Upcoming price rises from Sept 2nd

http://www.plus.net/info2/legal/price_guide.html

Prices changes - 2nd September 2015

New pricing will apply from 2nd September 2015 as set out below

Line rental will increase from £15.95 per month or £15.99 per month to £16.99 per month
Line Rental Saver will increase from £155.88 for 12 months to £185.88 for 12 months (for those customers signing up or renewing Line Rental Saver from 2nd September)
Evening and Weekends will increase from £2.00 per month to £3.00 per month
Anytime with and without 25% off international destinations will increase from £5.00 per month to £6.00 per month
Anytime International 300 will increase from £7.00 per month to £7.50 per month
Our call set up fee will increase from 15p to 16p per call
Geographic calls to 01, 02 and 03 numbers will increase to 10p per minute and mobile calls to 13p per minute
Postage & Packaging will increase from £5.99 to £6.99 (excluding YouView+ set top box at £7.99)
Our early termination charges will change. How much depends on your package.
Some of our call rates will change

and just before I can renew my Line Rental Saver - sneaky sods they keep bringing the change date forward by a few weeks

Those increases are outrageous, especially the £2.50/month increase in LRS. Meanwhile, no doubt, the wholesale price continues to go down. I'm going to have have a serious look around when my contract is up.

Just another reason to not renew next time around.

Thankfully, i paid my line rental upfront so hopefully this wont be affected.

Not really a surprise in those price rises when they are "flogging" such low cost BB ADSL and Fibre BB packages to new customers and also operate a price reduction for BB in "low cost" areas.

Hopefully the COT will be generous in their offer to me of a discount for staying with PN come renewal time in mid September

I have my doubts.

My deal - just signed for fibre - wasn't too exceptional
I wonder if they will change their tune when I refuse to accept the change
My problem is that the only cheaper one is TalkTalk

Edited by deleted (Mon 29-Jun-15 21:35:14)

So this is the way out for anybody wanting to leave then...

My problem is that the only cheaper one is TalkTalk

I don't have that choice of LLU provision at the distant 20CN exchange, if it ain't PN then the choice price wise is a BT promotion and maybe some cashback from TCB, downside is the nearest Sainsbury store is around 90 miles away

Noticed that BT put the price of its 80/20 service up recently but only just thought... it is the first time I have seen it listed without an offer attached..

Then just thought the offer they have on the 40/10 is good... this lead to me wondering if this might be BT's way of trying to poach Plusnet's 40/20 customers?

Though it might be as innocent as it being much cheaper for them to operate 40/10 over 80/20 and more profits come out of 40/10 then 80/20

But it won't affect you for 18 months Jim. It doesn't affect current customers and contracts until they seek a new deal rather than staying monthly. So why would you want to leave because of the changes.

Now if instead you have just realised you made a mistake, that is different

Edit - Ah, people on full rate phone appear to be affected.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 29-Jun-15 23:16:46)

I doubt it. It doesn't go up for people within a minimum terms, so doesn't affect them. Anyone else, or them at the end of their term, can leave anyway.

Copy Edit - Ah, people on full rate phone appear to be affected.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 29-Jun-15 23:17:36)

huh! Where does it say such a thing?

UPDATE: I believe it does apply to all customers.

Edited by mlmclaren (Mon 29-Jun-15 23:35:10)

If you pay line rental monthly, it will go up. Where does it say otherwise?

Edit: maybe you missed Bob's edit and I misunderstood your comment.

Edited by kasg (Mon 29-Jun-15 23:37:28)

It don't... It was RobertoS who said it wouldn't apply to me and oldjim as we're in contract but I agree that it looks like it will affect all that have any of the listed services listed in the increase announcement.

UPDATE: OK sorry about that... time for bed soon I think !

Edited by mlmclaren (Tue 30-Jun-15 00:07:07)

Could we have that again in English please? I can usually understand adslmax, but that defeats me.

Apologies... Been edited..

Edited by mlmclaren (Tue 30-Jun-15 00:07:52)

so BT group in their own little world has their own inflation rates.

Should prove interesting.

They have systematically gone out of their way to attract low-cost customers, and now raise multiple prices all at once.

Well if nothing else, it gives me a time-scale to plan around.

My annual saver rental comes up for renewal on 21st September. Looking at my records for last year I renewed on 1st AUgust at the (then) old rate of £137.88, avoiding the price rise to £155.88. I will likely do the same thing again, assuming the system allows me to do it.

In reply to a post by Oldjim:

...........and just before I can renew my Line Rental Saver - sneaky sods they keep bringing the change date forward by a few weeks

The whole carry on at Plusnet is starting to stink

Just been for a look round the Plusent site and couldn't find where to renew my annual line rental. As usual GIYF and it took me directly to the page which said that I could renew now. I will likely do so within the next month.

it does because the phone part will be going up significantly

EDIT
Saw the various clarifications so we agree

One thing which may be a useful change is to move from Plusnet 80/20 to BT 40/10 if the actual speeds I get aren't much above 40Mbps when I get fibre in a week or so's time as 40/2 is just plain silly

Edited by deleted (Tue 30-Jun-15 09:46:21)

I already pay Zen £16,99 for line rental. I admit it's expensive but necessary until FTTP is available to everyone. I just did a comparison of Zen 40/10 and Plusnet 40/2 and with line rental it's still cheaper than Zen.

I'm assuming your tempted by BT's Infinity 1 offer?

It does look good...

I was until I worked out that I would lose 6 months of my LRS so doesn't look so good.
However - given the very small saving - I won't be renewing the LRS and then I will have much more flexibility

I only ever paid LRS once... back when it was new and they screwed me out of 5 months of it when I had to move to cable because of rubbish line.

Maybe its worth cancelling you fibre order and keep going with PN adsl without contract until LRS is done and then jump ship.

Never mind the LRS problem, the greatest scam is the "connection charge" which started as a small fee and is now up to 16p even if you don't successfully get to connect to who you need

Time Ofcom banned these altogether. It's a racket

not really as I am part way through a 2 year ADSL deal

well its better than 18-24 months for fibre

I agree, the "connection charge" is outrageous and totally unjustified, although as more people have inclusive packages only a minority end up actually paying it. Ironically, from tomorrow there will be no connection charge permitted on 08/09/118 numbers so they may actually work out cheaper in some cases.

In reply to a post by kasg:

... although as more people have inclusive packages only a minority end up actually paying it.

The connection charge is the only reason I feel I need pay for an anytime call package. It's a long winded calculation to work out which is actually cheaper, anytime or 16p a call

Well, August 8th will mark the first anniversary of my move to PlusNet from Madasafish - I've already had an email from them about renewing the Line Rental Saver Contract, so presumably I'll be able to do that at the old rate. On the whole, I've been pretty happy with PN's service, but I'm not happy with these price rises, on top of the fact that my first year discount of £7.50pm on the broadband component will expire. So it will be interesting to hear what the dreaded Customer Options Team will have to offer me.

I've come across a deal with SSE which looks quite attractive (this is ADSL, there's currently no FTTC at my exchange):

- Free broadband for two years (then £8.00pm)
- Unlimited usage
- £12pm line rental (not paid upfront!)
- Free weekend calls
- Call costs cheaper than PN (I think).

Does anybody have any experience of SSE? They seem to be a bit of an unknown quantity in the broadband world.

In reply to a post by 961a:

The connection charge is the only reason I feel I need pay for an anytime call package. It's a long winded calculation to work out which is actually cheaper, anytime or 16p a call

Yup, the "pay as you go" landline rates are being pushed up hard by all providers to "force" people onto anytime calls. Meanwhile line rental also goes up more and more, yet providers increasingly give no bundled calls at all with line rental.

For the people who use landlines in preference to contract mobiles (yes there are still a few of us) it's pretty hard to swallow. At the very least Ofcom needs to get providers to include mobile phone calls in anytime calls package (line TalkTalk have done), now that the mobile termination rates have dropped.

There are several suppliers that have no call connection charge, per second billing, calls at 1p and no contract tie-in. have to keep it under my hat - Wouldn't want to get flamed and banned again - NAART!

Don't you think "All providers" is stretching it just a tad?
https://www.zen.co.uk/home-office/voice/call-rates.aspx
https://pulse8broadband.co.uk/line-bundles

Look around and you will find EE home phone includes 1,000 minutes of calls to mobiles. A service we have at our other home.

Edited by professor973 (Tue 30-Jun-15 13:28:41)

Yes, "all providers" was an exaggeration. But equally, a lot of the cheaper broadband providers require you to take their line rental, or at the very least inflate their prices if one doesn't take it.

Pulse8 might have £6 line rental, but £19 for broadband is considerably higher than Sky and TalkTalk.

It's BT managed White Label, or was and I assume still is. We deal with SSE for power at our northern address. A decent company. We looked at this deal. Adding line and anytime calls brought a quote of £22:50 per month as a customer - Only a couple of quid cheaper than our EE which throws in 1,000 minutes of calls to mobiles. Did not seem the free deal it looked at first glance.

Yeah, but most want around £17 line rental and a tie-in - £25 line and unlimited BB is not bad, especially on a Market 1 exchange as we have here - Certainly beats PN price.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Yeah, but most want around £17 line rental and a tie-in - £25 line and unlimited BB is not bad,

Yes the price is good, but they should offer an anytime calls package for those that want it even if their PAYG rates are reasonable (I couldn't find an anytime calls option on their site).

In reply to a post by professor973:

especially on a Market 1 exchange as we have here - Certainly beats PN price.

When I put in a Market A telephone number the price is much higher, £28 excluding line rental: http://s10.postimg.org/k3kkexay1/pulse.png

Edited by Oliver341 (Tue 30-Jun-15 14:24:07)

Aww thats a bit more expensive than Plusnet's options "without contract"

In reference to www.plus.net/info2/legal/price_guide.html:

Outside low cost areas
Fixed term Broadband Only £19.99
Broadband & Phone £10.00 for the first 12 months, £17.49 thereafter
No contract Broadband Only £22.49
Broadband & Phone £19.99

Edited by mlmclaren (Tue 30-Jun-15 14:12:00)

In reply to a post by professor973:

BT managed White Label

Forgive my ignorance - what does that mean?

In reply to a post by professor973:

Adding line and anytime calls brought a quote of £22:50 per month as a customer

With anytime calls and line rental it looks to me like £20.00pm for two years, then £28.00pm - or am I missing something here?

Cheers .

Don't know what's happened with your entered postcode, but totally wrong to me. I AM on a market 1 exchange. It did not alter the price of £19 for BB and £6 for line as BB taken with them before I switched to fibre. - Either way Plusnet is as expensive as Bt on Market 1 - been there and got the t-shirt.

The concept of Market 1, 2 or 3 is out of date, its markets A and B

And maybe pulse8 pricing is not matched to either of those but depends on what LLU options there are at the exchange

As far as I know - Exactly what it says - BT manage it possibly including customer service. Designed for those that want to set up as an ISP but have not got the facilities. Not sure if it is still as it was. http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EEZlykyyuVVnzzueym.html

Nothing but BT and TT LLU and despite the new Market clarifications, the old values are still used everywhere I visit. Samknows an example.

In reply to a post by professor973:

It's BT managed White Label, or was and I assume still is. We deal with SSE for power at our northern address. A decent company. We looked at this deal. Adding line and anytime calls brought a quote of £22:50 per month as a customer -

And, although unlimited broadband, uses traffic management I understand

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yes, "all providers" was an exaggeration. But equally, a lot of the cheaper broadband providers require you to take their line rental, or at the very least inflate their prices if one doesn't take it.

Pulse8 might have £6 line rental, but £19 for broadband is considerably higher than Sky and TalkTalk.

Snd possibly their wholesale cost is very low so they make their money and more to cover the cheap line rental which is probably just a headline grabber

In reply to a post by professor973:

Yeah, but most want around £17 line rental and a tie-in - £25 line and unlimited BB is not bad, especially on a Market 1 exchange as we have here - Certainly beats PN price.

I've only ever known PN to use market areas in their pricing. Maybe I am know but I've never seen another.

In reply to a post by professor973:

As far as I know - Exactly what it says - BT manage it possibly including customer service. Designed for those that want to set up as an ISP but have not got the facilities. Not sure if it is still as it was. http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EEZlykyyuVVnzzueym.html

Or this

https://www.icuk.net/broadband-reseller/broadband.asp

In reply to a post by kbturner:

In reply to a post by professor973:

BT managed White Label

Forgive my ignorance - what does that mean?

This post might help. It refers to (and modifies in the text) a thinkbroadband diagram. Read through until you get to the White label bit, as if you just look for it you may find it harder to understand my description.

In reply to a post by kbturner:

I've come across a deal with SSE which looks quite attractive (this is ADSL, there's currently no FTTC at my exchange):

SSE has some attractive 2 year offers with a lot (up to £126) of cashback at TCB. Note their anytime calling package costs £5 but also hikes the line rental by £3, their calling features are horrendously expensive at £3.25 each.

I am looking at a 2 year retention offer from plusnet which despite needing anytime and 1 calling feature isn't as good as the SSE offer and I would get a tg799vn v2 modem/router which is probably better than what I have.

These new plusnet hikes make it even worse, however, I called them and was told that when the phone prices go up I can call them and they will drop the BB charge to match.

Think I am going to stick with plusnet, the small saving and new modem not worth the hassle and risk of moving to SSE. If I didn't want anytime and caller ID it would go the other way.

They use headline grabbing click-bait headline prices, just as they all do. A search in the small print shows another £7:99 at the last count to their prices. Quite a sting in the tail when the Sprat runs out (introductory discount).

I am getting so FED UP with increasing line rental. Greedy Plusnet!

I am going elsewhere when my contract with fibre is expiry.

Your loss Plusnet. The reason for PN to increase line rental and calling plan because they kept giving new customers discounts so we are paying every penny back!

Edited by adslmax (Tue 30-Jun-15 19:01:03)

In reply to a post by professor973:

Don't know what's happened with your entered postcode, but totally wrong to me. I AM on a market 1 exchange. It did not alter the price of £19 for BB and £6 for line as BB taken with them before I switched to fibre. - Either way Plusnet is as expensive as Bt on Market 1 - been there and got the t-shirt.

The example I gave is a Market A exchange, i.e. zero LLU presence. It also has no WBC, hence the up-to 8 meg Pulse8 IPstream Connect package is offered at £28 per month plus line rental, which is more than Plusnet's Market A price of £22.49.

Edited by Oliver341 (Tue 30-Jun-15 19:35:05)

LLU presence at an exchange makes no difference to Market rating. TT unbundled my exchange years ago and NO effect on rating or description. Looks like Sky hooked up this very week as not mentioned before.
https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/EAGLE

Edited by professor973 (Tue 30-Jun-15 21:26:01)

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I am going elsewhere when my contract with fibre is expiry.

You need to consider the total cost, not just the line rental. Some of the alternative providers being posted here charge three times as much as Plusnet is charging me for unlimited 80/20 FTTC.

Market Classification has never been a dynamic real-time thing.

Ofcom set it periodically based on the LLU situation at the time and some almost certain short-term forecasts. It then issues a definitive list, with supplementary lists of the movements between classifications.

I forget when the first one was. 2005 or something I think. The second M1/2/3 classification was December 2010. Now we have the A/B classification, which in broad terms seem to have been ignored by all.

Long after selling there complete setup to BTW EE/Orange still based their prices on exchanges being on their old LLU network or not. As far as I know they still do.

Plusnet do somewhere have a list of A/B and what the new one for each exchange is but whether this affects how they charge I don't know.

I have the 2010 list, and somewhere I think I have the new A/B list, but on a quick look can only find the 2013 consultation document. If I remember I'll have another look tomorrow.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Don't know what's happened with your entered postcode, but totally wrong to me. I AM on a market 1 exchange. It did not alter the price of £19 for BB and £6 for line as BB taken with them before I switched to fibre. - Either way Plusnet is as expensive as Bt on Market 1 - been there and got the t-shirt.

as you said, your exchange is TT LLU enabled... Market 1 exchanges consist only of BT equipment (though now unbundling is becoming more common in market 1 exchanges..)

So this will explain the difference in Price.

Also Plusnet will be as expensive as BT on Market one... if they weren't then they wouldn't get the priority over BT and would end up a waste of time for the EU.

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I am going elsewhere when my contract with fibre is expiry.

You need to consider the total cost, not just the line rental. Some of the alternative providers being posted here charge three times as much as Plusnet is charging me for unlimited 80/20 FTTC.

I agree.. leaving Plusnet for this price change is not worth it at all... I'm keeping my ADSL connection as it is one not as important as my FTTC line and also Plusnet is a pretty good ADSL provider... I do doubt there abilities to provide FTTC though...

I'm still going to challenge them over there decision to reduce the 24/7 Support feature of my contract... have them note my account terminated due to price increase would by unfair as it is really the dissatisfaction with the service performance and the poor choice's having detrimental affects on the customers in the past few months!

Thanks Bob. was aware of most, just that the new classification seems not to have been implemented. Other than that, I was under the impression that Market A & 1 led to no change in priced from those where it had a bearing - Another case of call it what you like, but the product stays the same.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I am getting so FED UP with increasing line rental. Greedy Plusnet!

I am going elsewhere when my contract with fibre is expiry.

Your loss Plusnet. The reason for PN to increase line rental and calling plan because they kept giving new customers discounts so we are paying every penny back!

While I do think it is about time we had a naked dsl line system in this country, i can understand why Plusnet and other telecom companies put up the priuce of line rental and other charges.

People are using their home phone less these days than ever before, I have not used my Plusnet phone once since I have had plusnet about three months ago.
I have got a sipgate VoIP phone mainly to take calls on and I use my mobile to make calls.
My bill will go up by a quid a month, so not too bad, but I still think i am paying for nothing. Maybe I should start using the phone, just for the free evening and weekend calls.

As soon as an alternative network option arrives I believe Plusnet will be sent on their merry way, as VDSL will become my backup with very little, if any, traffic going across the line under normal operation.

Line rental is ridiculous and the constant practise of hiding increasing broadband costs in line rental increases should be addressed.

Not at all bothered by paying £37 a month for the right Internet connection, resent that £17 of it is for a line used for virtually nothing besides as a VDSL bearer, and what £37 a month would buy elsewhere, without paying line rental.

I would say Plusnet have been looking at the financials and realised the 40/20 on 80/20 deal wasn't viable, and the 80/20 price wasn't covering the bandwidth bill anymore.

Given usage is increasing 40-60% per year this is hardly a surprise.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

People are using their home phone less these days than ever before,

The issue is that yes Landline Phone's are barely used anymore... with more and more people opting to plug them out as paying for calls package when one's mobile contract now has Unlimited Minutes and on most networks the sound quality is so much more superior to a house phone.

The other issue with landlines is that as there primary use now is DSL and if theres issues with the cables to and from the exchange or cabinets then it costs to repair or replace those cables.

So no landlines are not being used any less...

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I would say Plusnet have been looking at the financials and realised the 40/20 on 80/20 deal wasn't viable, and the 80/20 price wasn't covering the bandwidth bill anymore.

I'm surprised it last as long as it did... but it did pull the customers in... what those customers choose to do next is will be interesting but it depends on their requirements..

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

As soon as an alternative network option arrives I believe Plusnet will be sent on their merry way, as VDSL will become my backup with very little, if any, traffic going across the line under normal operation.
Not at all bothered by paying £37 a month for the right Internet connection, resent that £17 of it is for a line used for virtually nothing besides as a VDSL bearer, and what £37 a month would buy elsewhere, without paying line rental.

This sounds to me like Gigalcear are coming near your place then.
If so then in practice you still pay a 'line rental' component to them - its just that it is hidden in the overall price.

In reply to a post by zom22:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

As soon as an alternative network option arrives I believe Plusnet will be sent on their merry way, as VDSL will become my backup with very little, if any, traffic going across the line under normal operation.
Not at all bothered by paying £37 a month for the right Internet connection, resent that £17 of it is for a line used for virtually nothing besides as a VDSL bearer, and what £37 a month would buy elsewhere, without paying line rental.

This sounds to me like Gigalcear are coming near your place then.
If so then in practice you still pay a 'line rental' component to them - its just that it is hidden in the overall price.

The man could be talking about VM as well. £37 will get more than FTTC speeds without any line rental at all. This naked DSL should be an option across all ISP packages although in my view £10 a month is also too much for the bearer.

In reply to a post by zom22:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

As soon as an alternative network option arrives I believe Plusnet will be sent on their merry way, as VDSL will become my backup with very little, if any, traffic going across the line under normal operation.
Not at all bothered by paying £37 a month for the right Internet connection, resent that £17 of it is for a line used for virtually nothing besides as a VDSL bearer, and what £37 a month would buy elsewhere, without paying line rental.

This sounds to me like Gigalcear are coming near your place then.
If so then in practice you still pay a 'line rental' component to them - its just that it is hidden in the overall price.

That's how I and most would prefer to be charged for the providing of the service... not call it something else.

The naked DSL will be no different, because if the ISP's offering naked DSL, then they will added £16.99 on the broadband for the non-line rental cost. Just like Virgin Media did on standalone broadband without line rental but they still charged hidden line rental on the broadband cost.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

The naked DSL will be no different, because if the ISP's offering naked DSL, then they will added £16.99 on the broadband for the non-line rental cost. Just like Virgin Media did on standalone broadband without line rental but they still charged hidden line rental on the broadband cost.

Naked DSL would be very different because the customer wouldn't be getting lied too...

If I'm told its £40 a month to provide my connection, then it's £40 a month....

Someone tells me its £23 for my broadband and then I have to pay £17 for the line but then the cost of providing that line is lower than it was in the first place, I start to feel like I'm being taken for a c***.

Virgin gave a discount to those who took the line because it was more profit for them... and if they had there way they would of probably only charged £5 for the line but all have to stay in line with the leader which is BT.... it's one of the reasons Virgin isn't putting landlines in on new networks these days.

The fact is all increases to line rental in recent years has been related to Broadband... but for some reason the UK don't like paying for Broadband..

Yet they will pay 100's for a pair of headphones that cost about 50p to manufacture and promote...

In reply to a post by professor973:

Other than that, I was under the impression that Market A & 1 led to no change in priced from those where it had a bearing - Another case of call it what you like, but the product stays the same.

Perhaps your exchange was reclassified from Market 1 to Market B when Market A/B came in.

You can see the Market A price here: https://pulse8broadband.co.uk/docs/Pulse8-Broadband-...

Under "Unlimited Broadband packages" it says: "8Mbps Home Broadband (No Fixed I.P.) £28". Line rental is also £8 instead of £6.

It's 8 meg because most if not all Market A exchanges were never upgraded by BT to 24 meg WBC due to the lack of LLU competition.

Or perhaps the Pulse8 £28 + £8 price is simply determined by whether the exchange has WBC or IPstream Connect. The "8 meg" description seem to point to that.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

And maybe pulse8 pricing is not matched to either of those but depends on what LLU options there are at the exchange

Actually I've just seen that Pulse8 XLHome is LLU (presumably TalkTalk wholesale).

So the pricing is probably purely down to whether the exchange has TalkTalk LLU or not. Unusually for Market A exchanges, professor973's exchange has TalkTak LLU which explains the lower price he gets despite the Market A classification of his exchange.

I suppose if BT want to compete with Sky for sports TV, they will have to raise their basic packages too (i.e. line rental).

In reply to a post by camieabz:

I suppose if BT want to compete with Sky for sports TV, they will have to raise their basic packages too (i.e. line rental).

They not allow to do that. What if we don't have any sky sports or bt sports

While a drop in number of minutes of calls on landlines of 50 million over 5 years is large, the 90 million minutes in 2013 was a long way from barely used.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

While a drop in number of minutes of calls on landlines of 50 million over 5 years is large, the 90 million minutes in 2013 was a long way from barely used.

Most of that would of been me nan!

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

While a drop in number of minutes of calls on landlines of 50 million over 5 years is large, the 90 million minutes in 2013 was a long way from barely used.

I bet a lot of those calls where to 0800 and 0845/70 numbers though.... and with new pricing coming into affect on mobiles I think that will surely decline in the coming years...

I'm also sure that as soon as I get my nan off here 7 year old tariff with O2 and onto something with a bit more value and quality she will use the ouse phone a lot less, I know my other grandmother has reduced her landline calls by around 65% on the house phone since I got her a sim from VM with around 1200 minutes on and in the coming year he phone line might be switched off or to a VoIP provider..

But moving away from traditional landlines is a popular thing at the moment.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

And maybe pulse8 pricing is not matched to either of those but depends on what LLU options there are at the exchange

Actually I've just seen that Pulse8 XLHome is LLU (presumably TalkTalk wholesale).

So the pricing is probably purely down to whether the exchange has TalkTalk LLU or not. Unusually for Market A exchanges, professor973's exchange has TalkTak LLU which explains the lower price he gets despite the Market A classification of his exchange.

They use the Talk Talk Business model like A&A and others.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

While a drop in number of minutes of calls on landlines of 50 million over 5 years is large, the 90 million minutes in 2013 was a long way from barely used.

I bet a lot of those calls where to 0800 and 0845/70 numbers though.... and with new pricing coming into affect on mobiles I think that will surely decline in the coming years...

I'm also sure that as soon as I get my nan off here 7 year old tariff with O2 and onto something with a bit more value and quality she will use the ouse phone a lot less, I know my other grandmother has reduced her landline calls by around 65% on the house phone since I got her a sim from VM with around 1200 minutes on and in the coming year he phone line might be switched off or to a VoIP provider..

But moving away from traditional landlines is a popular thing at the moment.

My landline proved its worth a few months ago when i had to call for an ambulance the operator thought it was in the other end of the country when i used a mobile. switched to landline and they knew my address.

Also old handsets which use the ringwire are great for power cuts and other emergencies

I was on 24meg ADSL2+ with pulse8 on my Market 1 exchange BEFORE the fibre switch. Possibly you remember the fuss it caused here. Al I know, is that there is still no reference to anything other than Market 1 for my GLemsford exchange, along with never being limited to an 8 meg service for connect services, other than the PO, where White Label is only ever 8 meg. I believe they still are an 8 meg supplier, despite all the lies of higher speed when they switched to TT.

I think it's the 8meg ADSL service. I have never been restricted to 8mb. Always had 16 meg from the ADSL2+ upgrade when I was with Plusnet - Long before unbundling.

Thank you. It also explains the sky high price I get from the likes of Plusnet or the old Sky connect that was. My initial switch to Pulse8, before they switched me to TT LLU, was the same speed, with speedtests showing Tiscali (Owned by TT). That is the P8 setup where no LLU, though did not effect me speed or price of £19 + £6 for line.

Correct, with equally good backup.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Thank you. It also explains the sky high price I get from the likes of Plusnet or the old Sky connect that was.

Plusnet's price is definitely Market A/B determined, yup, because that's how the BT Wholesale price they pay is determined.

In reply to a post by professor973:

My initial switch to Pulse8, before they switched me to TT LLU, was the same speed, with speedtests showing Tiscali (Owned by TT). That is the P8 setup where no LLU, though did not effect me speed or price of £19 + £6 for line.

So you've always had LLU on Pulse8, first Tiscali wholesale and now TalkTalk wholesale, which explains the cheaper price.

Whilst not relevant to Pulse8's pricing, it is odd that your exchange is still Market A despite having at least one LLU provider available, presumably for quite some time from what you've written.

not to mention that even if LLU wasn't there in the first place, BT might of had 21CN WBC product available which goes up to ADSL2+ spec

Why is it that people extrapolate their own usage patterns to the usage of the entire population. Let's face it, all of us on here are a pretty weird bunch and in no way representative of the whole population!

My exchange has had TalkTalk for a couple of years at least and is still market A.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

The issue is that yes Landline Phone's are barely used anymore...

It depends where you live. We have to go out into the garden to make a call on our mobiles!

Yes my apologies, my statement that you have quoted and many seem to have picked up on is slightly inaccurate and maybe need some more context adding too it.

Landlines are still used quiet a bit but if many where to have the choice not to have them then we might find a lot less people would have them and use them...

The changes in the usage patterns on landlines might only be in urban area's with dense coverage from mobile operators and also the availability of more than one broadband infrastructure, but I feel that with the recent changes to mobile tariffs and the huge coverage that these changes are getting in the media, many consumers may opt to investigate alternative tariffs or even abandon there telephone lines where possible.

Many more price rises to turn folks away. From today, non-geographical 08 numbers are taking a big increase in price. many providers like TT are removing them from any-time call packages.
BT rising from 1.5p to 9.6p, Sky 6.6p to 9.5p, Plusnet 9p to 9.6p. Mobiles are increasing these calls also, with 3 Mobile rising from 5p to 25p!.
These calls are now made of two parts - The flat rate to the particular organisation, along with the connection charge.
Ofcom demanded these calls be split into two parts to show how much suppliers were raking from the connection element. Suppliers have jumped at the chance to rip customers off.

The Plusnet charge is, (splitting hairs), 9.58ppm. However, that is what it has been since 23 September 2014. Link.

In reply to a post by professor973:

From today, non-geographical 08 numbers are taking a big increase in price.

Not all 08xx surely - 0800 for instance.

The hours I waste tracking down the 'normal' number for companies I need to ring. If I can't find one I email and if I can't email, then they're off my list!

Yeah, not knocking plusnet over this rise.

In reply to a post by longedge:

In reply to a post by professor973:

From today, non-geographical 08 numbers are taking a big increase in price.

Not all 08xx surely - 0800 for instance.

The hours I waste tracking down the 'normal' number for companies I need to ring. If I can't find one I email and if I can't email, then they're off my list!

Try the free Weq4U app - does all that for you and queues for you saving minutes.

It rings an 0203 number when it does call out which is in allowance. ive been using it for years

Same here - BT and TT but market 1/A

In reply to a post by longedge:

In reply to a post by professor973:

From today, non-geographical 08 numbers are taking a big increase in price.

Not all 08xx surely - 0800 for instance.

The hours I waste tracking down the 'normal' number for companies I need to ring. If I can't find one I email and if I can't email, then they're off my list!

Correct - Then again, I did not state "all" - Try http://www.saynoto0870.com/

Do not know about Plusnet but, with BT the connection charge is taken on dialing number not when connected.
ie £0.23 for every call not connected.

Edited by flippery (Wed 01-Jul-15 17:06:15)

In reply to a post by longedge:

Not all 08xx surely - 0800 for instance.

The change to 0800 and 0808 is that as well as being free from landlines they are now also free from mobiles in the UK. Link.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Try http://www.saynoto0870.com/

Always my first port of call in fact it's in my bookmarks. In the past I've even gone back and added an entry or two when I've drawn a blank there. I get quite good success with an email along the lines of, "I wish to ring you but I do not make use of premium rate numbers. Do you have a normal telephone number please?"

good post, am surprised you are looking to move also as you before came across as been quite happy.

I posted what you said about BTw on the plusnet forum which I hope you are ok with.

Personally I am looking at sky and hoping they have enough GEA space at my exchange so I get put on their backhaul.

The issue I have is eating up 6 months of unused LRS on plusnet. Sky is also more expensive than plusnet but I believe is a better quality network.

I lose ipv6, but with BT enabling ipv6 imminently, then that will trigger sky to copy probably within a year.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 01-Jul-15 19:12:45)

You can keep your line with Plusnet, from their side of it.

Sky have been known to let people join on broadband only when they are tied into a phone term, but expect them to move over at the end of that term.

yeah I plan to ask them that.

But I want to make sure I am not using BTw for sky, I want to use their LLU backhaul.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 01-Jul-15 19:58:45)

Sky just do not use bt wholesale for broadband now, in the scenario outlined if sky let you do it broadband would be over partial llu

so basically their fiber product is LLU based only?

Yes.

In reply to a post by flippery:

Do not know about Plusnet but, with BT the connection charge is taken on dialing number not when connected.
ie £0.23 for every call not connected.

That is not true, there is no charge for a call which is not connected. Obviously getting through to an answering or queuing service counts as being connected, but just ringing or an engaged tone does not.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The issue I have is eating up 6 months of unused LRS on plusnet. Sky is also more expensive than plusnet but I believe is a better quality network.

I lose ipv6, but with BT enabling ipv6 imminently, then that will trigger sky to copy probably within a year.

You could always challenge Plusnet for a refund or goodwill gesture...

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

so basically their fiber product is LLU based only?

No. Sky will offer fibre in exchanges where they do not have an LLU presence. In fact they will only offer fibre in exchanges where there is fibre and they have no LLU presence, so as to avoid offering Sky Connect (BT Wholesale).

Assuming you're right, I think you mean "offer only". Altering that word order makes a huge difference .

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

so basically their fiber product is LLU based only?

No. Sky will offer fibre in exchanges where they do not have an LLU presence. In fact they will only offer fibre in exchanges where there is fibre and they have no LLU presence, so as to avoid offering Sky Connect (BT Wholesale).

Arghhh!

My head hurts!

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Assuming you're right, I think you mean "offer only". Altering that word order makes a huge difference .

You can assume I'm right, because I'm right.

What difference does the word order make?

Think you're wrong there Oliver. My brother has Sky's LLU ADSL on our fibre enabled exchange and Sky told him last week that they WILL be able to provide their fibre product to him within the next 2 months. This was confirmed by a Sky engineer who installed my new dish yesterday (he also does the phone/fibre installs).

In reply to a post by WelshWArrior:

Think you're wrong there Oliver. My brother has Sky's LLU ADSL on our fibre enabled exchange and Sky told him last week that they WILL be able to provide their fibre product to him within the next 2 months.

I was talking about exchanges which don't have Sky LLU.

Our exchange - Tenby (SWTB) has got Sky LLU.

To boldly go

To go boldly

One is incorrect. The word order does make a difference.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

One is incorrect. The word order does make a difference.

What difference does the position of "only" make to my sentence? i.e. would you explain the two meanings of my sentence in each case with the two variations of word order?

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 02-Jul-15 15:02:55)

In reply to a post by WelshWArrior:

Our exchange - Tenby (SWTB) has got Sky LLU.

Yes, I was not talking about exchanges like yours. I was talking about exchanges which don't have Sky LLU, but which do have FTTC (typically BDUK projects).

Oh right I get your point now

"... they will only offer fibre in exchanges where there is fibre and they have no LLU presence" means they will not offer fibre where they do have LLU presence.

"... they will offer only fibre in exchanges where there is fibre and they have no LLU presence" means they will supply it where they do not have LLU, but will not, (as you add), supply Sky Connect.

Additionally by the way, that does assume they have LLU at the fibre headend exchange. If they haven't, then they can't offer fibre at either

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 02-Jul-15 15:44:43)

Right, I see it now! I think it was more the order of the sentence than the position of "only".

My re-write is:

Old:
"In fact they will only offer fibre in exchanges where there is fibre and they have no LLU presence, so as to avoid offering Sky Connect (BT Wholesale)"

New:
"In fact in exchanges where there is fibre and Sky have no LLU presence, Sky will only offer fibre so as to avoid offering Sky Connect (BT Wholesale)"

Is it not possible for Sky to have backhaul at an exchange where they do not have an LLU presence? Perhaps unlikely but presumably technically possible?

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 02-Jul-15 17:38:22)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Is it not possible for Sky to have backhaul at an exchange where they do not have an LLU presence? Perhaps unlikely but presumably technically possible?

I think that is what Zen LLU is. As I read the vague statements a while ago about not having LLU kit but using their own network via POPs, Zen appear to use BT Wholesale tails and take a feed off those at the exchange. Similar to the TTB resellers (or their backhaul providers) who use TalkTalk tails but not TTB backhaul.

As far as I know Sky don't do that anywhere.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As far as I know Sky don't do that anywhere.

Yep, neither do I.

But if there is a rural BDUK fibre-enabled exchange feeding into a WBC-enabled exchange without a Sky LLU presence, perhaps Sky might consider adding backhaul to that exchange to support fibre, even though they have no interest in providing LLU at the WBC-enabled exchange.

That would amount to BT Wholesale helping Sky to compete with them. Very unlikely. No doubt they would be welcome to take WBMC - BTW probably couldn't refuse that, but it would have the same drawback as Sky Connect. Puny MSIL provision.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That would amount to BT Wholesale helping Sky to compete with them.

Why? I'm not suggesting Sky would use WBC, I'm suggesting Sky would use their own backhaul, with or without an LLU presence at the head-end exchange.

by LLU I meant backhaul as of course on FTTC they use openreach equipment.

It would be somewhat odd for sky to only have backhaul since thats the bulk of the LLU expense, if the backhaul exists I would guess the dslams also exist for adsl.

Yeah. It's probably hypothetical anyway, since there are probably no fibre headend exchanges which don't have Sky LLU (and therefore backhaul) already.

You've quoted the first part of my post, but ignored it in your reply .

They can only use their own backhaul from an exchange by either installing an MSAN, (and GEA link cable), i.e. LLU, or by using someone else's MSAN/GEA link.

That means a choice of BT Wholesale, TalkTalk Business or Vodafone (C & W) MSAN/link. Yeah - really?

It's LLU plus the GEA link or nothing. They cannot get from the Openreach GEA panel direct to their backhaul.

Ah right, I did not know that an ISP could not install backhaul into an exchange without also installing an MSAN there. Perhaps if a headend exchange has no Sky LLU, there will be a few upgraded to support the rural fibre-enabled exchanges (although that might not be economically worth it for Sky).

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

But if there is a rural BDUK fibre-enabled exchange feeding into a WBC-enabled exchange without a Sky LLU presence, perhaps Sky might consider adding backhaul to that exchange to support fibre, even though they have no interest in providing LLU at the WBC-enabled exchange.

On a re-read of this I understand a little better what you are saying, but basically the same applies. It can't be done.

Let's label the BDUK-enabled exchange "A". You seem to be saying it need not be WBC-enabled, as the fibre links would go to the WBC-enabled exchange "B". Exchange B is by definition both fibre-enabled and WBC enabled.

You surmise that exchange B may not be Sky LLU'ed, but that Sky might add backhaul to exchange A. That just doesn't make sense.

First, as explained, they cannot add backhaul to exchange A without either LLU'ing it or using some other CP's MSAN;

second there would be no point, as the fibre isn't present there;

third, over time most such exchanges are likely to close down and be completely routed to exchange B rather than upgraded by BTW;

fourth, at exchange B the same applies as my first point.

The only thing that would make sense would be for Sky to LLU exchange B, thus picking up A + B + almost certainly some other small ones. Fibre through B and compulsory phone through A/other. Just as they do now.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

You surmise that exchange B may not be Sky LLU'ed, but that Sky might add backhaul to exchange A. That just doesn't make sense.

Nope, I was suggesting that Sky may add backhaul to exchange B even though it has no LLU, but you have said it's not possible.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The only thing that would make sense would be for Sky to LLU exchange B, thus picking up A + B + almost certainly some other small ones. Fibre through B and compulsory phone through A/other. Just as they do now.

Yep, as I say that would be subject to Sky making an economic assessment on the profitability of adding LLU to exchange B for the purpose of supporting fibre to exchange A, B and any other rural exchanges feeding to exchange B.

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 02-Jul-15 19:09:44)

We've overlapped posting there .

They can install backhaul, but if they don't LLU it by installing their own MSAN then they need to get a feed off some other one. As I said, I think that's what Zen do. Samknows calls it Zen LLU just for ease, I believe, as Zen specifically said at the start of their rollout they weren't installing MSANs in the exchanges.

Yeah, I don't see Sky adding backhaul to anyone else's MSAN's either, they would either install their own into B, or just not support fibre to exchange A, B and any others feeding into B.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yep, as I say that would be subject to Sky making an economic assessment on the profitability of adding LLU to exchange B for the purpose of supporting fibre to exchange A (or any other rural exchanges feeding to exchange B).

Mainly to provide it to B, as that is clearly the biggie in the area. The addition of the feeding in ones is what may make it worthwhile LLU'ing. If it were big enough in its own right they would already have done it.

I wonder if we are slightly off topic, for any forum never mind in the Plusnet one in a thread about their landline price rises !

Probably.

Roberto you know if sky just move the broadband plusnet wont cease the line?

Best to make sure you get a Plusnet rep to keep an eye on it. Get in touch with one before ordering, then tell him/her when you have done. Cockups can happen, but that's what it would be, as long as Sky only put in a broadband migration, not a line takeover as well.

You also need to watch out for the new letters. Those should tell you what is going to move and when, but we already have Timico/Coms not notifying their leaving customer. There are bound to be mistakes, but less risk in this case.

is ok the line is moving over as well, sky credited the account to cover the 6 months LRS.

I will make a post on plusnet soon to announce my ipv6 account can be given to someone else.

I cannot say I enjoyed doing this, plusnet in 2014 overall I felt was a happy experience, but in 2015 too many negative things have been happening, it seems they dont want to comment on the current performance issues which is a shame but it is what it is, all I can do really is take my money elsewhere which I have done.

Also sky tried hard to get me on their normal 40/10 service, offered me a big lot of cashback and discounted price, was considering accepting as over the 12 months the difference was 100s of pounds. Was offered £180 pre paid tesco card and 12 months half price for 40/10 with £50 signon fee waived. The fiber pro has no offers whatsoever.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The fiber pro has no offers whatsoever.

That's a shame, especially as you need Pro to get useful things like Static IP.

I'm tempted when my 18months is up (even though I've just renewed line rental saver) but that is next Jan; so anything could change in the time. Good luck with the move and keep us posted.

someone just gave me a good idea, signup to 40/10 get the free setup and tesco card, then upgrade to 80/20 second month.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 02-Jul-15 21:12:10)

I dunno.

I have been scouting around, as I saw no resolution coming from Plusnet, but either I struck lucky a week ago after being kicked off and landing on ptn-bng01, a few hours after I reverted to my normal account login instead of the IPv6 one (that always puts me on IPv4 anyway these days), or they/BTW have fixed something. My line has been steady as a rock. I keep wonderimg to ask if anyone else has noticed an improvement.

Plus yesterday this was scheduled for 6am. "We're performing maintenance on some of our gateway routers, including capacity increases."

I must do a speedtest tonight just to make sure. I've forgotten recently. Goes and turns on the wired machine.
...
Time to eat, then test. But the running experience here is good.

My speed and speedtests have been pretty good: e.g. this one taken just after 10:00pm. http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14358...
I appear to be on ptw-bng01

1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.254
 2    11 ms    10 ms    10 ms  lo0.13.central13.ptw-bng01.plus.net [195.166.128.173]
 3    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  irb.13.ptw-cr01.plus.net [84.93.249.49]
 4    11 ms    10 ms    10 ms  kingston-gw.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.6]
 5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 6     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 7    10 ms    11 ms    10 ms  ae0.er01.telhc.bbc.co.uk [132.185.254.109]
 8    11 ms    11 ms    11 ms  132.185.255.149
 9    10 ms    10 ms    10 ms  fmt-vip71.telhc.bbc.co.uk [212.58.244.20]

if you have been on the gateway since sadly it doesnt mean much, I am also on a good endpoint, but there is probably a 90% chance if I hop the issues comes back. Especially that the steering favors the bgn's and those give me woeful performance.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I lose ipv6, but with BT enabling ipv6 imminently, then that will trigger sky to copy probably within a year.

Sky are currently updating firmware on routers for IPv6 and are IPv6 ready - I suspect they'll be before BT actually.

In reply to a post by therioman:

Sky are currently updating firmware on routers for IPv6 and are IPv6 ready - I suspect they'll be before BT actually.

Some BT customers are already being assigned IPv6 addresses: https://community.bt.com/t5/Other-Broadband-Discussi...

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by therioman:

Sky are currently updating firmware on routers for IPv6 and are IPv6 ready - I suspect they'll be before BT actually.

Some BT customers are already being assigned IPv6 addresses: https://community.bt.com/t5/Other-Broadband-Discussi...

Alas I wish I could say more but suffice to say, that's not a situation unique to BT...

Is it possible to get a refund on annual line rent when moving away because of these price rises?

Alternatively what offers are available from other providers when keeping the existing Plusnet line till annual line rental contract expires?

East Linton exchange https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/ESEAL

nope - it is non refundable
re other suppliers I have no idea

In reply to a post by 961a:

Is it possible to get a refund on annual line rent when moving away because of these price rises?

Alternatively what offers are available from other providers when keeping the existing Plusnet line till annual line rental contract expires?

East Linton exchange https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/ESEAL

I don't think Plusnet will let you cancel your broadband "if in contract" and keep your phone line as the 30 day get out period is going to relate to line rental and other phone related price increase!

In reply to a post by 961a:

Is it possible to get a refund on annual line rent when moving away because of these price rises?

Officially no, although I believe it has happened in exceptional circumstances. Given that your line rental won't actually increase for the duration of the annual payment you are on pretty shaky ground and the broadband prices aren't increasing anyway, apart from the termination charge, unless I've missed something.

Edited by kasg (Fri 03-Jul-15 10:42:16)

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by 961a:

Is it possible to get a refund on annual line rent when moving away because of these price rises?

Officially no, although I believe it has happened in exceptional circumstances. Given that your line rental won't actually increase for the duration of the annual payment you are on pretty shaky ground and the broadband prices aren't increasing anyway, apart from the termination charge, unless I've missed something.

I suppose it also depends on wether it will still have a detrimental affect during the contract... so if the LRS ends after 12 months on an 18 month contract then I would see it that the contract isn't as promised, so PLusnet could allow the customer to leave penalty free at the end of the contract or now and refund the equivelents costs for the remainder of LRS..

Precisely. Those on LRS aren't affected by the rise until the end of their term, and can go anyway then.

Not only that, but if an LRS line is moved elsewhere, say after 8 months, what refund would the customer expect even if they could have one? The answer would have to be the LRS amount paid minus the sum of the cost of 8 months on full rate and 4 months of early termination fees.

LRS by definition being a discount for taking and paying for 12 full months.

The problems here are very poor broadband speeds and the increased costs of voice calls.

The fact that the annual line rent saver has only recently been renewed is the pain

What I will venture is that the discount on LRS is now so small that in future it should not be taken to avoid the tie in it creates

Well if you are affected now then I would fight for the equivalent LRS refunded...

Bringing speed issues into will just delay things as they will want to investigate or just keep you hanging even.

If the calls cost changes will affect you then approach it from that angle and say you want a refund for the remaining months left.

its controversial in my view, LRS is a strange one.

LRS customers still have the price rises of calls and extras to deal with. Plusnet will say its non refundable, ofcom will try to stay out of it like wimps, but my personal view is if you pay for any extras which are still paid monthly and especially if you use the line for outgoing chargeable calls then its a detrimental change and the non refunding of LRS counts as a penalty.

This sadly may need a court to decide unless plusnet pay people off silently when threatened.

I dont know if I would have bothered to challenge plusnet or not if sky didnt give me £60 credit.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 03-Jul-15 17:42:23)

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

The issue is that yes Landline Phone's are barely used anymore... with more and more people opting to plug them out as paying for calls package when one's mobile contract now has Unlimited Minutes and on most networks the sound quality is so much more superior to a house phone.

The other issue with landlines is that as there primary use now is DSL and if theres issues with the cables to and from the exchange or cabinets then it costs to repair or replace those cables.

So no landlines are not being used any less...

I think we are all being conned to be honest, the telecom companies come out with all this extra they offering and they know full well that most people will not use it.
i remember when BT first gave us free calls and it made big headlines, yet the line rental went up to pay of it and still going up year by year,

I wish now I stayed with the provider I was with a put up with the problems for a few more months. at least there was no line rental to keep putting up.

Line rental is a con and Ofcom does nothing about it, but then, that is normal for Ofcom.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Precisely. Those on LRS aren't affected by the rise until the end of their term, and can go anyway then.

Not only that, but if an LRS line is moved elsewhere, say after 8 months, what refund would the customer expect even if they could have one? The answer would have to be the LRS amount paid minus the sum of the cost of 8 months on full rate and 4 months of early termination fees.

LRS by definition being a discount for taking and paying for 12 full months.

That's not the case for everyone.

I'm on a 24-month contract, so only half of that is covered by my existing LRS.

Not quite sure what someone in my situation is expected to do re "if you do decide to leave because of these changes, we won't apply any early termination charges."

I guess I could either -
A) Ask them if I can renew LRS for the remaining twelve months now, at current prices
or
B) Tell them I'm giving them notice that I wish to leave without penalty when my current LRS runs out in December

Is the 24 months from when you joined round about the beginning of 2014? When did you take out the LRS?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Is the 24 months from when you joined round about the beginning of 2014? When did you take out the LRS?

Renewed my existing Plusnet broadband contract in December 2014, taking a 24-month option.

At the same time took LRS for 12 months at £155.88

So I have about 6 months left on the LRS but 18 months left on the broadband contract...

Nasty ground. I expect technically they could claim the two contracts are separate.

However I think you can probably follow the line that the broadband is discounted because you have Plusnet line rental, so the contracts are linked. If you have the right to cancel the line you should be able to cancel the broadband as well, as the 24-month option you took was a bundle, not individual contracts.

Putting another way, if you hadn't taken LRS, could you cancel line and broadband? I expect so. The LRS is irrelevant except that if you left immediately you wouldn't get a part-refund.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Putting another way, if you hadn't taken LRS, could you cancel line and broadband? I expect so.

It's mandated by Ofcom.

LRS quite possibly is being used by ISPs to tie people in to an ISP in the event of broadband price increases, because as far as I know Ofcom does not mandate line rental upfront payments to be refunded in the event of a broadband price increase. Of course the contract can be terminated if the customer is ok with losing the line rental they have paid in advance.

Essentially, part of the reason for the LRS discount over pay monthly, with ISPs who do not part-refund LRS, is down to the customer is losing the ability to switch "penalty" free in the event of a broadband price increase.

Pay monthly is always the safer option when it comes to being protected from broadband price increases, and LRS discounts are generally being slashed anyway.

Edited by Oliver341 (Tue 07-Jul-15 18:25:32)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Putting another way, if you hadn't taken LRS, could you cancel line and broadband? I expect so.

Pay monthly is always the safer option when it comes to being protected from broadband price increases, and LRS discounts are generally being slashed anyway.

LRS is a dead duck now, the discount being pitiful

Certainly seems BT are trying to remove every conceiveable way of paying a reasonable sum for a physical landline. That's a 19% rise this year, following on from an 18% rise this time last year.

But what's their endgame?

Force everyone onto cable and abandon the copper network altogether?

It seems ultimately counterproductive - sooner or later highspeed mobile-network-based solutions like Relish will fill the void. The fixed landline network was BT's main quasi-monopolistic advantage, and at the moment price is its main selling point - if they continue to make it less and less cost-effective, they're cutting away their own ground.

Or have they accepted that, and have no wider vision than just to squeeze the last revenue they can out of it?

As another possiblity, I notice I'm entitled to take out line rental with another provider if I pay a £2.50/month surcharge.

Given that Direct Save are currently offering an annual LRS of £132, that works out £23.88 cheaper over the year, even with the surcharge...

In reply to a post by gordon_k:

Certainly seems BT are trying to remove every conceiveable way of paying a reasonable sum for a physical landline. That's a 19% rise this year, following on from an 18% rise this time last year.

But what's their endgame?

It's not really "BT" as such, since BT aren't the only retail provider of line rental. Openreach are charging £8.95 inc vat for WLR3. BT Retail obviously charge a lot more than this for line rental, but they aren't the only ones.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 08-Jul-15 11:46:11)

True, but I do see BT as responsible for the issue at hand - i.e. PlusNet's 41% increase in annual line rental over the past 12 months.

The real problem is ineffective regulatory controls. I give you Ofcom, 11 July 2013 -

Telephone and broadband customers could see lower prices as a result of changes to wholesale charges proposed by Ofcom today.
The proposals relate to prices that Openreach, BT's network access division, can charge other telecoms providers for some of its main wholesale services.
These prices have historically been regulated by Ofcom because BT has been found to have 'significant market power' in the delivery of these services. Last week Ofcom published the consultation, which found this still to be the case.

As a result, Ofcom is proposing revised 'charge controls' on some Openreach products. These controls would reduce wholesale charges, which could be expected to lead to real-terms price reductions for consumers, as communications providers pass on savings to their landline and broadband customers."

...

Ofcom is consulting on the following charge controls on annual rental charges which would come into effect on 1 April 2014 and run until 31 March 2017:
� Fully unbundled lines: the regulated wholesale price for this service today is £84.26 per year. Under Ofcom's proposals this will fall in real terms by between CPI - 0% and CPI - 6% every year;
� Shared unbundled lines: the regulated wholesale price today is £9.75 per year. Under Ofcom's proposals this will fall in real terms by between CPI - 8% and CPI - 12% every year;
� Wholesale line rental: the regulated wholesale price today is £93.27 per year. Under Ofcom's proposals this will fall in real terms by between CPI - 2% and CPI - 8% every year.

So Ofcom's proposed wholesale price reductions of between 2% and 8% every year, have translated to retail rises of between 18% and 19% every year.

LMAO! - talk about the reality not matching the hype...

In reply to a post by gordon_k:

True, but I do see BT as responsible for the issue at hand - i.e. PlusNet's 41% increase in annual line rental over the past 12 months.

But BT do not have a retail monopoly, so your post should have been directed to all retail ISPs for over-inflating line rental, not just BT. BT Retail & Plusnet could double their line rental next month and there would still be plenty of cheaper alternatives available.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 08-Jul-15 12:40:19)

Sadly ofcom have clearly failed here. There is a political belief that competition always works and is the solution for everything, this is the guidelines ofcom operate under. Even more telling is although its really obvious the regulation has failed, ofcom have just sat silent.

Ofgem are in a similar mess, they are proposing increasing competition to fix electric/gas prices, its as if the only tools for these people is to increase competition.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Sadly ofcom have clearly failed here.

Ofcom have only failed if they haven't done something which is within their power. Imposing price restrictions on private companies operating within a competitive market goes way beyond what Ofcom have powers to do.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

There is a political belief that competition always works and is the solution for everything, this is the guidelines ofcom operate under.

So your criticism is more about the capitalism, competitive markets, and their effectiveness to reduce prices rather than Ofcom.

I think it's entirely fair to criticise OFCOM! They are there to regulate the industry and promote healthy competition to benefit the consumer.

The cynical manipulation of line rental charges in order to keep headline broadband prices down is scandalous and the cartel behaviour of the main players deserves investigation.

Believe it or not there are many phone users in this country who have no interest in broadband and they're most likely to be BT Retail customers. OFCOM's cosy acceptance of line rental pricing does nothing for these customers so they're unwittingly subsidising the broadband users of this country.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Ofcom have only failed if they haven't done something which is within their power. Imposing price restrictions on private companies operating within a competitive market goes way beyond what Ofcom have powers to do.

As far as I'm aware, Ofcom do have powers to impose price caps - and if they don't, then they clearly need them as a matter of urgency.

At the moment, the ADSL market is not a competitive market - it is collaborative, and the victims of that collaboration are the public.

BT sets its line rental price (& PlusNet's) - and, broadly, everyone else follows suit.

In reply to a post by gordon_k:

As far as I'm aware, Ofcom do have powers to impose price caps - and if they don't, then they clearly need them as a matter of urgency.

Only at exchanges where BT has a monopoly, hence all the Market 1/2 and Market A stuff. The rest of the areas are considered deregulated and open to the free market. Openreach is also subject to price controls in the areas of their business where they have a monopoly.

In reply to a post by gordon_k:

BT sets its line rental price (& PlusNet's) - and, broadly, everyone else follows suit.

Matters of price fixing can be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority, but it's notoriously difficult to prove, especially given that much of the telecoms market runs on pretty tight profit margins as it is.

I see them as failed yes because their aim was to decrease retail prices with the change, which clearly hasnt happened. They would have been better of leaving wholesale pricing alone if they were not prepared to take it all the way.

In reply to a post by gordon_k:

True, but I do see BT as responsible for the issue at hand - i.e. PlusNet's 41% increase in annual line rental over the past 12 months.

Incorrect.

From 2 September 2014 to 2 September 2015 is 19.25%.

Yep, I've fallen foul of it this year, for the first time. Think I could have renewed "early" from the 12th onwards, but each year it's been creeping forward by a few days/weeks, so I knew I would eventually be unable to avail myself of the "old" prices.

Edit: if my maths is correct, the changes also halve the saving for signing up for a whole year from £36 to £18.

Not sure I want to pay a whole year up-front to save just £18, although it would have been worth it if I still secured the current prices.

Edit again: I suppose at least it would give me an element of protection from next year's annual price hike. If it's likely to come round in September again, or even creep forward to August, in line with the trend of recent years, but my line rental renewal is not until December, I could potentially benefit from up to four months' price-hold after it's gone up for monthly payers.

If I believe the price will go up again (no reason to think otherwise, as the pattern is it always has), the actual saving might be more than £18, but is not quantifiable without taking a guess at when they'll next rise prices, and by how much. If it's August (2016), by £1, I save an extra £4, taking it to £22. Hmmm. Big deal. Still not sure it's worth it.

What happens in the unlikely event line rental actually goes back down, due to aggressive competition? I suppose those who took the annual LRS are locked into the deal they agreed, whereas everyone else gets the reduction immediately.

Edited by TLM (Sat 11-Jul-15 11:30:05)