We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BT Reconnection Fee - Should it be free?
Comments
-
Drunkstar, what happens when I ring the 0800 number they provided (direct number to the team who 'can do something') and quote 'free reconnection'.
Heinz, it's a reconnection, not a connection
Nothing will happen. The half price reconnection offer is at the discretion of the advisor (though non would ever say no if you asked), but as we cant over-ride the fee totally then saying 'free reconection' would make you look daft.
As for the contract, the half price recon/connection is an 18 month contract, no doubt about it.
As for the line, we wouldnt be told anymore who has th line (part of the equivelence deal), though its sometimes possible to find out. But even if we did find out we wouldnt be allowed to tell you as it breaks DPA I am told. Though if the line is LLU its one of a handful of companies, and as said Openreach charge as if its a full new line in this case.The "Bloodlust" Clique - Morally equal to all. Member 20 -
In the past when I have taken over gas or electricity supplies I have had to find out who the current supplier. To do that I have had to contact an independant body for the information. Is there not an equivalent body for landlines?0
-
I'm not sure I queried that aspect but, as you mention it, it's a question of semantics really.
The subscriber's line has (in the past) been disconnected from the BT rack at the exchange and connected to a rack owned by one of the LLU providers. To 'go back to BT', the wires need to be disconnected from the LLU rack onto which they are currently connected and connected to the BT rack again. Whether you describe that as a connection or a reconnection is irrelevant, an Openreach engineer needs to do the work.
I think broadly speaking this cannot realistically be regarded as a new connection and therefore it is unreasonable to be charged the full new connection fee. I regard a new connection as one which entails a connection at an exchange that is traced through to a street cabinet/telegraph pole and then freshly cabled and terminated in the home.
The situation since LLU seems to be that other operators co-exist with BT at local exchanges and customers lines are shifted hither and thither within the exchange. BT has carved itself up into units, one of which is BT Openreach and it is this unit that looks after the kit from exchange to network termination point in the home. As far as I can understand it BT retain ownership of the cabling from exchange to network termination point and the exchange line is leased to other operators? Therefore it is logical that BT will retain plans of the cabling system in order that they will be able to support it.
Why is that shifting from say TalkTalk to BT can cause a new connection charge, yet migrating from BT to TalkTalk does not? In both instances the only physical requirement generally involved is the shifting of a pairs of wires at the exchange.
The whole matter of reverse migration needs to be examined and regulated by OFCOM. They have been remiss in dealing with this issue. I am of the opinion that BT is taking advantage of its dominant position in invoking full new connection charges and that as such it is behaving anti-competitively.0 -
steve if an engineer from openreach has to do physical work on the line (albeit at a telephone exchange) surely there's got to be a charge for it ? why should work be done for nothing ?0
-
I think broadly speaking this cannot realistically be regarded as a new connection and therefore it is unreasonable to be charged the full new connection fee. I regard a new connection as one which entails a connection at an exchange that is traced through to a street cabinet/telegraph pole and then freshly cabled and terminated in the home.
If theres work thats carried out by an engineer then it's going to incur a labour cost, no matter what provider. Fact remains no one (not even the OP) knows the current situation. So i'd recommend holding fire till the full facts are given.The situation since LLU seems to be that other operators co-exist with BT at local exchanges and customers lines are shifted hither and thither within the exchange. BT has carved itself up into units, one of which is BT Openreach and it is this unit that looks after the kit from exchange to network termination point in the home. As far as I can understand it BT retain ownership of the cabling from exchange to network termination point and the exchange line is leased to other operators? Therefore it is logical that BT will retain plans of the cabling system in order that they will be able to support it.
Ofcom looked at this Openreach scenario and are happy enough with the situation to let it go on. So i guess that unless the situation is abused then it'll remain the same. My own personal experience of visiting an exchange which has LLU operators in, is that the LLU providers seem to do very well for themselves. Enough so that they can employ their own engineers to carry out work quite freely in the exchange. So its not the 'hither and thither' scenario you'd love to see, quite the opposite!Why is that shifting from say TalkTalk to BT can cause a new connection charge, yet migrating from BT to TalkTalk does not? In both instances the only physical requirement generally involved is the shifting of a pairs of wires at the exchange.
Refer to my point below for one scenario, but referring to the above a lot of people going from BT to Talk Talk might not even be physically transferring the line from different parts of the exchange, they might just be doing a WLR transaction with Openreach on that line. There's loads more possibilities that could happen with a BT-Talk Talk line, all dependent on the local exchange & whether its unbundledThe whole matter of reverse migration needs to be examined and regulated by OFCOM. They have been remiss in dealing with this issue. I am of the opinion that BT is taking advantage of its dominant position in invoking full new connection charges and that as such it is behaving anti-competitively.
The charges are levied by Openreach to ALL providers, its therefore up to the providers whether they pass this charge on. Majority of the time you'll find that the lesser providers will absorb this cost just to keep the custom of the customer.0 -
hammy_the_hammer wrote: »steve if an engineer from openreach has to do physical work on the line (albeit at a telephone exchange) surely there's got to be a charge for it ? why should work be done for nothing ?
Nowhere did I say that there should be a zero charge for any work carried out in transferring an exchange line between operators. However it is not reasonable for BT to invoke a full new installation charge for the shifting of a pair of wires.
The charges for this type of reverse migration should and could be regulated by OFCOM. The situation remains anti-competitive insomuch as if you change to say TalkTalk and then for whatever reason decide to go elsewhere, then you cannot seem easily to be able to do that. You must first revert to BT, possibly by paying a full new connection charge and even then you may be bound for 12 or 18 months to BT. This is anti-competitive and the issue needs to be addressed as customers who have dabbled with operators other than BT are coming to the end of the prime contract period and want to migrate service provider.
I understand that other operators may not levy a charge to migrate from BT to them because they want to encourage a customer base. However, we have a choice of operators who we can migrate from BT to, without being charged for the pleasure. Twelve months down the line you may want to migrate to a third operator and are thus prevented from doing so due to the high cost of reconnecting to BT and then a further charge being levied if you decide you migrate from BT to another inside of the minimum contract period.0 -
The charges for this type of reverse migration should and could be regulated by OFCOM. The situation remains anti-competitive insomuch as if you change to say TalkTalk and then for whatever reason decide to go elsewhere, then you cannot seem easily to be able to do that. You must first revert to BT, possibly by paying a full new connection charge and even then you may be bound for 12 or 18 months to BT. This is anti-competitive and the issue needs to be addressed as customers who have dabbled with operators other than BT are coming to the end of the prime contract period and want to migrate service provider.
Its not anti-competitive at all, the customer can ask any company to connect a line, at the moment it isnt just BT that can do this.
If it was any other provider, apart from BT, all the customer would do is take their custom elsewhere & the company would not get any Ofcom involvement. As other providers can do it cheaper, just like broadband. Each company sells the service at different rates, but should one provider get more criticism because they sell a service at a higher rate? Course not, thats business. The customer can take that wherever they want.I understand that other operators may not levy a charge to migrate from BT to them because they want to encourage a customer base. However, we have a choice of operators who we can migrate from BT to, without being charged for the pleasure. Twelve months down the line you may want to migrate to a third operator and are thus prevented from doing so due to the high cost of reconnecting to BT and then a further charge being levied if you decide you migrate from BT to another inside of the minimum contract period.
Like i said above, the market is open now. If you don't like their reconnection charges then take the custom elsewhere, its as simple as that. Whilst i agree that there needs to be some clarification addressed at BT Retail HQ with regards to what costs suit to which job, be it new line connection or reconnection from an old provider (LLU or WLR). However thats something them as a business should address, not a regulatory authority.
Therefore should other providers be told by a regulatory authority not to absorb costs for a reconnection/new installation?
The market is open enough now for consumers to vote with their feet and go with a different telephone provider for their landline.0 -
normanmark wrote: »Its not anti-competitive at all, the customer can ask any company to connect a line, at the moment it isnt just BT that can do this.
If it was any other provider, apart from BT, all the customer would do is take their custom elsewhere & the company would not get any Ofcom involvement. As other providers can do it cheaper, just like broadband. Each company sells the service at different rates, but should one provider get more criticism because they sell a service at a higher rate? Course not, thats business. The customer can take that wherever they want.
This not quite so. BT are the dominant operator in the UK, even after all these years of deregualtion. At the start of the deregulation process a grave error was made in not hiving off the local-loop from BT. Though I agree that they have gone some to doing this by the creation of the Openreach acme local loop company that's supposed to charge BT and its competitors equally for service. The customer cannot readily take their service wheresoever they want since they are faced with restrictive contracts and punitive reconnection charges. In addition, the process is unclear and often mired is complexity for joe public. This is blatant anti-competitive behaviour. Before LLU became a possibility inthe UK it was always the case that BT would levy a charge of around £15 to reconnect a customer where a line had been ceased and where the cabling and line-jack were all still in place. Why is it that suddenly they can no longer provide this service at this reasonable cost where a twisted pair of wires has been shifted a matter of yards in an exchange?
Like i said above, the market is open now. If you don't like their reconnection charges then take the custom elsewhere, its as simple as that. Whilst i agree that there needs to be some clarification addressed at BT Retail HQ with regards to what costs suit to which job, be it new line connection or reconnection from an old provider (LLU or WLR). However thats something them as a business should address, not a regulatory authority.
You cannot easily take your business elsewhere at the moment due to the fact that if I'm currently with TalkTalk and I now want to transfer to say Tiscali, then I have potentially to go back to BT, pay £125, then pay again to get out of the new contract with BT in order to connect with Tiscali.
You may argue that TalkTalk could provide exchange lines themselves, but it is unrealistic to expect that they will string a cable up from the exchange to everyones home. The current arrangements need clarification and whatever you say I think that OFCOM should set and regulate the charges that BT are allowed to levy for reconnections. Further, they should set out clearly the process for reverse migrations.
It strikes me that with improvements being made on the mobile networks in order to drive up broadband speeds, that BT may well in the not too distant future find itself with a huge local-loop to maintain and it might suddenly find itself high on capacity and short on takers.
Therefore should other providers be told by a regulatory authority not to absorb costs for a reconnection/new installation?
I'm unsure what you mean here?
The market is open enough now for consumers to vote with their feet and go with a different telephone provider for their landline.
They will, so long as they're not cost inhibited.0 -
This not quite so. BT are the dominant operator in the UK, even after all these years of deregualtion. At the start of the deregulation process a grave error was made in not hiving off the local-loop from BT. Though I agree that they have gone some to doing this by the creation of the Openreach acme local loop company that's supposed to charge BT and its competitors equally for service.
Steve, read up on your facts before posting slanderous messages - this is what confuses average joe!!! Openreach charges ALL customers the same. No different for BT Retail or any other provider. You're clever enough Steve, do you not think Ofcom would have had BT by the short & curlies by now? Think!
Personally i think if the local loop was made open straight away there would have been a possible nasty situation of inexperienced companies operating on a network that needs experience. Plus also i could quite say that BT's loop could have been reduced however the only company at this present time thats willing to invest in ANY telecommunications network (aside from BT) is Virgin Media.
The customer cannot readily take their service wheresoever they want since they are faced with restrictive contracts and punitive reconnection charges. In addition, the process is unclear and often mired is complexity for joe public. This is blatant anti-competitive behaviour. Before LLU became a possibility inthe UK it was always the case that BT would levy a charge of around £15 to reconnect a customer where a line had been ceased and where the cabling and line-jack were all still in place. Why is it that suddenly they can no longer provide this service at this reasonable cost where a twisted pair of wires has been shifted a matter of yards in an exchange?
They can take their service wherever they like. There only restricted by cost and contract part. Why would one company want a customer for 3 months, take on board their installation fee so that the customer can then waltz off to another provider for 12-24 months? It doesn't make business sense to do that. The sooner people realise that BT are no longer a business for the government but a PLC for themselves the better.
Pressure should be put on other providers, why are they suddenly an innocent party knowing full well that the customer will be absorbing a high cost that they want to skirt - surely THAT is a disgraceful bit of behaviour? Watchdog would have a field day if that was revealed!
Process being unclear is not an anti-competitive behaviour Steve. Keep your big terms for where its appropriate as its the role of the OTHER providers just as much as BT's to inform joe bloggs. However i do agree the situation isn't as informed as it should do. This is Ofcom's issue to deal with, its nothing that the monopoly commission can inforce.
With reference to your last point in the post; can you please show me your experience that every reconnection is something that takes nigh on 2-3 minutes and shifted a couple of yards in the exchange?You cannot easily take your business elsewhere at the moment due to the fact that if I'm currently with TalkTalk and I now want to transfer to say Tiscali, then I have potentially to go back to BT, pay £125, then pay again to get out of the new contract with BT in order to connect with Tiscali.
Thats Tiscali's fault not BT's. Tiscali specify that you have a BT line - is that BT's fault or Tiscali's? Surely Tiscali can install their lines now (just like other providers, Co-Op for example) - but of course not, its easier for them to pass on the charge to the customer as opposed to themselves. This is clearly not BT's fault. Ofcom need to address the issue of other providers starting to invest in the network
You may argue that TalkTalk could provide exchange lines themselves, but it is unrealistic to expect that they will string a cable up from the exchange to everyones home. The current arrangements need clarification and whatever you say I think that OFCOM should set and regulate the charges that BT are allowed to levy for reconnections. Further, they should set out clearly the process for reverse migrations.
If BT Retail are going to be levied charges for their reconnections then ALL providers need to be on that same page, not just BT Retail.
It strikes me that with improvements being made on the mobile networks in order to drive up broadband speeds, that BT may well in the not too distant future find itself with a huge local-loop to maintain and it might suddenly find itself high on capacity and short on takers.
Quite possibly, but then thats competition, other providers will hopefully by then putting their hands in their pocket and offering the service of installations and reconnections. Like i've said plenty times before - the market place is open for them to do that now, but the reason they don't is because its cheaper for them to pass that customer back to another provider to absorb the cost. So they can cherry pick the customers. This is something that isn't hitting home!!!!
I'm unsure what you mean here?
Well if BT have to declare their stance on prices for reconnections, then other providers need to make it aware that they're absorbing the cost so the customer cannot be mis-lead in the future. As its apparent to the average joe that BT are the only one that charge!
They will, so long as they're not cost inhibited.
Steve, sorry but you're STILL not grasping the concept that reconnecting a phone line isn't a flick of a switch, labour costs are involved! Reconnections will cost, just like installations! There won't be a period of free connections, if there is then it'll only be absored in higher line rental or call charges. Once more providers start to maybe advertise the fact that they can install lines then maybe more people might start to understand that the market isn't as closed as they think.0 -
I do grasp what you are saying, but I don't agree with all of it. I reiterate that BT are acting anti-competitively by frustrating the charging regime on reversed migrations.
At the end of the day I don't think the UK needs separate operators digging up the streets and laying cables to everyones door with all of the disruption to the environment that causes. Especially when adequate cabling is already present.
I know full well that reconnecting a phone line isn't always as simple as flicking a switch, but often it actually is that simple or at worse it often involves a minimal amount of work at an exchange. It seldom involves what is generally accepted as a full new connection. You fail to grasp my comment that prior to LLU that BT would reconnect an existing exchange line for an admin charge of around £15 whereas nowadays that minimal charge seems unlikely. Now, is that change due to some further complication in re-establishing an exchange line or is it due to BT's desire to frustrate migration?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards