897 million reasons for a BT price rise

Another reason for a BT price rise - £897 million paid for Champions League rights. No more Champions League on terrestrial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24879138

Edited by Oliver341 (Sat 09-Nov-13 10:53:38)

Here's the press release http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?A...

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Another reason for a BT price rise

and as somebody who has no interest whatsoever in football, yet another reason for me to migrate from BT when my contract is up in Feb.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

and as somebody who has no interest whatsoever in football, yet another reason for me to migrate from BT when my contract is up in Feb.

Exactly ...

But no complaints when Sky raises their prices to keep the CL or pay for their broadband ventures?

Sky have had it there way for far too long so... anything that upsets that apple cart is good with me

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Another reason for a BT price rise

and as somebody who has no interest whatsoever in football, yet another reason for me to migrate from BT when my contract is up in Feb.

Well for everyone 1 of you I guess BT are hoping to get 10 back

Who mentioned Sky? This is about the loss to terrestrial FTA.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

But no complaints when Sky raises their prices to keep the CL or pay for their broadband ventures?

Sky Sports wasn't free for Sky Broadband subscribers last time I checked.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Sky have had it there way for far too long so... anything that upsets that apple cart is good with me

Not so bothered about Sky, but when BT pull football from free TV (ITV) that's another matter.

Don't need to deal with any of them to watch what you want - Another month's ban for the mention Andrew?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Who mentioned Sky? This is about the loss to terrestrial FTA.

It was only terrestrial because the rights were also shared with ITV. ITV lost out can't blame BT for that

In reply to a post by professor973:

Another month's ban for the mention Andrew?

Hopefully two.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

but when BT pull football from free TV (ITV) that's another matter.

2 issues here!

BT increasing their prices, for this, is NOT good news.

Pulling Sports from General channels, on FTA, & putting them onto dedicated Sports Channels seems very sensible to me!

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Another month's ban for the mention Andrew?

Hopefully two.

Get stuffed - There, I'll take the two

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

It was only terrestrial because the rights were also shared with ITV. ITV lost out can't blame BT for that

We're blaming BT for fleecing its telephone and broadband customers in order to buy football rights away from free TV.

In reply to a post by professor973:

Get stuffed - There, I'll take the two

Lol.

Ah a smile, better than the usual sense of humour failure I often find here.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Who mentioned Sky? This is about the loss to terrestrial FTA.

It was only terrestrial because the rights were also shared with ITV. ITV lost out can't blame BT for that

There's no-one else to blame other than BT.

How will ordinary freeview customers watch Champions League and Europa League football from 2015?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Who mentioned Sky? This is about the loss to terrestrial FTA.

It was only terrestrial because the rights were also shared with ITV. ITV lost out can't blame BT for that

There's no-one else to blame other than BT.

How will ordinary freeview customers watch Champions League and Europa League football from 2015?

Now, there's a poser!

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

How will ordinary freeview customers watch Champions League and Europa League football from 2015?

Similar to now?

In reference to www.btplc.com/News/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=15D869F4-C14E...:

Both finals to be free on BT Sport, as well as top matches from earlier rounds

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Who mentioned Sky? This is about the loss to terrestrial FTA.

It was only terrestrial because the rights were also shared with ITV. ITV lost out can't blame BT for that

There's no-one else to blame other than BT.

How will ordinary freeview customers watch Champions League and Europa League football from 2015?

What a strange view, and not that ITV should have bid more? ITV might not have bid at all, then what?

They didn't steal the rights, they bought them in an auction!

Edited by deleted (Sat 09-Nov-13 12:25:48)

In reply to a post by panda:

Similar to now?

In reference to www.btplc.com/News/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=15D869F4-C14E...:

Both finals to be free on BT Sport, as well as top matches from earlier rounds

Whilst the details are not yet finalised, I have every expectation the amount of Champions League on free TV will be significantly reduced. BT aren't primarily a TV company, CL is a stick to beat people towards phone lines and broadband.

It also announced it will show a selection of these new matches for free on BT Sport, even to homes that have not signed up to the channels.

The finals of each tournament will be showcased in this fashion along with a selection of top matches from earlier rounds. Fans will also be delighted to know that each participating British team will feature for free at least once each season.

I know what "once" means, but I wonder what "showcased" means?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

It was only terrestrial because the rights were also shared with ITV. ITV lost out can't blame BT for that

We're blaming BT for fleecing its telephone and broadband customers in order to buy football rights away from free TV.

Like Sky did to its TV customers to finance their broadband arm you mean?

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Like Sky did to its TV customers to finance their broadband arm you mean?

Since pay TV is a luxury item relative to telephone and broadband, I don't consider that analogous.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I know what "once" means, but I wonder what "showcased" means?

In this context I would imagine it to mean 'showing off our content that is usually restricted to subscribing customers, to everybody free of charge' in the same manner that Sky sometimes do/did.

I`m afraid this is the greed that is now endemic in football these days, I`m a current BT Sport subscriber, will I keep subbing ? Hmm only if its minimal cost, I certainly would not be paying Sky type prices to watch football. Also as other folk have pointed out anything to stick two fingers up at Murdoch is fine in my book

I wonder if it means 'showing selected highlights with half the screen covered by adverts' as BT usually do.

Charging my aunt £1.75 for privacy and caller display on her BT Basic account to help finance live football coverage certainly wont please her!

Perhaps the football players should take a pay cut as well as all the other associated fat cats involved, that's all football is about these days,Money
As it's no doubt them who dictate the price for the rights to show it on tv ,
Basic telephony charges should not be hiked for this, why should all BT customers be forced to subsidise BT sport ?

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 09-Nov-13 12:54:04)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Perhaps the football players should take a pay cut as well as all the other associated fat cats involved, that's all football is about these days,Money

Footballers, like film stars, have a talent that attracts certain members of the paying public, if those "audiences" are willing to pay to see such "super stars" at the going rate then that is fair enough...

Are proof that BT cover half the screen with adverts when running one of their free event weekends/nights?

The announcement gives me renewed impetus to look for an alternative to BT Retail when my Line Rental Saver is up.


BT Sport is often viewed and even marketed as a free additional extra, but BT Retail would not be spending these sort of sums without expecting commercial gain. They must intend to use BT Sport to raise average revenue per user, decrease churn by locking customers into additional minimum contract periods and win customers from their competitors.

Not only am I not interested in BT Sport, I have it anyway as part of my Virgin Media TV package.


For all that I dislike Sky, at least they keep their sports channels as a premium offering, allowing customers to pay for them or ignore them.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Like Sky did to its TV customers to finance their broadband arm you mean?

Since pay TV is a luxury item relative to telephone and broadband, I don't consider that analogous.

Sorry to hear that ,I do consider it analogous

Something similar here but we'll have to wait until the next FTA match in 2015.

For some reason, you're obsessing over Sky which is not the issue.

In reply to a post by David_W:

They must intend to use BT Sport to raise average revenue per user, decrease churn by locking customers into additional minimum contract periods and win customers from their competitors.

Gasp

Of course that is what they are doing, its what most people in business do, offer extras to keep the customers with you and take from other competitors, its nothing new. Its only a surprise to you now probably because its taken so long.

For BT to survive its not enough to just offer phone and broadband because its rivals (Sky & Virgin) offer TV also, they started slowly with Vision (bit pants) and now its growing and they are doing what they can to grow this new venture for them.

Its all perfectly normal and no surprise at all. Tesco start doing on-line food shopping for home delivery as an added extra, ASDA do the same , so do Sainsburys... its happens in all business, nothing new or shocking to see here

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

For some reason, you're obsessing over Sky which is not the issue.

I'm not obsessing I'm comparing.

Sky had TV price rises year on year to pay for its broadband venture.

BT (if this is what they are doing, its only people speculating of course) are 'possibly' taking revenue from their telephone/broadband arms to pay for their TV venture.

Just the same.

You are also saying this isn't the issue, is there an issue? BT won an auction that had others fairly competing, not sure there is any issue at all other than you don't like the result, in that case that is your own issue

What is shocking is the amount of outlay ordinary freeview customers will have to make to continue to watch previously free football on TV. We are talking hundreds if not thousands of pounds a year.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Sky had TV price rises year on year to pay for its broadband venture.

But at least people could cancel their pay TV and still watch free TV.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sat 09-Nov-13 13:44:49)

The reason you can't watch it free via ITV is ITV's fault no-one else's

Yep , people were lucky before that an FTA provider had the rights in the past , that luck is over.

Well at least ITV can spend it's money on something better (hopefully) but no more reality tv like c factor or Ive been a "celebrity" keep me on your TV type rubbish

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

The reason you can't watch it free via ITV is ITV's fault no-one else's

True, ITV doesn't own a load of telephone and broadband customers which it can fleece to pay for the rights.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

True, ITV doesn't own a load of telephone and broadband customers which it can fleece to pay for the rights.

Nope, but ITV's advertising rates undoubtedly reflected the costs of those football matches. And we all pay for TV advertising, even if we don't have a TV through the price of the goods we buy.

I seem to recall some time ago on TBB (?) some posting a cost per household of TV advertising; I seem to recall it was several hundred pounds per annum.

Edit: Found it on Free Chat from August 2012 - no link

Just think how much you are paying in hidden costs for the commercial channels. Everyone who buys any product is paying something to te advertising costs ... My sister-in-law is a product placement specialist and until recently was an operational director for a major confectionery company and she has access to figures which shows how much each household pays per annum. A few years back the figure worked out at around £450 per household ...

Edited by cheshire_man (Sat 09-Nov-13 14:51:43)

In reply to a post by cheshire_man:

Nope, but ITV's advertising rates undoubtedly reflected the costs of those football matches. And we all pay for TV advertising, even if we don't have a TV through the price of the goods we buy.

In that case, the price of goods we buy will undoubtedly fall in 2015.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by David_W:

They must intend to use BT Sport to raise average revenue per user, decrease churn by locking customers into additional minimum contract periods and win customers from their competitors.

Gasp

Of course that is what they are doing, its what most people in business do, offer extras to keep the customers with you and take from other competitors, its nothing new. Its only a surprise to you now probably because its taken so long.

You're putting words into my mouth. I was merely making explicit what is obvious to me, but which many BT Retail customers outside forums like this will not have stopped to consider.


This situation merely reflects the industry norm for telecommunications and entertainment: to come up with ever more complex bundles designed to restrict consumer freedom and lock people in to service providers.

My preference is for a menu pricing approach, with each element on its own separate contractual terms. It is for this reason that I buy mobile phones outright and have a SIM only contract, whilst my television, phone line rental and broadband all come from different suppliers.

I can understand discounts being available for taking multiple products from the same supplier, as there are economies of administration, also certain products build on top of others (you can't take a content service without access to the necessary transport).


My objection is when price rises are imposed on existing customers to pay for providing additional services they neither need nor want. BT Retail are spending huge sums on BT Sport, and their customers will be paying these huge sporting rights bills. It's not even in the interests of sports fans, as the increasing fragmentation of sporting rights between BT Sport, Sky and possible new entrants will leave sports fans paying multiple providers when they previously just needed a Sky Sports subscription.


Those who are in favour of the free market would say that consumers should exercise their right to choose another provider, but it's far from that simple. It takes time and effort to hunt down an alternative deal, especially when so many elements are bundled together. The imposition of large price rises on ancillary elements like Privacy with Caller Display, which are not part of the headline price, makes like for like price comparisons difficult. Based on a recent thread, it is still unclear whether pre-registering for free Privacy with Caller Display will prevent a BT Retail customer taking a new Line Rental Saver deal.

Fortunately, I don't depend on BT Retail for anything other than voice and I will soon be out of minimum contract period when my existing Line Rental Saver expires. I'll likely bundle my main line with my Zen FTTC. The second line, which does not have a broadband service on it, is more difficult - maybe porting it to VoIP is the right answer.

Edited by deleted (Sat 09-Nov-13 15:47:15)

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

The reason you can't watch it free via ITV is ITV's fault no-one else's

Since when did ITV have 4 million+ largely captive people they could obtain £85,000,000+ from, (that's caller display alone never mind the other rises), to go towards their bid?

They won the rights before?

It's quite obvious that BT have overbid for these rights. Their customers locked in on 18 month contracts will feel the pain over the next 3 years.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's quite obvious that BT have overbid for these rights. Their customers locked in on 18 month contracts will feel the pain over the next 3 years.

Yeah maybe, but I guess they expecting to pull in more customers so the cost should be diulted further

No different to Sky getting the Cricket in place of the BBC.

Don't give BT $ports or $ky any of your hard earned cash. For a fraction of the price, subscribe to Al Jazeera Sports via a VPN to watch every Champions League and Premier League game live. On the downside you'll have to put up with Richard keys and Andy Gray

In reply to a post by David_W:

My preference is for a menu pricing approach, with each element on its own separate contractual terms.

That's why I stopped watching live TV and having to pay for a TV licence - most of what is on the BBC now is of no interest to me. If I could have paid a reduced licence fee for a news and documentaries package, without having to cover the cost of sport, soaps and light entertainment, that would have suited me...

So what's the subscription for Al Jazeera Sports? About a tenner a month?

I think AJS charge around a fiver a month plus a few quid for a vpn so no more than £10 a month and you can watch as much footy as you want. Google is your friend

Hardly the end of the world - thought you meant maybe a 25% screen area invasion

In reply to a post by MHC:

No different to Sky getting the Cricket in place of the BBC.

I see a difference, since Sky do not control UK telecom infrastructure in the same way as BT do, and in doing so BT can exploit that revenue for eye watering football contracts.

It's pretty easy to ditch Sky, just cancel the TV subscription.

On the other hand, it's much harder to ditch BT. Essentially it means ditching a POTS landline completely (unless in Hull), because one way or another the money will feed the BT Group machine and their expensive football ventures, via BT Retail, BT Wholesale or BT Openreach.

Mobile? 4G?

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Mobile? 4G?

Get real. (Not Madrid ).

this post on bbc comments.

There's a crucial issue that no one seems to be mentioning: BT are being subsidised by the tax payer by 90pence in every £ to lay down broadband. Which BT then owns. And will rent back to the taxpayer. Who paid 90% of the cost!!! So when BT have £900 million to spend on sports WHY THE HELL ARE THEY GETTING SUBSIDIES?!!!

Is interesting as arguably BT are gaining customers from the subsidised rollout and this has then made the potential customers of their sports higher in turn.

It seems BT have become a new sky, spending a fortune on football rights and using other services to subsidise With sky the poor people paying for the basic entertainment packages subsidise the football (notice the annual inflation on those packages).

Can I opt out of football and skip any any price rises or even get a reduction?
I wouldn't think so. This looks like a vanity project for BT and we have to pay for it.
Disgusted.

Edited by stniuk (Sun 10-Nov-13 08:47:28)

In reply to a post by stniuk:

Can I opt out of football and skip any any price rises or even get a reduction?
I wouldn't think so. This looks like a vanity project for BT and we have to pay for it.
Disgusted.

I actually already put that question forward to BT, unsurprisingly they said no.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Sky do not control UK telecom infrastructure

They do control the satellite broadcasting platform though and have not been averse to using that position of power to control what other broadcasters can do on there.

Quote: "The second line, which does not have a broadband service on it, is more difficult - maybe porting it to VoIP is the right answer." end quote.

You have been saying this for months now; what's stopping you from doing just that?

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

Quote: "The second line, which does not have a broadband service on it, is more difficult - maybe porting it to VoIP is the right answer." end quote.

You have been saying this for months now; what's stopping you from doing just that?

I'm still in a Line Rental Saver for a couple of months. If I'm going to unwind my BT Retail account, I'll port both lines away to new providers at the same time.

In reply to a post by stniuk:

Can I opt out of football and skip any any price rises or even get a reduction?
I wouldn't think so. This looks like a vanity project for BT and we have to pay for it.
Disgusted.

You can get all the services from other suppliers.
I do not see a problem with line rental as, it is a maintenance charge for an infrastructure, similar to costs being requested by electricity, water and gas.
I have BT phone and broadband and can opt out of Caller Display and 1571.
The country wide use of wifi free, is a welcome bonus
For me as a BTW only customer, I do not see a problem, sport is a good tool to attract new customers as Sky will testify.

Edited by flippery (Sun 10-Nov-13 10:55:20)

As I said, it was "similar" - just an example of their thinking, but bear in mind that was not on a FTA broadcast. We'll have to wait for their real FTA broadcasts to see exactly what "showcase" means.

It cannot be worse than the US sports, where they have been shooting with 4:3 cameras in SD it seems but doing a HD broadcast and using sidebars for stats etc i.e. more like web based player than full screen TV

480i resized to 720p or 1080p must look pretty bad!

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

It cannot be worse than the US sports, where they have been shooting with 4:3 cameras in SD it seems but doing a HD broadcast and using sidebars for stats etc i.e. more like web based player than full screen TV

Some channels have good quality HD broadcast it seems channel dependent.

Ironically the worst in the UK in my view is the bbc, its like watching youtube in 2005 at 240p on iplayer. The watch in hd button seems only on a very few shows.

When I put bt sport on my hdmi monitor from my phone via a MHL cable, it looks very clear and detailed very close to broadcast tv, the detail is ok on the pc also but they clearly output at a better bitrate on phones than the pc, even tho pc have bigger displays,I think for piracy reasons these tv companies seem to deliberatly put less effort into pc web feeds, but bbc is by far the worst.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

It cannot be worse than the US sports, where they have been shooting with 4:3 cameras in SD it seems but doing a HD broadcast and using sidebars for stats etc i.e. more like web based player than full screen TV

I was last in the US in Nov last year, and I didn't see any of this. In fact the sports coverage was the best HD I saw whilst there. (I have family in the US, so I wasn't in a hotel).

I do not see a problem with line rental as, it is a maintenance charge for an infrastructure,

Yes, and a quality supplier like Zen, can sell on that same B.T. line rental to the likes of me for £11:22 a month - No contract tie-in - No years up front to obtain that price and still make a profit.
In light of that, I regard nearly £16 a month and long contracts, nothing but a cash-cow that allows loss-making prices for a few. - Sky revisited.

Edited by professor973 (Sun 10-Nov-13 13:56:07)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

It cannot be worse than the US sports, where they have been shooting with 4:3 cameras in SD it seems but doing a HD broadcast and using sidebars for stats etc i.e. more like web based player than full screen TV

I was last in the US in Nov last year, and I didn't see any of this. In fact the sports coverage was the best HD I saw whilst there. (I have family in the US, so I wasn't in a hotel).

720 x 480 29.97fps interlaced (59.94i) will need a lot less bandwidth than full HD 1920 x 1080 29.97fps progressive (29.97p or even 59.94p) so that's why they possibly use it for some sports NTSC broadcasts...

In reply to a post by professor973:

I do not see a problem with line rental as, it is a maintenance charge for an infrastructure,

Yes, and a quality supplier like Zen, can sell on that same B.T. line rental to the likes of me for £11:22 a month - No contract tie-in - No years up front to obtain that price and still make a profit.
In light of that, I regard nearly £16 a month and long contracts, nothing but a cash-cow that allows loss-making prices for a few. - Sky revisited.

Low call rates, no call connection fees and no minimum call charges also with Zen line rental

Edited by deleted (Sun 10-Nov-13 14:35:16)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

In reply to a post by professor973:

I do not see a problem with line rental as, it is a maintenance charge for an infrastructure,

Yes, and a quality supplier like Zen, can sell on that same B.T. line rental to the likes of me for £11:22 a month - No contract tie-in - No years up front to obtain that price and still make a profit.
In light of that, I regard nearly £16 a month and long contracts, nothing but a cash-cow that allows loss-making prices for a few. - Sky revisited.

The Home Talk Plus package, around the price of B.T line rental includes 5,000 minutes. About 0.1p per minute. Unbeatable rate outside free and same resold B.T. and making a porifit.
Low call rates, no call connection fees and no minimum call charges also with Zen line rental

In reply to a post by gomezz:

They do control the satellite broadcasting platform though and have not been averse to using that position of power to control what other broadcasters can do on there.

True, but if one is unhappy what a company is doing, I still think it's much harder to cut ties with BT than it is with Sky. Freesat is a more viable alternative to Sky than 3G/4G is to ADSL(2+) in my opinion (I'm not mentioning Virgin Media since I can't get it here).

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 10-Nov-13 14:42:01)

In reply to a post by gomezz:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Sky do not control UK telecom infrastructure

They do control the satellite broadcasting platform though and have not been averse to using that position of power to control what other broadcasters can do on there.

I do not believe that to be accurate. Sky, as with other broadcasters, rent bandwidth from Astra. Sky only control their EPG.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

I do not believe that to be accurate. Sky, as with other broadcasters, rent bandwidth from Astra. Sky only control their EPG.

I've never looked in to it but yes you are correct, the satellite platform which Sky and Freesat use is owned by SES and not Sky. An altogether more healthy arrangement than the POTS landline relationship between BT and the other providers in the UK.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I've never looked in to it but yes you are correct, the satellite platform which Sky and Freesat use is owned by SES and not Sky. An altogether more healthy arrangement than the POTS landline relationship between BT and the other providers in the UK.

The advantage of the Sky "one epg" approach is that subscribers can buy a supported box with a known user interface - whereas with other EU countries - you end up buying a generic satellite receiver with perhaps 10 card slots for each subscription, and no unified EPG.

In reply to a post by professor973:

I do not see a problem with line rental as, it is a maintenance charge for an infrastructure,

Yes, and a quality supplier like Zen, can sell on that same B.T. line rental to the likes of me for £11:22 a month - No contract tie-in - No years up front to obtain that price and still make a profit.
In light of that, I regard nearly £16 a month and long contracts, nothing but a cash-cow that allows loss-making prices for a few. - Sky revisited.

Just did a like for like price comparison with Zen... think I will stay with BT for now, been with all the niche ISPs in my time and fact is there aint much in it except price. However I certainly do not want to be paying Sky type prices for my TV and Broadband so we shall see how it looks in a years time.

In reply to a post by MrGrumpy:

However I certainly do not want to be paying Sky type prices for my TV and Broadband so we shall see how it looks in a years time.

I'm with Sky (line rental and ADSL2+ broadband, no TV) and since my Sky line rental is going up I thought I'd compare my price with BT over 18 months. Turns out BT would cost me £217.62 more over 18 months than Sky will. Even if I factor in the 6 months free for joining, BT doesn't even get close to matching Sky's price.

BT

Line rental: 15.99
Broadband: 16
Anytime calls: 7
Caller display: 1.75
Voicemail: 1.75

1 month: 42.49
18 months: 764.82

Sky

Line rental: 15.4
Broadband: 10
Anytime calls: 5
Caller display: 0
Voicemail: 0

1 month: 30.4
18 months: 547.2

Are you including line rental saver?

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Low call rates, no call connection fees and no minimum call charges also with Zen line rental

Interesting.

I am considering a switch to Zen for my line rental, as I have even less need of it that I did before my wife's death. I also recommended it a few weeks ago to a local clothing repairer who is getting strangely increasing bills from his WLR supplier.

I have no need whatsoever for outgoing landline calls. Only incoming.

Before long, Zen will be the line rental company of choice. I hope it isn't a loss leader!

In reply to a post by Zadeks:

Are you including line rental saver?

Neither line rental price includes line rental saver because I prefer to pay monthly. However Sky's line rental saver is cheaper than BT's variant.

my concern is if one swiches line rental with active broadband service does it have the potential to disrupt the broadband, eg. causing a cease. assuming the broadband isnt been migrated along with the line rental.

It really shows how bad this decision is from BT as both me and you I believe were not even thinking of leaving BT line rental now we both are.

Like you I don't make many outgoing calls and hence, with Zen, my monthly bills are really low - although I do have "Call Identity" as an optional feature for 90p per month.

However I haven't needed to contact Zen about any account or line problems yet so I can not comment on the quality of their support...on a one month minimum term, if there are any issues, it would be easy to leave though

You forgot per second billing with Zen. Just like going back in time. Could it be they don't have to break the backs of phone customers to subsudise other services.

Edited by professor973 (Mon 11-Nov-13 01:26:27)

In reply to a post by professor973:

You forgot per second billing with Zen. Just like going back in time. Could it be they don't have to break the backs of phone customers to subsudise other services.

Didn't forget: now with Zen I see fractions of a penny rather than BT's fractions of a pound for calls

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

my concern is if one swiches line rental with active broadband service does it have the potential to disrupt the broadband, eg. causing a cease. assuming the broadband isnt been migrated along with the line rental.

WLR line rental switching is almost always trouble-free. I don't think either of us need worry about that. All that matters is that the new CP allows a different broadband supplier on the line. Which Zen does.

It is of course impossible to rule out a cockup on any change of any kind.

I just feel I'm being taken for a ride by BT Retail. I don't like being treated like a sucker by my trusted supplier.

Quite a Trophy Cabinet.
http://www.zen.co.uk/about-us/latest-awards.aspx

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I just feel I'm being taken for a ride by BT Retail. I don't like being treated like a sucker by my trusted supplier.

I just wish that another provider could do a deal similar to BT Basic for my aunt - unfortunately even Zen's low prices would be more than BT Basic

BT Basic is a pure social tariff i.e. not done because BT Retail is soft and cuddly, but because its what Ofcom tells them to do.

At the end of the day the rise of the call bundle even if there was NO broadband would have led to there being more charges for the bells and whistles.

If there is a very big volume of people chasing low cost line rental who make little or no demand on the telephone side, then am sure one of the smaller WLR operators will try and hoover people up.

Since she doesn't have broadband I believe she is considering ceasing the landline and just using a PAYG mobile. That would probably be a lower cost over an extended period when one takes into account the infrequency of her outgoing calls

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Since she doesn't have broadband I believe she is considering ceasing the landline and just using a PAYG mobile. That would probably be a lower cost over an extended period when one takes into account the infrequency of her outgoing calls

As age increases the probability of using 999 increases and a mobile only scenario to alert emergency services may not be a good idea always assuming you don't have a flat battery. A fixed land line calling 999 will produce some sort of a result even if you don't speak.

And of course there may eventually be a need for a medical alarm unit .......... Think carefully before ditching a land line as it could be a case between life and death.

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Since she doesn't have broadband I believe she is considering ceasing the landline and just using a PAYG mobile. That would probably be a lower cost over an extended period when one takes into account the infrequency of her outgoing calls

As age increases the probability of using 999 increases and a mobile only scenario to alert emergency services may not be a good idea always assuming you don't have a flat battery. A fixed land line calling 999 will produce some sort of a result even if you don't speak.

And of course there may eventually be a need for a medical alarm unit .......... Think carefully before ditching a land line as it could be a case between life and death.

Yes that certainly is a real concern, however the mobile does work off the charger when the battery is low...

And a 3g dongle on a laptop wouldn't be much use in an emergency, or would it via a text message?

Edited by 4M2 (Mon 11-Nov-13 14:09:59)

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

A fixed land line calling 999 will produce some sort of a result even if you don't speak.

Like two policeman at the front door because the phone, with an emergency button, has got down the side of an armchair.

This could backfire on BT. Sport is not quite the big draw it once was. Sure a lot will watch it but quite a lot are not that interested. HS Broadband market is very price sensitive and BT could well loose a lot of customers particularly if the completion come out with special offers to attract BT retail customers. I suspect BT have well overpaid for these matches and will have to put up prices again

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I suspect BT have well overpaid for these matches and will have to put up prices again

Sky have said BT paid far in excess for the CL rights than what they were prepared to pay (and Sky are no strangers to bidding big).

Presumably Ofcom will also keep a close eye on BT Wholesale and BT Openreach prices to make sure BT does not raise those in order to pay for football, which to me is more important than what BT do with BT Retail's pricing.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I suspect BT have well overpaid for these matches and will have to put up prices again

Sky have said BT paid far in excess for the CL rights than what they were prepared to pay (and Sky are no strangers to bidding big).

Presumably Ofcom will also keep a close eye on BT Wholesale and BT Openreach prices to make sure BT does not raise those in order to pay for football, which to me is more important than what BT do with BT Retail's pricing.

Just seen a BT banner ad on ebay: "BT Sport Get BT Broadband for £10 a month" which is the up to 16Mbps, 10GB usage deal with no mention of line rental etc. of course.

"Just seen a BT banner ad on ebay: "BT Sport Get BT Broadband for £10 a month" which is the up to 16Mbps, 10GB usage deal with no mention of line rental etc. of course".


Sky banner on Ebay shows half price fibre broadband £10. No mention of line rental etc.

Nothing wrong with that IMO

Edited by flippery (Mon 11-Nov-13 16:59:51)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Since she doesn't have broadband I believe she is considering ceasing the landline and just using a PAYG mobile. That would probably be a lower cost over an extended period when one takes into account the infrequency of her outgoing calls

it will almost certianly be cheaper, probably giffgaff is best choice.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I suspect BT have well overpaid for these matches and will have to put up prices again

Sky have said BT paid far in excess for the CL rights than what they were prepared to pay (and Sky are no strangers to bidding big).

Presumably Ofcom will also keep a close eye on BT Wholesale and BT Openreach prices to make sure BT does not raise those in order to pay for football, which to me is more important than what BT do with BT Retail's pricing.

Just seen a BT banner ad on ebay: "BT Sport Get BT Broadband for £10 a month" which is the up to 16Mbps, 10GB usage deal with no mention of line rental etc. of course.

What really needs to be cracked down on is the listing of line rental outside of the price, either its shown in small print or not shown at all, ofcom needs to put its foot down and state any broadband price shown has to be either the price thats charged when line rental is not taken or to include line rental (because line rental is whats going up every year). So eg. infinity 2 isnt £26 a month its more like £42 a month.

To me its a scandal the part of the price that isnt shown/highlighted is been abused.

Any tv advert should be required using a minimum height of 20% of the screen to show the following costs during advert.
connection fee
caller display fee
costs to ring 0845/landlines/mobiles during day.

Any website should be required to show the above clearly not small print either on same page or one single click to lick that is made very clear to access.

In reply to a post by flippery:

"Just seen a BT banner ad on ebay: "BT Sport Get BT Broadband for £10 a month" which is the up to 16Mbps, 10GB usage deal with no mention of line rental etc. of course".

Sky banner on Ebay shows half price fibre broadband £10. No mention of line rental etc.

Nothing wrong with that IMO


of course there is.

can I get sky fiber for £10 then. Thats all I pay sky?

http://www.zen.co.uk/latest-news/zen-internet-is-whi...

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by MrGrumpy:

However I certainly do not want to be paying Sky type prices for my TV and Broadband so we shall see how it looks in a years time.

I'm with Sky (line rental and ADSL2+ broadband, no TV) and since my Sky line rental is going up I thought I'd compare my price with BT over 18 months. Turns out BT would cost me £217.62 more over 18 months than Sky will. Even if I factor in the 6 months free for joining, BT doesn't even get close to matching Sky's price.

BT

Line rental: 15.99
Broadband: 16
Anytime calls: 7
Caller display: 1.75
Voicemail: 1.75

1 month: 42.49
18 months: 764.82

Sky

Line rental: 15.4
Broadband: 10
Anytime calls: 5
Caller display: 0
Voicemail: 0

1 month: 30.4
18 months: 547.2

Well I just did a like for like comparison with Sky v BT and for Phone and BB, BT is cheaper by about £5 a month for what I need. However I did get a discount on BB last time I renewed. Shall see how the prices stack up once my 12 months has run it s course!

In reply to a post by MrGrumpy:

BT is cheaper by about £5 a month for what I need. However I did get a discount on BB last time I renewed.

Sky do retention deals too.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by MrGrumpy:

BT is cheaper by about £5 a month for what I need. However I did get a discount on BB last time I renewed.

Sky do retention deals too.

I`m sure they do, priced up Zen as well but the BB is dear. Will check out pricing again in the new year, however if BT would match whatever I can find then I happy to stay, can`t fault the service to be honest, but then it is fibre.

PS hell would have to freeze over before I gave Murdoch money anyway