BT customers face broadband and landline price hikes BT's broadband and landline tariffs are set to balloon by more than 6 per cent, the one-time state monopoly has said. Customers are being told to expect prices to climb from December. It comes after rival Virgin Media informed its broadband-only subscribers of plans to jack up tariffs on its network. BT's price tags are set …
I have looked at AAISP too some time ago, mainly because they provide native IPv6 and refuse to install government censorship on their lines.
I seemed to remember they had a package which includes line rental. Of course you still pay for line rental but not to BT, you pay AAISP who pay BT Wholesale.
"AAISP use BT and Talktalk wholesale, so the existing taps on the BT and Talktalk DSL networks are sufficient."
Not for censorship purposes, anyway: yes, in theory BT and TalkTalk Wholesale could *monitor* the traffic between A&A and their customers, logging the whole PPPoE traffic stream - but the traffic definitely does not go through any of the filtering nonsense they inflict on their retail victims. Without some form of DPI, they don't even see what IP addresses each end is using (or indeed what protocol: you can use IPv6 inside the PPPoE stream; if you really want, you can even go pure IPv6 and let A&A translate that back to IPv4 on their end, though I've never tried that route).
RevK - the MD of A&A - has also noted in the past that they have the option of encrypting that PPPoE traffic, if TT or BT were to start tampering with or snooping on that traffic. Tampering (censorship) would very quickly be detected; they could theoretically be snooping on the backbone traffic, but why bother when they have put so much effort into snooping and filtering at the far end instead?
"but the traffic definitely does not go through any of the filtering nonsense they inflict on their retail victims."
Interestingly, Phone.coop's traffic DOES go through the censor filters - and phone.coop claim they can't change that.
Evidence to the contrary would be "interesting"
"You still have to pay BT extra for your landline though. Which sucks. They still basically have a monopoly."
BT Retail (the part of the company that has just raised its prices) doesn't have a monopoly.
BT Wholesale and Openreach do have a monopoloy, but are required by law to serve all communications companies equally well/badly.
"BT Retail (the part of the company that has just raised its prices) doesn't have a monopoly."
There are parts of the country where even the prats at Ofcom used to accept that BT Retail have a monopoly (the former Market 1 territories, if I recall correctly).
In the rest of the country, BT Retail have a "de facto" monopoly, which only a fool would ignore.
In addition to BT Retail's line rental increases, how would any sensible regulator let BT Retail get away with a 15p+ "call setup" fee for out-of-bundle calls?
Other providers using BTwholesale's services such as WLR3 (e.g. AAISP, IDnet, Zen, etc) manage with more like Wholesale's pricing e.g. 5p setup per call.
Indirect carriers such as the Finarea companies (1899 etc) which largely bypass BT altogether manage to provide UK 01/02/03 calls at 5p or so *inclusive* for up to an hour.
Crazy.
I'm in a market 1 area and have just left BT Retail. I don't pay BT retail one penny for my phone charges. I pay BT Wholesale (Through my new provider) for the line. BT Retail isn't BT wholesale.
The part of BT that the article refers to is BT Retail. BT Wholesale haven't announced any price increases.
"BT Wholesale and Openreach do have a monopoloy, but are required by law to serve all communications companies equally well/badly."
Except they demonstrably don't. The "chinese wall" is quite porous and the only way to solve the issue is the same one that New Zealand eventually did - cleave the lineside company (Chorus) from the rest of the outfit (Telecom NZ) - completely separate management and shareholding.
@ justincormack
No you don't, I just have moved to AAISP myself for Fibre, but split my landline off to Co-Op, it's only £10 a month if you pay upfront, otherwise £12.50 a month. AAISP would do Landline as well for £10 a month if I recall correctly, but was incoming calls only.
Primus and Post Office both do cheap line rental, but don't have a good reputation.
By the way, my downloads jumped from 26Mps to 31Mps when I moved from BT to AAISP, YMMV.
I waited until my contract and line rental saver were up with BT before moving over. Luckily I'd re-synced my contract and line rental saver end dates (as usually BT calls/broadband packages go for 18 months, but the non refundable line rental saver only goes for 12) by signing up for BT sport (which started a new 12 month contract a month after my line rental saver), therefore both came to an end in July (that was around the 15th).
Yet still BT screwed up by trying to bill me between the 21st of July and the 20th of August (BT bills cover you for the month to come...) at TWICE the monthly rate I was paying before. When I cancelled my direct debit (to avoid BT getting their hands on £50 of my money) they slapped a late payment charge on the account.
Furious Twitter/BT Forum rage finally got me someone with a brain cell to sort it out, and the upshot is that instead of me paying BT £50 for services I could never have possibly used, they're sending me a cheque for £20...
It sucks they're increasing the prices yet again when the previous one was less than a year ago, but I'm getting true 79mbit/18mbit speeds on Infinity 2 so I'm ok with it for now, it's those who aren't getting anywhere near the up-to speeds they're paying for who are getting a bum deal out of this new price increase.
EU Regulation 93/13 states that if any Service Provider alters the terms of the contract in any way which is detrimental to the consumer during the specified term of the contract they must by Law offer the consumer the opportunity to exit the contract penalty free.
93/13 was consumed into the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 so it is British Law as well as EU Law. The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe where Service Providers rip off consumers so regularly and consistently in this way, because Ofcom is a toothless granny more on the side of business than the consumer.
So here is what to do: Get BT Broadband before the price rise, at the moment they are offering £5 for the first 6 months, on their 38MB deal (limited to 20 Gig per month) plus £85 worth of Sainsbury Vouchers. As soon as they increase the price, go to Money Claim On Line (MCOL) and issue a court summons for breach of EU Reg 93/13 and UTCCr's 1999.
There is no way BT can win, the Law is clear on this point, BT are just participating in the usual Rip Off Britain business as normal. So you get 4 months of 38 MB broadband for £20, plus an £85 voucher = £65 clear profit. Issuing the Court summons will cost £25 but you claim that back plus you can get interest at 8% which is the best deal around.
Believe me, every country in Europe operates the same way, "rip-off Britain" is a myth. Try living in some other countries for a few years, instead of believing the Daily Mail propaganda.
Anyway, you're suggesting signing up for a deal which you expect not to honour, getting an £85 voucher to do so, then when the price goes up you cancel and expect to keep the vouchers?
That's not just a rip-off, that's fraud.
This post has been deleted by its author
Sir, I applaud your ignorance, bleating like sheep caring not that you are about to be sheared, you so convinced are you of the garbage you spew, you begin your rant "Believe me".
I have lived in many countries, for many years, and unlike most expats I speak their languages and learn their customs/
In August 2012 Ofcom conducted a survey of BEREC members (Body of European regulators for Electronic Communications) They received answers from 13 EU states plus Switzerland and Turkey. The question put thus:
Are Communications Providers required to allow customers to exit their contract without penalty if the provider increases its price by ANY amount during the term of the contract?
Austria: Yes
Croatia: Yes
Finland: Yes
France: Yes
Germany: Yes
Greece: Yes
Hungary: Yes
Latvia: Yes
Malta: Yes
Poland: Yes
Portugal: Yes
Slovakia: Yes
Slovenia: Yes
Switzerland: No
Source: Ofcom report Price Rises in fixed term contract Options to address consumer harm.
You continue: "Try living in some other countries for a few years" What did you get ripped off in Benidorm when you ordered dos servesas wae yer egg n chips?
"Anyway, you're suggesting signing up for a deal which you expect not to honour, getting an £85 voucher to do so, then when the price goes up you cancel and expect to keep the vouchers?
That's not just a rip-off, that's fraud."
Again I applaud your stupidity. I am suggesting you sign up for the deal BT are currently offering, £5 per month plus £85 in Sainsbury's vouchers. That is the offer and "acceptance" which forms the "contact" in Law. When BT then go on to change the terms, then BT are in breach of contract giving you the right to exit without penalty. Which is the Law in EVERY European Country including Britain.
BT get away with it because of fools like you, standing in the bar shooting your mouth off as though you know what you are talking about, without any references or expressions of doubt, much less legal knowledge or even the brains to look up the relevant legislation quoted before espousing effluent like and ignorant diarrhea patient in grown up nappies.
even the brains to look up the relevant legislation quoted before espousing effluent like and ignorant diarrhea patient in grown up nappies.
Oh, touch a nerve, did I? Always amusing to see posters respond with ad-hominem attacks because they can't actually challenge the facts. For your information, I've never been to Benidorm, am an expat (20+ years) working in and speaking the local language fluently, and am well aware of the legal situation across the EU. As you note, when BT increase their prices you are indeed entitled to end your contract, so I don't know why you're going on about the need to take legal action. UK law is indeed the same as EU law in that respect.
As for your morals in signing a contract that you don't intend to keep, well, we all know what that amounts to. Enjoy your Daily Mail.
Spain is a nice place to live. Congratulations on being an expat who actually takes the time to understand the local culture, customs and language.
No, you didn't hit a nerve, just the way of internet anonymous communications.
In fact it appears we agree, customers are entitled to exit their contract penalty free. However here in the UK any customer so doing is threatened with "debt collector action" destruction of their credit rating and "Bailiff action".
I was merely advising people how to counteract these aggressive corporate bully boy tactics which.have become the norm in UK business.
As for my suggestion on how people could benefit from BT's announcement that they intend themselves intend to breach the regulations, that is not suggesting that they sign a contract they do not intend to keep, all I am saying is that with BT announcing that they intend to breach regulations, they have left themselves open to consumer preemptive action.
Most people in the UK are unaware that they have the right to exit a contract if the Service Provider alters the terms to their detriment. Unlike you, most people in the UK are taken advantage of by Service Providers because they don't know how to stand up for themselves.
I know this because in my spare time I volunteer my services to elderly pensioners who are targeted by the Service Providers in a way that makes my stomach churn with disgust. From my experience, it appears that UK SP sale's teams have target lists of people coming up to the age of 75, they call them up with a sales pitch along the lines of; congratulations now you are reaching 75 you no longer need to pay your TV license we can offer you a deal which bundles TV, Internet, Phone, movies sports etc all for £20 a month. Pensioners sign up, in months 1,2 and 3 their bill is £20. They from month 4 it shoots up to somewhere between £120 - £160 and the are threatened with debt collectors, bailiffs etc. It is a despicable practice, one which the regulators appear to do absolutely nothing about.
So when I see a company such as BT announcing they intend to breach regulations in advance, well, it's too good an opportunity to miss.
"The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe where Service Providers rip off consumers so regularly and consistently in this way"
Not really. And if you really can do what you said, count yourself that you're lucky enough to live in a country with a court system that does allow you to do that. Not so far away there are companies where billing is random either due to either malice or incompetence and the legal system just isn't interested.
First I am quoting from EU Law. I live in the only UK country where the regulator does not enforce the Law. You speak of incompetence of EU billing, it is the British who had to be slapped down by the EU for their ridiculous "Roaming Charges". UK telecoms companies (Telefonica is Spanish they don't do in Spain what their British arm O2 does in Britain) Laugh all the way to the bank with the scale to which the average British consumer is prepared to be ripped off, remember paying for ring tones? 10 a text or even now PAYG pay more up front than it cost in arrears and if you don't use it, don't worry, you lose it. IT IS NOT INCOMPETENCE BUT IT CERTAINLY IS MALICE
What? Where did I speak of "EU billing"? And did you mean that Ofcom doesn't enforce the law in Scotland or something?
So, to resume you're saying no other operator in any other EU country has high roaming charges, Movistar Spain's roaming charges aren't high, that there were no ringtones sold in any other EU country, only the UK, or there is no operator in any other EU country that charges more than 10p a text, and PAYG costs less than contract in all other EU countries.
Righty ho. Daily Mail's over there...
Sir Your ignorance knows no bounds. EU Regulation 93/13 was incorporated into the UTCCr's 1999, yet only in January this tear did Ofcom finally get around to issuing "guidance". They still don't enforce the Law or protect consumers.
The advice I proffered is not only legally correct, it is tried, tested and proven. But it takes initiative and knowledge of the Law, which you clearly do not have.
You repeatedly refer disparagingly to Daily Mail readers, a paper I've never read, it adds nothing to the self confessed "Anonymous Cowards" rant, can't even be called a debate. You are simply espousing effluent in favour of British Telecom ripping off its customers. One can only imagine you must work for BT's PR "Positively Ridiculous" department
You accuse me of enticing fraud, with no substance to your accusation. When I clarify that it is BT who have contracted "Offer an Acceptance" and who are now seeking to breach their own contract thus allowing consumers to legally exit the contract penalty free. Like an old windbag that knows nothing of what you bleat, you seek to change the subject matter in the face of undeniable verifiable evidence
The point I took you up upon was that you think the British telecoms providers are the worst in Europe, which is not the case because I do have experience of several European telecoms providers, which, judging by your other reply to me, you apparently do not. That does not mean I'm in favour of BT ripping off their customers.
That's it. Anything else you think I said is your imagination at work.
Nor did I accuse you of fraud, you've got me mixed up with someone else.
You seem to be assuming that when BT increase their prices they will not allow customers to end their contracts, despite admitting that UK law has required this for 15 years?
Do you have any proof that, with this 6% increase (which BT have announced 3 months ahead, so hardly trying to sneak it though), customers will be prevented from cancelling? As you say, under EU and UK law customers must be able to end contracts in such cases, so why all this palaver about signing up for vouchers then taking BT to court? Other than trying to show how clever you are at finding a way to "stick it" to BT (and hence to BT's customers) what's the point of your rant?
Unfortunately, unlike yourself, most UK consumers are unaware of their rights in Law. In my spare time I assist mainly pensioners who have been subjected to Service Provider scams. I have plenty of evidence that the SP's far from informing their customers of their right to exit the contract penalty free if the SP changes the terms of the contract to the detriment of the consumer, instead they threaten "debt collection" "bailiff action" etc. One has to exhaust the SP's internal complaints system and reach "deadlock" before Ofcom will investigate the matter. This gives the SP 12 week to threaten and harass their victims, most of whom are not very savvy with how to make a complaint let alone get a deadlock letter then go to Ofcom.
A far quicker and more effective course of action is simply to use the same tactics on the SP, turn the tables so to speak and serve them with a Court Summons. In my experience they always settle pretty quickly because they know that if it reaches a small claims court A) they are in the wrong and B) even if they were able to contrive a winning argument, they can't claim costs. So they can't win.
I would much prefer a world in which Service Providers went about their business in a decent and honest way. Unfortunately, the reality is that is not the world we live in and certainly in the UK as the UK Watchdog WHICH? Report "Fixed means Fixed" into SP fixed term contracts so clearly showed, not one single British SP treats its customers fairly. They all, without exception, alter terms mid term and none of them inform their customers of the right to exist penalty free as they are required to do by Law.
EU Regulation 93/13 states that if any Service Provider alters the terms of the contract in any way which is detrimental to the consumer during the specified term of the contract they must by Law offer the consumer the opportunity to exit the contract penalty free.
93/13 was consumed into the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 so it is British Law as well as EU Law. The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe where Service Providers rip off consumers so regularly and consistently in this way, because Ofcom is a toothless granny more on the side of business than the consumer.
So here is what to do: Get BT Broadband before the price rise, at the moment they are offering £5 for the first 6 months, on their 38MB deal (limited to 20 Gig per month) plus £85 worth of Sainsbury Vouchers. As soon as they increase the price, go to Money Claim On Line (MCOL) and issue a court summons for breach of EU Reg 93/13 and UTCCr's 1999.
There is no way BT can win, the Law is clear on this point, BT are just participating in the usual Rip Off Britain business as usual. So you get 4 months of 38 MB broadband for £20, plus an £85 voucher = £65 clear profit. Issuing the Court summons will cost £25 but you claim that back plus you can get interest at 8% which is the best deal around.
Even if you can’t be bothered with all this hassle for £65, pass it on to others that will and give BT a merry Christmas.
BT = Bugger Them
"So here is what to do: Get BT Broadband before the price rise, at the moment they are offering £5 for the first 6 months, on their 38MB deal (limited to 20 Gig per month) plus £85 worth of Sainsbury Vouchers. As soon as they increase the price, go to Money Claim On Line (MCOL) and issue a court summons for breach of EU Reg 93/13 and UTCCr's 1999."
Given that MCOL seem to require form filling and a court fee up front it would surely be more sensible to just talk to the company? Also, you're clearly much better versed in this than I, but I'd assumed the usual recourse would be to the UK law, not the EU Regulation. And there is presumably the risk of losing the case.
Also, if you are exiting the contractual agreement, and part of that contract is that they provide the Sainsbury's Vouchers then presumably they might be within their right to ask for the voucher back?
EU Regulation 93/13 is incorporated into the Unfair Terms Consumer Contract's regulations 2009 so it is consumed into British Law. Unfortunately unlike every other country in the EU, Ofcom the British regulator, does not enforce the Law. Instead they insist that the consumer go through the SP's complaints process until they reach "deadlock" (which takes many months, throughout which the consumer is threatened with "debt collection" Bailiff Action" "Destroyed Credit Rating" are all normal tactics used by all the SP's)
My suggestion is merely turning the tables. MCOL costs a fee of £25 upfront which you can claim back from the SP. It saves all the threats and intimidation and cuts straight to the chase; What is the Law? The SP will always settle because they know they are breaching the law, and they don't want any of the other millions of sheep they are fleecing to know.
And as the SP is the one who offered the enticement of the vouchers, then if the SP changes the terms to the detriment of the consumer, then by Law the SP MUST tell the consumer that they are free to exit the contract penalty free, if they fail to do so, then you have your vouchers for free and no they would have no right to ask for them returned as they would be the ones in breach of contract, not you.
if the price increases were to cover increased investment in and improvements to the network and service. In fact it's to cover the cost of £300 million a year (about £50 per broadband subscriber) that they wasted on buying Premier footy.
I don't want to watch footy. Please can I have a £50 cut in my annual line rental?
By all means provide an option to watch footy, but please do it as an optional extra, which is paid for entirely by those opting in to the service.
"Oh, it's a re-run of the football cock-up? That nearly killed ITV, as I recall, with the football on digital TV."
I don't think BT is at risk of going under, but its customers are certainly at risk of more price increases. BT spunked £900 million on 3 years of Champions League coverage starting from next year and they have to get the money from somewhere.
If you listen to their adverts for broadband at the moment they are saying that football coverage is "still free" with their service.
I don't know about you, but that strongly implies to me that it soon won't be.
"We have added extra money-saving options for low-income customers and for customers who only want a phone line for calls."
That's all fine. What I'd like to see is money saving option customers who only want phone line for ADSL and don't want voice capability.
I didn't think they even did lines for only phone calls (except the poor unfortunate people on DACS.
However BT would rather shove their various voice "Options" down punters throats even if customer really only wants/needs the line for DSL.
line rental charge would still be there as its paying for the maintenance of the physical line and kit between your house and the exchange.
Are you telling me I'm paying £180 a year and they still haven't upgraded that last mile of cable to fiber? Who do I ask for a refund?
Plus they also got that nice government pay out.
I also solely use the phone line for broadband.
Off topic but interesting: BT full-year profits climbed 2% to £6.18bn (2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/10/bt-profits-pay-tv-price-war
You'd still pay £180 a year even without a voice service. The cost of actually carrying voice is minuscule compared to the supply and maintenance costs. If you want an example look at "no standing charge" electricity tariffs. You still have to pay a standing charge (equivalent to line rental) but its wrapped up in to the cost of the electricity used.
"The cost of actually carrying voice is minuscule compared to the supply and maintenance costs."
You may well be right, in which case will someone please tell BT Retail (and BT's mates at Ofcon), given that BT Retail now want around three shillings (15p) for setting up a UK voice call, and more per minute on top of that, if the call isn't covered by the near-unavoidable 'bundled calls allowance'.
As well as the increase in charges, BT needs to be slapped down over the payment processing fee, which is £6 per bill at the moment. They used to say it's for paying by cheque, but actually it covers everything except direct debit, and there's no justification at all to charge for people who are paying by internet banking, for instance.
Over the many years of incompetence I've endured from BT - especially when I had an ISDN2 line - they've overbilled, sometimes by hundreds of pounds, so there's no way I'm ever going to give them instant access to my account, yet they choose to penalise me for it anyway.
Their last bill change, suddenly charging many people for caller ID who had previously had it free, was poorly communicated, and this latest one is about the final straw - I'm waiting for an unbundled VDSL service, and when that comes to my corner cabinet, the landline will be unbundled from BT too.
Really, Ofcom should force them to provide a 'line only' service for DSL subscribers who don't want a dialtone. My latest bill is £57 for a quarter; £4 of that is rent for the burglar alarm that is plugged into it, which I'll happily replace. The rest is just rental, for a line that I don't use for anything else, and could easily do without - its sole purpose is to carry the DSL, and with it my SIP trunks. With the 'payment processing' charge, this is getting on for not much short of £20 a month for the copper wire, because of their bundling in things I don't need or use, like evening and weekend calls.
"My latest bill is £57 for a quarter; £4 of that is rent for the burglar alarm that is plugged into it, which I'll happily replace. The rest is just rental, for a line that I don't use for anything else, and could easily do without - its sole purpose is to carry the DSL, and with it my SIP trunks. With the 'payment processing' charge, this is getting on for not much short of £20 a month for the copper wire, because of their bundling in things I don't need or use, like evening and weekend calls."
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, you use the line for a burgular alarm and for a broadband service, and your complaint is that other things get bundled in that you don't use? The nature of such things though is that there is a relatively fixed cost for keeping the infrastructure going. The same is surely true for roads, electricity, water etc.
The nature of the UK market for telecoms has been that it's moved to a more bundled pricing approach over the years, where you get TV, broadband and calls on top of the line itself. Whereas years ago you would pay for each service separately.
Yes; and just like many other people, that landline is effectively superfluous - the only reason I bother to have a burglar alarm plugged into it is that it's there.
I pay for free weekend and evening call packages that I don't need. I pay extra because I don't trust BT to help themselves to my bank account. There is an increasing number of people for whom the only reason to have copper coming into the house is to provide a broadband service. But the cost of that particular bit of infrastructure (which hasn't been upgraded, and has therefore very likely been paid for many times over since the house was built) is actually going up, to the point where it's not far off £20 a month now that I pay to BT. And I would still be paying pretty much the same to them if I unplugged the alarm and no calls at all were made, even though someone else is providing the internet connectivity via LLU, and all my calls go over the internet.
Bundling is certainly not serving the interests of the consumer in this case; it's an excuse BT use to price-gouge those who choose not to use their services.
One mile from the centre of Edinburgh and I cant get Infinity or an indication of when it might be available. I have a 13 year old ADSL engineer install from BT; maybe that's why. When I moved here from the previous flat, BT didnt even have a method to move ADSL from one circuit to another (you took a new primary email address), so I guess there has been some progress.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
