Transferring existing ADSL line to new resident?

I've recently moved to a new shared flat which is already enabled for
ADSL, having been installed by the previous tenant who moved out. As
this was paid up until the end of the month, ADSL was working until the
end of last month (through a router in the flat).

The ADSL service was provided by GioInternet and I'd like to reactivate
the ADSL service for the flat.

However, being a shared flat none of us current tenants are sure whether
we'll be here in 12 months' time and are therefore reluctant to sign up
to a 12 month contract.

GioInternet say that there is only a 3 month minimum contract, which
seems fair, although their website says that they may make a
termination fee (unspecified) if service is cancelled before 12 months.
Does anybody know if they do actually do that?

Also, GioInternet's website only seems to deal with the situation where
somebody is signing up for ADSL completely from new, and includes a line
activation fee. Surely if the line has already been ADSL-enabled it is
not necessary to set it up again?

I've emailed GioInternet support but have had no reply as yet.
I've also done some searching around on the web and it appears that
there are quite a few people unhappy with GioInternet, although it
seemed to me that their broadband service worked perfectly well during
the weeks that we had it. However, if their support is limited and they
are likely to carry out slightly sharp practices such as looking good on
first inspection but then imposing 'hidden' charges later, I'd be
reluctant to use them. Any opinions, anyone?


Alternatively, can anyone recommend another reasonably low-cost ADSL
provider which offers a short-term minimum contract?

We're just looking for a basic 'connection only' service: we don't need
bundled email addresses, webspace, etc.

PlusNet seem to offer a reasonable month-by-month contract, does anybody
have any experience with it?

Again however, they seem to charge a line activation fee, is this simply
as a result of gearing their website to new connections or is this
standard practice? I can't see why it would be necessary to pay an
activation fee on a line already ADSL-enabled?


Thanks for any advice,


David.


--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> |
Edinburgh, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] | http://web.viewport.co.uk/ |
Learn usenet and netiquette: read news:news.announce.newusers |
>Please interleave & trim quotes otherwise your posts will be ignored.<
begin Outlook is broken: see http://web.viewport.co.uk/doze/outbreak |

"David Marsh" <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:slrnbo35g2.47u.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> PlusNet seem to offer a reasonable month-by-month
contract, does anybody
> have any experience with it?

I have their full service (£21.99 per month) and am very
satisfied. If you only want the web connection (no
newsgroups) then I think it is £18.99 per month.

> Again however, they seem to charge a line activation fee,
is this simply
> as a result of gearing their website to new connections or
is this
> standard practice? I can't see why it would be necessary
to pay an
> activation fee on a line already ADSL-enabled?

All providers have to pay an activation fee so will tend to
charge the customer in one way or another. If you wish to
change providers you have to wait for the existing provider
to deactivate your ADSL and then pay again to be activated
with another provider.

If you do go with PlusNet and feel inclined to name me as
your referrer I may, depending on your choice of package,
get a small discount on future subs. Put "safeprod" into
the referral box when signing up.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you
can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley
27/8/2003]

In article <slrnbo35g2.47u.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)>
David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I've recently moved to a new shared flat which is already enabled for
>ADSL, having been installed by the previous tenant who moved out. As
>this was paid up until the end of the month, ADSL was working until the
>end of last month (through a router in the flat).

>The ADSL service was provided by GioInternet and I'd like to reactivate
>the ADSL service for the flat.

"Reactivate" implies that the line isn't connected to the DSLAM: if you
connect your router, does it still sync?

If your BT account number changes, either as a result of cease and
reprovide or takeover, such services as meter pulsing, 30 kHz loop, and
DSL will be ceased. It's also possible that BT may cease DSL if you
should renumber an activated line, although this is sharp practice, and
they really shouldn't.

The point is, if you take over a line, you can't take over the layered
products. You would probably be quite annoyed if you were to take over a
line in a house that had previously had a payphone using meter pulsing
connected and the meter pulsing was not ceased, as you would then find
that when you came to order DSL, you would be informed that the line was
the subject of an "incompatible service", and probably have a hard time
trying to extract the necessary information from BT.

>However, being a shared flat none of us current tenants are sure whether
>we'll be here in 12 months' time and are therefore reluctant to sign up
>to a 12 month contract.

>GioInternet say that there is only a 3 month minimum contract, which
>seems fair, although their website says that they may make a
>termination fee (unspecified) if service is cancelled before 12 months.
>Does anybody know if they do actually do that?

They shouldn't, it would be an unfair term (ambiguous). You either have
a three-month notice period, or you don't. They can't tell you there is
a three-month minimum and then reserve the right to sting you should you
cancel before twelve. Also, what happens if they decide that the fee for
early termination will be UKP 300?

I would avoid Gio if at all possible if they're interesting such terms:
there are many ISPs with better reputations, such as Eclipse, who will
offer you the one-month notice period you require, albeit with an
activation fee (UKP 50 plus VAT for Eclipse).

[snip]

>PlusNet seem to offer a reasonable month-by-month contract, does anybody
>have any experience with it?

>Again however, they seem to charge a line activation fee, is this simply
>as a result of gearing their website to new connections or is this
>standard practice?

Standard practice: BT Wholesale charge an activation fee, and to not
pass that on a one-month notice period contract would not make
commercial sense.

>I can't see why it would be necessary to pay an activation fee on a
>line already ADSL-enabled?

Because it probably isn't. BT have probably recovered the DSLAM port.

An easy way to test is dial 17070 and press 3, 1, 2. Wait for the
callback. If you get the response "Line test OK", you have no layered
products such as DSL, and must pay the full activation charge.

--
James MacDonald

[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments]
James MacDonald wrote in uk.telecom.broadband:
about: Re: Transferring existing ADSL line to new resident?

> In article <slrnbo35g2.47u.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)>
> David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>I've recently moved to a new shared flat which is already enabled for
>>ADSL, having been installed by the previous tenant who moved out. As
>>this was paid up until the end of the month, ADSL was working until the
>>end of last month (through a router in the flat).
>
>>The ADSL service was provided by GioInternet and I'd like to reactivate
>>the ADSL service for the flat.
>
> "Reactivate" implies that the line isn't connected to the DSLAM: if you
> connect your router, does it still sync?

It depends what you mean by 'sync'. The inbuilt diagnostic test gives
the following, if it's any help:

Diagnostic Test

Checking LAN Connection
Testing Ethernet LAN connection : PASS HELP

Checking ADSL Connection
Testing ADSL Synchronization : PASS HELP

Checking Circuit 0 for Network Connection
Test ATM OAM Segment Loop Back : PASS HELP
Test ATM OAM End-to-End Loop Back : PASS HELP
Test Ethernet connect to ATM : PASS HELP
Test PPP Layer connection : FAIL HELP
Test IP connect to PPP : SKIPPED HELP



> The point is, if you take over a line, you can't take over the layered
> products. You would probably be quite annoyed if you were to take over a
> line in a house that had previously had a payphone using meter pulsing
> connected and the meter pulsing was not ceased, as you would then find
> that when you came to order DSL, you would be informed that the line was
> the subject of an "incompatible service", and probably have a hard time
> trying to extract the necessary information from BT.

Sure, but it seems a bit of a con to re-charge an activation fee for
ADSL on a line that's already had ADSL enabled previously. I mean, BT don't
charge for a whole new line installation when you take over a pre-existing
line, because, quite obviously, they don't need to put a line out to
your flat again.

Once the line has already been kitted out for ADSL, presumably it's no
more than flicking a switch to reactivate it later. Charging a rather
hefty activation fee every time for doing essentially no work seems to be
taking the piss a bit.

Or perhaps BT would rather I just hogged an actual phone line by using
an unmetered dialup ISP (with no ludicrous setup charges) instead of
ADSL, which hardly seems a sensible use of resources..?


>>GioInternet say that there is only a 3 month minimum contract, which
>>seems fair, although their website says that they may make a
>>termination fee (unspecified) if service is cancelled before 12 months.
>>Does anybody know if they do actually do that?
>
> They shouldn't, it would be an unfair term (ambiguous). You either have
> a three-month notice period, or you don't. They can't tell you there is
> a three-month minimum and then reserve the right to sting you should you
> cancel before twelve. Also, what happens if they decide that the fee for
> early termination will be UKP 300?

Good point. I think I'll look elsewhere. I did get a reply to my email
to them but it said to call them. I'm sorry, but if I ask a question by
email, I expect an answer by email.



> Standard practice: BT Wholesale charge an activation fee, and to not
> pass that on a one-month notice period contract would not make
> commercial sense.

"Dear BT Wholesale,

Would you like me to pay a miserable tenner a month to one of your
competitors for unmetered dialup access (of which you presumably see
relatively little) and hog a phone line because I can't afford (and
cannot justify, in medium-term accommodation) a 50 quid+ activation fee,
or would you like me to pay over 20 quid a month to an ISP for ADSL
(of which you presumably see a fair chunk)?"


I wouldn't have thought it would have been a hard choice to work out
which generates more income (and goodwill) for them? :-(


>>I can't see why it would be necessary to pay an activation fee on a
>>line already ADSL-enabled?
>
> Because it probably isn't. BT have probably recovered the DSLAM port.

Do they actually install and remove kit, or is it just a case of
flicking switches once the kit has been initially installed?

Given that it's "fairly likely" that somebody else will sign up for ADSL
at the exchange, I wouldn't have thought it would make economic sense to
remove kit from the exchange once installed?


> An easy way to test is dial 17070 and press 3, 1, 2. Wait for the
> callback. If you get the response "Line test OK", you have no layered
> products such as DSL, and must pay the full activation charge.

Ringback returns "Unable to test the line".
Does that mean ADSL is still enabled on the line?


Thanks for your advice,


David.


--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> |
Edinburgh, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] | http://web.viewport.co.uk/ |
Learn usenet and netiquette: read news:news.announce.newusers |
>Please interleave & trim quotes otherwise your posts will be ignored.<
begin Outlook is broken: see http://web.viewport.co.uk/doze/outbreak |

David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:

: Sure, but it seems a bit of a con to re-charge an activation fee for
: ADSL on a line that's already had ADSL enabled previously. I mean, BT don't
: charge for a whole new line installation when you take over a pre-existing
: line, because, quite obviously, they don't need to put a line out to
: your flat again.

The ADSL on your line (in fact anyone's line) is "owned" by the appropriate
ISP who pay the bill for it to BT Wholesale. The best you could manage
(if you could get the CBUK (line serial number)) out of the previous ISP is
a "migration" to one of your choice. That still costs £40 and many be no
cheaper than a whole new installation.

In article <slrnbo574e.45o.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)>
David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments]

Isn't that what normal people do anyway?

>James MacDonald wrote in uk.telecom.broadband:
> about: Re: Transferring existing ADSL line to new resident?

>> In article <slrnbo35g2.47u.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)>
>> David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>>>I've recently moved to a new shared flat which is already enabled for
>>>ADSL

[...]

>>>The ADSL service was provided by GioInternet and I'd like to reactivate
>>>the ADSL service for the flat.

>> "Reactivate" implies that the line isn't connected to the DSLAM: if you
>> connect your router, does it still sync?

>It depends what you mean by 'sync'. The inbuilt diagnostic test gives
>the following, if it's any help:

>Diagnostic Test

>Checking LAN Connection
> Testing Ethernet LAN connection : PASS HELP

>Checking ADSL Connection
> Testing ADSL Synchronization : PASS HELP

Hmm, looks like you have a Cayman 3341, or at least something else based
on the CX82310 system-on-chip.

The 'show adsl' command will show you more information about your line,
but yes, it does appear that DSL is present on the line.

>> The point is, if you take over a line, you can't take over the layered
>> products. You would probably be quite annoyed if you were to take over a
>> line in a house that had previously had a payphone using meter pulsing
>> connected and the meter pulsing was not ceased, as you would then find
>> that when you came to order DSL, you would be informed that the line was
>> the subject of an "incompatible service", and probably have a hard time
>> trying to extract the necessary information from BT.

>Sure, but it seems a bit of a con to re-charge an activation fee for
>ADSL on a line that's already had ADSL enabled previously. I mean, BT don't
>charge for a whole new line installation when you take over a pre-existing
>line, because, quite obviously, they don't need to put a line out to
>your flat again.

>Once the line has already been kitted out for ADSL, presumably it's no
>more than flicking a switch to reactivate it later. Charging a rather
>hefty activation fee every time for doing essentially no work seems to be
>taking the piss a bit.

It's the same amount of work. A DSLAM has a limited number of ports, and
so after DSL is ceased (which it will eventually be, since you have
taken over the line), the port is recovered, and your line is once again
only connected to the exchange line card. The line returns to the state
it was in before DSL was provisioned.

>Or perhaps BT would rather I just hogged an actual phone line by using
>an unmetered dialup ISP (with no ludicrous setup charges) instead of
>ADSL, which hardly seems a sensible use of resources..?

[Activation fees passed the user on one-month-notice contracts]

>> Standard practice: BT Wholesale charge an activation fee, and to not
>> pass that on a one-month notice period contract would not make
>> commercial sense.

>"Dear BT Wholesale,

>Would you like me to pay a miserable tenner a month to one of your
>competitors for unmetered dialup access (of which you presumably see
>relatively little) and hog a phone line because I can't afford (and
>cannot justify, in medium-term accommodation) a 50 quid+ activation fee,
>or would you like me to pay over 20 quid a month to an ISP for ADSL
>(of which you presumably see a fair chunk)?"

>I wouldn't have thought it would have been a hard choice to work out
>which generates more income (and goodwill) for them? :-(

The price is fixed for all connections. It's part of their business
processes, and you can't change them, even if they are illogical: you
will just have to pay.

You could argue that UKP 1.50 per month for Caller ID is ludicrous, as
you would answer the phone more if you knew who was calling, and the
increased termination revenue would benefit BT more than your UKP 1.50,
but it doesn't work that way.

>>>I can't see why it would be necessary to pay an activation fee on a
>>>line already ADSL-enabled?

>> Because it probably isn't. BT have probably recovered the DSLAM port.

>Do they actually install and remove kit, or is it just a case of
>flicking switches once the kit has been initially installed?

>Given that it's "fairly likely" that somebody else will sign up for ADSL
>at the exchange, I wouldn't have thought it would make economic sense to
>remove kit from the exchange once installed?

No, of course they don't remove equipment, but your line is disconnected
from the DSLAM when you cease service to make the port available for a
future user. Leaving ceased lines connected is madness.

>Ringback returns "Unable to test the line".
>Does that mean ADSL is still enabled on the line?

Yes, but that had already been established using your router. If you've
only recently taken over the line, it might take a while for the DSL to
be ceased. When it is, you can order.

Ultimately, yes, it should be possible to take over a DSL line, but
because it is a layered product rather than a core service such as PSTN
or ISDN (though I'm not sure if you can take over ISDN lines), it
currently isn't.

To a large extent this problem is due to the way in which DSL is ordered
and paid for on BT lines. BT Wholesale's customer is the ISP, and when
the ISP's relationship with their customer has terminated, the line is
automatically ceased.

Since you've (wisely, IMO) decided to avoid Gio, it's academic anyway,
as you would have had to pay UKP 35 + VAT in migration charges.

BT's activation and migration charges don't necessarily relate to the
actual work they have to perform. On *any* activation (even where the
line has previously been used for DSL), the line must still be tested
and prepared, the DSLAM configured with QoS parameters, the account
details entered into BT's RADIUS servers, etc.

This work probably doesn't cost UKP 50 plus VAT, but DSL infrastructure
is still expensive. Increased costs usually mean the customer gets
squeezed, just look at what Orange are doing to theirs after wasting
billions on a worthless UMTS licence and the debts of France Telecom.

--
James MacDonald

"Old Codger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:A1hgb.4325$(E-Mail Removed):

> "David Marsh" <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:slrnbo35g2.47u.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> PlusNet seem to offer a reasonable month-by-month
> contract, does anybody
>> have any experience with it?
>
> I have their full service (£21.99 per month) and am very
> satisfied. If you only want the web connection (no
> newsgroups) then I think it is £18.99 per month.

I'm happy enough with them (Force 9 actually) - £18.99 gets you everything
except *binary* newsgroups and peer-to-peer. All *non-binary* newsgroups
are available within the £18.99 subscription (cue for a *discussion* on how
complete the newsgroup feed is...).

--
Frank

Beware spamtrap - remove the negative

James MacDonald <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> The point is, if you take over a line, you can't take over the layered
> products. You would probably be quite annoyed if you were to take over
> a line in a house that had previously had a payphone using meter
> pulsing connected and the meter pulsing was not ceased, as you would
> then find that when you came to order DSL, you would be informed that
> the line was the subject of an "incompatible service", and probably
> have a hard time trying to extract the necessary information from BT.

On the other hand if you took over a business where there was an
existing payphone (using meter pulses) and BT ceased all but the
standard line rental, you would not be very happy. So, when taking
over a line I think you should be given the option of keeping or
ceasing the existing services, such as ADSL, meter pulsing, Home
Highway etc.

[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments]
Brian McIlwrath wrote in uk.telecom.broadband:
about: Re: Transferring existing ADSL line to new resident?

> David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>: Sure, but it seems a bit of a con to re-charge an activation fee for
>: ADSL on a line that's already had ADSL enabled previously. I mean, BT don't
>: charge for a whole new line installation when you take over a pre-existing
>: line, because, quite obviously, they don't need to put a line out to
>: your flat again.
>
> The ADSL on your line (in fact anyone's line) is "owned" by the appropriate
> ISP who pay the bill for it to BT Wholesale.

Ah, I see what you mean now, and I can see the PHB thinking behind
this (sadly).

BT Wholesale, big corporate company, dealing with ISPs (reasonably big
companies with varying degrees of 'corporateness').

Rules of corporate business dictate: charge your custom\\\\\\client [1]
as much as possible, in order to demonstrate how wonderful your service
must be, therefore evidently superior to anything cheaper, even if that
results in lower takeup and therefore lower returns for everybody.

[1] notwithstanding that 'client' just makes it sound like something
incredibly seedy is going on, which it probably is.

Poor ISP gets caught in the middle with nobody but BT to buy from(?)
and has no choice but to forward the cost on somehow in order to recoup
it..


But having said that, I've seen from other threads that virgin.net are
offering monthly contracts with no activation fee (and no clawback for
short-term use). Huzzah!

They're obviously banking on the fact that it's better to get *some*
business than no business. What nice people. (But what on earth are they
'based' in Madeira for, hmmm...)

Methinks I'll go signup. And if they're up to the job (ie, not crap)
then if and when I move, I'll doubtlessly sign up with them again, so,
in effect they get a longer-term customer anyway.

Thank goodness somebody can see beyond 12-month lockins and the need to
provide for the more mobile sections of the population (ie, non-homeowners).


David.

--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> |
Edinburgh, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] | http://web.viewport.co.uk/ |
Learn usenet and netiquette: read news:news.announce.newusers |
>Please interleave & trim quotes otherwise your posts will be ignored.<
begin Outlook is broken: see http://web.viewport.co.uk/doze/outbreak |

[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments]
James MacDonald wrote in uk.telecom.broadband:
about: Re: Transferring existing ADSL line to new resident?

> In article <slrnbo574e.45o.use-userid-in-(E-Mail Removed)>
> David Marsh <use-userid-in-sig@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments]
>
> Isn't that what normal people do anyway?

It is, but the oldie:newbie ratio is worsening and them newbies need
learning having picked up bad habits.. ;-)

I've had incomplete replies to messages from people who've been
malconditioned to not reading beyond the first bit of quoted text, and I
figure this is more gentle than a thwack with a clue bat..


[ADSL router]
> Hmm, looks like you have a Cayman 3341, or at least something else based
> on the CX82310 system-on-chip.

It's an anonymous nobrand box, but it's got Conexant guts in it,
according to the builtin config website.


> It's the same amount of work. A DSLAM has a limited number of ports, and
> so after DSL is ceased (which it will eventually be, since you have
> taken over the line), the port is recovered, and your line is once again
> only connected to the exchange line card. The line returns to the state
> it was in before DSL was provisioned.

I see. So does my phone line actually need to be physically plugged into
(and unplugged from) an actual bit of kit at the exchange?

I just assumed that when they enabled an exchange, they installed the
ADSL kit such that all lines passed through it and it was just a case of
configuring or denying service for a given line, but presumably not?


> The price is fixed for all connections. It's part of their business
> processes, and you can't change them, even if they are illogical: you
> will just have to pay.

:-(

> You could argue that UKP 1.50 per month for Caller ID is ludicrous, as
> you would answer the phone more if you knew who was calling, and the
> increased termination revenue would benefit BT more than your UKP 1.50,
> but it doesn't work that way.

Well, given that GSM gives you it for free.. ;-)

Anyway, I don't use the landline any more since BT *still* seem unable
to offer personalised billing for shared flats and there's really no way
I'm wasting my time wading through the bill to find out who owes what.

> This work probably doesn't cost UKP 50 plus VAT, but DSL infrastructure
> is still expensive. Increased costs usually mean the customer gets
> squeezed, just look at what Orange are doing to theirs after wasting
> billions on a worthless UMTS licence and the debts of France Telecom.

Indeed. As an Orange customer, it's kind of frustrating to watch useful
service after useful service get withdrawn.. :-(

If Orange ever make the foolish move of withdrawing OVP, I'm sure they
know that they can now watch most of their customer base port out..


Thanks for your very helpful replies,


David.

--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> |
Edinburgh, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] | http://web.viewport.co.uk/ |
Learn usenet and netiquette: read news:news.announce.newusers |
>Please interleave & trim quotes otherwise your posts will be ignored.<
begin Outlook is broken: see http://web.viewport.co.uk/doze/outbreak |