BT's new broadband cancellation fee for all ISPs

normanmark

monkeymaster wrote: »

But what about a couple moving in together - ie. no longer needing adsl at one address and getting charged £40 for the privilege- disgraceful if you ask me!

well passing on the fee in this case is determined by the ISP no? The t&c's thats been stated above that the fee would be waived if they're retaining their service at the new address?

consumerX

normanmark wrote: »

well passing on the fee in this case is determined by the ISP no? The t&c's thats been stated above that the fee would be waived if they're retaining their service at the new address?

But still one of them would have to disconnect their internet service. And if this person is with Tiscali, he or she would be charged the £40. I guess if they are both with Tiscali then they would still have to pay because BT would still charge for the disconnection of one of the lines.

I can understand why they've introduced this cost - to stop people from making the mistake of switching broadband providers without the MAC, resulting in extra work.

But what if the consumer wants to or needs to stop the broadband for a period of time, for whatever reason, this is an exit penalty.

aiminghigh

I am an agent with the Utility Warehouse and when I sign a customer to our new broadband service- Broadcall, through an exchange which has been llu enabled, no mac code is needed, because our own equipment is used and the BT equipment is no longer required.

Do you think maybe BT is introducing this charge to stop people leaving their lines and transferring to the newer providers like Tiscali/ Utility Warehouse etc who have alternative lines?

I have not yet been informed whether we would be making a charge like Tiscali.

Chris

MarkyMarkD

I don't understand why you think an exit penalty is unfair. If BT have to do some work when people disconnect their broadband, there's no reason why they shouldn't pass the cost on the customer.

Just because someone is shacking up with their girlfriend isn't a good reason to get let off such a charge, IMHO!

Incidentally, the moving house point which someone raised won't work either - if you move house, you don't use a MAC, so you WILL incur the charge.

espresso

More information on the new BT wholesale charges from May 2007 here.

normanmark

consumerX wrote: »

I can understand why they've introduced this cost - to stop people from making the mistake of switching broadband providers without the MAC, resulting in extra work.

But what if the consumer wants to or needs to stop the broadband for a period of time, for whatever reason, this is an exit penalty.

Then they'll have to pay that, if they're stopped the service & the work needs to be carried out then a payment for the costs has to be covered.

I think this is also giving ISP's a kick up the backside to be a bit more prompt & on the ball with their customers.

I think customers moving house (majority of them) will still be under contract from their current ISP, so there will be a piece in most terms & conditions (take Tiscali's for example) saying that if you're moving house & still keeping the service at your new property then the charges will be waived.

Brainache

Hello everyone, n00b poster here!

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't understand why you think an exit penalty is unfair. If BT have to do some work when people disconnect their broadband, there's no reason why they shouldn't pass the cost on the customer.

I'm a tiscali customer and have had this e-mail too - I don't understand why a customer that has fulfilled their contractual obligation to their ISP should be charged if they no longer wish to purchase the service! You wouldn't go to the pub, then expect to pay to leave when you've had enough beer.

Besides that, the purpose of the charge (according to BT, as reported on The Register) is to ensure that ISPs issue the MAC codes promply when customers wish to transfer their service to another ISP, not to inflict cost on those who wish to discontinue their service altogether.

MarkyMarkD

When you say "under contract", I presume that you don't mean "under contract and tied-in" - given how long many people have now had broadband, most customers will be free to change ISP when they move house. And for that reason, their ISPs are likely to "go the extra mile" to retain their business, for example by absorbing this BT charge.

GeoThermal

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't understand why you think an exit penalty is unfair. If BT have to do some work when people disconnect their broadband, there's no reason why they shouldn't pass the cost on the customer.

I don't see why you think the exit penalty is fair. For one thing it is a change to the contract that customers signed up to. Also why should someone who finds themselves in the position whereby they can no longer affords broadband, have to pay to have it swithced off, especially when they never agreed to that in the first place?

For new customers who have the fee explained plainly to them before signing up then that's different.

MarkyMarkD

Because any supplier can change any term in an ongoing contract, if the consumer accepts it by continuing using the service.

That said, if you only continue the service because you are tied in, that's not allowed - which is why some mobile phone contract customers were able to exit their contracts early when the provider started charging for itemised billing.

If you aren't happy with the change, switch ISPs and refuse to pay the fee because you didn't accept the change in Ts & Cs.