, Talk Talk or Bt, i would have to get line rental from them.
With Bt at least you used to be able to just get their broadband, Sky as well for a while.
the other thing is that even at £10 a month, if you don't use the phone service, it is still to expensive.
I have not had a land line for years as I use three 3g , I phoned BT to ask about BT broadband and for a slower connection but perhaps more reliable ? It was much mere expensive with the line rental added .
The problem with 3G is that it can work out more expensive and as you found out is not reliable. you try streaming on 3G for any amount of time and see how much you pay.
Just wait till 4g rolls out over the UK -- I certainly wont be buying any BT shares !
Again price is the problem, they will charge as much as they can and people will go for it because it is a bit faster. You only have to look at the prices that EE charge at the moment.
Reliability have also not been proved and from what I have heard it don't penetrate indoors as well as 3G.
I have not had a land line for years as I use three 3g , I phoned BT to ask about BT broadband and for a slower connection but perhaps more reliable ? It was much mere expensive with the line rental added .
Just wait till 4g rolls out over the UK -- I certainly wont be buying any BT shares !
I wouldn't say that. BT can do so much more with their all fibre or fibre/copper network than you'll ever be able to do with LTE.
There just isn't the spectrum to give everyone insanely high speeds all of the time. LTE isn't lightyears ahead of 3G (at least not yet) in terms of capacity.
LTE may have a place in providing faster rural broadband and where demand is fairly low (which BT, no less, has trialled in Cornwall) but I just can't see it being a replacement for BT or Virgin's networks in urban areas.
Some of us don't buy phone and broadband from the same company. I would rather the prices and choices reflected the price of the actual service (broadband) and not something you probably have anyway (a phone line).
But you can't get any broadband without it and so to state that Broadband costs £XXX is a con. As you can't get it for that cost.
It should clearly be stated (for example) "Our broadband costs £25 (£14.95 of that cost is for the line rental of your choice)"
No its not, with your water rates you arent also paying a pipe rental are you.
That's a good point. Can you imagine the outcry if people started getting water bills stating that it was £50 for the water you have used and £30 for using the pipes to get it to you.
That is THEIR problem.
And what a pathetic excuse it would be if they said "Oh well we sold all the pipes to someone else and so have to pay them so that is why you have to pay us!" That's is all the company's fault and problem. We should pay for what we get. Getting it to us is their problem.
I think I would prefer if the cost of the line was shared amongst the various providers and they included the cost in the price of broadband and or phone.
But you can't get any broadband without it and so to state that Broadband costs £XXX is a con. As you can't get it for that cost.
It should clearly be stated (for example) "Our broadband costs £25 (£14.95 of that cost is for the line rental of your choice)"
The broadband price really is £xxx and that is what you are paying for the broadband service. It may require a phone line but that is a separate service that happens to share the same cable.
But the line rental could cost anything from less than £10 to £25, no ISP could accurately tell me how much the total price would be.
I don't see what the problem is with separating the prices, I'm sure mental arithmetic or using a calculator is not beyond most people.
Well there you go; YOU "don't see what the problem is"
Others see it plainly for what it is: To get broadband you have to pay more than what they state for broadband and so you can't get it for the cost they are stating - Therefore a con!
Comments
With some ethical suppliers the price difference is only a couple of pence per kWh.
As BT Openreach is a monopoly to most consumers in the country they should be hived off from BT and nationalised like rail track, which would make then equal to other countries in the EC who are also government owned companies.
that is the main reason for line rental.
Just wait till 4g rolls out over the UK -- I certainly wont be buying any BT shares !
No its not, with your water rates you arent also paying a pipe rental are you.
So you dont pay line rental with your VM broadband but you do pay £22-£26 per month, you could easily match or better this with a line rental/broadband package(and also have a phone line ) and you think you are getting a better deal because you don't pay line rental....
My water company charges a significant amount as a standing charge - and that does not include any water consumed or sewerage discharged. Presumably some of this is used to pay for network maintenance.
My phone line rental includes calls to UK landlines and certain non-geographic numbers are certain times of the day, as well as paying to maintain the line.
You can do that with Talk Talk and Sky, but sky don't advertise it much. the problem here is that not everyone can afford to pay 12 months in advance.
The other problem is that people may want to separate their line rental from their broadband. I got line rental for around £11 from First telecom, without paying 12 months in advance, but if I wanted to get broadband from sky, Talk Talk or Bt, i would have to get line rental from them.
With Bt at least you used to be able to just get their broadband, Sky as well for a while.
the other thing is that even at £10 a month, if you don't use the phone service, it is still to expensive.
The problem with 3G is that it can work out more expensive and as you found out is not reliable. you try streaming on 3G for any amount of time and see how much you pay.
Again price is the problem, they will charge as much as they can and people will go for it because it is a bit faster. You only have to look at the prices that EE charge at the moment.
Reliability have also not been proved and from what I have heard it don't penetrate indoors as well as 3G.
I wouldn't say that. BT can do so much more with their all fibre or fibre/copper network than you'll ever be able to do with LTE.
There just isn't the spectrum to give everyone insanely high speeds all of the time. LTE isn't lightyears ahead of 3G (at least not yet) in terms of capacity.
LTE may have a place in providing faster rural broadband and where demand is fairly low (which BT, no less, has trialled in Cornwall) but I just can't see it being a replacement for BT or Virgin's networks in urban areas.
Then if you absolutely need and must have it to get their broadband (as you must) then advertising it without that cost included is a con.
I can not get Sky broadband for the stated £7.50.
But you can't get any broadband without it and so to state that Broadband costs £XXX is a con. As you can't get it for that cost.
It should clearly be stated (for example) "Our broadband costs £25 (£14.95 of that cost is for the line rental of your choice)"
That's a good point. Can you imagine the outcry if people started getting water bills stating that it was £50 for the water you have used and £30 for using the pipes to get it to you.
That is THEIR problem.
And what a pathetic excuse it would be if they said "Oh well we sold all the pipes to someone else and so have to pay them so that is why you have to pay us!" That's is all the company's fault and problem. We should pay for what we get. Getting it to us is their problem.
Same with broadband.
The broadband price really is £xxx and that is what you are paying for the broadband service. It may require a phone line but that is a separate service that happens to share the same cable.
But the line rental could cost anything from less than £10 to £25, no ISP could accurately tell me how much the total price would be.
I don't see what the problem is with separating the prices, I'm sure mental arithmetic or using a calculator is not beyond most people.
Others see it plainly for what it is: To get broadband you have to pay more than what they state for broadband and so you can't get it for the cost they are stating - Therefore a con!