Skip Navigation


Telephone line rental wholesale prices to increase
Friday 05 December 2008 09:21:02 by Andrew Ferguson

Apparently raising the price cap that limits how much Openreach can charge will increase the amount of competition in the market and allow Openreach the money to invest in delivering services.

The basic framework of price changes is laid out below:

Type of telephone line Current annual price cap Proprosed cap from 2009/2010
Fully unbundled line (MPF) £81.69 £85 to £91
Shared unbundled line (SMPF) £15.60 £15.60 to £16.20
Residential wholesale line (WLR) £100.68 £100.68 to £104.40
Business wholesale line £110 £106.00 to £110

Fortunately these prices are not set in stone just yet, there is a consultation period that will close on 20th February 2009 where interested parties can submit comments on the proprosal to Ofcom.

The price rises if they occur represent a rise from £8.39 (excluding VAT) a month to £8.70 a month for a telephone line from the many companies now able to provide billing for telephone line rental. The rise in rental for a shared LLU line, as used by Sky, O2 and others is fairly minimal, but TalkTalk may feel the squeeze with a possible rise of 76p per month and have no option but to pass on the price rise.

The basic idea for allowing Openreach to increase its pricing is to ensure Openreach has the funds to maintain the copper telephone network, and just maybe put some aside for future enhancements such as the fibre dream that many are doubting. If the price rises are used to simply prop up the BT share price, or make Openreach look more attractive for a sell-off the reaction will be very negative from many quarters.

Reuters has some comments from Openreach and Ofcom which reveal the price changes are likely to take effect from April 2009, and Ofcom seems to think that firms may absorb the price rises. We believe it unlikely in the current economic turmoil that retailers will accept a further reduction in profit levels, a lot will depend on what sort of income they receive from the chargeable calls in the telephone packages.

Comments

Posted by adslmax over 8 years ago
sick of tired and fed up with BT line rental kept payable to kept broadband on the line. I don't use phone calls at all. Should be ZERO line rental for broadband only.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
In which case look at the pricing of MPF - fully unbundled services. This means you only pay for broadband, and a provider could do a no voice option.
Posted by Spectre_01 over 8 years ago
The line rental isn't about what is actually put down the line, your paying to 'rent' the wires from the exchange to you, adsl and other services are put down that by your service provider. If you feel you are paying for services you don't want then take that up with your SP or move to someone who offers just the services you want. The wire pair still has to be paid for regardless of how it is used.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"allow Openreach the money to invest in delivering services"

LOL oh my sides, develop services LOL some parts of the UK still cant even have a 512k service bwahaha. I thought it was all said and done the BT organisation was going to milk government coffers for their next half baked, limited and throttled fibre idea anyway LOL
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
@CARPETBURN:You and me both, mate. It's always good to have a laugh on a Friday PM and that one was good. Stick a beard, red suit and a lot more wheight on me and I could do a good impersonation of Santa :D
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Carpet - And that's because instead of BT getting a proper USO, the government chose to listen to other firms whining and made them spent time and effort helping those other firms compete using their space. Gotta be reversed.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
You have to laugh or you would cry at some of the tripe BT spew in announcments nowadays. Ill stop being negative for a moment though and stick my head in the clouds.... Oh im sure they are going to "develop" things by huge amounts... Fred if you are reading theres hope your mountain may get ADSL yet. They are going to "maintain" the copper wires. Its nothing to do with trying to massage the share price and profits that have tumbled recently, only a cynic would think that ;) You would think one of Blairs ex spin goons work for them nowadays.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
the reason is the government doesnt care about quality of service (USO) they just want a competetive market filled up with companies making profits selling cheap services in other words they just care about the money been transferred about.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
And yet, Carpet, you're dependent on a copper line BT have laid to your house. And the exchange BT maintain.

I'd like to see them taken away from you.
Posted by c_j_ over 8 years ago
"You would think one of Blairs ex spin goons work for them nowadays. "

You wouldn't be thinking of Mr B Liar's former e-commerce minister Pat Hewitt, would you? She's now a non-exec director at BT, as well as a couple of other part time (worth ~£50K/year each) jobs. Nice, eh?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/patricia_hewitt/leicester_west#register
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"And yet, Carpet, you're dependent on a copper line BT have laid to your house. And the exchange BT maintain.

I'd like to see them taken away from you."

"MAINTAIN" you say, dont make me damn well laugh ive had 3 outtages inside 2 months. One of which my LLU ISP had to tell the wonderful BT about and instruct a BT engineer to get his backside out to the exchange to fix things not only i pay for but also my ISP has to pay BT... MAINTAIN you say... COBBLERS i say
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote" You wouldn't be thinking of Mr B Liar's former e-commerce minister Pat Hewitt, would you? She's now a non-exec director at BT, as well as a couple of other part time (worth ~£50K/year each) jobs. Nice, eh?"

Ah that explains BTs modern ability to spout CACK then
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Failures caused by LLU hardware BT has to look after rather than using a properly standardised set of hardware where they know the actual power specs, etc.

A pure waste of BT's time and cash.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"A pure waste of BT's time and cash. "
I suggest you recheck that remark as BT can and do bill LLU providers for emergency work. (Maybe some reading on ofcoms site for when you are bored).
In my instance the issue was not a fault with LLU equipment but BTs. Two of the Three outages i had were the fault of BT and their so called "maintained" equipment. One of the outtages was so severe a BT (YES BT CABLE) fibre cable was broke which basically resulted in a outtage to several LLU customers in areas of kent. Maintained network, please when i break wind it holds more truth.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Yes, at a set rate which covers only a fraction of their costs. And the fibre BT laid and owned and are forced to rent to the LLU companies for under the commercial market value.

Leeches, plain and simple.
Posted by c_j_ over 8 years ago
"Failures caused by LLU hardware BT has to look after"

?? I thought LLU kit in exchanges was provided and maintained by the LLU operator or their reps, and kept secure in its own cages where Openreach can't get at it?

Yes LLU is a waste of lots of folks' time and cash, given all the unnecessary duplication, in comparison with what the same money could have achieved with a competently regulated competent monopoly (eg a broadband universal service obligation). But we haven't had that option.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Right: My point is that giving BT a USO, and opening its network further to ISP's is more efficient. Just because we have some LLU ISP's isn't a good reason to not do it now.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Yes, at a set rate which covers only a fraction of their costs."

Errr no seriously go read ofcoms site to see what BT can charge a LLU provider for emergency work.

Quote"And the fibre BT laid and owned and are forced to rent to the LLU companies for under the commercial market value."

Errr was you not paying attention the cable concerned provided service to both LLU and some BT customers, it wasnt LLU equipment, Its BTs
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Leeches, plain and simple."

Yep thats right and im off to download another couple of terrabytes, cos i can and you cant.... Tough!!! Change the record, not my fault your service is slow, capped and limited poop

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
I can download, on a extremely fast connection (ethernet, not xDSL) anything I want. My concern for a home connection is reliability and ping/packet loss, not absolute speed.

Your constant need to promote your connection, which is based on an unsustainable BT-funded model is amusing but futile

More, again, the rates BT charge are not under their control and if they were alowed to charge market prices for access to their cables, not forced to rent them to LLU providers at an arbitrarily low set rate they might be able to afford better maintenance.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I can download, on a extremely fast connection (ethernet, not xDSL) anything I want. My concern for a home connection is reliability and ping/packet loss, not absolute speed."
So why are you babbling on about leeching?

quote"Your constant need to promote your connection, which is based on an unsustainable BT-funded model is amusing but futile"
Almost a double negative, if its so unsustainable how come the service is still here and i can still sing its praises???
Unsustainable, oh i see thats why many large communications companies in the UK provide LLU
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Because you're annoying Carpet. I decided to take action and take a stance on this because of you. I've said that before, too.

And it's working, sure, becuase it lets companys make profit at the expense of BT and of the infrastructure upgrades we'd otherwise see. LLU is holding us back, it's unsustainable on any other model than the selfish "gimmie".
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
wazzat? get the boys round?? or just bore us to death??
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Because you're annoying Carpet. I decided to take action and take a stance on this because of you."
Who would had thought i could affect someone so emotitionally with a few keyboard presses.
quote"And it's working, sure, becuase it lets companys make profit at the expense of BT"
Huh and thats a bad thing?? Oh i see you mean you just want BT and no other service to exist see they have a total monopoly.
quote"LLU is holding us back, it's unsustainable on any other model than the selfish "gimmie"."
Lucky you have slow speed and limits and dont have to worry than isnt it
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
It's *amusing* to bait you.

I want BT to have a USO and for its network to be entirely open to ISP's. Anyone should be free to build their own infrastructure, but they should have to build it themselves and not leech off others.

And sorry, I seem to have access to an ethernet internet connection. Is that...envy?
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
I got yer number mate... maybe all those pills they give you at the old folks home are skewing your reality...

"ethernet internet connection" ??? we ALL have one of those... except for those who still are using the USB version..
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
So you're saying everyone has a 100MBit PPPoE net connection? Um...

(Also, again, quit it with the defamation)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
ROFLMAO Yeah LLU providers they dont have their own equipment or infrastructure at all LOL Hold on let me guess, you want a million companies all to provide different broadband services and have wires dangling all over the UK like a spiders web. Or hold on lets have a million companies put the cables underground have constant roadworks and chaos, its not like we have enough of that already. Or finally we can all agree with you. Nobody else has their own TOTAL infrastructure cos BT are a monopoly and the government and the likes of ofcom are ball-less wonders.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
BT aren't a monopoly - C&W, Energis, Thus etc. have their own separate networks in the ground.
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
But the *cables* belong to BT... AFAIK only VM and a couple of others do not use them!
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
But the 'cables' have to belong to someone!
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
Don't VM have their own total infrastructure in the areas they cover?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"But the 'cables' have to belong to someone!"

And thus right there is the monopoly as everyone else has to beg to BT to use their cabling...... Unless off course you go back to my sarcastic suggestion that every company erects their own cabling and makes the UK look like a spiders web.

As to virgin, yes they do have their own infrastructure in areas... HOWEVER what happens in non cable tv areas??? Oh thats right they sell BT stream and use BT cabling.
Im sorry but anytime several organisations have to go cap in hand to another to use their equipment thats basically a monopoly
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
CB - what do you mean 'beg to BT'?

So what would you propose?
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
CB - please write grown up sentences we can all understand! Otherwaise you lose the argument.
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
Stop being a grammar fascist... most of us in UK can understand..

And no, a monopoly means you CANNOT use the cables or cabinets of the MAJOR supplier...

And ISPs must start using H2O as their backbone!
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
What's the difference between renting capacity from BT or H2O? LLU companies use BT cables with their own equipment on the end.

Is BT a monopoly in VM areas?

Can an ISP use the capacity of a supplier who covers half the properties in the country?

Expressions like 'cap in hand' and 'beg' demonstrate a lack of ability to communicate in a professsional way, that's all.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"What's the difference between renting capacity from BT or H2O? LLU companies use BT cables with their own equipment on the end."
My god the very notion they have to RENT from BT shows they have monopolised that area of the market.
quote"Is BT a monopoly in VM areas?"
Whats the ratio of people using BT to VM in those areas?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Ill put this simple.... You or i decide we want to start a broadband and phone service tomorrow, we are also mega rich and decide to use our own phone lines... Do the government say YES go ahead or NO go see BT? We would have to go RENT numerous things (cable, bandwidth etc etc) from BT even if we wanted to do it all ourself, thats a monopoly no matter how you look at it.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
So how else do you organise the telecomms in the country? Somebody has to own the infrastructure.

So CBnet (!) applies for a licence to dig up the roads like many other companies.

Don't VM have 50% or more in some areas?

Could CBnet use VM cables?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The point is some areas and government will NOT give you permission to dig roads or put up your own above ground phone cables... Thus to supply a service you have to beg to BT to "borrow" their wires and line their pockets.
Incindentally the current virgin cable system in this country was ORIGINALLY jointly owned... and not a single entity, of course thanks to modern government and virgin thats changed now.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
So it's not BT that stops you? Who was the original cable system jointly owned with? United Artists were one of the first companies.

There is no 'begging'. How else can you run it? Please explain.
Posted by 2doorsbob over 8 years ago
I can't see the price increase making any difference at all ,why would bt replace old ali line's with copper when they will have to fibre up eventually ,what they will do is make do and mend like they always have done
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Somerset if local councils and the government refuse to allow other organisations to lay their own cables then their only alternative is to rent from BT is it not?
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
If you have a licence then can the local council stop you?

See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/e_c_c/ -

Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
Electronic Communications Code
The Electronic Communications Code ('the Code') enables electronic communications network providers to construct electronic communications networks. The Code enables these providers to construct infrastructure on public land (streets), to take rights over private land, either with the agreement with the landowner or applying to the County Court or the Sheriff in Scotland. It also conveys certain immunities from the Town and Country Planning legislation in the form of Permitted Development.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
I think you will find despite that they can stop you, even someone like virgin media in the past have had issues getting local authorities to allow them to dig up streets to lay their cables.

I dont for a second belief you can claim to be a telecoms provider and do basically as you please.

Mobile phone and net operators as just one example would shove masts anywhere they pleased, and we all know they cant.
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
"why would bt replace old ali line's with copper when they will have to fibre up eventually"
Well lets go back about 20 years, when everyone thought 'fibre is the future' .. It was heavily discussed, on what was then the ADSLGUIDE forum.. if the archive stretches back that long... Yes, a lot of new housing estates were putting in fibre, BUT for some reason (hey tell me if you know!!) it was actually found to be 'incompatible' or something... so they actually started ripping out fibre,and putting in wire! and note this was 20 years ago, no recession, no real competition...
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
LOL ... No, its not BT or even ofcom that stops you 'just digging up' paths and roads, or building equipment on top of them..... ( CB, you need more research...)

It is a 'small' thing called the highways act! ( http://www.glowingcoast.co.uk/rightsofway/law/ha1980/ ) - If you just start digging, you will get the attention of the police, who will then take you for various offences like
destroying public property,
disrupting right of way,
endangering the public,
doing roadworks without a license,
utilities suing you for possible disruption..
- and thats just the start.....
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
If you want to start your own ISP, and NOT use anyone elses lines, start here..
http://www.richardmax.co.uk/specialist/handb.htm

I hope you are at least a trillionaire, you will need it to pay the solicitors, lawyers, etc. JUST to 'make a case' to the council of the area you will be digging...

You will of course have to have lots of time to make up detailed drawings showing exactly what you will be doing - you are a fully trained architect??

Months later, after a few failed submissions, and the usual council forgetfulness and idiocy, you may even get it passed...
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
Now you only need to apply to ALL the utility companies, and go though the *same* process!

BUT this time you will have to get a comprehensive 'site survey' to check for anything that the utility companies have forgotten.. and note that any 'dig' involves many diff. 'offices' - the paving one, the 'under the pavement' one, and more..

eeeehh... has anyone given up yet, and seen the main problem?????????
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
There are 150 companies registered with Ofcom under the code.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
Mobile phones can almost put masts where they like without going through the normal planning process.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
edit - Mobile phone companies can put masts almost anywhere they like without going through the normal planning process.
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
ALMOST - that is why they are not 'in your face'...

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/genpub/en/1115315371882.html
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
- and MPs are thinking of updating the act to include them..
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Errr comnut that was my point to somerset, the very fact you cant do as you please and that permission is often denied.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
CB - so what would you like to be able to do?
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
um yeah I was answering the rant about mobile masts...

goodbye to another 'gone off topic' one...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"CB - so what would you like to be able to do?"

Personally i think if a private company like BT basically has free reign and is able to hold ALMOST anyone that wants to provide internet services to people to finacial demand the group needs to be broken up more, id like to see some of the BT empire back in public hands cos privately they dont appear to serve or help anyone except share holders, when you consider communication is a necessity in this day and age their grip they have is insane.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Ive mentioned it before the small estate i have a small business on the internet services are shockingly bad, several businesses clubbed together and want SEVERAL lease lines..... BT said NO (maybe our money smelled funny) When we found another company that could do the job, BT complained to the local authority and they refused permission for the work to be done, leaving us all with BTs 2Mb down 256k up pile of (BLEEP BLEEP)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Horrid vile company that do things only they want to do, even if you are willing to pay for the work...... No wonder they are grovelling to government to get cash for fibre... One of the nastiest most dishonest fob you off businesses ive ever came accross. The sooner they fail and the sooner people like H20 and LLU companies can supply basically all the UK the better (no doubt BT will whinge for more government bail out money when that occurs). Scumbags!
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
yep they should have been split up - it is so big and slow, it even missed a big contract!
there are too many divisions that do not communicate with each other - 7 years ago I had a student who actually worked for them, so I asked about the problems of getting a service - he said it was simpler to cancel the sign up, and start again!! - bureaucracy at its stupidest!

Only 2 years ago, they did not even worry about losing a potential customer(and this was after I had got though hours of CS promises!) So I think BT should look at its demoralized staff, for the real reason of its decline...
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
CB - re 'the small estate'. I seem to remember this and you are may not telling the whole story. What did Ofcom say about it as they make the rules?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Ofcom like a spineless jelly fish agreed with the local authority who BT complained to and said no. BT just didnt want the job cos they are lazy gits and the work involved would had been hard and messy work as the place is built on an old chalk pit. This has been mixed with water based solution and a type of concreate (dont ask me the tiny details im not an engineer) see things dont subside.....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Obviously hard graft to dig it up and BT obviously lazy gits, even though nearly a dozen businesses were all willing to chip in and pay the MANY thousands the work would had cost. Further more we couldnt have the fibre service from another company we found as BT said they would no longer support the telephone system on the estate if other companies wires were also put in place, something the estate owner obviously was not happy to allows... So overall BT WONT DO THE WORK, BT DONT WANT ANYONE ELSE TO DO THE WORK..... CONCLUSION..... SCUM!!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The upside..... WIFI services are coming to the estate towards mid 2009..... BT and their dog slow upto 8Mb cack that goes at 4Mb can then finally **** right OFF! Allowing us all to enjoy 14Mb both up and down (depends what you are willing to pay) services.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
What product were you asking BT to install?
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
'Obviously hard graft to dig it up and BT obviously lazy gits,'

I'm surprised any company wants to deal with you...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I'm surprised any company wants to deal with you... "
Considering they were not dealing with me i fail to see how that enters the equation, i was simply one of the many businesses willing to pay for the service.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
As to what product it was, i dont know or care what BT call or called the product (name has probably changed seeing as it was a fair while ago, i can find out what BT call it nowadays if theres a point or reason why). All i know is it would had been a dedicated LAN solution for the estate running at 1000Mbps even when they said it would be difficult to do and installation may cost more than the quote, we were all still happy to pay. Then they changed their minds and said they couldnt do the job... Straight after the site survey and being told it would be a long hard job... Funny that eh?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
So you mean they had to obtain planning permission, and due to the pit and the likely multi-million pound works involved it was refused by the local council. Right. And when the other company tried to get planning permission, the Council refered them to BT's refusal for the same works.

Look at the council, not BT.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Er permission was granted, the estate is private and would not had even needed access to a public road.

A Site survey was carried out to confirm time, costs etc etc involved.

BT after seeing the time and mountain of work turned their nose up stuck their tail between legs and legged it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Another company was more than happy to do the work, BT then complained to the local authority........ That didnt work, so then they said to the estate owner if he allowed other companies telcoms on the estate they would not support the BT EQUIPMENT already there. WTF!!! The estate would of had to scrap the BT systems in place also and replace them also, something the estate owner did not want to do.

As i stated originally...
So overall BT WONT DO THE WORK, BT DONT WANT ANYONE ELSE TO DO THE WORK..... CONCLUSION..... SCUM!!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The local authority only refused to allow the BT system to be scrapped, BT claimed only they should be allowed to touch that equipment...... and fairly so...... HOWEVER if they aint gonna support it and tell you, it will have to also be replaced as they wont support it in any manner how the BLEEP are you supposed to get it removed in the first place huh??????
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
BT deliberately and obviously kicked up a stink that led to a catch22 situation as suddenly they were going to lose upto 2000 customers broadband business on the estate.
They are LAZY SCUM BAGS nothing more, they dont want to improve peoples services even when you are willing to pay them to do the work, as soon as someone else comes along though they beehatch and whine its not fair they may lose profit.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
I'm not convinced you know the full story, even if you do you can't write in sensible words.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
If it's a private estate why are the local authority involved?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"If it's a private estate why are the local authority involved?"

Ever heard of planning permission? Nope didnt think so
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
Do you have the planning application number?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Do you have the planning application number?"

I can get it for you from the Estate owner if you wish... weather there are still local authority records of it after more than a few years is another matter.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.