Hi,

I think someone needs to step in and provide some clarity on LLU both phone
and broadband (whether separately or together).

It is vastly to unclear and unfair presently. People are getting switched to
or are unaware buying LLU services. These can offer differ material in
functionality, flexibility, etc.

Their is also the issue of consequences. It appears that frequently LLU
connection and disconnection separately often incur significant consequences
and potentially penalties (direct or indirect).

With BT now having mandatory 12 month contracts and £75 (I believe it is
currently) minimum exit penalty, switching away from them and trying to get
back (if only to switch via them to another LLU provider) can prove costly,
difficult and more, etc.

Further, migration is not always a clear matter and neither is the issue of
direct provisioning (which I have not heard any of the LLU operators
supporting). Moving house also rears its head where many full LLU operators
seem to be of the mind that you will have to connect your new line initially
with BT (err... yawning chasm of silence and lack of information)... and
then what ... cancel early and pay a big penalty to resume ones LLU service
or is one supposed to stick with BT for a while...? and later resume their
LLU service (particularly as one is likely to be under a minimum contract or
term of service with the LLU provider in question. Particularly on this
matter of moving (not to mention all the other myriad combinations and
issues of the other points above in addition to moving issues specifically -
e.g. see start of this paragraph! - lol), is one then supposed to be forced
into choosing to connect to BT and immediately switch away (back after
moving) to their LLU provider and so pay BT a big penalty; or perhaps they
are supposed to pay for their LLU whilst unable to receive it whilst waiting
for their BT minimum term or penalty level to reduce sufficiently all whilst
not receiving said LLU service (! - lol); or perhaps the former but not have
to pay for the unreceived LLU service instead enjoy the pleasure of waiting
months stuck with BT to avoid the penalty only to have to then (many months
later) resume their original contract period with their LLU provider
(nice! - lol a year later you finish your BT encumbrance only to then have
to complete your enforced remaining period of minimum service with your LLU
provider - whose original tariff you are still on and hence is probably now
quite if not wildly out of date and market price range!)... hmm... all good.

In any event it is a mess.

I understand TalkTalk used to pay the £30 previous BT early cancellation
charge for moving customers but since it is now £75 I am not sure what they
are doing (they seem to be a bit quiet, not heard much from them recently or
had occasion to occur or come across such information).

All these issues are significant, poorly and partially if at all
communicated (to customers, etc.), often seem not to have been worked
through so the customer just falls into various traps and then fire fighting
is required (not that you are assured of getting any fire fighting) on all
sides to try and correct the unplanned situation / work through undetermined
processes (i.e. companies that have not thought this through; don't care;
haven't put systems, policies or processes in place, etc., etc.).

All input and thoughts welcomed. Particularly informed, confirmed and
accurate details of current situations, implementations, etc.

I think the direct provisioning issue (i.e. move into a house with a former
BT line and be able to have an LLU operator directly provision it to their
service - hence theoretically at least at a lower cost or no cost to the
customer vs. the BT activation and penalty scenario, etc.).

Migration issues are also very interesting and important (and unclear) -
e.g. LLU provider to a different LLU provider, or for example BT partial
variant [BT voice and perhaps LLU broadband or BT based broadband when
leaving a full LLU service], etc.)

All these issues demand and need someone's concerted attention. It is to say
the least a bit of a shambles and surprise that no one organised this
beforehand. Their are serious conspicuous absences, pretty much, as far as I
can say, across the board (TalkTalk, Tiscali, BT, etc. don't seem to have
much of a clear plan or idea - leaving the customer to fight their way
through the forest, etc.); OFCOM seems very quite - rather than setting down
procedures and rules and nice simple guides and minimum confirmations [i
.e.
guarantees, confirmations, "rights" etc. such as the ability to migrate,
etc. or have this information if migration is not possible etc., clearly and
plainly made available - providing full information about any penalties for
leaving current service, etc., etc. and all consequences, costs, etc.] -
OFCOM or the industry or someone should have set minimum requirements and
provided a nice leaflet explaining or detailing it all, etc. (in colour! -
maybe  lol perhaps).


Best wishes,




News Reader


P.s. The whole LLU scene is quite fun and interesting and potentially holds
great prospect. Certainly the value looks very good - with Tiscali, TalkTalk
etc. doing line rental, all UK calls (and international I think) and
broadband, etc. packages for sub £20. But at the moment it seems everyone
has very much been caught napping, with their "pants" down (or management or
someone or several people napping), or just doing a poor job on the customer
side [technically on the operational side, and on their side I think the
y
{the various operators} are doing pretty well {with the whole LLU 
thing}]...
but the customer seems to have been badly let down and left out in the
cold... and the (customer seems to be the) answer to all the difficult
questions  ("don't tell the customer" [and we probably don't know anyhow
],
and then they [the customer] can deal with and pay for it when "it" [
;the
emergence of difficulties, problems or expenses] happens!).



I think both industry and government (and potentially we could say
"incumbent" / BT - in not seeing to it that this is well thought out and
planned, agreed, etc. focusing on consumer interests or at least minimum
standards and clarity - consumer protection and facilitation, etc.) have
done a (very) poor job on looking out for the consumer here.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:46:08 GMT, "News Reader" <no@email.invalid>
wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>I think someone needs to step in and provide some clarity on LLU both phone
>and broadband (whether separately or together).
>
>It is vastly to unclear and unfair presently. People are getting switched t
o
>or are unaware buying LLU services. These can offer differ material in
>functionality, flexibility, etc.
Yes, I have read about this in regard to Talk Talk
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...alk_vs_plusnet/
>
>Their is also the issue of consequences. It appears that frequently LLU
>connection and disconnection separately often incur significant consequence
s
>and potentially penalties (direct or indirect).
>
>With BT now having mandatory 12 month contracts and £75 (I believe it is
>currently) minimum exit penalty, switching away from them and trying to get
>back (if only to switch via them to another LLU provider) can prove costly,
>difficult and more, etc.
Certainly this wants sorting out. It shouldn't be necessary to start a
contract with BT in order to be able to use an LLU operator.
It should be done via the LLU operator. They should get BT to do the
reconnection not the customer, if, indeed it is necessary to involve
BT at all.
However, if BT, or any other operator,  reconnects for free it is only
fair that, if a customer wants to leave their service early,  they
should have to pay a proportion of the connection charge, based on the
number of months they have left in their contract. Otherwise people
could get a free connection from an operator then move to another
operator the next day. I think that Ofcom should regulate here though
by setting maximum charges along with other relating matters.
>
>Further, migration is not always a clear matter and neither is the issue of
>direct provisioning (which I have not heard any of the LLU operators
>supporting). Moving house also rears its head where many full LLU operators
>seem to be of the mind that you will have to connect your new line initiall
y
>with BT (err... yawning chasm of silence and lack of information)... and
>then what ... cancel early and pay a big penalty to resume ones LLU service
>or is one supposed to stick with BT for a while...? and later resume their
>LLU service (particularly as one is likely to be under a minimum contract o
r
>term of service with the LLU provider in question. Particularly on this
>matter of moving (not to mention all the other myriad combinations and
>issues of the other points above in addition to moving issues specifically 
-
>e.g. see start of this paragraph! - lol), is one then supposed to be forced
>into choosing to connect to BT and immediately switch away (back after
>moving) to their LLU provider and so pay BT a big penalty; or perhaps they
>are supposed to pay for their LLU whilst unable to receive it whilst waitin
g
>for their BT minimum term or penalty level to reduce sufficiently all whils
t
>not receiving said LLU service (! - lol); or perhaps the former but not hav
e
>to pay for the unreceived LLU service instead enjoy the pleasure of waiting
>months stuck with BT to avoid the penalty only to have to then (many months
>later) resume their original contract period with their LLU provider
>(nice! - lol a year later you finish your BT encumbrance only to then have
>to complete your enforced remaining period of minimum service with your LLU
>provider - whose original tariff you are still on and hence is probably now
>quite if not wildly out of date and market price range!)... hmm... all good
.
>
>In any event it is a mess.
>
>I understand TalkTalk used to pay the £30 previous BT early cancellation
>charge for moving customers but since it is now £75 I am not sure what they
>are doing (they seem to be a bit quiet, not heard much from them recently o
r
>had occasion to occur or come across such information).
>
>All these issues are significant, poorly and partially if at all
>communicated (to customers, etc.), often seem not to have been worked
>through so the customer just falls into various traps and then fire fightin
g
>is required (not that you are assured of getting any fire fighting) on all
>sides to try and correct the unplanned situation / work through undetermine
d
>processes (i.e. companies that have not thought this through; don't care;
>haven't put systems, policies or processes in place, etc., etc.).
>
>All input and thoughts welcomed. Particularly informed, confirmed and
>accurate details of current situations, implementations, etc.
>
>I think the direct provisioning issue (i.e. move into a house with a former
>BT line and be able to have an LLU operator directly provision it to their
>service - hence theoretically at least at a lower cost or no cost to the
>customer vs. the BT activation and penalty scenario, etc.).
>
>Migration issues are also very interesting and important (and unclear) -
>e.g. LLU provider to a different LLU provider, or for example BT partial
>variant [BT voice and perhaps LLU broadband or BT based broadband when
>leaving a full LLU service], etc.)
>
>All these issues demand and need someone's concerted attention. It is to sa
y
>the least a bit of a shambles and surprise that no one organised this
>beforehand. Their are serious conspicuous absences, pretty much, as far as 
I
>can say, across the board (TalkTalk, Tiscali, BT, etc. don't seem to have
>much of a clear plan or idea - leaving the customer to fight their way
>through the forest, etc.); OFCOM seems very quite - rather than setting dow
n
>procedures and rules and nice simple guides and minimum confirmations [
i.e.
>guarantees, confirmations, "rights" etc. such as the ability to migrate,
>etc. or have this information if migration is not possible etc., clearly an
d
>plainly made available - providing full information about any penalties for
>leaving current service, etc., etc. and all consequences, costs, etc.] -
>OFCOM or the industry or someone should have set minimum requirements and
>provided a nice leaflet explaining or detailing it all, etc. (in colour! -
>maybe  lol perhaps).
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>
>
>News Reader
>
>
>P.s. The whole LLU scene is quite fun and interesting and potentially holds
>great prospect. Certainly the value looks very good - with Tiscali, TalkTal
k
>etc. doing line rental, all UK calls (and international I think) and
>broadband, etc. packages for sub £20. But at the moment it seems everyone
>has very much been caught napping, with their "pants" down (or management o
r
>someone or several people napping), or just doing a poor job on the custome
r
>side [technically on the operational side, and on their side I think th
ey
>{the various operators} are doing pretty well {with the whole LLU
 thing}]...
>but the customer seems to have been badly let down and left out in the
>cold... and the (customer seems to be the) answer to all the difficult
>questions  ("don't tell the customer" [and we probably don't know anyho
w],
>and then they [the customer] can deal with and pay for it when "it" 	
1;the
>emergence of difficulties, problems or expenses] happens!).
>
>
>
>I think both industry and government (and potentially we could say
>"incumbent" / BT - in not seeing to it that this is well thought out and
>planned, agreed, etc. focusing on consumer interests or at least minimum
>standards and clarity - consumer protection and facilitation, etc.) have
>done a (very) poor job on looking out for the consumer here.
>
>
>

--
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.

Sign the petition to get High Definition TV via Freeview.
Get your friends to sign too!
Ofcom want to auction off the spectrum needed for Hi Def.
TV.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/High-Definition/
--

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:46ik739o6nms34aj2jhicnq84hoitf593f@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:46:08 GMT, "News Reader" <no@email.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I have read about this in regard to Talk Talk
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...alk_vs_plusnet/ 
> Certainly this wants sorting out. It shouldn't be necessary to start a
> contract with BT in order to be able to use an LLU operator.
> It should be done via the LLU operator. They should get BT to do the
> reconnection not the customer, if, indeed it is necessary to involve
> BT at all.
> However, if BT, or any other operator,  reconnects for free it is only
> fair that, if a customer wants to leave their service early,  they
> should have to pay a proportion of the connection charge, based on the
> number of months they have left in their contract. Otherwise people
> could get a free connection from an operator then move to another
> operator the next day. I think that Ofcom should regulate here though
> by setting maximum charges along with other relating matters. 
>
> --
> Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
>
> Sign the petition to get High Definition TV via Freeview.
> Get your friends to sign too!
> Ofcom want to auction off the spectrum needed for Hi Def.
> TV.
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/High-Definition/

Say what you like about Plusnet - and you probably will! - at least they
offer an opt-out to customers in exchange areas where they have LLU
equipment, so if you don't want their (Tiscali - eugggh!) LLU, you can have
BT ADSLMax instead.
It depends which ISP you're talking about really. The more aggressive, "pile
'em high, sell 'em cheap" ISPs such as Talk Talk, etc. have a vested
financial interest in their customers using their LLU equipment and are not
particularly interested in giving the customer what he/she wants if it
doesn't fit their business model. "Take it or leave it - we're cheap!".
In my long life, I've learned the hard way that there's no such thing as a
free lunch. Always go for quality first but bear in mind price as well - do
a bit of research and avoid those suppliers that shout loud and offer
unbelievably cheap prices. Believe me, you won't get good service!
(Think John Lewis rather than Kwik-Save.)
As an example, I've just fixed our village hall up with broadband service.
I trawled through this and other newsgroups and checked out reviews on
thinkbroadband for good - but reasonably-priced - ISPs.
The best-buys all turned out to be from the same supplier - Brightview, who
operate Waitrose, Globalnet and Madasafish. We went with Globalnet.
I'm still with Plusnet myself, but only because I'm on one of their "legacy"
tariffs, which is not now available to new customers. (Their current tariffs
are all throttled in one way or another but mine isn't. OK - I'm all right,
Jack!)
And no - we're never going to get "proper, all-the-way" LLU for everyone
until/unless some telecoms companies/ISPs lay dedicated cabling/fibre to
premises - it won't happen in my lifetime and probably not in yours.
(Or unless Virgin cable the whole of the UK - that won't happen either!).
In the meantime, we have to put up with partial LLU, BT or Virgin Cable -
that's economics, folks!
:-(
George

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"PlusNet Support Team" <support@plus.net> wrote in message
news:467a9015$0$8749$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> George Weston wrote:
> <snip> 
>
> George, we are no longer provisioning customers on LLU. I think the
> opt-out has been removed too.
>
> Kind Rgds,
>
> --
> |Bob Pullen                   Broadband Solutions for
> |Support                            Home & Business @
> |PlusNet plc.                            www.plus.net
> +------ PlusNet - The smarter way to Internet! -----

So those on LLU are stuck with it then?
:-(
George

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Jun 21, 4:46 am, "News Reader" <n...@email.invalid> wrote:

> I think someone needs to step in and provide some clarity on LLU both phon
e
> and broadband (whether separately or together).

that's down to the customer surely, Caveat Emptor is a long standing
principle of English Law we don't need any more Quangos or hand
wringers sticking their oar in. The information is there for those who
bother to look.

Phil

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"PhilT" <newsnet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182589518.417607.180550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 4:46 am, "News Reader" <n...@email.invalid> wrote:
> 
>
> that's down to the customer surely, Caveat Emptor is a long standing
> principle of English Law we don't need any more Quangos or hand
> wringers sticking their oar in. The information is there for those who
> bother to look.
>
> Phil
>


Hi,


I have to say lol... 

Maybe you possess some super-human abilities most of us mere mortals do not.
A vast amount of the information is actually NOT available - for example
from TalkTalk, Tiscalli, etc.

What is provided, for example, in their terms and conditions is often at
odds with what actually happens and what their staff or other materials will
tell you.

In fact, migration information, for one, is again not provided by and large
(e.g. from a full LLU Tiscali LLU or TalkTalk LLU line to another full LLU
provider, or an openreach / BT provided facility, etc.). Further, on
enquiring this, you will find different and frequently "mis" information
(i.e. saying what will sell the product to you irrespective of reality,
knowledge, truth, capability, etc.). You could try writing into the
organisations, but often they will either not reply, provide you surface
information without sufficient factual detail - or the process of getting
the full and accurate information will take a completely unreasonable amount
of time and effort for the lowly consumer trying to choose a telephone
service provider rather than make a Porsche from running a telephone
company.

I think you have a curious perspective on this - a company makes money, a
customer is a single individual - they do not have a marketing, finance,
legal, etc. department at their disposal. Hence, the balance of risk,
responsibility, effort, etc. should be on the organisation which makes money
out of the process.

If a company can get money from you just for poking you in the eye with a
stick they will (or will try).

The reality is that it is stacked massively against the consumer (on or in
these matters - technicalities, details, conditions, etc.). Most lay people
are not lawyers and don't have oceans of time to review detailed, long and
turgid terms and conditions for countless operators to try and fathom this
(and compare and contrast, etc) (even assuming they have the language,
mathematics, etc. skills and are highly competent across these areas - which
most people obviously aren't - again not mentioning the time factor).
Simply! - consumers aren't making money out of it so the onus should be on
the company not the consumer, companies have (for some that are misguided at
least) a vested interest in hiding the details and obscuring potential costs
or penalties whilst front lining in large and bright text the "great deal"
or "offer[ing]", the chips are massively stacked against the consumer as
they, given the current arrangement, would require massive time, resources
and skills to actually have a current factual comparative document (as you
suggest prepared by themselves).


In short - if you think it is fine and fair for companies (that have legal,
accounts, etc. departments - they have the resource and skills which each
lowly consumer does not) to obfuscate, hide, conceal, complicate etc. when
they make money out of the whole process (they are the ones making a Porsche
out of the proceedings not the customer) then I think we probably disagree
on this area.

Your approach leaves only a few simple paths - (i)  don't buy anything
because it is too difficult or complicated, etc. to perform an effective
analysis and comparison; (ii) buy stuff without full information and get
overcharged or suffer unforeseen problems, difficulties, expenditure, etc.

I think you, probably like most people (perhaps in the more "influential" or
"fortunate" / "what have you" category), take the more comfortable option
(when you are one of those fortunate enough to have sufficient funds) of
just allowing for or accepting an amount of trouble or extra cost - and
using extra expenditure to solve the problem (i.e. when something goes wrong
etc. - just fork out for conveniences sake to have it sorted).

Not everyone is so lucky - and I don't believe that consumers contributing
to the Porsche fund should get stitched over or be the linking block between
unfair or over complicated terms and processes, etc. and delivery or
outcomes and resolutions (or otherwise) to problems (i.e. that the customer
should be the fall guy when it comes to problems and party that has to do
all the work when getting problems fixed, etc.).


Best wishes,





News Reader


P.s. I wonder from what you said in your original post if you perhaps are
telepathic as well as able to see the future(!) (e.g. to read from the heads
of the staff that actually know how their systems or processes work - and
where no such staff even exist [as such policy or procedure doesn't actu
ally
exist] - the ability to see ahead to what the ultimate engineer actually
does when your eventual difficulty is resolved! - lol]).

P.p.s. As I say - a lot of the information "is not their" - which is exactly
why I raise this point! I would love to see you perform a report for me on a
given terms of reference in this area in anything less than two weeks and it
not be full of holes! (Assuming you are a highly qualified, trained,
competent, etc. "degree level" + and highly competent at that), etc. It
might be more fun to have you guinea pig by setting your a series of
services to source and then switch between - perhaps if you experienced
first hand your thoughts might change (or commission you to produce a report
about how such would work and then have you test the results of your work
with all the "information that is out their" [if you are able to achieve
such - given that a lot of the information is not out their] and compare
your expectations, understandings and plans to what happens in reality!). I
am not making any personal comment to or about you, I just think companies
are held to little, make to much for them to be being held to such little,
and consumers and others to willingly, readily or absently allow this or
don't worry about this, accept an out of proportion penalty or imbalance,
etc.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 23 Jun, 22:04, "News Reader" <n...@email.invalid> wrote:
> "PhilT" <news...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182589518.417607.180550@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> 
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have to say lol... 
>
> Maybe you possess some super-human abilities most of us mere mortals do no
t.
> A vast amount of the information is actually NOT available - for example
> from TalkTalk, Tiscalli, etc.

good example. Half an hour looking at ratings sites, help forums,
reading a newspaper etc would make it crystal clear that these
companies merit no further consideration whatsoever. That's all you
need to know, they are shit. Don't go there.

> What is provided, for example, in their terms and conditions is often at
> odds with what actually happens and what their staff or other materials wi
ll
> tell you.

and you think that would change if someone were to "step in and
provide clarity".

Dream on.

This would be the sort of clarity the FSA provided in the mortgage and
pension market, would it ?

> I think you have a curious perspective on this - a company makes money, a
> customer is a single individual - they do not have a marketing, finance,
> legal, etc. department at their disposal. Hence, the balance of risk,
> responsibility, effort, etc. should be on the organisation which makes mon
ey
> out of the process.

I think you have a curious perspective that some 3rd party could
actually be constructive and improve things.

Its a market, like Ebay or a car boot sale. They lay out their wares
and you choose.

If you elect to buy a fairly complex product on the basis of what you
read on the back of a bus then expect problems.


Phil

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]