cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
507 Views
Message 11 of 16

Re: Standing Charge for not having a calls package

I should have explained fully- we’ve already paid a year’s line rental upfront. So the £5.00 is definitely a PAYG surcharge
0 Ratings
Reply
501 Views
Message 12 of 16

Re: Standing Charge for not having a calls package

LRS isn’t really paying for the total  line rental , and hasn’t been for quite some time , it’s now inexplicably  named ‘line rental saver ‘ , all it does ( and it’s now discontinued anyway ) is provide  around a £20 per year discount for paying  around £220 upfront , for that upfront payment you get a £19.99 per month credit that’s worth around £ 249 ( 19.99*12  =£239.88 ) , when it comes to PAYG it’s irrelevant, the fact is it’s £5 to provide the telephone service, which is optional, don’t want telephony, save the £5 , telephony has to have a call plan , the PAYG plan is ‘free’ , it’s the telephone service that’s £5

446 Views
Message 13 of 16

Re: Standing Charge for not having a calls package


@ADeewrote:
We’ve paid a year’s line rental up front already. The additional £5 is for not having a call package

£5 per month is for pay as you go calls (PAYG), that is the cost for having the voice service added, without paying that monthly charge means you're broadband only, if you want to make or receive calls you need 1 of 3 calling plans with PAYG the cheapest option.

Line rental is included at no extra cost because you need the physical line to deliver the broadband, adding voice service is different and requires a calling plan.

396 Views
Message 14 of 16

Re: Standing Charge for not having a calls package

Keep checking the telephony upgrade package section in My BT.

If you are lucky a £0.00 PAYG option may appear. It did for me and I haven’t paid anything extra for years. 

255 Views
Message 15 of 16

Re: Standing Charge for not having a calls package

I agree with ADee & am starting to wonder if all the Sages & Gurus are BT in disguise, or just brainwashed by them!

Line rental existed long before broadband & was just for the phone line. If you made no calls you paid no extra charges. When broadband started you paid separately for that - plus the line rental as before. So naturally people will continue to believe their phone line is included in the line rental charge. Why shouldn’t they? Did BT ever tell us that they’d decided to remove telephony from line rental - & reduce our line rental charges accordingly? Did they ever announce that the telephony charge was to be transferred to call packages instead? I think not! If they want to reward those who choose not to have a phone line at all - why don’t they just give them a discount on their line rental instead? 

Line rental on a bill may be ‘presented’ as if it’s part of the broadband contract, but its existence predates broadband by many decades & those without broadband still pay it. Hence Line Rental Saver is/was a separate entity with separate contract & end date from broadband.

This current £2+ charge is just a scam - to claw back £ from all those who still have a landline but only use their mobiles to make calls. And as BT’s Digital Voice (internet calls) replaces PSTN (current phone network), the same scam is being used again. BT still charges people extra on Digital Voice - just for having an internet phone at home. Even though it’s all on the same fibre network as broadband, so it costs them nothing.

0 Ratings
Reply
238 Views
Message 16 of 16

Re: Standing Charge for not having a calls package


@Grassmarket1 wrote:

I agree with ADee & am starting to wonder if all the Sages & Gurus are BT in disguise, or just brainwashed by them!

I am not nor have I ever been a BT or a subsidiary company of BT employee nor have I been brainwashed by BT. 



If you like a post, or want to say thanks for a helpful answer, please click on the Ratings 'Thumbs up' on left hand side.
If someone answers your question correctly please let other members know by clicking on ’Mark as Accepted Solution’.
0 Ratings
Reply