Renewal confusion

[gg30340]

---

@ney wrote:

@gg30340 BT used to offer pay and go landline calls for free but no longer seem to do so. If that is the case how come I do not pay anything for my PAYG call plan other than if I make a call, which I don't?

@widnesbob you pay per call for pay as you go landline but there could be no charge per month.

BT are just being greedy. After there used to be no monthly fee for pay and go landline calls. Now BT are charging you a monthly fee.

Think is a landline calls are slowly becoming less popular.

---

[ney]

@gg30340 I used to get pay and go free a month with BT but when I got offered a deal to renew my FTTC they then wanted £5 a month extra for my pay as you go landline.

Maybe some that are still in contract are still getting pay and go landline calls with no monthly fee but if you renew look like to are not got getting it free.

Its been a good 5 or 6 months since I last used the landline to make calls.

[garybs29]

I'm actually getting confused by this now, from numerous posts on here the £5 charge is for new customers & existing customers were getting it for £2 so I don't see how it could be offered or £5 on a recontract

[iniltous]

BT offer a ‘no telephony’ broadband option that is officially £5 cheaper than the same broadband that has a telephone service included with it , if you take the telephone service you have to take a calls plan , the cheapest is PAYG , which , depending on how you look at it , is ‘free’ if you don’t make any chargeable calls or £5 if you regard the difference in price as the ability to make calls that will also have a charge , which is a little misleading, because the £5 also ‘provides’ a phone number , the ability to answer incoming calls and to make ‘free’ calls , for example calls to the emergency services, or 0800 type calls
It seems that this £5 is often discounted to £2 , if someone pays £5 more than the broadband only price to get telephony , at a minimum that comes with included PAYG, they shouldn’t get an extra £2 charge, if they are paying £7 more than the broadband only charge , typically that’s because it’s not PAYG but the 700 mins call plan

The Sky comparison is a little peculiar, basically if PAYG is included in all Sky broadband packages, then those customers that don’t want , or need a landline phone service at all , are essentially paying for it anyway , at least with BT there is a £5 reduction for those that don’t want a phone service ( no phone number , no incoming or outgoing calls , no option to contact the emergency services ) a very common complaint, normally from price conscious consumers, is having to pay for something they don’t want , BT offer the option to save £5 for those customers, Sky don’t offer a £5 discount for those Sky customers that would prefer not to have any telephony with their Sky broadband , but have to take it anyway.

[gg30340]

I have been reliably informed  that originally PAYG was completely free, £0 per month. Customers such as myself could still be on that as are a lot of people.

This was then increased to £2 per month before eventually being increased to £5 per month. This wasn't done like a price change so there are 3 different prices showing. It depended on when you took the PAYG add on. 

[ney]

@iniltousyes but Sky also have pay and go landline calls with no month fee.

Yes it would be good if Sky offered broadband without the Phone service 
I very very rarely use landline now to make calls and have not had a phone plugged in to landline since November.

Moved to Sky Talk internet calls as they call it on pay and go when I moved over 3 weeks ago and have yet to use the  Sky Talk internet calls service.

[iniltous]

BT do have a PAYG with no monthly fee , that’s really the entire point ,  the extra £5 that some pay , compared to a standalone BT broadband customers , is for having a ‘landline’ service , there is no charge for PAYG  calls part , but the unduly complicated way of offering it , some assume that the £2 or £5 difference in price must be for PAYG , if BT broadband on its own is £5 cheaper, but it isn’t , PAYG is free , the option to have a phone service isn’t.

If Sky did the same and offered broadband without a phone service, it must follow that standalone Sky broadband would be cheaper without a phone service, so using the £5 as a guide , every Sky broadband customer who doesn’t want a phone service is paying £5 more than necessary , because there isn’t an option to remove it, only someone really naive would argue that  it’s a genuinely free service , it cannot be , because it costs Sky to provide it , it’s undeniable ,  with BT you can the option to save £5 by not having a phone service if you don’t want a landline type phone service with your broadband, but with Sky you have to take a ‘phone line’ even if you don’t want it.

If someone is of the opinion that Sky is still better value even with having to pay for  a phone service attached to broadband, that they don’t  want , that’s a different argument.

For years many consumers moaned at BT for making a phone service compulsory,  and that broadband must be cheaper without a phone service, it’s makes no sense for those that  joined in with the complaint of  BT  but say it’s OK for Sky to continue to do the very same thing , Sky phone services must ’cost’ Sky to provide them , so there must be a saving if they removed it, but currently they don’t .

[Moneybuster]

This might be a bit late. But I'd like to add the fact that BT did charge for the use of you phone when the Pay As You Go add on was free. They charged line rental. During this time if you picked to not have a phone your Broadband would be over £10 cheaper. They were not doing you favour by not charging you for Pay As You Go like has been mentioned here. 

They pretty much just increased the price for Broadband only packages and added a £2-£5 charge for people that use their phone. 

If you look at Plusnet, you will see the amount BT are charging on top. Plusnet who are also owned by BT will give you Fibre broadband for at least £10 less per month than their owners (BT) because they are not providing a phone service, so there is no hidden line rental involved. 

Don't be mistaking into thinking BT have decided they have to charge for your phone service because you already were. Now they've added another charge while hiding the line rental into the cost of your Broadband. Furthermore, technically those choosing not to take a phone line are still paying for it, as they pay to use the fibre line. Which is the exact line your phone would've been plugged into anyway. It doesn't cost BT anymore as they are the company who owns those lines. 

[licquorice]

So you think telephony just magically happens if you have a line, you don't think it requires extra equipment to route outgoing calls and provide a phone number to route incoming calls?

[Moneybuster]

Whether it requires more equipment or not is immaterial because you are still being charged for that equipment regardless of taking out a phone line. Which isn't actually even connected with digital voice. All new builds have fibre into the door. Some don't even have Phone lines anymore. 

But for the point of this post, BT charged an average of £20 for their line rental. This was an extra charge in all Broadband packages. But did they take that £20 away when they decided to allow customers to have the option of a phone? 

Now as you will see from Nickname, I specialise in saving money and making sure companies do not rip off people. That is my day job. I don't work and have no connection to any of these companies, I do the research to work out if a company is saving their customers money or their customers are being ripped of. Compared to other Broadband providers who are offering their customers to take Fibre with no landline, BT are ripping theirs off and are still including the phone charge minus a few pounds.