The local electricity board own and maintain the poles in the instance you describe. Whilst there is agreements in place for 'normal' telephony, none exist for FTTP services.

Hopefully will see sense and provide the service completely separate to the existing OH power. This will save a lot of grief in the future.

On JU poles i thought we can now only replace like for like ? So cant see how any fibre cable / kit can go on them ? You are right it would be a good move not to use JU poles at all .

I think one of the issues is that rules for JUP's change dependant on which authority owns them, but for sure round our way there is no licence for FTTP infrastructure to be fitted to them.

Thought I'd post an update to this.

BT have agreed to waive the installation costs providing that my parents provide a letter detailing that they plan to live in the property for the majority of the year and that they agree to refund the installation costs to BT if they don't end up living there.

I thought this sounded like a good result - Though my parents (as they are getting older) feel a bit scared by the potential of BT asking for the £2100 back at a later date, should there be problems that prevent them from living there which they can't foresee at present (eg. should one of them have health issues).

There's still a bit more work to do on the cottage before they can live there comfortably, which they plan to get done in the spring, so it's a little while untli they plan to move there.

I'm trying to talk them round, but it's proving hard to do.

After getting this far, I feel sorry for them if they don't manage to get the line installed due to this final hurdle.

I'd relax. I suspect that as long as BT keep being paid the line rental then that's all that really matters. Admittedly that's a cost, but it's not one big lump sum.

nb. at current wholesale rates it will take about 22 years before the cost of installation is recovered without even considering other maintenance costs. My guess is the records will be long lost before that.

Edited by TheEulerID (Wed 21-Oct-15 17:15:33)

I am not sure that this makes sense. Suppose that we accept that the USO applies only to principal private residences. What you are suggesting is that BTOR wants to impose a covenant on the occupation of the house post-installation. I doubt that is enforceable - there are only a few circumstances (usually to do with key worker or agricultural planning restrictions) in which a housebuilder can require that a new house must be occupied as a main or only residence. These are always time-limited and they are extremely difficult to enforce.

Consider two scenarios:

A. A house is built or renovated and occupied as a main or only residence. You ask for a phone service. The cost is under the upper threshold, so BTOR has an obligation to install the line for the standard new line charge. Unless there is a change of use covenant, what happens after the line is installed is none of their business. Even if there is a convenant (which I doubt), it cannot apply indefinitely so it must expire after some period.

B. The line is installed before the house is occupied as a main or only residence. Then, to be consistent with A the liability to repay the extra installation cost only arises if the house is not occupied as a main residence. Once it is occupied as a main residence then the liability is extinguished.

So, unless BTOR are proposing some form of covenant on the property, any liability would be extinguished either after a limited period or when the house is occupied as a main residence. It seems that the only risk is that your parents change their minds between now and when they plan to occupy the house. That can be avoided by waiting until it is their main residence, in which case they are in Scenario A.

nb. at current wholesale rates it will take about 22 years before the cost of installation is recovered without even considering other maintenance costs. My guess is the records will be long lost before that.

Whilst I generally agree with the above, does it not also perfectly demonstrate the need for 'BT' to attempt to recoup costs ?
22 years for ROI ? and that's presuming the owners don't shift to a different provider.

Final update on this...

We decided in the end to postpone the line installation until when my parents are nearer to moving in - That way (should anything prevent them from moving in) they wouldn't have the £2100 liability.

Thanks everyone for their information, tips and ideas.

The USO was all part of the deal when BT was privatised. The idea is that, as a monopoly supplier, the cheap-to-service areas cross-subsidised the expensive, including subsidising of lines through call revenues.

Of course we are now in a very different world with fixed line competition in the cheap-to-service areas and a migration away from fixed line telephony to mobile and IP based services. Lines are wholesaled and the price heavily regulated with the priority on keeping costs down, There's nor prospect of downstream revenue either as the infrastructure business has to stand on its own.

(Oh, and people expect their line to carry broadband too, not just voice.

In all, a very different environment to when the business was sold to the public.