BT Connection Charges (merged threads)

normanmark

c-m wrote: »

what about if you live in rented accommodation? Usually contract are only for 6months. That would mean £125 every 6 months

This is particulary shocking. Especially if you are a student or unemployed.

Live there longer than 6 months? Look into getting a mortgage on a house?

c-m

normanmark wrote: »

Live there longer than 6 months? Look into getting a mortgage on a house?

Yeah great input - Can't you only borrow 5 times your earnings on a mortgage? so if you earn £15000 you have no chance when a 1 bed flat in my region is over £120,000

what about students?

vanfoxtele

After speaking to COT they have agreed to move all three lines for £30 each.

Result, I think!

Well....NO!

As of today, out of 6 lines, 3 in old house, 3 in new (nextdoor) house, only one will dial out, none will ring in, ADSL is working on only one and the system has gone down.....again. To add wotsit to injury BT has also taken 3 months rent!

This has been a litany of broken promoses and excuses, e.g. 'I don't have access to that system', 'I'm not trained on that system' etc.

Do BT have any record of the time spent on 150? I reckon I'm up to 7+ hours!

Question is: I've been promised compo for all the hassle, what do you all think I should insist on?

Who should I also complain to?

GRRRRR.....GRRRRR

normanmark

c-m wrote: »

Yeah great input - Can't you only borrow 5 times your earnings on a mortgage? so if you earn £15000 you have no chance when a 1 bed flat in my region is over £120,000

what about students?

What about them? I didn't have a landline when i was a student, i just had Virgin cable broadband and did the calls via a mobile.

Theres not a lot of input anyone else can put in. The point is that lines need to be activated, should you move every 6 months and a line needs activating at the new place why should a company do this for free? An engineer needs to carry out work at the exchange to do & thus his services wouldn't be free.

There's plenty of places that will do installation (around £110-125) for short term contracts, the Post Office i recall do something with a 30 day notice period.

The answer you're looking for doesn't exist I'm afraid.

DonnyDave

normanmark wrote: »

Theres not a lot of input anyone else can put in. The point is that lines need to be activated, should you move every 6 months and a line needs activating at the new place why should a company do this for free? An engineer needs to carry out work at the exchange to do & thus his services wouldn't be free.

You must look at what is happening and why it is happening. The charge is being incurred for re-connection rather than simple re-activation.

A telephone line runs between the exchange and the customer's premises. When a new line is requested a copper wire is run between the pole and the premises.

The cable(s) (known as "pairs") between the exchange and the pole are already laid. Typically, these are in sections. For example, lots of pairs run between the exchange and the local cabinet (the green box at the side of the road), the junction box if you like. Pairs also run between the cabinet and the pole.

So a new installation means connecting a pair from the exchange to a pair to the pole and at the pole, connecting the dropwire to that pair.

Remember, each line requires its own pair between the exhange and premises. So if there aren't any unconnected pairs between exchange and cabinet (for example), then it stands to reason that one which is connected but not in service is taken. Thus, when that line is required again, it will need physical intervention from an engineer to reconnect it again. Had it still been connected to the exchange, then it would have just been a case of remote activation and no engineer would need to come out.

It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It would seem that either:

• More cables need to be laid.
• A way of putting more lines through the cables which are already laid needs to found and used.
• The status quo; the customer requiring re-activation must pay the installation fee each time for an engineer to attend.

espresso

DonnyDave wrote: »

You must look at what is happening and why it is happening.....................

Remember, each line requires its own pair between the exhange and premises.

But what about when someone vacates a property and the new occupier moves in on the following day. How can BT justify an installation charge of £125 when no real work is required, simply a change of account name?

DonnyDave

espresso wrote: »

But what about when someone vacates a property and the new occupier moves in on the following day. How can BT justify an installation charge of £125 when no real work is required, simply a change of account name?

That is obviously wrong and needs clamping down on. Ofcom simply turns a blind eye.

espresso

DonnyDave wrote: »

That is obviously wrong and needs clamping down on. Ofcom simply turns a blind eye.

I agree and think that this is something that our super hero MSE Martin should challenge BT about and get this new occupier situation clarified and documented on their website. I realise that companies have to make profits but this just smells of Rip Off Britain again.

normanmark

DonnyDave wrote: »

....

Yes, thank you. I'm fully aware of what the physical attributes are to a phone line & the logistics involved.

My point was more on the side that if someone vacates the premises & informs their telephony provider that they're moving/cancelling, Openreach are just disconnecting the service at the exchange, physically, not via a system or a computer. Therefore the charge is then applied again so physically it can be connected up again.

My guessing is that this is so one provider does not have control of the line should the new person move in. Say for instance the tenant would like provider B but provider A is currently existing on the line & thus would have to chase provider A to do the work.

Openreach are damned if they disconnect all lines as the consumer would have to pay for activation/reconnection whatever you want to call it and they're damned if they don't do anything & the consumer has to chase a provider they don't even want service with. The latter is the form Ofcom hate where its just an effective form of slamming.

DonnyDave

normanmark wrote: »

My point was more on the side that if someone vacates the premises & informs their telephony provider that they're moving/cancelling, Openreach are just disconnecting the service at the exchange, physically, not via a system or a computer. Therefore the charge is then applied again so physically it can be connected up again.

My guessing is that this is so one provider does not have control of the line should the new person move in. Say for instance the tenant would like provider B but provider A is currently existing on the line & thus would have to chase provider A to do the work.

Openreach are damned if they disconnect all lines as the consumer would have to pay for activation/reconnection whatever you want to call it and they're damned if they don't do anything & the consumer has to chase a provider they don't even want service with. The latter is the form Ofcom hate where its just an effective form of slamming.

That's a good point and one which I hadn't considered until now. I had assumed that the only reason for physical disconnections is to re-connect others.

If it is as you say, then I think serious questions must be asked. The whole concept of privatised telecoms whereby different telcos can provide services, in its current state, introduces a range of number operational issues.

Those who are so intent that this must be the way tend not to offer suggestions as to how it can happen in practice.

It is quite a farce that switching between provider means having to pay for an engineer to physically move wires over, as it were. This is surely a backward step.

How much are telephone users paying as a whole in re-connection charges that they would otherwise not have to due to this nonsense? How many people now don't have a landline because of this and what are the associated increased charges in calling them on their mobile phones?