TalkTalk Broadband Woes

Hi everyone, (although I hope that Kraftee may join in)

Apologies for the following 'ramble'....

My friend signed up to TalkTalk, can't get the 'free' BroadBand
package because she is 'out of area' but decided to pay an extra £10
per month for broadband.

Since June they have been paying £10 per month but no service, finally
got they USB modem last week!! So she asked me to go along and help
set it up.

Needless to say it didn't work.

Spoke with someone in India, then in Europe, no joy, I was asked to
move her computer from her study upstair to the master socket in the
lounge.

I then discovered that her incoming wiring was somewhat suspect. A n
original 'GPO' terminal box with a 2 core incomer flex with a short
length (5cm) of CW cable to an old style 'BT' small format master
socket.

Recalled TT spoke to someone from South Africa who ran a line check
and prounounced there was a fault on the line and made an appointment
for a call back yesterday.

Needless to say no call back so my friend called customer support
yesterday evening and she was told that she had to move her computer
back down to the lounge for another call on this coming Monday
morning.

She is getting very frustrated with the whole affair.

I really don't know what to suggest, but I think it would be a good
move to get the incoming BT wires 'made good' with a proper BT Master
Socket. This is particularly important as the Indian support line
insist that she removes the cover from the GPO box to connect direct
to the incoming line!!!!!

Can BT be cajoled to fix this as a 'fault'?

Any suggestions very gratefully received.

--
Best regards
Barry

BJH wrote:
> Hi everyone, (although I hope that Kraftee may join in)
>
> Apologies for the following 'ramble'....
>
> My friend signed up to TalkTalk, can't get the 'free' BroadBand
> package because she is 'out of area' but decided to pay an extra £10
> per month for broadband.
>
> Since June they have been paying £10 per month but no service, finally
> got they USB modem last week!! So she asked me to go along and help
> set it up.
>
> Needless to say it didn't work.
>
> Spoke with someone in India, then in Europe, no joy, I was asked to
> move her computer from her study upstair to the master socket in the
> lounge.
>
> I then discovered that her incoming wiring was somewhat suspect. A n
> original 'GPO' terminal box with a 2 core incomer flex with a short
> length (5cm) of CW cable to an old style 'BT' small format master
> socket.
>
> Recalled TT spoke to someone from South Africa who ran a line check
> and prounounced there was a fault on the line and made an appointment
> for a call back yesterday.
>
> Needless to say no call back so my friend called customer support
> yesterday evening and she was told that she had to move her computer
> back down to the lounge for another call on this coming Monday
> morning.
>
> She is getting very frustrated with the whole affair.
>
> I really don't know what to suggest, but I think it would be a good
> move to get the incoming BT wires 'made good' with a proper BT Master
> Socket. This is particularly important as the Indian support line
> insist that she removes the cover from the GPO box to connect direct
> to the incoming line!!!!!
>
> Can BT be cajoled to fix this as a 'fault'?
>
> Any suggestions very gratefully received.
>

As I found our recently (with the excellent help of Kraftee), the first
thing you need to do is to connect the modem to the test socket which is
behind the main socket in the BT Master box. The front cover of the
master box should be in two parts and the lower cover is held by two
screws. Remove the screws and that cover pulls out, revealing the test
socket behind. If the modem dsl indicator shows a solid light, then the
BT wiring is correct and the fault is in the house wiring. If the dsl
indicator flashes, then the fault is on the BT side.

It is important to use that test socket as a fault in the telephone
wiring inside the house can cause problems when any other socket is used
(including the one in the front of the BT Master box).

It may be possible to just take the modem to the test socket for this
test. When I did this for a neighbour recently, he had a router and I
was able to move just the router. It did not need to be attached to the
computer for this test to work. I suspect that a modem should be much
the same in this respect (just testing the phone line).



--
Howard Neil

You've been paying for a service that they didn't provide...sue the bastards

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 09:59:36 UTC, Howard Neil
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > I then discovered that her incoming wiring was somewhat suspect. A n
> > original 'GPO' terminal box with a 2 core incomer flex with a short
> > length (5cm) of CW cable to an old style 'BT' small format master
> > socket.

> As I found our recently (with the excellent help of Kraftee), the first
> thing you need to do is to connect the modem to the test socket which is
> behind the main socket in the BT Master box.

But not on the 'old style' ones; see the original post above.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:59:36 +0100, Howard Neil
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>As I found our recently (with the excellent help of Kraftee), the first
>thing you need to do is to connect the modem to the test socket which is
>behind the main socket in the BT Master box.

<snip>

Try READING what people say before replying eh? You'll find it helps
rather a lot.
--
John Naismith

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:40:24 +0100, BJH <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Can BT be cajoled to fix this as a 'fault'?

I'd venture to suggest that the quickest way of sorting this out would
be for your friend to call BT directly and order a real master socket.
If that fails then ordering an extension fitted *should* result in a
new master socket to replace the ancient thing your friend has.

Hopefully one of the BT bods around here can advise on whether a new
master socket is chargeable - I think it probably is.
--
John Naismith

>> Can BT be cajoled to fix this as a 'fault'?
>
> I'd venture to suggest that the quickest way of sorting this out would
> be for your friend to call BT directly and order a real master socket.
> If that fails then ordering an extension fitted *should* result in a
> new master socket to replace the ancient thing your friend has.
>
> Hopefully one of the BT bods around here can advise on whether a new
> master socket is chargeable - I think it probably is.

Why should the OP's friend do that which will mean they will be charged. It
may be what needs doing but with a bit of common sense and applied pressure
they may get it done for free.


Peter Crosland

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:47:08 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> Can BT be cajoled to fix this as a 'fault'?
>>
>> I'd venture to suggest that the quickest way of sorting this out would
>> be for your friend to call BT directly and order a real master socket.
>> If that fails then ordering an extension fitted *should* result in a
>> new master socket to replace the ancient thing your friend has.
>>
>> Hopefully one of the BT bods around here can advise on whether a new
>> master socket is chargeable - I think it probably is.
>
>Why should the OP's friend do that which will mean they will be charged. It
>may be what needs doing but with a bit of common sense and applied pressure
>they may get it done for free.
>
>
>Peter Crosland
>

They'd have to get past first-line support on Talk Talk before BT even
hear there's a problem. If they are happy to do that then fine. I
suspect that if they do take that route then they'll still be waiting
for it to be fixed in 2008.

Usual story really - its very likely a simple fix but communicating
the fact there is a fault to the people who CAN fix it seems to verge
on impossible. ALL ISPs are guilty of this to some extent, but the
usual suspects* are way worse than most.

*Usual suspects = Tiscali, Plusnet, Talk Talk, NTL (and a host of
others).
--
John Naismith

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:03:28 +0100, John Naismith wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:47:08 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> Can BT be cajoled to fix this as a 'fault'?
>>>
>>> I'd venture to suggest that the quickest way of sorting this out would
>>> be for your friend to call BT directly and order a real master socket.
>>> If that fails then ordering an extension fitted *should* result in a
>>> new master socket to replace the ancient thing your friend has.
>>>
>>> Hopefully one of the BT bods around here can advise on whether a new
>>> master socket is chargeable - I think it probably is.
>>
>>Why should the OP's friend do that which will mean they will be charged. It
>>may be what needs doing but with a bit of common sense and applied pressure
>>they may get it done for free.
>>
>>
>>Peter Crosland
>>
>
> They'd have to get past first-line support on Talk Talk before BT even
> hear there's a problem. If they are happy to do that then fine. I
> suspect that if they do take that route then they'll still be waiting
> for it to be fixed in 2008.
>
> Usual story really - its very likely a simple fix but communicating
> the fact there is a fault to the people who CAN fix it seems to verge
> on impossible. ALL ISPs are guilty of this to some extent, but the
> usual suspects* are way worse than most.
>
> *Usual suspects = Tiscali, Plusnet, Talk Talk, NTL (and a host of
> others).

And, of course, this is my point. When she calls TalkTalk she gets to
talk to a 'droid' reading from a script. I think that what she needs
first of all is the wiring into her property being brought 'up to
spec' before any sensible fault finding can be carried out. To my way
of thinking it is not unreasonable that the supplier of the service
ought to make sure that the infrastructure is suitable to supply that
service, any technician would see that her incoming wiring is way
below par. That's not her fault because after all it is BT's property,
isn't it?

But then, its good enough for voice, just.

So whose responsibililty is it to provide a good quality line and who
pays for that?

I suppose if she had a bad connection in the GPO terminal box (which
is incidentally partially damaged through old age) she could report an
intermittent fault, and then the visiting Engineer may decide to
change it. But is he *obliged* to, or is all he is required to do is
tighten up the bad connection?

--
Best regards
Barry

>
> And, of course, this is my point. When she calls TalkTalk she gets to
> talk to a 'droid' reading from a script. I think that what she needs
> first of all is the wiring into her property being brought 'up to
> spec' before any sensible fault finding can be carried out. To my way
> of thinking it is not unreasonable that the supplier of the service
> ought to make sure that the infrastructure is suitable to supply that
> service, any technician would see that her incoming wiring is way
> below par. That's not her fault because after all it is BT's property,
> isn't it?

No it is not actually. The BT ownership and responsibility ends at the
master socket or so they will tell you. I am not personally sure that this
would stand scrutiny in court because BT wont allow you to alter any of the
wiring in such a case. Unfortunately the BT, or Openreach, management dont
see it that way and are interested in profit rather than customer
satisfaction.

> But then, its good enough for voice, just.

If the line is noisy then it is up to BT to fix it. The problem is that once
you move the responsibility from BT to TT, as seems to be the case , then
the fault has to be reported to TT even though it will be a BT, or
Openreach, engineer who does the work.

> So whose responsibililty is it to provide a good quality line and who
> pays for that?

See above

> I suppose if she had a bad connection in the GPO terminal box (which
> is incidentally partially damaged through old age) she could report an
> intermittent fault, and then the visiting Engineer may decide to
> change it. But is he *obliged* to, or is all he is required to do is
> tighten up the bad connection?

Apparently not. In my expereince the best thing is to get the engineer on
your side. Offering him tea and biscuits has proved very effective in my
experience.

Peter Crosland