Skip Navigation


BT to raise call and line rental prices from October
Monday 19 July 2010 10:50:38 by John Hunt

BT will increase call charges by 10% and raise line rental costs by 50p a month starting in October. The change will increase line rental charges to £13.29 or £12.04 a month if you opt for paperless billing. Daytime calls will increase from 5.9p a minute to 6.4p and call connection charges will increase from 9.9p to 10.9p. BT customers are expected to receive a letter about the changes later this week. You can avoid paying the increased price this year by paying for a year's rental up front which works out cheaper, but for some, this won't be a viable option.

The increase is thought to be designed to push people toward calling packages where they get free calls bundled with their phone line rental. Around half of BT's 12.5 million landline customers currently take one of these options which can give you free calls from £4.99 a month.

"Like many businesses, we have to review our prices as we seek to cover costs and emerge from recession in good shape. BT's tries to protect its customers from high prices; it has been a key mover in Terminate the Rate, the campaign to get the cost of calling mobiles lowered."

BT Spokesperson talking to The Telegraph

Other operators such as TalkTalk, O2 and Sky who offer phone lines will be quick to point out that they can offer the service cheaper, but they will likely also increase their prices further down the line to remain similarly priced to BT. One interesting question is would BT have raised their prices by 50p if Labour's proposed plans for the 50p tax on phone lines had gone ahead? Perhaps this is BT taking the initiative to implement the plan anyway to create more money for investing privately in next-generation broadband.

Comments

Posted by normcall over 6 years ago
I still haven't worked out how they get away with a 'payment fee' which is actually a monthly fee no matter how often you pay them.
As for Direct Debit, when these companies allow me the same privilege of taking money out of their bank account (only fair after all)if they own me money, then I might trust the system.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Why would you not trust DD?

I can understand it not being an option if you don't have a bank account or on a low income and need payment flexibility but trust is a silly excuse.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-directdebit-guarantee.htm
Posted by michaeleaton over 6 years ago
Does this equate to a change of terms and conditions? i.e can i use this as an excuse to leave BT? :)
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@michaeleaton - likely will, but only PSTN not broadband.
Posted by normcall over 6 years ago
I'm glad you read the publicity on DD. It says in case of an error YOUR bank will make an immediate refund.
Believe me, I have had it happen twice and it don't work!!
The first one I had to send the agreement to Nat West Head office and it was only then (a few days later) they agreed I was right. I then rang every other bank in the town and only one said they would immediately refund and sort out afterwards. All the others just said get onto the originator - which ain't the agreement, is it?
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
When did BT ever do anything to improve service, UNLESS THEY WERE FORCED TO, other than increase prices. or keep on sending me invites to come back to them. I wont go back EVEN to get away from TalkTalk, {out of contract for two years}. Was it not the Lord someone, who delayed the implementation of broadband in the uk by two to three years Big Big Salary, and even BIGGER PENSION,
Posted by rowanmoor over 6 years ago
@normcall - you know which bank to change to then, don't you...
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@discussdiscus - are BT being 'FORCED TO' spend £2.5 billion of there own money on rolling our fttc/h?
Posted by GeorgeLloyd over 6 years ago
If BT want to save money, train their engineers properly so it does not take ten engineers to fix a fault due to lack of training.
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
Of WHO'S MONEY
Posted by pje1979 over 6 years ago
@GeorgeLloyd I agree with that. They've had the pavement up outside my house 3 times in the last 2 months. Touch wood it's finally sorted. Must have cost them a fortune.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@discussdiscus - BT are a private company, they are spending the profits of their worldwide business.

Its their money, not yours, not mine, not the tax payers.

Also, I suggest you check your keyboard, there seems to be a fault with your shift/capslock key.
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
Next you will be telling me that OPENREACH is not part of BT {Following the Telecommunications Strategic Review (TSR), in September 2005 BT signed legally-binding Undertakings with Ofcom to help create a better regulatory framework for BT and the UK telecoms industry generally. Openreach opened for business in January 2006 and reports directly into the BT chief executive. It is responsible for managing the UK access network on behalf of the telecommunications industry.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@discussdiscus - Great, you can copy Wiki.

Of course Openreach is part of BT, can you please advise where I denied this or hinted that this was the case?

Can you confirm that BT are not spending there own worldwide profits on the UK infrastructure? Or has there been some deal where they got £2.5 Billion of the taxpayers money that I am not aware of?

Also, any proof that BT were forced to make these upgrades?

And, can you find another single company in the UK who are spending this much of their own money doing this sort of work?
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
I wonder if you know the history Of how BT came about? I think you should look it up.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"give you free calls from £4.99 a month"

*inclusive* calls, surely ?
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
addto that BT's rolling contracts and exit fees
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@discussdiscus - I am quite aware of how they came about.

You seem to be under the illusion that they are still state owned, the GPO finished quite a few years ago...

My questions still stand:

Also, any proof that BT were forced to make these upgrades?

And, can you find another single company in the UK who are spending this much of their own money doing this sort of work?
Posted by whatever2 over 6 years ago
@ TaRkADaHl

"Also, I suggest you check your keyboard, there seems to be a fault with your shift/capslock key."

Seems to be catching.

Posted by jrawle over 6 years ago
At least BT are still required to allow indirect access to other services. I recommend BT customers register with 18185 or similar to make daytime calls for 5p/call (remember "daytime" ends at 7pm now with BT). Unless you make 100 daytime calls per month, it's not worth paying £4.99.
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
Just a few things to add. The Lord was the Boss of BT. I am under no illusion as to the ownership of BT and how it came about. That is why I asked if you Knew the History. It STANK then, and it stinks now. You sell a monopoly, and let it fleece its users, and despite the years it is still a near monopoly that is doing it today.
Posted by discussdiscus over 6 years ago
As to being forced to. Yes, To catch up with the rest of the world, for one. Openreach was formed so that it could independently be used to allow others to use the network! Like hell it was, Openreach has to make a profit yes? Who do they report to? Where are the profit going.I can go on and on, but life is to short.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@discussdiscus - so who were Openreach to be sold onto? Should they have been a seperate company?

Should they have been split up into regions?

Should they be government owned?

In regards to them being a monopoly, what is stopping you starting your own infrastructure?

I can name dozens of companies who have their own and run them fine.

BT are in a difficult position right now with keeping up with the rest of the world, can you name a country which currently has a giant FTTP infrastructure which didn't receive gov funding? I can't think of any which have done it all private.
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
I could have sworn BT came into existance as it is now when it was bought from the government by investors, i.e. pension funds, joe public and a variety of institutions. At that point it became a private company that has a USO for telephony, somehow a wide variety of people somehow believe that this means that they should run broadband out to unprofitable at a loss or to less profitable areas first, and adopt generally suicidal business plans (ala NTL and Telewest).
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@themanstan - I'm loving the idea of 'final third first'...

Lets roll out a product to the smallest amount of people possible who will have the highest installation costs and the lowest profit margins... thats an ideal situation for a business to be in.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Ah the dreaded 50p figure raises its head again, I guess BT really do want our 50p's no matter what.
@ TaRkADaHl You keep mentioning £2.5 billion. Its debateable whether BT will actually spend the amounts they are claiming, can you back up the claim you have made in every post with financial cost calculated figures, rather than reported random BT ones?
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
@discussdiscus you ask where are openreach profits going?

to the BT group, which is investing £2.5billion into fttc/fttp
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@CARPETBURN - Can you prove that they won't spend this?

BT has announced this is what they are spending, short of being one of the high up execs there is no way to know for sure until they provide end of year reports.

All you have is some random guy who took a small scale roll-out and multiplied the average cost per premises against the number or premises in the UK. This was nothing more than stupid guess based on stupid numbers which have no actual basis in reality.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
If anyone wonders what article I am referring to (which I imagine all of CARPETBURNS information has come from):

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/07/08/is-fibre-broadband-as-expensive-as-bt-makes-out/
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CARPETBURN - Can you prove that they won't spend this?"
Im not the one continually stating the will so that was a very random question.

quote"BT has announced this is what they are spending"
Actually thats your first mistake..... It is an ESTIMATE. An over the top estimate according to many, including finacial case studies.

quote"All you have is some random guy who took a ....."
Im not refering to the now well posted PCpro link.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Incadse you were wondering......
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Documentation/ITU-NGN09.pdf

Take a look at what some other countries are spending (obviously you will need to convert Euros to Pounds)... BTs £2.5 billion for the UK (a much smaller area and population than some there) suddenly seems a bit high LOL

So evidence please that £2.5 billion is accurate, and not BT fantasy land figures.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
And actually isnt it spose to cost more than £2.5billion....... Wasnt that £2.5billion just the bit BT said they would invest and wanted more?? They are having a tin bath son!
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
I can't see how their estimate is that off the mark! South Korea's roll-out is going to be $25B. They have one of higherst population densities in the world, which makes things a lot cheaper, apart from the fact it's cheaper overall from a cost of living perspective. So £30B for FTTH the UK and E30B for Germany, seems all par for the course.
Posted by chrysalis over 6 years ago
it seems now days landlines are poor value compared to mobiles. I pay 02 now £15 month for 800 mobile minutes and unlimited landline calls 24/7. No connection fee rubbish on each call and I can use it outside of my house.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Different countries, with different population density and also completely different tax, employement rates, existing infrastructure, weather, and everything else!

For UK, BT states 15 Bill (£).
For France, 10.4-11.3 Bill (€).

Both countries have very different layouts, and there original infrastructure was laid very differently, as so much overhaul is required here it will cost more.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
US - 23 Bill ($) just to do 18 million homes...

And much of what they are doing has a stupidly high population density!
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
and:

quote"@CARPETBURN - Can you prove that they won't spend this?"
Im not the one continually stating the will so that was a very random question.

How is it random?

You can't guarantee what they will spend, and neither can I. I can confirm what they claim to be spending, no-one can confirm that its all BS.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Interesting CB that you refer elsewhre to BT's FTTC product as FTTN while the ITU document you mention there refers to it as FTTC.

Fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) - Deployment of fibre to a street cabinet and provision of broadband based on VDSL/VDSL2 over copper loops from the street cabinet to end-user premises.
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
FTTC and FTTN are both the same and not the same... it's all down to distance. So some people may be FTTN and others FTTC depending on how far they are from the cab. In my area everyone would be FTTC, but in other areas of Oxford they'll will be both FTTN and FTTC off the same cab. BT is calling it FTTC for simplicity, others are being disingenuous by calling it FTTN.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Indeedy. It will be FTTC in my case, being less than 50m away as the crow flies and 75m or so by cable route.
Posted by 21again over 6 years ago
Perhaps some of the increases are to help subsidise their new Vision thing plus the fact they have Sky Sports priced like a loss leader :-P
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"I can use it outside of my house."

but not inside it. LOL
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Been out all day so this is my first look at the comments, before I clicked I imagined how the comments would read, sure enough just as I thought. :)

Well the gov wanted the industry to sort out a way to keep next gen broadband rolling out, maybe this is it... price hike.
Posted by davolente over 6 years ago
I was a "Post Office Telephones" engineer, (note the terminology) when it was a government department and before it was sold off to money-hungry and mercenary shareholders. Putting it bluntly, the present BT stinks. They don't give a hoot about fault-finding, 'koz that don't make 'em de lovely loot. All they want is new customers. I have experienced some of their new-found inefficiency first-hand when I moved house approx. 600 yards down a country lane. Easy? Not on your life! Complete and utter cock-up.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
davolente - was that when there was a 'waiting list' for a new line and you couldn't buy a phone in a shop? And it took 20s to connect a call.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Rose tinted glasses spring to mind.....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Interesting CB that you refer elsewhre to BT's FTTC product as FTTN while the ITU document you mention there refers to it as FTTC."

They call it whatever the company concerned reported they are calling the product and costs..... They are just basically quoting what other companies all over the world have stated. BT call their FTTN service FTTC which obviously it isnt in reality but thats what they like to call it so thats how its listed there.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
For a service to be FTTC the copper length has to be below a specific length, with regards to BTs product in many cases it doesnt meet those specifications, therefore the product is not true FTTC. Its pretty simple!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
The link i provided clearly shows what a mess Fibre is in for the UK. Vast over estimates on what it will cost a dilly-dallying regulator and so much more. There are countrys listed in that link that have higher and similar populations which are not as dense as the UK (you can check each countrys population and density on wiki) who have made far more progress than we have... No matter how TaRkADaHl attempts to spin it in multi replys ;)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"For a service to be FTTC the copper length has to be below a specific length" According to the US definition that is....
Posted by Brazil over 6 years ago
Normcall: With you ref DD's. Not worth the paper they're written on. Had same prob with two major high street banks. Cost me 2 days annual hol off work to sort it personally. DD's ?? NEVER again.
Posted by rowanmoor over 6 years ago
OK, to balance the DD arguement, here is my experience.

A number of years ago I had a DD for a regular amount. It came to the last payment and they took a few pounds more that I had been told they would. Phoned the bank, said that my paperwork said £x and they took £y. Bank said the money is back in your account which it was by the time I put the phone down.
Posted by rowanmoor over 6 years ago
The company contacted me saying the payment bounced and I said yes - they called for the wrong amount. They said they always call for a different amount for the last payment, but they don't know what it is till they call for it so they don't tell you. I said that wasn't allowed and I wasn't having it and they agreed. We agreed an amount they could take (which did not include any penalty for late payment etc) on a date I was happy with and they ended up probably having spent more in admin than the years worth of payment.
Posted by rowanmoor over 6 years ago
In total it took me 2 phone calls totalling about 5 minutes to sort out.
Posted by chrysalis over 6 years ago
herdwick of course I can use it inside the house. strange sense of humour you have.
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
Openreach's fibre product is called fibre to the cabinet, so Fttc.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Possibly because the fibre goes to .... the cabinet.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@CB -

Vast over estimates on what it will cost a dilly-dallying regulator and so much more. - Evidence there are over estimates?

There are countrys listed in that link that have higher and similar populations which are not as dense as the UK (you can check each countrys population and density on wiki) - I have as much faith in Wiki as I do in you to run the UK's infrastructure

who have made far more progress than we have - With government funding for the most part... which we don't have.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote""For a service to be FTTC the copper length has to be below a specific length" According to the US definition that is...."

Nope there has always been a difference between FTTN and FTTC not my fault you dont know the difference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTTC

Page kindly edited put together by people from all over the entire WORLD not just the USA.... I guess the 500+ contributions to that page by hundreds of people makes them all wrong in a BT supporters eyes also.... Hohum, keep defending BT FTTN though, its funny!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB -

Vast over estimates on what it will cost a dilly-dallying regulator and so much more. - Evidence there are over estimates?

There are countrys listed in that link that have higher and similar populations which are not as dense as the UK (you can check each countrys population and density on wiki) - I have as much faith in Wiki as I do in you to run the UK's infrastructure"

You can get the same population density figures from EUROPA if you wish, which is a portal site of the European Union... Would they be more accurate (even though they are the same) for you LMAO
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Im sorry but BT fanboys please. Is that your best... Argue BT is right and the rest of the entire information on the internet is wrong LOL dont give up your day jobs.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Sorry CB I put more credence in the variety of publications from experts on http://www.itu.int and indeed their standardisations.

Your Wikipedia page actually says in its' body...

'Fiber to the node (FTTN), also called fiber to the neighborhood or fiber to the cabinet (FTTCab)'

FTTN is only used in the US, everywhere else it's FTTCab, obviously UK use the word 'kerb' so FTTC refers to Cabinet with no ambiguity.

https://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com15/ant/85893_ww9.doc

etc.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
The 300m thing was picked out of someone's backside to be honest, a search for 300 metres on the ITU website draws a big fat blank in terms of FTTC/N definitions. The ITU make these definitions, it's their call, not Wikipedia based on a single article on Lightwave.

Of note also is that a number of countries run fibre over poles, which is obviously cheaper. We can't do this in the UK at the moment.

In any event if it's so inexpensive I'm sure other companies will be queuing up to deploy fibre to UK homes if the business case makes so much sense.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Yep - the 300m thing is based on one comment published in Lightwave, from the director of marketing of www.entrisphere.com - the ITU have never made any such distinction.

FTTN *is* Fibre To The Cabinet, there is no difference between them they are the same thing.

The only confusion arises because BT refer to it as FTTC, while ITU refer to it as FTTCab.

Per my previous note however this is fine in the UK as we refer to those things that separate pavements and roads as 'Kerbs' not 'Curbs', so USA's FTTC would be FTTK here.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Uh oh... its fact(ITU) vs fiction(Wikipedia), time to move the goalposts I fear :)
Posted by Essex over 6 years ago
I have heard and seen everything BT over the years. Again ripping off pensioners, low incomes and those who do not want, do not need and cannot get of suitable quality even if they wanted to.

I have 3 lines only 1 left on BT. Well good bye BT I am going where I get better service, far cheaper rental, and free calls thrown in. and this is my fax line..

There is no need for 75% of home and business to stay with BT. Look a round there are some fantastic options by many providers who give massive savings on this old dying Dinosaur.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
So BT target pensioners now? Why can't they move to another provide?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@CB -

"You can get the same population density figures from EUROPA"

So? Doesn't mean anything. Density isn't everthing, you have to think of existing infrastructure, location, space between these groups of people, how much it costs to upgrade the backbone, their workers may be paid less, they may have different tax.

There are millions of different things which can effect cost, even the damn weather can.

So again, do you have any actual hard and fast proof that the figures quoted are gross over estimates as you continually state?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
All I have stated is that BT have quoted this estimate, I am not saying it is correct, I am sdaying that they quoted this.

You on the other hand are saying it is all BS and cannot provide any actual proof to back up what you are saying.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB -

"You can get the same population density figures from EUROPA"

So? Doesn't mean anything......."

Obviously it is or your prior defence wouldnt of been the typical BT defender reply of not trusting what wikipedia says...... Now suddenly population density doesnt matter even though that was part of the arguement..... LMAO try harder.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Uh oh... its fact(ITU) vs fiction(Wikipedia), time to move the goalposts I fear :)"

Another BT defending dribbler that doesnt believe wikipedia is correct dispite the populations figures matching what the European Union also say....... Classic.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@CB - Again, do you have any evidence that the figures are all BS?

Density figures are only 1 tiny part in trying at ascertain cost of rolling out fibre to an entire country.

Or are you going to just sit there and say that I am moving the goal posts again?

Why not provide proof for the statement you have made!
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
I said:

"BT has announced this is what they are spending, short of being one of the high up execs there is no way to know for sure until they provide end of year reports."

You said:

"Actually thats your first mistake..... It is an ESTIMATE. An over the top estimate according to many, including finacial case studies."

Mine can be backed up, you havent done anything to back up what you have said, not once, you have just given a document showing what each country around the world estimates and shouted 'but look at the population density'.

Waah waah waah.

Evidence plz k thx ok?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BT claim they are going to spend 2.5 billion (which is also the figure you have used). There are other countries in the link i gave that have similar population numbers but lower population density (IE they are more spread out over the land mass) CONT...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Yet in SOME of those countries they are going to roll out the same type or better service as BT for less. If you have the same population and a larger land mass and people spread out more over that land mass its not going to cost less to hook everyone (or near everyone) up its going to cost more, yet the estimates in more than a single case are less than BTs.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
You could argue they have under estimated the cost, but if thats the case more than a single country has under estimated. So IMO its BT who have over estimated. This can not be proved either way, which is what i tried to tell you originally because its only an estimate and not a true figure. BT are not going to spend 2.5 billion its an estimate, its entirely possible they could spend more but other countries estimates point to it more than likely being less. UNLESS someone is going to claim other big telecom firms in Europe have got it all wrong and its only BT that can be right?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
But there are other countries which are going to spend more to do smaller areas and less users, its all just an estimate, a best guess.

But as I have stated all along, you don't have any figures, neither do I.

Don't forget, everything will affect the final cost, some things are just cheaper in other countries, such as labour costs, tax and delivery methods.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
I believe BT probably are over estimating the final costs for the whole country, and many other countries have severely under estimated what it will cost them.

But in the end, isn't it better if it turns out to be chepaer than expected rather than run out of cash when only half the country is done?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I believe BT probably are over estimating the final costs for the whole country, and many other countries have severely under estimated what it will cost them."

Id agree with that, something between the lowest estimates for a country of similar population and the highest estimate is more than likely, looking at it all and the various figures i suspect (Yep just a guess) it will cost BT about half what they have estimated and some others double. I dont think the lowest estimates will be right or BTs which is ONE OF the highest :D (phew what a mouthful)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"But in the end, isn't it better if it turns out to be chepaer than expected rather than run out of cash when only half the country is done?"
Oh absolutely... As long as BT spend what they have pledged, before they ask for funding to finish things off, if they spend what the have promised and then need additional funds i think its fair to consider it.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
1. More competition gets introduced.
2. BT customers leave.
3. BT increase prices.
4. More BT customers leave.
5. Goto 1
Posted by paulgeaf over 6 years ago
CARPETBURN your logic and grammar hehe haha lol etc.
SUCKS
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
My grammar may suck, what you suck at though can not be mentioned on a family forum.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.