Re: Boundary between BT and householder responsibility for phonewiring

On 18/06/10 10:37, Mortimer wrote:
> As I understand it, for a house with a two-part BT master socket, the
> boundary between BT and householder responsibility for line faults that
> affect broadband is the master socket: *even if BT rather than the
> householder has installed an extension*, that extension is the
> householder's responsibility.

The situation isn't quite that good. BT's responsibility ends with the
test socket inside the master socket. The socket on the faceplate is the
householder's responsibility. This is why BT recommend that if you have
any line-noise problems you connect a known-good phone directly to the
test socket.


--
Bernard Peek
(E-Mail Removed)

On 19/06/10 10:59, Bernard Peek wrote:

> The situation isn't quite that good. BT's responsibility ends with the
> test socket inside the master socket. The socket on the faceplate is the
> householder's responsibility. This is why BT recommend that if you have
> any line-noise problems you connect a known-good phone directly to the
> test socket.

It's not a test socket. It's the interface between the customer premises
and the network.

People may call it a test socket and use it as such, but that's not it's
purpose.

Rgds

Denis McMahon

On 19/06/10 21:57, Mortimer wrote:

>
> Ah, so if we're really splitting hairs, the socket part of the "test
> socket" is BT's responsibility and the faceplate that plugs into it,
> together with any wiring that is attached to that faceplate, is the
> customer's?

Correct.

--
Bernard Peek
(E-Mail Removed)

On 24/06/2010 23:30, kraftee wrote:
>
>
> "Bernard Peek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c1d4884$0$2525$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 19/06/10 21:57, Mortimer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ah, so if we're really splitting hairs, the socket part of the "test
>>> socket" is BT's responsibility and the faceplate that plugs into it,
>>> together with any wiring that is attached to that faceplate, is the
>>> customer's?
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Unfortunately now incorrect any/all wiring inside the property owners
> cutulage (spelling) is now deemed to be chargeable unless it has been
> caused by bad working practices used by BT/Openreach engineers.
>
> I know it's not popular but that is the companies stance on this matter.
>
> A lot depends on the old tea and biscuit routine at the time of the visit.

Spelling = curtilage. ;-)

And yes, the tea and biscuits routine has so far worked for me three
times recently.

(1) Dropwire repaired, in howling gale, after dark in winter. (Severed
by local hedge-cutting contractor).
(2) Dodgy internal wiring - oops!. (Since disconnected by me).
(3) Dropwire re-routed to other end of house due to uPVC fascia board
being broken and pulled off house, due to tension on wire after (1) above.

In all the above cases, tea/coffee/chocky biccies and sympathetic
attitude were supplied to visiting engineers.

The system seems to have worked so far... :-)

George

On 24/06/10 23:30, kraftee wrote:
>
>
> "Bernard Peek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4c1d4884$0$2525$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 19/06/10 21:57, Mortimer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ah, so if we're really splitting hairs, the socket part of the "test
>>> socket" is BT's responsibility and the faceplate that plugs into it,
>>> together with any wiring that is attached to that faceplate, is the
>>> customer's?
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Unfortunately now incorrect any/all wiring inside the property owners
> cutulage (spelling) is now deemed to be chargeable unless it has been
> caused by bad working practices used by BT/Openreach engineers.
>
> I know it's not popular but that is the companies stance on this matter.
>
> A lot depends on the old tea and biscuit routine at the time of the visit.

I recent had to call out BT. They found no problem but didn't charge me
for the visit. I had followed the test procedure set out on the BT web site.



--
Bernard Peek
(E-Mail Removed)