Elliot B. Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I was just wondering: Is anything being done (perhaps by consumer groups or even the government themselves) about ISPs "needing" line rentals for their Internet connections? I know some providers technically need the connection part of the line, but many homes these days no longer use landline phones so paying line rental (usually between ?11 and ?15) on top of the Internet charges is a bit of a wounder really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intersect Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 i wish virgin mobile would stop this for their cable customers. they give you a lower rate on the broadband cable if you take out a phone line with them and if you don't they tack on the cost to the broadband and or TV package you decided to sign up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted October 21, 2012 MVC Share Posted October 21, 2012 You still need a line. Whether you should be made to pay for a voice service over that line is debatable and what that really costs is also questionable. If for example they charge ?15 for Line Rental and changed that to ?14 for Line Rental and ?1 for voice services, would it really be any different. Most people don't really need the voice service but I imagine most will still take it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C:Amie Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Playing devil?s advocate with your argument though; if you don't pay for line rental, then presumably you will not receive a wire (the line) from a cabinet to your house. Someone has to pay for that and for the maintenance of that line from your house back to the exchange. The price of that is set by BT wholesale, some providers charge it at cost, some at cost + maintenance and some cost + profit. After that there is no room to move as BT set the rates. I think the argument is really about people being forced to subscribe to voice services when they do not want them. What would solve it is for the voice parts of the spectrum to be removed from the DSL spread spectrum entirely on those lines and either made available for data with modified DSLAM equipment or just blocked off. It's a bit like the joke in still having a black and white and a colour TV license. What we need is a Voice + Data, Data only and Voice Only line rental package option. Keep in mind that apart from Virgin, everyone else is paying off BT for the infrastructure. So we can either pay for line rental of which most of it pays the ISP's fee to BT (your subscription is for services rendered, bandwidth and profit) or the ISP's can waive it completely meaning that prices will go up to absorb it into your subscription. Either way, you still pay it unless you go purely WiMAX/LTE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshBluebird Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So despite the fact you are using that phone line, you think you shouldn't have to pay the line rental for that phone line? Seems a bit unfair. I agree it would be nice to have, but you really cannot expect BT to provide you with a phone line for free! What has been said about breaking the costs down (so whoever has a phone line connected pays x amount, then if you want a landline phone you pay x amount on top, and if you want broadband you pay x amount on top - so you only pay for what you use) is a good idea in theory, all it would mean is that the overall costs would go up so it is almost pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky101 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 No nothing is being done by consumer groups about this because the line rental charge is entirely fair as your broadband service (ADSL or FTTC based) still uses that same copper line from your house to the exchange which is maintained by BT Openreach and the prices charged are set by Ofcom. If you didn't pay line rental and something went wrong with your copper line who would you expect to fix it and pay for that? Your ISP? The copper line isn't their's, why should they. BT? Well you're not paying them anything, why should they fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Similar story in Australia. ADSL usually requires Line Rental. "Naked" ADSL became possible a few years ago, but many providers stopped offering it because even though it was cheaper form not having line rental, the saving was not as much as what line rental costs (eg: Save line rental of $30 but the Naked plan is only $10 cheaper). Apparently, the wholesale price different between Full Service phone line & Naked phone line was only about $3 per month. Basically the ISPs had to make their Full Service plans purposely more expensive than Naked plans to give a perceived value difference. Also without a Full Service phone line it is more expensive for the ISP to support because: A. It is more difficult to troubleshoot any connection issues without knowing if there is audible static on the line and B. In Australia, only Voice services are "guaranteed" to work by law, as long as voice works there is no SLA to fix internet, it is just 'best effort' (as the lines weren't designed for ADSL as only voice is considered 'critical' in case of emergency can dial Emergency Services000). Don't forget that the reason why the "Internet" portion of the plan goes up while the "Line Rental" portion is removed is because the "Internet" portion of the plan is effectively subsidising the line rental. Whether you use the phone or not, it still costs a lot of money to maintain the copper network. Even if it was an all-IP HFC or Fibre network, there would still be costs in the plans to cover network maintenance. It's just a matter of schematics on how they structure the price components. For these reasons, many ISPs stopped offering "Naked" ADSL and concluded that for the extra $3 wholesale more month, might as well keep prices low (or stop giving a discount for Naked that cuts into their margins) and give everyone a Full Service, even if they don't use it. I guess the reason why they would even make line rental a separate item is for people who just want Phone, no internet on the line, they too would also have to pay that much for the maintenance of the line. Also it helps the ISP make their Internet plan 'look' cheaper by not including the Line Rental price (in Australia they need to show the total price including line rental if line rental from the same provider is required for internet. They don't have to do this if the customer is free to get their Line Rental/Phone service from another company to their ADSL provider. I'm not sure if in the UK they allow you to mix and match Line Rental/Phone & ADSL/Internet providers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 I do see what you guys are saying, sure. It just seems that adverts for "?20 per month Internet!" are actually ?31-?35, even if you don't want to use a landline phone :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Now if providers actually installed region transmition ariels much like communial satalite sites rather than individual lines thus by-passing BT, you may eventually see a price difference but Im sure there would still be some form of top up fee for the new technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I do see what you guys are saying, sure. It just seems that adverts for "?20 per month Internet!" are actually ?31-?35, even if you don't want to use a landline phone :( "?35 per month Internet, including Line Rental!" There fixed. It's not going to get any cheaper by not giving you a phone service if they still have to give you the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J400uk Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Virgin Media does still do broadband without line rental, its expensive though cheapest package is ?22.50 for 30MB (excluding the half price for 6-months etc offers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentthief Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 you guys are wrong. Virgin offer a 30MB broadband only package for ?22.50: http://store.virginm...part=bb_solus_2 (you need to click "no" in the bit asking if you want to see prices with phone line). With a phoneline it comes to: ?28.40 so ?5.90 cheaper. You can also get 16mb adsl from plusnet with a 60gb cap for ?11.49/month: http://www.broadband...phone-line~gtl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsim7 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Think of it as Line Rental is for the connection, and the Broadband charges are for the traffic :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 <snip> You can also get 16mb adsl from plusnet with a 60gb cap for ?11.49/month: http://www.broadband...phone-line~gtl Plus line rental, don't forget about that... :/ Also, any broadband provider in the UK that caps connections these day gets no respect from me. Sure, the others have fair use policies but it's very difficult to reach them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJGM Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 What gets me about internet providers offering broadband with mandatory line rental, is that it severely hampers choice. If I was unhappy with my current ISP, and wanted to switch, but still satisified with the landline phone service we're using, my options for alternative ISP's are extremely limited, especially if I want to continue receiving "unlimited" broadband. My current ISP is O2 Home Broadband, and the landline telephone service we have is from Post Office Home Phone. If I wanted to switch to Sky Broadband, I don't have to subscribe to their satellite TV package to do so, but still have to subscribe to their line rental instead to take advantage of their broadband service. I would like to switch to an internet provider that offers either FTTH or FTTC within the next 12 months, especially while O2 are still dragging their feet, preferably to one that doesn't insist I take up their line rental, and with no artifical limits on the internet service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 I've been wondering about this too with my ISP. We had DSL and they said a normal phone line was required, which is min $49 here. But last year they installed and switched to Fiber optic, and now i can't see how a phone line would be required. Need to ask them about this. Seems like a scam really because it doubles my bill. I have fiber also but I still need to pay ?11.50 p/m for line rental from BT. It's a scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I have fiber also but I still need to pay ?11.50 p/m for line rental from BT. It's a scam. Thing is in the UK, these ISPs advertising "fibre" are lying. FTTC products are just VDSL (with the exception of Virgin Media being cable, obviously). It's just copper wire coming into your house so it makes sense that a phone line is still required. Over in the US, FTTP is much more common so a fibre connection really does come into the house so there should be no need to have to pay for a voice service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 Thing is in the UK, these ISPs advertising "fibre" are lying. FTTC products are just VDSL (with the exception of Virgin Media being cable, obviously). It's just copper wire coming into your house so it makes sense that a phone line is still required. Over in the US FTTP is much more common so a fibre connection really does come into the house so there should be no need to have to pay for a voice service. Ah :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshBluebird Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 you guys are wrong. Virgin offer a 30MB broadband only package for ?22.50: http://store.virginm...part=bb_solus_2 (you need to click "no" in the bit asking if you want to see prices with phone line). With a phoneline it comes to: ?28.40 so ?5.90 cheaper. That is because it is cable. Generally in this thread we have been talking about DSL services. And even with cable, as you mention by taking the phoneline you can actually save money. You can also get 16mb adsl from plusnet with a 60gb cap for ?11.49/month: http://www.broadband...phone-line~gtl Plus line rental of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I have fiber also but I still need to pay ?11.50 p/m for line rental from BT. It's a scam. Of course it's not a scam. You still have a line running into your home and that infrastructure needs to be maintained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 Of course it's not a scam. You still have a line running into your home and that infrastructure needs to be maintained. I didn't realize the fibre wasn't to the house when I made that comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The first page is filled with such crap it's embarrassing for people on a tech forum to not understand the tech they're talking about. Line rental is only needed when the ISP you are using is having your internet sent over a phone line system, VM have never themselves used the phone line system although blueyonder did and VM bought out BY which is how they offer their DSL service. DSL DOES need line rental yes but every other ISP that requires line rental for say cable internet is scamming you for more money, a bit like virgin business who say you need line rental or the internet doesn't work, just after we switched over to BT and the VBusiness line got cut off it was great that the V.B. internet was still working like they said it wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nashy Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 They offer Naked DSL in Aussie with no need for line rental, but the services are higher in price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeChipshop Member Posted October 21, 2012 Member Share Posted October 21, 2012 OP, what's the problem? You rent a line and then pay for the services you require through it. No line, no services. Makes sense to me. I didn't realize the fibre wasn't to the house when I made that comment. Even if it's fiber to the house, that still requires a physical connection using physical equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooky560 Veteran Posted October 21, 2012 Veteran Share Posted October 21, 2012 I have Virgin without a phone line, works very nicely (ironically i had to call to get them to give me an ex-line price). Fast too, don't see the problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts