BT Connection Charges (merged threads)

jimblob74

Heinz wrote: »

Equally, it could be said that there is no reason BT should suffer financially because you have decided to breach the contract you entered into with them.

True, but I don't particulary want to breach the contract, I was quite happy with BT service and have been a loyal customer for 2.5 years, but I think it is a bit much to expect me to pay either way because I chose to move to a new house during the tie-in period after an upgrade to the service.

I guess the lesson I learned here is not to be a loyal customer!

normanmark

jimblob74 wrote: »

True, but I don't particulary want to breach the contract, I was quite happy with BT service and have been a loyal customer for 2.5 years, but I think it is a bit much to expect me to pay either way because I chose to move to a new house during the tie-in period after an upgrade to the service.

I guess the lesson I learned here is not to be a loyal customer!

Theres not really a lesson here, you've moved into a new build, the cost to install the phone line & equipment need to be covered. You could say the lesson here is to move into a new build

But after spending all that money on the house £125 isnt much to stretch to!

dc

What annoys me, is that there is no recompense for the fact that you will leave BT with a "cash cow " when you move again.

normanmark

dc wrote: »

What annoys me, is that there is no recompense for the fact that you will leave BT with a "cash cow " when you move again.

Someone has to install a line at the property, the fact that only BT is the company who'll be bothered to install lines speaks more about BT's competitors. But lets hope the people who live at the property will be there a long time

BritBrat

You asked for a service you got it knowing full well what you had to pay, if then you change your mind who's fault is that.

Although BT are not my favourite company in this case you are wrong. If your worried about the next owner getting a free phone line, accidentally cut it off just as you are leaving and they will have to pay another £125 or more.

dc

normanmark wrote: »

Someone has to install a line at the property, the fact that only BT is the company who'll be bothered to install lines speaks more about BT's competitors. But lets hope the people who live at the property will be there a long time

If you rent a property, you do not pay the builder, if it is furnished, you do not pay to have it delivered. If you rent a TV, car etc, you just pay the rental.

BT are not the only telephone line installers, and the cable companies did it for free.

Drunkstar

dc wrote: »

If you rent a property, you do not pay the builder, if it is furnished, you do not pay to have it delivered. If you rent a TV, car etc, you just pay the rental.

Youre rigth! Perhaps BT should scrap connection charges and just up all line rental charges to cover the fee instead. That way everyone gets stuck with higher bills regardless!

dc

Drunkstar wrote: »

Youre rigth! Perhaps BT should scrap connection charges and just up all line rental charges to cover the fee instead. That way everyone gets stuck with higher bills regardless!

Why should they charge more?
Surely copper installations and their maintainance would be part of the business plan. Surely BT do not charge local subscribers for local exchange modernisation? ( eg Strowger to Digital )


AND profit-wise they were amongst the first companies (along with ONLY Shell and BP) to be embarrassed by the the amount of dosh they were making.
Resulting instead of annual profit announcements, they went first to 6 monthly, then quarterly account publications, in the days when £1billion was considered obscene by the general public.

It has taken BT 12 years to become competetive with Cable. They probably could tempt me back, but NOT with a £125 connection charge.

I will leave that to the next occupiers.;)

normanmark

dc wrote: »

Why should they charge more?
Surely copper installations and their maintainance would be part of the business plan. Surely BT do not charge local subscribers for local exchange modernisation? ( eg Strowger to Digital )


AND profit-wise they were amongst the first companies (along with ONLY Shell and BP) to be embarrassed by the the amount of dosh they were making.
Resulting instead of annual profit announcements, they went first to 6 monthly, then quarterly account publications, in the days when £1billion was considered obscene by the general public.

It has taken BT 12 years to become competetive with Cable. They probably could tempt me back, but NOT with a £125 connection charge.

I will leave that to the next occupiers.;)

This a prime example of why people want BT to be a monopoly when it suits them. Ask yourself a question why other suppliers (like the CPS providers for example) dont install lines?

I dont think its a case of a companies profits, its the point of if BT are shelling out to install a service, they've got every right to recouperate their expenditure. Just like cable (where you pay inflated charges to cover the cost of the installation over the 12 months). Before you ask i'm a cable customer too

dc

Cabletel / NTL were always cheaper than BT. As I said it has taken 12 years for BT to catch up. If the cable companies had not happened then you would still be paying 0870 prices for all calls out of your local exchange area and 0845 rates for local calls.

Maybe Nynex/C&W/ Telewest were not cheaper than BT?

With BT the infrastructure was already there ( inherited from GPO ), if that were not the case I would agree with you, cable had to start from scratch.