Renewal confusion

[licquorice]

Sigh, 'line rental' has absolutely nothing to do with telephony provision, how do you think broadband arrives without a line to carry it?

If you don't require telephony, you can have a broadband only contract with a discount of £5/m.

[iniltous]

BT offer a £5 discount to those that don’t want a phone service , it’s pretty simple proposition, not want a phone service but do want broadband , it’s £5 cheaper , than the same broadband speed but with a phone  service with PAYG  calls  , so how is that a rip off , it’s  cheaper to have no phone service , ‘line rental’ is now a misleading term , historically used as meaning telephony charge , obviously broadband needs a ‘line’ of some description, copper or fibre , and it’s  rented .

Using old costings is pointless, not so long ago , an ISP company would get wholesale line rental for £7 a month , they charged £20 retail ( £13 mark up ) they then used this margin to offer broadband below cost for £5 ( £25 total bill  ) unfortunately some people who lack any critical thinking skills ,argued that if only they didn’t have to take the unwanted ‘line  rental’ then broadband would be £5 a month , you unfortunately are using the same ridiculous arguments.

BT don’t make telephony compulsory, don’t want it , save  £5 a month ,however you cannot do away with the line that delivers the service to your home unless you go mobile 

[rbz5416]

I think the real issue here is the disingenuous description of a "discount" for not taking a phone service. Were this in fact accurate I doubt anyone would have an issue. But the reality is that when a charge for telephony was introduced, broadband prices remained the same with the telephony charge simply added on. So the "discount" took you back to the same price but with a reduced service.

But to go back to @widnesbob's original post, this is all further confused BT's stunning inability to run a web site. Just as he complains, I am also able to "upgrade" my PAYG calling package from £0 to exactly the same PAYG but at £2pm.

And for good measure, as reported last week & not addressed, I can also upgrade to unlimited but I can apparently choose whether I want to pay £10 or £13. Still no word on whether 700 mins has been withdrawn, forgotten about, misdescribed, now an EE exclusive or the dog ate it!

[Moneybuster]

Or you could just move provider and have it for more than £10 less. Pay as You Go, well the clues in the name. If BT want to charge £2+ for a phone, then call it the real charge name. You don't pay for your number with a 'Pay As You Go' mobile number. Yet even if you do not top it up, you will still receive calls. Why? Because it's Pay as You Go. Which implies that you pay for using it. Not' pay for it even if you don't go'. 

The original poster was right to bring this up. For all your points, the fact remains that BT raised their prices over 4% but that wasn't enough. They also put this charge on their pay as you go packag,e which wasn't added before.

At a point where people are struggling to heat their homes etc and with Broadband being a very important thing to have. Adding even an extra £1 when they've already increased people's broadband by more than wages has increased is in my and many more people's eyes, just go greed from a cash rich company. 

My advice to anyone reading this, is to shop around and do not stay 'Loyal' to your provider. If you don't require a phone then certainly do not renew your contract with BT. Consider checking out their sister company Plusnet, where you will be more than £10 cheaper.  If you do require a phone but won't be using it for making calls but just to receive calls, then again consider checking out other networks such as Sky or even EE who are also owned by BT and are just about to release their new 1.6gbps broadband speeds without charging for their pay as you go packages. 

If people shop around they will find that BT have just priced their selves out of the market. But as they're planning on making EE the main face of the company, there may well be a reason for doing so. 

[garybs29]

---

@Moneybusterwrote:

even EE who are also owned by BT and are just about to release their new 1.6gbps broadband speeds without charging for their pay as you go packages. 

It's always best if you get your facts correct before posting them, telephony on EE is chargeable too, quite frankly I wonder whether to believe anything you say as an expert in your field based on this & the fact you think no calls should mean a £20 reduction

[Moneybuster]

Well that's strange. Considering I checked EE literally yesterday and was personally offered 'Pay as You Go' which is what we are talking about, for free. You can question my day job as much as you wantI  suggest you take that up with EE. I will continue to point out to others just how much they could save on their Broadband and other services by going to another network. (I'm not in the technical field of telephony, hence why I have used a new account. I save people money, by pointing out which I believe to be unfair to the little man, which I have done in this circumstance). 

You might not consider adding in a minimum of £2 charge under a 'Pay as You Go' package as disingenuous but many would. But as has been said in another comment by another person, it's the name they have added it to. Something which has always been linked to something which has no charge unless it's used.

As stated before, if it was added under its real name then the problem would only be the cost compared to that of other providers.