BT FTTP Line slammed by EE

Hi all,

Just getting frustrated since I just seem to be getting no consistent on information on what to do since I keep getting fed different information on the situation. So here goes:

11th October - I get a notification that someone is trying to takeover my line (due to be taken over 21/10) and to call BT to get this cancelled, to which I do immediately, and am informed that this would be cancelled.

20th October - I get a text from Openreach saying that changes are being made to my FTTP service. To which I phone BT and tell them AGAIN, DO NOT go ahead with this takeover as I do not want it.

21st October - Suddenly find that my provider has switched to EE and now stuck on 40/10 instead of the 900/110 that I pay for. I phone BT and ask them to explain. I am told that the line takeover request was cancelled on the 11th, but never actually happened. I am told to wait 24 hours after the service goes live and to contact them again tomorrow.

22nd October - Phone again, and am now told that it can take up to 48 hours for EE to cancel the service. I am then told that BT can take up to 2 weeks to bring back the service, which in my eyes is completely unacceptable.

I did my due dilligence by calling to make sure this wouldn't happen, twice, and it failed.

Where do I stand, what do I do, and is this normal?

Maybe an email to the BT Chief executive. [email protected] That should get to a team which deals with problems.

Complain to Ofcom.

A BBC radio programme such as 'You and Yours' might take up your case.

Write to your MP suggesting that Openreach should have to pay a large penalty for allowing this to happen.

From a case I got involved with last year it still took a week to get a connection reverted even with the involvement of the local MP.

Communication providers seem to think that they never make mistakes and have no quick process to revert changes. Where an active FTTP service is being taken over they should insist on the customer providing the ONT serial number as verification. Hopefully this will addressed with the introduction of One Touch Switch (OTS) processes next year.

Whilst loosing providers cannot block most transfers out there are specific codes which can be sent to the Openreach systems to indicate that the transfer was not requested by the exsiting customer. In your case BT should have done this as you contacted them promptly, but have obviously failed to do so. You should certainly push for compensation.

Once you're back on I would say you are due the £8.40/day compensation from BT as well. This is a loss of service issue, not a delayed installation.

Yes - Please escalate this to the Openreach complaints because this is wholly there responsibility and fault. How on earth in a world where everything is tagged with asset ID's etc, that human error and the postal address system overriders that. The Openreach ONT's have literal barcodes on them, which imo should be scannable to activate a service, especially a working line takeover.

Not an Openreach issue IMO, the physical link is good and the ordering process worked as it should do. It’s not Openreach’s responsibility to check that migration orders are legitimate - it’s 100% on BT for not properly cancelling the transfer or checking the cancellation had gone through properly.

In reply to a post by jpm:

Not an Openreach issue IMO, the physical link is good and the ordering process worked as it should do. It’s not Openreach’s responsibility to check that migration orders are legitimate - it’s 100% on BT for not properly cancelling the transfer or checking the cancellation had gone through properly.

+1 for this not being Openreach's fault.

When I was on Plusnet, I got slammed by Talktalk.

I received a strange letter and a package, both addressed to some unknown person - I returned them both to sender without opening them. I now know that these were from Talktalk, and the package would have been the router. A few days later I was cut off.

Plusnet took about 3 weeks to resolve the problem. I didn't receive any compensation, only a refund of rental for that period.

The main problem was that Plusnet had made no attempt to contact me prior to the migration. If they'd sent me a letter or an E-mail saying "we're sorry you're leaving", I would have known immediately that there was a problem, and got them to cancel it.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

+1 for this not being Openreach's fault.

When I was on Plusnet, I got slammed by Talktalk.

I received a strange letter and a package, both addressed to some unknown person - I returned them both to sender without opening them. I now know that these were from Talktalk, and the package would have been the router. A few days later I was cut off.

Plusnet took about 3 weeks to resolve the problem. I didn't receive any compensation, only a refund of rental for that period.

The main problem was that Plusnet had made no attempt to contact me prior to the migration. If they'd sent me a letter or an E-mail saying "we're sorry you're leaving", I would have known immediately that there was a problem, and got them to cancel it.

Someone I knew had the same thing done to them, Talk Talk tried to move them from plusnet, thankfully Plusnet sorted it out pretty quick.

That was Sky slamming was it not as I recall?

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

Maybe an email to the BT Chief executive. [email protected] That should get to a team which deals with problems.

Complain to Ofcom.

A BBC radio programme such as 'You and Yours' might take up your case.

Write to your MP suggesting that Openreach should have to pay a large penalty for allowing this to happen.

It’s something really that Ofcom as the regulator should be errr regulating - but I fear they (a) don’t really know the actual numbers/incidence of slamming (b) don’t want to install safeguards in the process (like a serial number check) lest it slows down the GPL process and somehow ‘harms’ competition

Just to satisfy my curiosity, when we get to the brave new world where there is no PSTN would something like this potentially cut off a customer in a mobile free zone from access to the emergency services?

Depends on what VoIP the customer had - for example third-party VoIP provider would just run over the top of any internet connection.

What happens when someones VoIP number is slammed ... the customer, potentially elderly with little technical ability, could have no idea about reconfiguring the device - even if possible. Even if it was possible and achieved, do all VoIP providers support 999/112 &c? At one time some did not and even if they did, they may not have a physical location for the caller.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

It’s something really that Ofcom as the regulator should be errr regulating - but I fear they (a) don’t really know the actual numbers/incidence of slamming (b) don’t want to install safeguards in the process (like a serial number check) lest it slows down the GPL process and somehow ‘harms’ competition

Unfortunately what you propose also "harms" real-world use cases.

Say you are about to move into a house and you want to order broadband for it, but:

1. You don't have access yet to get the ONT serial number, or the landlord/previous owner/estate agent refuses to do so; or
2. The previous owner ripped the ONT off the wall and threw it away

You'd then be unable to place an order.

Furthermore, as was pointed out to me in another thread, the ONT serial number information is publicly available. So anybody wanting a malicious takeover would be able to make it go through anyway.

I think it would be better for the losing ISP to contact their customer to gain confirmation. Of course, if there is no active service currently on the line, then there's no problem.

So the great majority of less technically aware users with their BT connection and phone plugged into their BT Hub would be at that risk then? We do tend to discuss things on this Forum which are beyond the interest or capability of most internet/telephony users!

Funny you should mention that as we had this exact thing with our copper lines a few years ago- not sure you could call it ‘slamming’ per se but after a “repair” all the lines on our lane were transposed - so I got the inbound calls for the ninety year female neighbour about 6 houses away. Our number was going to the local holiday campsite.

It was an utter mess, that took several weeks to get resolved. Family of the ninety year old were deeply concerned as she could call them (from another number) but when they tried to call on her number they’d get us instead.

Sneaker-net took on a whole new meaning 😅

I don’t think these things are malicious - yes you can see ONT serial numbers though various publicly accessible ISP order portals (well one well known one in particular) - but rather it’s a case of mistakes / lax / poor practice by the gaining provider not doing any form of diligence to check. Then further mistakes by the losing provider not doing enough to stop the migration when their legitimate customer has notified them.

I’m all ears (metaphorically). Let’s discuss.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Unfortunately what you propose also "harms" real-world use cases.

Say you are about to move into a house and you want to order broadband for it, but:

1. You don't have access yet to get the ONT serial number, or the landlord/previous owner/estate agent refuses to do so; or
2. The previous owner ripped the ONT off the wall and threw it away

You'd then be unable to place an order.

To add, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t move house all that often these days. Did so a lot more when I was in my twenties and renting, but those days are a memory 🤣, but when I did there was typically someone living there up to start of my tenancy / or sale completion on house. Never did order any internet / landline etc (or any other utilities until we were physically in or had keys to the property. Would be a bit presumptuous until then in my mind.

Secondly I think this missing / ripped out ONT case isn’t necessarily that prevalent and even if it was they’re going to need to send an engineer out to stick in a new one - so this would hardly “harm” your real world use case.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Secondly I think this missing / ripped out ONT case isn’t necessarily that prevalent and even if it was they’re going to need to send an engineer out to stick in a new one - so this would hardly “harm” your real world use case.

If your order was rejected up-front because you couldn't provide the ONT serial number, then it wouldn't get as far as the engineer visit to replace it.

In reply to a post by jpm:

Not an Openreach issue IMO, the physical link is good and the ordering process worked as it should do. It’s not Openreach’s responsibility to check that migration orders are legitimate - it’s 100% on BT for not properly cancelling the transfer or checking the cancellation had gone through properly.

I agree

not sure you could call it ‘slamming’ per se but after a “repair” all the lines on our lane were transposed

Nope, I’d call that a jointing error.

They could put in process for that. Wouldn’t necessarily have to be an automatic rejection. They could pass it to a human to call and make other checks.

It was a major PITA jointing error.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

It was a major PITA jointing error.

That is for sure.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I’d call that a jointing error.

Seen it happen a fair bit on large cables where there are a number of clear wraps in the cable bundle.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

That was Sky slamming was it not as I recall?

Yes, so as with EE in this case a lack of due diligence on their part.

As the notifcation of transfer was only sent by email, and from a different address than other correspondence so ending up in a spam folder, it was only when the service changed poeple realised something was going on. I'm sure the loosing provider would have been more proactive in rejecting the transfer request than BT in this case.

Interestingly I just tried an FTTP order against my own line using IDNet and they now request the ONT serial number to be entered where the installation type chosen is "Use Existing ONT":

IDNet FTTP order snapshot

It wasn't always this way with their ordering system. Quite the opposite in fact. So good on IDNet for putting in place some proper checks and diligence for migrations.

It wasn't like that a few days ago when it was being discussed.

Indeed squire. Coincidence or what 😅

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Coincidence or what 😅

Its no coincidence, you can take my word for that.

Finally BT escalated the issue to a specialist. They said they can't do Priority Back in Service on a FTTP line. So will simply have to wait until 7th Nov which is the service transfer date.

I've emailed Ofcom who have replied saying they've asked Openreach for an explanation, so should get an update from them relatively shortly.

In reply to a post by bloodkil933:

Finally BT escalated the issue to a specialist. They said they can't do Priority Back in Service on a FTTP line. So will simply have to wait until 7th Nov which is the service transfer date.

I've emailed Ofcom who have replied saying they've asked Openreach for an explanation, so should get an update from them relatively shortly.

BT should also be paying you mandatory auto compensation at £8.40 per day for loss of service.

Have you got an acknowledgment in writing from them that they will be honouring that?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-interne...

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

In reply to a post by bloodkil933:

Finally BT escalated the issue to a specialist. They said they can't do Priority Back in Service on a FTTP line. So will simply have to wait until 7th Nov which is the service transfer date.

I've emailed Ofcom who have replied saying they've asked Openreach for an explanation, so should get an update from them relatively shortly.

BT should also be paying you mandatory auto compensation at £8.40 per day for loss of service.

Have you got an acknowledgment in writing from them that they will be honouring that?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-interne...

They've said to contact them again once the service re-commences so that they know how many days the service was gone for.

Edited by bloodkil933 (Mon 24-Oct-22 18:54:48)

Best then for you to put down in writing to them, your expectation of receiving automatic compensation from them, together with a running total calculation of how much they will credit your account to date and also the total payable by when they (propose to) restore it in November.

At least then there can be no denial or 'confusion' etc etc.

So £142.80 in loss of service compensation due by 7th November if my maths is correct (17 days x £8.40).

Also there should be no service charge during this time - so that should also be (pro rata 17/31 x monthly charge) deducted from your bill

Edited by Pheasant (Mon 24-Oct-22 19:17:39)