Do you get value for money from your line rental?

Ofcom have indeed said that from October 2018 caller display must be free !

So we have to wait another year, time companies and business grops were banned from lobbying govts and regulators.

BT and other telecom companies would already have the ability to change the price of caller display instantly, so they have no excuse for not setting the price to £0.00 now.

But you can bet your life they will keep charging us for it until October 2018.

i agree , and a price reduction is long over due

My mobile costs £15.40 a month including 5GB data, which I use mainly for tethering to a laptop when away from home. I bought the phone separately. I’m restricted to which network I use because of signal coverage. I might be able to get a better deal with one of the MVNOs (they use the main mobile networks) but I had no luck finding one that used the network I needed + 4G + sufficient data + allowed tethering.

If you are happy whit what you have I have no more to say thanks wavechange Happy people should have no need to moan or complain I comment but rarely complain unless I am not happy with something then I do

Do they not have a phone number allocated when they rent a landline? If so, they could make and receive calls at any time and, even if they do not, the equipment is still available to them at the exchange. I suppose this all stems from an evolutionary process – first was a phone line and instrument, then dial up broadband, then proper broadband, all alongside the growth in mobile phone use.

I’m for a restructuring of charges that reflect the equipment you need (so a fixed charge) and the use you then make of it – either metered calls and broadband or a package price. As long as we realise it can never be completely “fair” to everyone, no more than your council tax, income tax, national insurance are for example – people will make more use than others of what they fund.

I’m no expert but I’m sure that the phone function can be disabled at the exchange if not required. As you say, charges should be fair to both the consumer and provider, but there many people who make all their calls on a mobile nowadays. These include many young people and practically all students.

I’m happy to pay for a landline but in the early Conversations it was frequently pointed out that consumers were being asked to pay for a landline that would not be used for phone calls. You are absolutely right about the historical basis of phone lines, where the ability to provide internet access became an added use of phone lines.

Malcolm – BT , like other ISP,s have integrated the line rental into the bundle charges , it is not separate now. A telephone line is provided with a number and you pay for the upkeep of that line otherwise no broadband ,this includes exchange equipment . If you want line only then go to Virgin Media cable company they do it .

I thought so duncan. I believe it was a big mistake when Ofcom required the line rental to be bundled up with the application(s), whether phone, b/b or tv. I like to see what makes up a cost and line rental highlighted that particular component.

You need a land line for broadband connection but if you don’t use your phone unplug it (simple to do )then it will not ring you pay for a land line but calls are usually extra Keep the phone it then can be plugged in for emergency use when needed

Wavechange said that in earlier Conversations “it was frequently pointed out that consumers were being asked to pay for a landline that would not be used for phone calls”. Our house is full of things that are rarely used – what is so special about telephone calls? Obviously the fact that you have to pay for it every time you do use it but most calling plans allow for many calls without charge or they are inclusive tariffs. Choosing not to use the installed landline is a personal choice. surely? Personally I cannot see the sense in having a landline for broadband and not using it for telecoms. .

How can using a mobile phone in the house be more convenient or comfortable than using a telephone? I make and receive two or three phone calls a day in the house, most of them are landline-based at both ends and seem to be better calling or receiving experiences. The availability of excellent portable phones with a landline base-station enables people to wander about and twirl to their heart’s content and still enjoy superior reception and transmission. The people who usually call from their mobiles seem to be continually distracted and trying to do something else as they talk which can spoil a conversation. It is not unknown for me to terminate such calls in mid flow.

There are many factors that have led to the growing popularity of mobile phones and there are a significant number who never make or receive landline calls. In earlier Conversations, some pointed out that it was unfair that they should be expected to pay for a service they don’t use. I agree. Obviously the phone line itself is common to most landline and broadband services but the telephone exchange equipment and staff need not be funded by those who don’t use a landline phone, in the same way that those who don’t use broadband are not expected to contribute to the equipment needed for broadband services.

Many of the numbers in my phone are mobile numbers rather than landlines. These include people in the county council and other organisations. If I was to call mobile numbers from my landline it would be expensive, whereas my mobile tariff includes calls to landlines and mobiles. I’m happy to pay for the landline and prefer to receive calls on it because I have not got into the habit of carrying the mobile phone in my pocket.

When staying with friends and family I have noticed that the teenagers never use the landline to make calls and their friends call their mobile number.

Given that telephone exchanges are digital with minimal apparatus , most of the cost of enabling people to make and receive calls by landline is in the network rather than the exchange. There are additional costs in providing a broadband service , especially where fibre is involved. I think it makes sense to charge for each service separately so that those who do not use a landline phone can be disconnected at the exchange rather than just leave the line dormant but still capable of being used to receive and make calls.

Having managed a few months ago for a few weeks without a mobile phone I have got out of the habit and forget that I have one. I believe I am saving a lot by just keeping the PAYG facility open on a minimal basis. People who live on their mobile phones also complain about the shortage of money.

It would be interesting to know the costs exclusive to phone and broadband services and those (such as the wiring itself) that are used by both.

I suspect you are not calling many mobile numbers, John, otherwise if might be expensive. I have deleted mobile numbers from my landline phone handsets because calls were expensive, whereas these were inclusive calls from my mobile.

The capital and operating costs of all the equipment needs to be recovered somehow. If someone elects not to use their connection for phone calls and consequently expects not to pay for the proportion of cost involved, the broadband prices will increase to restore the lost revenue. That does not seem unfair to me.

Unlimited tariffs, rather than metering, gives a guaranteed income for the provider and peace of mind for the user. It is not only heavy users that slow down broadband, is it, but multiple users? I seem to remember being told that when the Americans woke up, the service slowed noticeably. I do see entertainment as an exceptionally heavy user and, since it is provided generally for a substantial subscription, part of that should, perhaps, be a national “tax” to help fund the necessary infrastructure.