"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> nick wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Gaz wrote:
>> >> David wrote:
>> >> > Looked on BT web site for a price list of their charges, I failed,
>> >> > but their Search is down.
>> >> > Anyone got a link to their prices for work?
>> >> >
>> >> > Or know them?
>> >> >
>> >> > Change of old master to a NTE5.
>> >> > alt. with the double outlet of phone and ADSL.
>> >> > alt with this new I plate I keep hearing about, I assume this is a
>> >> > double outlet phone/adsl.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am aware I can do the later myself after they do the NTE5. which
>> >> > might be cheaper.
>> >>
>> >> BT have become a greedy bunch of twats, the changing of an old style
>> >> socket
>> >> to an nte5 should be a routine job, included within the £10 a month
>> >> line
>> >> rental charge.
>> >>
>> >> The master socket is *their* responsibility, and should be replaced as
>> >> a
>> >> matter of course on any visit to do with line issues or broadband. A
>> >> customer cannot even begin to troubleshoot their broadband without an
>> >> nte5.
>> >
>> > I couldn't agree more Gaz. But it doesn't work like that since BT was
>> > divided up. Openreach will charge BT retail for the job.
>>
>> BT hasnt been "divided up". its the same PLC.
>
> Try getting one part to talk to another.
>
> And there's talk of openreach being sold off totally.
>
> Graham
Openreach are regulated, so that they must treat BT Retail as "just another
service provider" and vice-versa. There is therefore no link (apart from a
financial one) between Openreach and the rest of BT, as they operate via a
"Chinese wall". To do otherwise would result in all sorts of regulatory
issues, court cases, etc.
This of course would make a sell-off of Openreach dead easy, as the
organisational split has already been made.
I wonder if Openreach's pricing would be more consumer-friendly if they were
sold off?
Probably not, he said, answering his own question, as the new firm would
still be a virtual monopoly and the shareholders of the new firm wouldn't
want to throw away all that lovely dosh that monopoly charging (read
"outrageous") brings in.
They'd probably also want to cut costs by getting rid of the high-cost,
unionised, experienced and well-trained technicians as soon as they could
find a way of replacing them with semi-trained, short-term contract staff,
with no pension funds to worry about.
If they could outsource the work to India, that would be their blue sky
vision. Unfortunately, until Captain Kirk's Transporter becomes a reality,
they'll probably recruit eastern Europeans.
Cynical?
Me?
George
|