The entire response from 'JimmyBoy' makes the assumption that the dual master socket is illicit implying that it was a DIY installation. This was simply not the case. As a newish property, it was prewired by the builder with flush sockets throughout the house with a master socket located in the living room.
While in recent years it has been common to be able to isolated internal wiring, this has not always been the case and there exist many installations where this remains the case. As a general rule of thumb the need to isolate internal wiring is seldom necessary but is a useful facility when broadband of any flavour is installed.
For the purchaser of the home, this pre-wiring with phone sockets avoids unsightly internal or external wiring but increasing, over time, a second exchange line is desired, perhaps to have simultaneous dial up broadband and voice calls and/or a business line. It is up to the installing engineer to decide how to deliver this additional service, after establishing in which room the additional line is required. As it happens the existing flush master socket was replaced by a dual master socket by BT employee and therefore in my book, quite official.
An engineer installed FTTC converts the existing master socket and is advertised by the ISP as a free install. In my book the rare arrangement presented of an ***official*** dual master socket, should have been the de-wiring of the broadband line from the dual master socket and bringing the connections into the new master socket.
Effectively in a technical incorrect way this is what exactly happened. Had the dual master socket been surfaced mounted, irrespective of age or type, it would have been an easy job to do but as it was claimed that only the hardwire for a standard install was supplied and to do the link wiring was too difficult, I had to accept the unsatisfactory solution provided or face abortive installation charges and the desired improvement to broadband speeds for several days/weeks.
Your response describes a better solution [although for some reason says is not perfect, why?] but hammer on about al illicit installation when it was quite officially installed as stated above.
The only reason that we have a current need to isolate the existing wiring is because predictive speeds are 40% lower and we want to eliminate any extension wiring issues that is causing this. ADSL provided the top speed available on that service so there has never been any need for isolation tests.
You talk about paying for 'regularisation", yes it might come down to that or an illegal tampering with BT/OR 'plant' with a DIY solution. Being an officially installed setup in the first place, who exactly do you suggest I contact to complain about how it has affected the current upgrade? I believe had it not been am OR contractor, this entire thread would not have appeared on TB.
I think I have covered everything here and I don't expect something for nothing; to me it was a straight forward job and therefore within the remit of a free installation as advertised by the ISP.
... I seek to establish whether I am being unreasonable in complaining about the work that was done.
Prior to FTTC installation, there existed two exchange lines each with wanted extensions throughout the home. The master socket was a dual flush mounted plate with one exchange line supporting an ADSL service. This line was to be upgraded to FTTC.
In my opinion, you're being unreasonable.
Even though you may have been unaware of the following, you cannot reasonably expect 'Conversion of hard-wired master socket to Linebox and Regularisation of illicit master socket:' on 2 x lines, free of charge, which appears to be what you're expecting.
Prior to visiting the premises,you weren't aware of the ilicit socket. Neither was the Openreach rep!
He should have billed you for time-wasting an aborted visit, with a recommendation to 'Regularise' the lines.
...by punching down one end onto the existing broadband line face plate and bringing these into the new broadband master socket surfaced mounted alongside.
A better (by no means perfect) solution would be to disconnect the incoming pair from the illicit socket, extend (crimp if necessary) the incoming pair to the A & B terminals on the rear of the approved NTE5/filter combo, then feed 2, 5 & 3 from the NTE5 front/bottom detachable plate back to the illicit socket. However, that probably didn't occur to the Openreach rep when he saw the mess illicit installation he was confronted with.
...it has the disadvantage of not being able to disconnected extensions for testing purposes.
That facility didn't exist prior to the FTTC installation. If it wasn't considered a 'disadvantage' then, why do you consider it a 'disadvantage' now? It has always been a 'disadvantage' for any type of xDSL! And it'll be the 'norm' next year.
The line should have been (and should still be) 'Regularised'!
...I subsequently complained to the ISP who are giving me the complete run around and refusing to request OR to return to site to do a proper job.
Have you (or the householder) offered to pay for 'Regularisation'? You 'babysat'. You saw the illicit socket.
Your complaint should have been directed towards the installer of the illicit socket.
My two pence...