In reply to a post by Iniltous:

In reply to a post by burble:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

If you bought a brand new car and it wouldn’t start , and the dealer/car manufacturers after a few questions determine that its the battery that is the issue , do you accept it as perfectly reasonable if they pointed you in the direction of the battery manufacturer and offer no further assistance/compensation for your inconvenience after all the car dealer / manufacturer only bought in the battery from a supplier , or would you expect that as the battery is an integral part if the product you bought that the responsibility to you is from the dealer and not the battery manufacturer….its no different here .

Let me explain why this is not a good comparison.
The way t'internet is delivered is multi layered, so in simple terms we have a base, OR, City Fibre, etc, then on top of that we have ISP's. To find a similar vehicular comparison you would need to look motorhomes, you have a base Fiat, Merc etc, then on top of that a coachbuilder. The place you buy from will primarily be a dealer for the coachbuilder, they might also be an approved workshop for the base, but probably not, so if something goes wrong with the base in most instances the dealer will tell you to contact an approved workshop for repairs.

Much like explaining the punchline to a joke , having to explain an analogy is a reflection on the recipient comprehension , I didn’t think it necessary to explain the analogy, but here it is , the point is you buy an entire vehicle, not separate components, your contract for supply is with a single entity, you don’t have separate contracts and payments for the engine , the body , the suspension, the electrics , so should any one of those individual parts fail during the warranty period the supplier of the vehicle is responsible, not the component provider , so if for example your suspension fails in your new or under warranty car , the dealer shouldn’t fob you with excuses that the suspension parts were provided by a third party, so your failed suspension is not really your dealers problem .

My overarching point is why is it acceptable to some people , ( many frequent forums such as this one ) think it’s acceptable when an ISP deflects responsibility, but wouldn’t accept that behaviour from a car dealer , in the same way you don’t buy a car as components, you don’t buy your ‘Internet’ in parts , if your broadband fails , it doesn’t matter if it’s the network, the backhaul, the equipment, the configuration etc , you pay one fee to one entity the ISP , it’s their problem to restore your service, it’s irrelevant to the customer where the failure is , the ISP is responsible for fixing whatever the issue is even if that’s requires a supplierd involvement

If you buy from VM you are buying a service from one entity, and your analogy works. Buy anything on OR network and it doesn't work, the company you brought it from has no control over how or when it might be fixed, they cannot say "don't you worry I'll send out Fred with a new ONT", they can only pass the job to OR.
BTW, you do buy a car as components with differing warrantees, if the 12v battery fails on a MG after 12 months you are not covered, no good waving your 7 year warranty they will point you in the direction of a battery seller.

In reply to a post by seb:

Thanks for sharing. Assuming you're happy hopefully everyone can move to another topic.

Seb, I do hope!

In reply to a post by burble:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

In reply to a post by burble:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Let me explain why this is not a good comparison.
The way t'internet is delivered is multi layered, so in simple terms we have a base, OR, City Fibre, etc, then on top of that we have ISP's. To find a similar vehicular comparison you would need to look motorhomes, you have a base Fiat, Merc etc, then on top of that a coachbuilder. The place you buy from will primarily be a dealer for the coachbuilder, they might also be an approved workshop for the base, but probably not, so if something goes wrong with the base in most instances the dealer will tell you to contact an approved workshop for repairs.

Much like explaining the punchline to a joke , having to explain an analogy is a reflection on the recipient comprehension , I didn’t think it necessary to explain the analogy, but here it is , the point is you buy an entire vehicle, not separate components, your contract for supply is with a single entity, you don’t have separate contracts and payments for the engine , the body , the suspension, the electrics , so should any one of those individual parts fail during the warranty period the supplier of the vehicle is responsible, not the component provider , so if for example your suspension fails in your new or under warranty car , the dealer shouldn’t fob you with excuses that the suspension parts were provided by a third party, so your failed suspension is not really your dealers problem .

My overarching point is why is it acceptable to some people , ( many frequent forums such as this one ) think it’s acceptable when an ISP deflects responsibility, but wouldn’t accept that behaviour from a car dealer , in the same way you don’t buy a car as components, you don’t buy your ‘Internet’ in parts , if your broadband fails , it doesn’t matter if it’s the network, the backhaul, the equipment, the configuration etc , you pay one fee to one entity the ISP , it’s their problem to restore your service, it’s irrelevant to the customer where the failure is , the ISP is responsible for fixing whatever the issue is even if that’s requires a supplierd involvement

If you buy from VM you are buying a service from one entity, and your analogy works. Buy anything on OR network and it doesn't work, the company you brought it from has no control over how or when it might be fixed, they cannot say "don't you worry I'll send out Fred with a new ONT", they can only pass the job to OR.
BTW, you do buy a car as components with differing warrantees, if the 12v battery fails on a MG after 12 months you are not covered, no good waving your 7 year warranty they will point you in the direction of a battery seller.

This has nothing to do with the way Openreach is mandated to deal with the rest of BT and other CP’s that consume their products, nothing to do with repair or provision,

Why are you quoting the difference between warranty on the battery on a cheap Chinese EV compared to the rest of the warranty on the vehicle, even if true is completely irrelevant.

No where did I say the ISP has control over what their supplier does , that’s not the point , you as a consumer have no contract with the ISP supplier, they have no responsibility to you , an ISP , even if it’s accurate to say they are dependent on their supplier is irrelevant to your contractual relationship, that’s why the ISP not OR pay the consumer compensation , in the same way if your battery dies , the battery manufacturer doesn’t fix the car the retailer does , what happens between the retailer and the supplier isn’t your problem

Edited by Iniltous (Thu 10-Apr-25 07:50:52)

In reply to a post by seb:

Thanks for sharing. Assuming you're happy hopefully everyone can move to another topic.

Indeed. Maybe someone can also add the answer to the OP to save future readers from wading through the thread.

If your reading backwards through the thread the answer is Yes.

In reply to a post by Croftie2:

the answer is Yes.

Only time will tell if that is Yes to all or Yes to some, lets hope its the former.

In reply to a post by Croftie2:

Indeed. Maybe someone can also add the answer to the OP to save future readers from wading through the thread.
If your reading backwards through the thread the answer is Yes.

I answered the question by replying to the original post, was it SO hard to find?

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

In reply to a post by Croftie2:

the answer is Yes.

Only time will tell if that is Yes to all or Yes to some, lets hope its the former.

What on earth do you mean?

It wasn't a dig, just would save reading through a page and a half. Was also a subtle test for the OP and they failed.

I wouldn't waste any more time or pay any more attention to them

In reply to a post by Croftie2:

a subtle test for the OP and they failed.

Test me as much as you want fella