BT Connection Charges (merged threads)

ahrimaniac

'It is if you're a first time buyer.'

If you can afford to buy a house...

...and you still don't answer my question: why should BT or the developers pay for you to have a line? It's non essential!

DonnyDave

jhp wrote:

It amazes me that people are quite happy to pay all the other fees associated with moving,Solicitors,Estate Agents etc etc.But harp on about the cost of providing a new BT line,which is not a cheap business.

Perhaps these people would like to get together and start up their own telco. They will, of course, need to create a network to run alongside BT's, and undercut BT's £125 installation fee.

hyposmurf wrote:

It is if you're a first time buyer.With the high property costs,you furniture costs etc its just a costb that shouldve been passed onto the developer.

For those who don't live in cable areas, BT is the only viable option, in practice. No other provider is going to want to connect a single line in a residential property because it's just not worth it.

If BT were to do away with the installation fee, prices would have to go up for other parts of the service, and/or as I mentioned elsewhere on here, the minimum contract period probably would have to be longer. Why you ask; suppose someone has a line installed and uses it for the minimum 12 month term and then has it disconnected. On BT Option 1 that's £132 for 12 months excluding any calls. How much do you think that it costs for the engineer's/engineers' time to put it in and hardware?

I also agree with ahrimaniac; a phone line isn't an essential service like water and eletricity. But as I say above, [the theory at least] says that you have a choice; competition. With gas and electricity you use the same supply pipes and cables.

ahrimaniac

'How much do you think that it costs for the engineer's/engineers' time to put it in and hardware?'

Precisely! Plus, if at any point during those 12 months the line develops a fault, BT would send an engineer or two out to fix it, and that cost isn't transferred to the customer. Also, unlike other companies, to speak to someone for customer service doesn't cost you a penny.

hyposmurf

ahrimaniac wrote:

'It is if you're a first time buyer.'

If you can afford to buy a house...

...and you still don't answer my question: why should BT or the developers pay for you to have a line? It's non essential!

My lines were installed before I moved into the property so they should be costed for as part of the property not holding me to ransome once I have moved in.My gas supplier doesnt require a fee to turn my gas on their costs are catered for in the property cost.Its a non essentail in relation to life and death,where as you need gas to keep warm etc.These days however a phone is an many ways an essential service.Youd live a pretty dismall existance without one,how would you contact emergency services?

Precisely! Plus, if at any point during those 12 months the line develops a fault, BT would send an engineer or two out to fix it, and that cost isn't transferred to the customer.

Isnt that called a warrantee?

I think my main gripe lies with the fact that the BT monopoly was left too long long to and as customers we are still paying the consequences years later.

ahrimaniac

'Youd live a pretty dismall existance without one,how would you contact emergency services?'

Mobile?

'My lines were installed before I moved into the property so they should be costed for as part of the property not holding me to ransome once I have moved in'

The line installed inside the house, yeah? But not to the exchange.

hyposmurf

ahrimaniac wrote:

'Youd live a pretty dismall existance without one,how would you contact emergency services?'

Mobile?

Not everyone has a mobile do they.

ahrimaniac wrote:

'My lines were installed before I moved into the property so they should be costed for as part of the property not holding me to ransome once I have moved in'

The line installed inside the house, yeah? But not to the exchange.

So why am I paying for BT to connect their service they want me to use?If this cost is only going towards being connected to an exchange does it really warrant that cost for every connection?How long does it take for an engineer to see if they can connect and carry out a few checks?More than 1 hours work?As I said before the only way this cost will go down is when BT receive more competition.

Do you work for BT ahrimaniac?

Heinz

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=2442013&postcount=63

I live in a small new (brownfield) estate of 8 properties.

The builder installed the internal wiring in each property but BT came along, dug a trench along the access road, spurred off to each property and installed their cables. It took 2 guys, 3 days.

They then connected the far end of the new cable to their existing network in the nearest 'old' road and, as people moved in, they connected the approproate pair at the exchange to activate the line(s).

Mine was a cheap house by today's standards and I reckon that, at less than 0.1% of what I had to pay for the house, £125 is a real bargain.

ahrimaniac

'So why am I paying for BT to connect their service they want me to use?If this cost is only going towards being connected to an exchange does it really warrant that cost for every connection?How long does it take for an engineer to see if they can connect and carry out a few checks?More than 1 hours work?As I said before the only way this cost will go down is when BT receive more competition.'

See Heinz's post. And FYI, BT don't install the lines in the houses. The developers do that. So BT don't put them in there. You don't have to use them. Pay NTL. Pay Bulldoh. Or are you another who wants the benefit of using a BT line (ie, saving money with CPS's) but just not willing to pay for the benefits?

And no: I don't work for BT. I hate how that is reeled out every single time I talk about BT. Just because I don't launch for BT's jugular the moment they have the so-called nerve to charge for providing you a service which is non-essential and non-monopolistic.

DonnyDave

I think that the following quote describes hyposmurf:

hammy_the_hammer wrote:

i feel people want BT to be this new go-getting privatised company when it suits a certain scenario and the old monopoly GPO type company when an alternative scenario develops

hyposmurf wrote:

Precisely! Plus, if at any point during those 12 months the line develops a fault, BT would send an engineer or two out to fix it, and that cost isn't transferred to the customer.

Isnt that called a warrantee?

But a warranty still has to be paid for! If you buy a washing machine, it comes with an inclusive warranty, whereby the manufacturer or retailer will repair it at no further cost to you. The cost of parts and labour is therefore bourne by the manufacturer. Thus, the amount that the customer pays for the item must be enough to cover both production and maintainance/repairs and make a profit. That is the way private business works!

hyposmurf wrote:

I think my main gripe lies with the fact that the BT monopoly was left too long long to and as customers we are still paying the consequences years later.

You seem to view competition a magical solution that gives the customer what they want. Take cars as an example. Many different manufactures can have their own dealer in the same town. Thus, you can buy a car from any manufacturer that has a dealer in your town as each manufacturer has a 'network' that covers the country. So if we were to draw a map of the areas that these manufacturers cover, they would pretty much overlap.

Now look at the telephone network. The vast majority of lines running down Britain's streets are BT's. Cable has been installed where cable companies have 'cherry picked' the most profitable areas. BT has a Unique Service Obligation (USO) whereby it must provide services to everyone at the same price, regardless of how much it actually costs. So in rural areas, for example, it may cost more to install/maintain than an urban area, close to the exchange, but the price charged must be the same for both.

With mobile services there are, essentially, four networks (O2/Vodafone/Orange/T-Mobile) that overlap, covering (broadly speaking) the same areas. I think that this begs the question: are we paying for four times what we should be or are we getting a quarter of the coverage for the same price (or somewhere inbetween)? In which case how does this benefit us?

hyposmurf wrote:

So why am I paying for BT to connect their service they want me to use?...

Why does any private profit making company "want" you specifically to use its service? The answer is to make a profit. If it cannot make a profit from you, then it is hardly going to market its services to you.

hyposmurf wrote:

...If this cost is only going towards being connected to an exchange does it really warrant that cost for every connection?...

Some installations cost more than this. Some may cost less, but it can't be much less. In any case BT is now a private company making profit, instead of a public utility there to provide a service like the GPO was. Again, I refer you to hammy the hammer's statement above!

hyposmurf wrote:

...How long does it take for an engineer to see if they can connect and carry out a few checks?More than 1 hours work?...

I would say so. I imagine that the simplest install will consist of the following steps:

1) Travel to site.
2) Connect the wires (known as a pair) up at the exchange end.
3) Go to the local cabinet and join pair from exchange with pair going to pole outside premises.
4) Install dropwire between pole and premises, run wire to where socket is to be sited and install socket.
5) Fill in paperwork.

In some cases, the nearest pole with a spare pair may be down the street, meaning that an overhead wire must be run from pole to pole. You can see this when you walk down most streets, where wires go between poles, as alot of the wiring is actually underground.

hyposmurf wrote:

...As I said before the only way this cost will go down is when BT receive more competition.

And how do you think that more competition can be encouraged? BT operates the network. No company is ever going to create a new network at the side of BT's because the cost will be high compared to the income it will generate. But then again, you expect BT to install a line at a loss, so it can provide a service to you.

So how is it that BT's high prices are stiffling competition? And, as a profit making company, how can BT make a profit for its shareholders whilst giving up some of its market share and profit to competitors?

Browntoa

BT is implementing the installation of 21st Century Network (21CN).

The £10bn investment will roll out the next generation of converged communications, including telephone calls, broadband and Ethernet services delivered through an Internet-based platform.

The investment will end BT's dependence on telephony through on Ye Olde public switched telephone network (PSTN) and should - in theory - result in cheaper telephone bills for its customers.

how do BT finance that level of investment without being allowed to get a minimal return on other areas ??