On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.

Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
BT say a £124.99 connection charge is payable.

This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
the same in the long run.

Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
and did a moving home job?

thanks

I believe they are giving new installations for £30 if you sign a 18
month contract, at the moment that is they only way you can reduce the
price. I remember seeing it on the site a week ago, but cant seem to
find it now, so when you order mention it to the sales rep, it should
still be going.

Darren wrote:
> On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.
>
> Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
> connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
> BT say a £124.99 connection charge is payable.
>
> This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
> only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
> the same in the long run.
>
> Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
> and did a moving home job?
>
> thanks

You just happen to have dropped lucky - until the end of June it's £30 
http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Notice08_boo/SNL21-08.pdf

However, I cannot stand whingers who think that the charge of £124.99 is too 
much. Whether you only want it for internet or not, a phone line is a phone 
line. And how do you think the little white box got there, in your flat, in 
the first place?

You say that the flat is 2 years old ( the fact that previous tenents didn't 
have the line activated isn't relevant), so that means that work to get that 
telephone socket on the wall started at least two years before that.

Various planning departments, both council and BT will have been involved in 
getting wayleaves, planning exchange capacity, planning cable routes etc., 
etc. Then trenching will have been dug and ducting will have to have been 
laid underground and cabling gangs will have had to install new cabling, 
with cable jointers coming along behind.

The builder and/or electrician will have installed the wiring internally in 
your flat, fitted the wall socket and wired back to the termination point in 
a services cupboard somewhere - and BT will have had to pay for that, they 
don't get it free.

And what does your £124.99 give you? It gives you a gateway to the world. 
£124.99 will not even fill my cars' petrol tank twice (£67 empty to full).

On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:56:05 +0100, John wrote:

> Darren wrote:
>> On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.
>>
>> Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
>> connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
>> BT say a 124.99 connection charge is payable.
>>
>> This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
>> only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
>> the same in the long run.
>>
>> Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
>> and did a moving home job?
>>
>> thanks
> 
> You just happen to have dropped lucky - until the end of June it's 30
> http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Notice08_boo/
SNL21-08.pdf
> 
> However, I cannot stand whingers who think that the charge of 124.99 is
> too much. Whether you only want it for internet or not, a phone line is
> a phone line. And how do you think the little white box got there, in
> your flat, in the first place?
> 
> You say that the flat is 2 years old ( the fact that previous tenents
> didn't have the line activated isn't relevant), so that means that work
> to get that telephone socket on the wall started at least two years
> before that.
> 
> Various planning departments, both council and BT will have been
> involved in getting wayleaves, planning exchange capacity, planning
> cable routes etc., etc. Then trenching will have been dug and ducting
> will have to have been laid underground and cabling gangs will have had
> to install new cabling, with cable jointers coming along behind.
> 
> The builder and/or electrician will have installed the wiring internally
> in your flat, fitted the wall socket and wired back to the termination
> point in a services cupboard somewhere - and BT will have had to pay for
> that, they don't get it free.
> 
> And what does your 124.99 give you? It gives you a gateway to the world.
> 124.99 will not even fill my cars' petrol tank twice (67 empty to full).

Whilst your sentiments are understandable I don't see that the cost of 
network provision should be the responsibility of the end user.

In most instances on new-builds the network pre-wiring is done and little 
more than two crimps and a visit is needed. I agree that BT have paid for 
this infrastructure to be placed, but under their operators licence they 
have an obligation in law to provide it.

Perhaps if they did not waste all that money pre-wiring such buildings, 
they could bring the cost down from over a ton for a provide. I don't 
recall the cable companies running to £125 for a residential provide - 
AFAIR. £125 is not an attractive price to pay to connect a line. 

Do the Electricity Board charge the end user to hook up a meter and 
supply in the same new build, connecting to the mains wiring provided by 
the same electrician that wired up the phone socket?

I'm sure you paid a 'line rental fee' the last time I looked, not a 
outright purchase for the bloody cable they have had to lay to make a 
profit from you.

"Christian"  wrote in message 
news:482872df$0$2495$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:56:05 +0100, John wrote:
>
>> Darren wrote:
>>> On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
>>> connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
>>> BT say a 124.99 connection charge is payable.
>>>
>>> This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
>>> only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
>>> the same in the long run.
>>>
>>> Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
>>> and did a moving home job?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>
>> You just happen to have dropped lucky - until the end of June it's 30
>> http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Notice08_boo/
> SNL21-08.pdf
>>
>> However, I cannot stand whingers who think that the charge of 124.99 is
>> too much. Whether you only want it for internet or not, a phone line is
>> a phone line. And how do you think the little white box got there, in
>> your flat, in the first place?
>>
>> You say that the flat is 2 years old ( the fact that previous tenents
>> didn't have the line activated isn't relevant), so that means that work
>> to get that telephone socket on the wall started at least two years
>> before that.
>>
>> Various planning departments, both council and BT will have been
>> involved in getting wayleaves, planning exchange capacity, planning
>> cable routes etc., etc. Then trenching will have been dug and ducting
>> will have to have been laid underground and cabling gangs will have had
>> to install new cabling, with cable jointers coming along behind.
>>
>> The builder and/or electrician will have installed the wiring internally
>> in your flat, fitted the wall socket and wired back to the termination
>> point in a services cupboard somewhere - and BT will have had to pay for
>> that, they don't get it free.
>>
>> And what does your 124.99 give you? It gives you a gateway to the world.
>> 124.99 will not even fill my cars' petrol tank twice (67 empty to full).
>
> Whilst your sentiments are understandable I don't see that the cost of
> network provision should be the responsibility of the end user.
>
> In most instances on new-builds the network pre-wiring is done and little
> more than two crimps and a visit is needed. I agree that BT have paid for
> this infrastructure to be placed, but under their operators licence they
> have an obligation in law to provide it.
>
> Perhaps if they did not waste all that money pre-wiring such buildings,
> they could bring the cost down from over a ton for a provide. I don't
> recall the cable companies running to £125 for a residential provide -
> AFAIR. £125 is not an attractive price to pay to connect a line.
>
> Do the Electricity Board charge the end user to hook up a meter and
> supply in the same new build, connecting to the mains wiring provided by
> the same electrician that wired up the phone socket?

They certainly do charge and considerably more than BT do.

> I'm sure you paid a 'line rental fee' the last time I looked, not a
> outright purchase for the bloody cable they have had to lay to make a
> profit from you.


In most cases the charge is much less than the direct costs incurred to do 
the work. If it was not charged then the rental cost would be much higher.

Peter Crosland

"John" <replyingroup@notemail> wrote in message 
news:JsCdnaGXY7EN9bXVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
> Darren wrote:
>> On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.
>>
>> Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
>> connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
>> BT say a £124.99 connection charge is payable.
>>
>> This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
>> only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
>> the same in the long run.
>>
>> Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
>> and did a moving home job?
>>
>> thanks
>
> You just happen to have dropped lucky - until the end of June it's £30 
> http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Notice08_boo/SNL21-08.pdf
>
> However, I cannot stand whingers who think that the charge of £124.99 is 
> too much. Whether you only want it for internet or not, a phone line is a 
> phone line. And how do you think the little white box got there, in your 
> flat, in the first place?
>
> You say that the flat is 2 years old ( the fact that previous tenents 
> didn't have the line activated isn't relevant), so that means that work to 
> get that telephone socket on the wall started at least two years before 
> that.
>
> Various planning departments, both council and BT will have been involved 
> in getting wayleaves, planning exchange capacity, planning cable routes 
> etc., etc. Then trenching will have been dug and ducting will have to have 
> been laid underground and cabling gangs will have had to install new 
> cabling, with cable jointers coming along behind.
>
> The builder and/or electrician will have installed the wiring internally 
> in your flat, fitted the wall socket and wired back to the termination 
> point in a services cupboard somewhere - and BT will have had to pay for 
> that, they don't get it free.
>
> And what does your £124.99 give you? It gives you a gateway to the world. 
> £124.99 will not even fill my cars' petrol tank twice (£67 empty to full).
When my daughter bought a new house, it had services already installed, 
water, gas, electricity (and a new substation), sewage - no builder would 
think of trying to sell a new house without these, and his costs were 
obviously included in the house price. The telephone cabling was installed 
in the street & house, presumably all that had to be done was to make the 
connection at the exchange.
Just wondering why telephones have to be different from all the other 
services.

Retired

On May 12, 7:58 am, Darren  wrote:
> On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.
>
> Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
> connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
> BT say a £124.99 connection charge is payable.
>
> This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
> only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
> the same in the long run.
>
> Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
> and did a moving home job?
>
> thanks

Have you considered utilizing Cable and VoIP.  I avoid doing business
with telephone companies if at all possible.

"naza"  wrote in message 
news:1b56c70c-ee9d-4e47-ab12-d51b8293d7b4@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I believe they are giving new installations for £30 if you sign a 18
month contract, at the moment that is they only way you can reduce the
price. I remember seeing it on the site a week ago, but cant seem to
find it now, so when you order mention it to the sales rep, it should
still be going.

Link to details from earleir thread by Mr Sunood
http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Notice08_boo/SNL21-08.pdf

In article <HNednSlkQYdqDbXVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
	"Retired"  writes:
> When my daughter bought a new house, it had services already installed, 
> water, gas, electricity (and a new substation), sewage - no builder would 
> think of trying to sell a new house without these, and his costs were 
> obviously included in the house price. The telephone cabling was installed 
> in the street & house, presumably all that had to be done was to make the 
> connection at the exchange.
> Just wondering why telephones have to be different from all the other 
> services.

Only reason is because your daughter was prepared to buy the house
with no phone service, but presumably wasn't prepared to buy the
house with no electricity service. If she'd said to the builder,
I'll only buy it if the phone service is connected up, she might
well have had it connected up. If everyone did that, it would become
the norm, just as it is with electricity, gas, etc.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Darren"  wrote in message 
news:d90dc9c7-e7fd-402a-ba62-5920f8f55009@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Friday I moved into a flat of 2 years old.

Unfortunately no previous tenants have bothered to have the phone line
connected - therefore although there are sockets already on the walls,
BT say a £124.99 connection charge is payable.

This is a real shame, since I only need it for internet access and the
only other alternative is mobile access, which isnt ideal and may cost
the same in the long run.

Anyway of waiving the charge? What if i had a line at another property
and did a moving home job?

thanks

Big business order maybe?

Just to short circuit some the many threads here, BT pay the builder to 
install their stuff and provide the materials.

Other operators generally charge the builder.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:18:28 +0100, Peter Crosland wrote:

> AFAIR. 125 is not an attractive price to pay to connect a line.
>>
>> Do the Electricity Board charge the end user to hook up a meter and
>> supply in the same new build, connecting to the mains wiring provided
>> by the same electrician that wired up the phone socket?
> 
> They certainly do charge and considerably more than BT do.

But not the end user.

"Christian"  wrote in message 
news:48299851$0$2495$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 19:18:28 +0100, Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> AFAIR. 125 is not an attractive price to pay to connect a line.
>>>
>>> Do the Electricity Board charge the end user to hook up a meter and
>>> supply in the same new build, connecting to the mains wiring provided
>>> by the same electrician that wired up the phone socket?
>>
>> They certainly do charge and considerably more than BT do.
>
> But not the end user.

BT pay to install and supply materials.

Retired  wrote 

> > And what does your £124.99 give you? It gives you a gateway to the
world. 
> > £124.99 will not even fill my cars' petrol tank twice (£67 empty to
full).

> When my daughter bought a new house, it had services already
installed, 
> water, gas, electricity (and a new substation), sewage - no builder
would 
> think of trying to sell a new house without these, and his costs were

> obviously included in the house price. The telephone cabling was
installed 
> in the street & house, presumably all that had to be done was to make
the 
> connection at the exchange.

> Just wondering why telephones have to be different from all the other

> services.

There have in fact been complaints, not to say screams of rage, about
connection charges for water supply and indeed, out in the country, for
electricity.

The difference for telephones is that, unlike the others, BT rentals
and usage charges were price controlled and that very low usage
customers were much more frequent.

-- 
Mike D

In article <5aca98f4-3029-4829-9810-
2c93ada59d5b@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, adrian_auerhudson@yahoo.com 
says...
> Have you considered utilizing Cable and VoIP.  I avoid doing business
> with telephone companies if at all possible.

#Surely your VoIP provider is a "telephone company"? I also bet that 
your cable service provider is does telephone services as part of it's 
product range.
-- 
Regards
Jon

On May 15, 11:23 pm, Jon Parker  wrote:
> In article <5aca98f4-3029-4829-9810-
> 2c93ada59...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com
> says...
>
> > Have you considered utilizing Cable and VoIP.  I avoid doing business
> > with telephone companies if at all possible.
>
> #Surely your VoIP provider is a "telephone company"?

In the strictest sense, yes.  But, they are not a classic telephone
company.  There rates are reasonable and the offer great flexibility.

> I also bet that
> your cable service provider is does telephone services as part of it's
> product range.

Yes it does.  I do not utilize their 'phone service.  I want the
option of non-local, and out-of-country area codes.  Moreover, I want
to be able to move my service with out reference to the carriers.

Adrian

The reason this fee seems unreasonable is because companys like virgin
do this service for FREE, BT have a monopoly over the market and force
you to pay this fee, this is because BT are in many cases the sole
provider in certain areas. This is unnacceptable if one company can
charge you nothing, then why should another charge you £124.99?

On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:19:36 -0700, alexgabb wrote:

> The reason this fee seems unreasonable is because companys like virgin
> do this service for FREE, BT have a monopoly over the market and force
> you to pay this fee, this is because BT are in many cases the sole
> provider in certain areas. This is unnacceptable if one company can
> charge you nothing, then why should another charge you £124.99?

Virgin and BT have different networks and different business models. 
Virgin can cross subsidise installation from more profitable services 
like pay TV. If Virgin had to re-sell or un-bundle their network like BT 
do, I'm sure we'd see prices moving in the direction of parity.

-- 
 <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
 19:33:10 up 11:14,  1 user,  load average: 1.13, 1.09, 1.00
 Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:41:33 +0000, alexd passed an empty day by writing:

> On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:19:36 -0700, alexgabb wrote:
> 
>> The reason this fee seems unreasonable is because companys like virgin
>> do this service for FREE, BT have a monopoly over the market and force
>> you to pay this fee, this is because BT are in many cases the sole
>> provider in certain areas. This is unnacceptable if one company can
>> charge you nothing, then why should another charge you £124.99?
> 
> Virgin and BT have different networks and different business models.
> Virgin can cross subsidise installation from more profitable services
> like pay TV. If Virgin had to re-sell or un-bundle their network like BT
> do, I'm sure we'd see prices moving in the direction of parity.

Nothing was in place to stop BT from upgrading it's network so it could 
offer TV, like for like broadband and telephone services. This comes back 
to the business model of non investment, greed and contempt for your 
customers. Pretty much like it was when it was publicly owned then . . .