Printable View
£203.88 per year.
Before you can get anything else to work.
I've just paid a lump sum up front as I did last year of £159.84 to cover the year which is equivalent to £13.32 per month...
you might wanna look at doing the same if you've not already
I feels bit... sore....
Bloody hell :(
I don\'t even use my landline, I just need it for BT Infinity :(
They really are trying their best to push people into the 4G mobile BB setups arn\'t they. Noticed VM upped the price on line rental not far back so thats going to hurt, wonder what the price is now for their line saver.
nor I much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Have used my land line.... 6 times in Aug and Sept.
Is it BT Wholesale putting their prices up?
I can see if BT wholesale need to employ more people to give a better service, as announced not so long ago, this is only an extension of what it will cost for that service.
It's a lot of money for something I don't use. I don't even have a phone at home!
I'd go with Virgin but they have dreadful upload speeds.
Virgin should offer 120 down and 30 up or something - then I'd never go with another company. Having said that, I can't even get virgin at the place I'm at now (even though we get tonnes of letters from them)
Mobile reception in our 250+ year old house is patchy, land line is the way to go for most calls. So, while I don't like the price rises, it's not the end of the world considering how much time is spent on calls in our house.
If you have enough people in the house on a single provider then you might be able to get a femptocell out of them. EE call theirs the "Signal Box", others have other names. That uses broadband to give a 3G signal, once again making the land line close to useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkstar
I saved a bit of money by moving from BT to my VDSL broadband supplier.
Why do you need 30Mbps upstream on a domestic connection? (to be fair: I need nowhere near 120 down, but I'm getting 125)Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRockliffe
If you really need 30Mbps up then you can get a 30Mbps leased line from Virgin for £392+VAT a month. They go up to 1Gbps, but I shudder to think what the cost is. I don't need it, and I don't see why anyone else would for domestic use.
nor do I .. that is a lot of sending speed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash
Ah, I think I see why he wants fast upstream...
I suspect he won't be happy to pay the costs required for that grade of service though. Just a hunch.
I have to pay mine for Plusnet Fibre. Found a special link posted on a forum , which helped me pay 1 year's line rental for last year's rates :D
Uploading large video files perhaps? I've been transferring a few recently - last month my upload volume was greater than my download. 10 minutes High Definition on a GoPro is at least 2GB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash
Cloud backup is getting tempting too. Needs fast and unmetered sending though.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
BT lost me when they started charging for caller ID. I can afford it, it was just the cheek of squeezing me for extra money on something I was forced to have in order to have a DSL connection.
Guess its only a matter of time before others put their line rental costs up?
It's a fair point. My monthly Spideroak backups amount to around *checks* about 22Gib all told. It's been a busy month of family events and the like. That syncs without issue on my 10Mbps upload with no real issues over the course of a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
10 mins of HD on the GoPro (assuming you're uploading at the same bitrate is 2Gb - let's say that you had 110 mins (no idea what the recording capacity of those things is to be honest) - how urgently do you need to be able to upload them to YouTube? Is it your means of making a living? If so... how about buying a business connection?
I don't know (and I apologise if I sound so snappy) but the entitlement culture we have in this country makes me sick at times. Why should a provider offer you what you want on a whim when (as demonstrated by my link) it's incredibly unlikely that the customer is willing to pay extra for that privilege? High speed broadband isn't a human right (despite what a number of people seem to like to shout) even in a progressive society like ours.
EDIT - Apologies for the somewhat out of character rant: it's not been the best of days for me... (though I am mostly over the flu that has blighted me for the past few days) and so to bring it back on topic: if you don't like the price increase from a company who operate what is essentially a monopoly (assuming that this is a BTWholesale price rise, so all the other resellers can either eat the costs [yeah right...] or follow suit) what do you intend to do? Can you live without a landline in this day of pervasive mobile phones and internet access?
EDIT2 - and in the interests of full disclosure: on top of the 22Gib to Spideroak I also shuffled data to the tune of around 200Gb between my parents' place, my sister's house and home in terms of backups and other stuff. I still barely touch 10Mbps.
Makes you wonder what's going on when mobile companies can provide a line and a large amount of minutes, calls and data for similar money. Complete lack of competition I guess.
How many people would pay line rental if it wasn't needed for broadband? And I'm surprised there aren't more offerings linking up a mobile data plan with a physical iP phone and a geographic number, you could easily cobble it together with Skype and a data only contract for less.
I upload a lot of content to Google drive too - I back up my computer a lot so at the moment I leave it on almost 24/7. I seed what I take, mostly Linux distros to try on my laptop and phone roms. Uploading on my old adsl took ages, but now recently I've had a glitch on my vpn where I'm getting 100 up - take a look at my most recent speed test on the post that's floating around somewhere.
I operate a 4:1 seed policy, but then I'm not torrenting games... In terms of a glitch on your vpn... I'm assuming this is a university or similar?
BT looked into it, they called it "Naked ADSL" at the time. I think when they realised that most people would drop their land line like a thermonuclear spud they stopped looking with the excuse that their isn't any demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_DSL#United_KingdomQuote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
How is this: http://www.cordless-phones.uk.com/co...etooth-gateway
If you have a mobile, then when you get home your phones work off your mobile. Would pay for itself in 3 months. If you don't have a phone, you could get a cheap phone on contract from Tesco for £7.50 a month and still be better off in a few months.
So what do we pay BT for again?
It's disappointing that Virgin don't cater for broadband only competitively. I've had them before a few years ago and it was a lot cheaper to just go for a single item out of the three provided, but I'm assuming because there's no competition they're charging £26.50 pm for basic fibre on it's own yet £15.50 pm when you take it with a phone line (at £15.99 pm).
Voice lines are a 'cheap' way for them to add 'value'.
The additional cost is more about the upkeep of the physical network (your phone line goes down for example, and they need to send someone out). But I'd much rather see an approach of just paying for that, and not any call related stuff. I wonder if there would be any saving though and if the calls are almost free once it's factored in?
Champions League football.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Nope just home broadband.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash
Does it actually cost internet companies for you to use a line? I guess repair costs across the country, but why don't they just do a fixed cost instead of having internet options+line rental.... oh... advertising...
Return on investment in the infrastructure, maintenance, future investment in infrastructure, R&D... 24x7 availability, obligatory 24x7 999 service....Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
But mobile phone operators have much the same problem apart from the last mile which is a bit of copper that has been in place for 40 years. If anything I would have thought the upgrade cycle for mobile phone masts is worse than anything BT have to implement, yet their contracts start at £7.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
I know a few people who have already dropped BT for a mobile only setup, if I didn't like having a static IP address I would be tempted to do the same.
Right so I've just moved house, around 500m away from my old one and I can no longer get fibre from bt. However when I look online it says that fibre is available in my area but when trying to order it through bt maximum speed is 5mb down. Sky offer a maximum of 76 down for my property - why is it BT don't?