My neice moved into a new build flat, its has a white bt phone line and BT will charge £122.50 to activate it! which sounds like a lot of money to me.
All the wiring is done and there is a phone line 3 rooms. Which seem to be wired up to a grey box on the outside of the property.
There is no dial tone when a phone is plugged in.
Is there anyway I can activate the line or does this require some special equipment to do ?
Hoping to try and save her some money as its her first home.
Standard BT rate for a new connection.
Tough!
No chance! Just pay up ...
Short answer:
No.
Long answer:
The wiring within the building may be present, probably done by the builder. BT may have installed a street cable into the building but they probably won't have connected the two bits together and the street cable may only go as far as the nearest green box or a joint box in a manhole and be unconnected that end as well.
Depending on the route and capacity of the local cables, it may take BT quite a while to connect that line back to the exchange. And as they have a "universal service obligation" to provide voice telephony even if they spend a several days and several engineers making that connection all you'll pay is that hundred odd quid that you have been quoted.
I thought all young things had mobiles surgically attached to an ear these days. Does she need a landline? Daft question really yes she does probably needs it for broadband(*)(though reasonable speeds can be had on 3G) but mainly for resilience. When the power fails the mobile networks also fail, some straight away some after a few minutes. Very few cells have long term (> than an hour or two) power back up. Even when the power comes back some take ages (day or two) to come back online...
(*) I don't think you can side step the BT new install charge by choosing a LLU provider, fairly sure their T&Cs demand an existing BT line. But it could be worth looking but don't expect to save much.
Peanuts compared to how much the gas and electricity cost to connect - the only difference is the builder has to pay those because without them the house isn't deemed habitable and won't get its Building Regs certificate.
The line has to be connected to the phone exchange which might be several miles away, and switched on at the exchange.
Sometimes BT will agree to take the installation cost in instalments over a monthly payment plan; it depends on what offers they have available.
If it's a new connection then there is a minimum 12 month contract with BT which does mean that your niece won't be eligible for some of the more attractive phone+broadband package deals.
Owain
No, you cannot activate the line as it will need 'connecting up' at the exchange or local junction box. Actually, it probably is already connected, but needs a software or actual switch turning on to make it live. Yes, BT connection charges are not in the real world, though I thought it was nearer to £75 for connection. Alan.
Has she considered not having a fixed line and just using her mobile instead? AFAICS the only drawback would be internet provision if she's a high-volume downloader, but for just checking email and casual surfing a 1GB/month add-on should do the job.
Considering what it costs these days to get a plumber or electrician or builder to your house, or if you look at the hourly rate your local garage charges, I don't think that BT's connection charges are "not in the real world" at all - even if it is 120 quid. As a father of daughters myself, and having been through the 'first house - save money' scenario, I can appreciate the desire to try to help in this respect, but sometimes, the lessons of how much it *really* costs to live in the modern world, just have to be learnt ... :-\
Arfa
Have BT actually said they'll definitely make the charge? Quite often they don't charge at all for activating an existing line and as Adrian says there is/was an offer of free *installation*, which is generally a lot more work than reconnection.
Si
But it is a *new* line! New property, new line.
Why should it be free, or subsidised? That would only mean that existing BT subscribers would be paying for it.
I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should pay for someone else's new phone line.
Quite, it's a bargin for a new install of a line. Say engineer on national average wage of 24k or about =A315/hr takes a morning to fully jumper the line from the exchange to customer that =A360 in wages plus employers NI, Pension etc not to mention the costs associated with the van for the engineer, tools and consumables.
"Same day take overs" are free non-same day have a nominal fee as hopefully it's just a setting in the exchange card that the line might still be connected to but there is no guarantee that an previously used line is still connected back to the exchnage. Faults on other lines will be cured by using "unused" pairs in the same cable.
You may find that a reconnect via a third party phone supplier is cheaper.
check
At least you dont have to mess with BT tho.
The principle that costs should be averaged over all subscribers dates back to the fairly early days of the public network, on the grounds that every new addition to the network benefited those already on it.
I paid for a friend's phone line (same situation, a new build property) so she could phone me and I could phone her. Over the last
15 years and many hours of calls I think it was a good deal.Of course things have changed with mobiles now.
Owain
Difficult area. I live 80m from the exchange (great for broadband:-)). Do I subsidise those who live further away with longer lines and probably more maintenance? Old chestnut about the same price for Royal Mail mis-deliveries to remote rural houses as local post will be up next!
Nonsense. No such "principle" has ever existed.
A new line has always had to be paid for.
I also live close to the exchange. I'm happy that there is a national standard charge for line rental. If that means that I subsidise the maintenance of longer rural lines, that's fine by me.
What I *do* strongly object to is the expectation that I and other BT subscribers should pay for other people's new installations.
£122 is not an unreasonable charge. No one is forcing them to have a landline. If they want one, why should *I* have to pay for it?
... so that sounds like 2 minutes work. 60 quid a minute's not a bad rate :-)
I can understand a charge for doing some real work - but if the line's already laid without them ever knowing if someone will want it then more fool them; I'm not sure why the first person who happens to want it should get stung for work that's already been done.
But not by the new line recipient. Its always been subsidised by the rest of the network, and originally, the taxpayer.
That £120 covers the case even where they have to dig up 5 miles of moorland, or sling a microwave dish in.
It wont be already necessarily laid.
Typically in a new build it merely means that there is a cable to somewhere in BTs ducts.
Someone still has to go out in the cold and wet, hunker over a street cabinet, connect some wires up, go back to the exchange, set it all up there, go to the customers premises, check they got the right pair, if not redo from start, check if noise is acceptable, and then drive back to base.
And just try getting a plumber or an electrician to turn up for a job paying that little. It's not possible IME.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required