|
|
Do anyones agree with me to banned rip off cease charged passed onto ISPs by Openreach for SoGEA, SoGfast, FTTP.
Most ISP charged up to £45 for cease charge!
Edited by adslmax (Fri 20-Feb-26 02:57:20)
|
|
|
Do anyones agree with me to banned rip off cease charged passed onto ISPs by Openreach for SoGEA, SoGfast, FTTP.
Most ISP charged up to £45 for cease charge! I've never-ever had an ISP who has charged me a cease fee!!
I think if an ISP is passing on those charges to you and your unhappy about that then YOU should be focusing your anger at the ISP not Openreach as not all ISPs pass the charge on. If they are ISPs who already charge well over the top for their services then that tells you all you need to know. Alternatively If you believe the extra cost those ISPs are charging each month is worth it you just have to suck up the extra £45 at the end.
|
|
|
I would imagine they were in place to deter people from ordering a new product, then jumping ship before incurred costs for the initial installation could be recouped.
In some cases Openreach are pushed to move heaven and earth to get these services up and running aren’t they. It might seem a little uncharitable if the person having done this very quickly afterwards made this cost recovery as tricky as possible by leaving for a cheaper ISP.
I can see why cancellation charges might be required.
Received a letter just the other day ..
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
|
And SoGfast would enter that category as it was a niche product (because of the decision to mount it at the cabinet).
|
|
|
I think customers should pay installation charges that cover the costs of the installation, rather than providers having to recover them through monthly charges or contract duration.
This would ensure people paid attention to the requirements of the installation as it was no longer "free", and hopefully result in pushing back where poor quality installation work was performed as there would be an aspect of "I just paid £80 for that!" attached to shoddy work.
If FTTP providers want to charge a cease fee then it should be to remove the fibre lead-in from the CSP and remove the ONT for reuse/recycling. If customers don't want the equipment removed then there should be no cease charges.
Edited by jpm (Fri 20-Feb-26 11:37:44)
|
|
|
|
There's also the fact that you're paying for the installation and the router over the period of a 12-24 month contract, but then you continue to pay for them afterwards. In fact, most providers bump the charges *up* at the end of the contract, instead of letting them go down.
This was ruled unacceptable for mobile contracts - when you've paid off the handset, you shouldn't keep paying the premium. The market was not a remedy, and sellers were brought into line.
But for some reason, it's deemed perfectly acceptable for broadband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never-ever had an ISP who has charged me a cease fee!!
Yeah like big company BT or PN or EE will never put cease charge!
My previous SoGEA was out of contract as OR or BTw charged me fee £45 to stop the line. Same as my previous SoGfast was out of contract (only 30 days noticed rolling monthly contract) as OR or BTw charged me £43.20 to stop the line.
I suspect it down to greedy BTWholesale (rip off)
|
|
|
See here as I do agree with Martin
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2026/02/aquiss... Ain't surprised the ISP who is complaining is one of the few passing on the cease fee and unsurprisingly they are already more expensive that most ISPs who absorb the cease fee.
As I said if ISPs like that float your boat then added another £45 to the overall cost for having their service.
|
|
|
OR or BTw charged me fee £45 to stop the line. OR or BTw charged me £43.20 to stop the line. Your contract is with your ISP so they are the ones who are forcing you to pay the cease fee.
Edited by PCJM40 (Fri 20-Feb-26 12:51:18)
|
|
|
I have never been charged a cease fee since 1993. Is your experience a result of moving around between ISPs mid-contract?
|
|
|
I have never been charged a cease fee since 1993. Is your experience a result of moving around between ISPs mid-contract? This is specifically about the 'cease fee' that is charged by a few ISPs when you leave (nothing to do with being in or out of contract), not the 'early contract termination fee' that most people get charged by ISPs when exiting a contract early.
|
|
|
If cease charges are a concern, surely the simple solution is to choose a provider that doesn't charge them.
If it's not you moaning then it's probably me
|
|
|
No, I don't agree.
Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk, upgraded to fibre 40/10
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree with you
|
|
|
|
The whole history of this is stupid.
Early on in the days of ADSL, it made sense to make an upfront charge to start an ADSL connection, because there was extra kit required to provide the service. Some time later on, the charge was shifted to the back end of the contract in order not to discourage the take up of ADSL. I remember a lot of controversy at the time, including the possibility of some customers having been charged to get ADSL then being charges to leave. Once the kit was provided, there was very little cost to transferring the service to another customer, so very little justification to any charge either for joining or for leaving.
Now we have FTTP. The business case is not that customers want it, rather that it is cheaper for OR to provide. So the take up of FTTP is NOT driven by pull from customers, but but push from OR to customers [albeit for the most part willing].
Aquiss are right on this, the charge is a rip-off by OR, because it is not an end of contract charge for installing the kit, it is merely an end of contract bonus for OR. It does not reflect any real world model of the costs on OR, because it is not only charged on first customers on a line, it is charged on all customers.
|
|
|
I think customers should pay installation charges that cover the costs of the installation, rather than providers having to recover them through monthly charges or contract duration.
This would ensure people paid attention to the requirements of the installation as it was no longer "free", and hopefully result in pushing back where poor quality installation work was performed as there would be an aspect of "I just paid £80 for that!" attached to shoddy work.
I could see argument to push the cease costs on to install but on install charges/contract periods, it seems reasonable to offer people time to pay these rather than having to pay a huge setup fee which may sometimes apply. Setup charge could discourage some people from switching.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Setup charge could discourage some people from switching.
Setup charges might arise in 2 ways - for having the service installed in the first place and for switching. I think that having cease fees has made it far too easy to conflate the costs. Plainly the cost of switching is far less than the cost of installation.
|
|
|
Setup charge could discourage some people from switching.
Setup charges might arise in 2 ways - for having the service installed in the first place and for switching. I think that having cease fees has made it far too easy to conflate the costs. Plainly the cost of switching is far less than the cost of installation.
Depends on infrastructure you move to. It may effectively be a new install.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
As others have said, we've never been charged a cease fee.
Perhaps you need to read the T&Cs before you contract.
What might help is a requirement for ISPs to provide a simple summary document; like insurance policies:
- the service being provided
- how much you pay now
- while in contract
- how much you pay monthly
- price changes
- what happens in case of service failure/below par service
- charges on termination
- ditto after end of contract
Edited by Bushy2025 (Sat 21-Feb-26 09:20:12)
|
|
|
|
UnchainedISP my former ISP who used to charge £43.20 cease fee but it now no longer from 13th January 2024.
Cease Fees
Update: 13th January 2024
After careful consideration we've made the decision to simplify our pricing structure for broadband services and have stopped passing on cease fees as a result of this change. This only applies to broadband orders placed after January 13th 2024 and to those on the new pricing structure.
Existing customers on the old pricing structure will still have to pay cease fees if they choose to cancel their service with us. Our suppliers charge us £43.20 including VAT in the event a customer chooses to cancel their service with us, in this case, we'll pass this on at cost.
|
|
|
UnchainedISP my former ISP who used to charge £43.20 cease fee You do seem to pick all the ISPs who charge a 'cease fee' in addition to their monthly charges being high to go with it.
I do think the initial installation costs should be separated out from the monthly charges and maybe you could still pay them off over the first contract term (separated out on the monthly bill) thus the second contract term should be cheaper because no installation charges are included.
|
|
|
I could see argument to push the cease costs on to install but on install charges/contract periods, it seems reasonable to offer people time to pay these rather than having to pay a huge setup fee which may sometimes apply. Setup charge could discourage some people from switching.
I don't see why cease costs should be a thing unless there's engineering effort involved to recover equipment or disconnect things. I don't think it comes from Openreach, it's a product put there by some wholesale networks.
On the point that install charges might introduce barriers to switching, there are costs associated with someone doing the work of laying the fibre through your garden, supplying and fitting an ONT etc. and I don't think it helps anybody to pretend they don't exist and to hide them in the monthly fee. If e.g. £80 up-front is too much then as suggested, the option to spread it over the contract term could be welcome.
I don't agree with Ofcom that the most important thing about regulating the broadband market is to remove barriers to switching, my preference is for fixed pricing over the contract term with services then moving to monthly rolling with no price increase (because costs haven' changed) - not trying to attract customers with free installation, contract buy-out promotions, only to then lock people in for 24 months with a 12% increase every April
|
|
|
I don't see why cease costs should be a thing unless there's engineering effort involved to recover equipment or disconnect things. I don't think it comes from Openreach, it's a product put there by some wholesale networks.
I would tend to agree with the principle that they should apply where there's a cost. I think it is Openreach who charge cease charges. Maybe other altnets don't but I do believe it comes from OR, although not 100% sure (it could be BT Wholesale but I don't think it is)
On the point that install charges might introduce barriers to switching, there are costs associated with someone doing the work of laying the fibre through your garden, supplying and fitting an ONT etc. and I don't think it helps anybody to pretend they don't exist and to hide them in the monthly fee. If e.g. £80 up-front is too much then as suggested, the option to spread it over the contract term could be welcome.
Providers are free to build them how they want. The fact they avoid setup costs comes down to the fact most people dislike paying them. There's nothing stopping providers in a competitive environment doing that.
Evidence is there's a lot of "first X months at £y then remainder at £z" deals which shows people look at initial cost more.. Arguably not allowing price increases beyond inflation would probably be a better way to protect consumers.
The way companies are valued comes down to recurring revenue, so if you charge free setup and a higher monthly it's probably worth more to the providers' too and investors like that. I imagine that's driving a lot of this too. The 'new customer' deals are also just that - an acquisition cost to get a customer on board.
As for running fibre - the charges may apply even to just re-activating an existing fibre.. Maybe for simplicity.
I personally prefer paying setup and lower monthly without contracts - I generally don't contract long for most services but I don't switch because of a tiny saving either.. as long as service is good, etc.
I don't think cease charges make sense for many reasons including incurring them when you move house, etc. As for setup vs monthly I think that's for market really. I'm more worried about price increases mid-contract for consumers.
seb
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
As for running fibre - the charges may apply even to just re-activating an existing fibre.. Maybe for simplicity.
There is a big distinction to be made between the costs of reactivating a fibre and those for installing it in the first place. The problem with leaving charges is that it obscures that distinction, because the charges for the first customer leaving are not so obviously related to the cost of the initial installation, leading to subsequent customers [or the same customer with a different ISP] on that line being gouged for the cost of a shift, but at the rate for a new install.
|
|
|
I think customers should pay installation charges that cover the costs of the installation, rather than providers having to recover them through monthly charges or contract duration.
This would ensure people paid attention to the requirements of the installation as it was no longer "free", and hopefully result in pushing back where poor quality installation work was performed as there would be an aspect of "I just paid £80 for that!" attached to shoddy work.
If FTTP providers want to charge a cease fee then it should be to remove the fibre lead-in from the CSP and remove the ONT for reuse/recycling. If customers don't want the equipment removed then there should be no cease charges.
This sounds quite reasonable to me and also reduces the argument for needing excessively long contracts as well. As there is no setup charges to recover.
|
|
|
Good to see UnchainedISP joining the providers who are selling the overwhelming majority of services that people are buying which offer no cease charges.
Perhaps the thread should be retitled "Please BANNED Cease charge by Aquiss"
If it's not you moaning then it's probably me
Edited by FibreBubble (Sun 22-Feb-26 21:57:25)
|
|
|
I don't see why cease costs should be a thing unless there's engineering effort involved to recover equipment or disconnect things. I don't think it comes from Openreach,
Interesting. The Openreach FTTP price list is public, and indeed, cessation fee for GEA FTTP has been zero since 2017. Hold-to-term charges also don't apply, since the minimum term was reduced from 12 months to 1 month in 2021. And for SOGEA it's also zero cessation fee.
So perhaps Aquiss' complaint is indeed against BT Wholesale?
|
|
|
So perhaps Aquiss' complaint is indeed against BT Wholesale? Isn't the real question why only those ISPs charging the largest monthly costs seem to be the only ones applying the 'cease fee' at the end? Does it really matter if its Openreach or BTW, the fact is the cheaper ISPs absorb the cost and the more expensive ones don't.
|
|
|
Do anyones agree with me to banned rip off cease charged passed onto ISPs by Openreach for SoGEA, SoGfast, FTTP.
Most ISP charged up to £45 for cease charge!
Gotta love it. Openreach haven't charged a fee for ceasing FTTC or FTTP since 2017.
|
|
|
I can understand why there might be a cease charge or an Early Contract Termination charge as an ISP will have costs and charges they expect to recover over the length of a contract.
However I really don't like the Ofcom blessing (and encouragement?) of mid-contract price rises on 1st April each year. The best time to renew a contract is end of March/start of April when you get a year at the lower advertised price and only 1 annual increase.
The £4 increase is really disproportionate on a £24/£26 pound contract - all a game of smoke and mirrors.
There is a parliamentary petition to review/ban mid contract price increases if anyone is interested. Here ... I suppose if there is no annual price increase then contracts will more likely be for 12months (probably a good thing.)
|
|
|
The ofcom change was quite devious in my view.
I dont think they were stupid enough to misread the room, it was very clear people feel in contract rises are wrong.
Then they come out with this idea, the rises are not the issue, but rather its people bad at maths getting confused so the fix was to have the providers give us a fixed quote instead, that I found nonsensical and ofcom were clearly working with the providers to find a solution they were happy whilst giving the impression they regulating based on consumer feedback.
|
|
|
The ofcom change was quite devious in my view.
I dont think they were stupid enough to misread the room, it was very clear people feel in contract rises are wrong.
Then they come out with this idea, the rises are not the issue, but rather its people bad at maths getting confused so the fix was to have the providers give us a fixed quote instead, that I found nonsensical and ofcom were clearly working with the providers to find a solution they were happy whilst giving the impression they regulating based on consumer feedback.
This ^^^^
I think that Ofcom are actually culpable for letting price rises get out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Ofcom made things needlessly complicated by laying out the method by which in-contract price rises should be managed, when the correct thing to do would have been to insist that you can't do them, and if you do it then people can exit.
|
|
|
|
How hard can it be for a consumer contract for 1-2 years to be written & agreed to by both sides that does not (in normal circumstances) require a price rise at all?
If there has to be one - then the answer is straightforward - CPI (based on a particular month... so say December CPI, raise in April). Not any formula like CPI+x, not using RPI. Use CPI.
Use of either CPI+ is inflationary, use of RPI is to use a deprecated statistic.
|
|
|
How hard can it be for a consumer contract for 1-2 years to be written & agreed to by both sides that does not (in normal circumstances) require a price rise at all?
It's not hard -- but commercially most customers will prefer a lower initial monthly cost because they won't realise that there are price increases, therefore that pattern ends up more common. But there are plenty of ISPs (e.g. Zen) that offer more "traditional" contracts.
|
|
|
Let's face it, it's simply that OFCOM are incompetent and rarely act in the true interests of the consumer. They're an overpaid quango.
ChrisAO
Plusnet customer in June 2003, left in 2015 when they couldn't offer a decent retention deal for FTTC!
|
|
|
Same was anything run by govt, except the cynic in me thinks it's an agenda not incompetence
Edited by tommy45 (Thu 07-May-26 00:25:51)
|
|
|
I would be inclined towards incompetence. I think it is worth publicizing and signing the petition to the government to get this looked at again....
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/755642/
Thanks
|
|
|
Agreed & signed 
|
|
|
Agreed. Done.
ChrisAO
Plusnet customer in June 2003, left in 2015 when they couldn't offer a decent retention deal for FTTC!
|
|
|
|
I am kind of annoyed I was charged £45 by Aquiss for cutting off if what you say is true. It's certainly made me realised I should look around first, and probably won't go back to them.
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
adslmax
