Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 66864 2006-03-09 06:17:00 HERALD Letter 06.03.06: The concealed cost of broadband legod (4626) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
436948 2006-03-09 08:28:00 Anyway, the complaint in the Herald letter was about having to pay for "a home phone. Even if you don't want it"
In that instance they are not paying for the "home phone" though, free locals calls are simply a beneficial side effect of renting a landline for DSL.

Telecom won't supply the actual phone unless you ask for it, so if you don't rent one off them, or buy one from somewhere else, there is no "home phone" to beef about.

Some people need to get a life.

Cheers

Billy 8-{) :2cents:
Billy T (70)
436949 2006-03-09 09:21:00 Here's something on Naked DSL in the UK:

www.theregister.co.uk


Campaigners in Kent trying to get BT to upgrade their area to DSL have rejected plans to hold a naked demonstration at their local telephone exchange.
legod (4626)
436950 2006-03-09 17:54:00 Quite illogical nonsense
What interests me is,is there such a thing as logical nonsense?
Cicero (40)
436951 2006-03-09 19:24:00 I agree that there should be a cheap option of line rental, say no more than $10 a month, for people who only want the line for DSL and will never have a phone connected to the line.
The deaf community would be the most likely users of this but I'm sure others would too.
Then just charge some crazy amount if a telephone call is ever made from this line.
CYaBro (73)
436952 2006-03-09 20:14:00 What interests me is,is there such a thing as logical nonsense?
I'm sure there is. I just can't think of an example right now.
Greven (91)
436953 2006-03-09 23:50:00 I'm sure there is. I just can't think of an example right now.

ACT's political policies :)

But unless we have proper costing figures released 1)for use of lines for phone calls, and 2) use of lines for DSL, then I can't see how we can comment knowledgeably.

At the moment everyone is assuming using the lines for DSL costs less than using them for phone calls. This may or may not be true, but lets see some figures.
Terry Porritt (14)
436954 2006-03-10 00:02:00 Going back to Aussie as a comparison, Line rental was a pittance, And we paid a few cents everytime we made a local call, Far better system. Dont use the phone much?, then its reflected in your bill.

Don't think it is a pitence now. It's close that on NZ plus local call charges..
paulw (1826)
436955 2006-03-10 00:39:00 I agree that there should be a cheap option of line rental, say no more than $10 a month, for people who only want the line for DSL and will never have a phone connected to the line.
The deaf community would be the most likely users of this but I'm sure others would too.
Then just charge some crazy amount if a telephone call is ever made from this line.You have that option now, though I don't think it's as low as $10. Someone posted here recently. His mother had had their rental changed to that. Then they got a very large bill. He was using a modem for dialup connection. The telephone company charged for each call. :D :(
Graham L (2)
436956 2006-03-10 00:46:00 Right, NOW im fired up, I'm gonna drink a few beers, take off my shirt, Grab my pitchfork and march on the council buildings .



Hmmm . . . . . The wife is lookin at me funny, Might have to put the shirt back on . . . . .

Michael Laws might start looking at you funny too (with no shirt on!!) :D
dolby digital (5073)
436957 2006-03-10 00:47:00 Logical nonsense,a contradiction in terms,001 will back me up on this. Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5