Sky chicanery.

Hello, Despite being a reasonably satisfied Sky customer - since early analogue days - their latest stroke appals me.
My sister, aged 74, recently received a text from Sky, thanking her for placing a broadband order - she had previously been with o2: she has never been in touch with Sky about broadband - although she does have Sky TV.
I immediately phoned them and said that no such order had been placed, and that when I visit my sister on the weekend (yesterday) it would be discussed - but to do NOTHING until then. They said at the time "if she wants Sky BB and phone, then she'll be a new customer, and have to pay a £50 charge for "installation/router": I politely told them to forget it!
I went to her part of London yesterday and found her a little distressed, as she had received a letter - despite my calling Sky - thanking her for "choosing Sky BB & phone".
I phoned Sky on her behalf, but was put through to the wrong department when, even though he could not help me, a pleasant NI guy called Mark, said that the transition from o2 should be FOC: he then put me through to Customer services.
They told me that there would indeed be a charge - £60, this time - if my sister wanted to be with Sky: I told them, in the politest possible way, to go diddle themselves!
I said that both she and I would close down our respective Sky TV accounts there and then, because of this financial chicanery: at that point, his demeanour changed completely. He rescinded the £50/60 charge, and the only thing to pay was the £2.98 postage for the new router
Despite me telling this guy - at least five times during his sales pitch - that my sister would only want the basic phone service, and the 2GB "free" BB, he kept on talking about unlimited/half price offers. I finally got through to him, after asking to speak to a supervisor, that I knew what was wanted - and we didn't want what he kept wittering on about!
Finally, it was sorted - £15+ for phone/no charge for basic BB and the postage charge for the router.
My sister - and I'm sure many others - should not have to jump through hoops to persuade Sky that they did not order a product, nor did they wish to be overcharged, if they did.
This is a pretty poor "seamless transition" for former o2 customers, who wanted a phone/BB: the management at Sky and o2 should be ashamed of themselves, having the temerity to assume something which, in my sister's case, was rejected at the first opportunity
Anyone else aware of this bit of deviousness? Cheers, Les.

Edited by lelboy (Sun 09-Feb-14 13:45:20)

The £50 charge makes me think an order for Sky Fibre was somehow placed. That shouldn't be done automatically for O2 migrants so I'm not sure what happened there.

Hello Oliver, Thanks for the reply.
Quite emphatically NO order was placed by either my sister - or more importantly, me: my contribution, as I said, was to CANCEL whatever machinations that THEY had started.
Pattie, my sister, has never had any contact with Sky, other than a few issues - over the years - about TV matters. This certainly seems to me an issue that Sky have assumed they could just "do" and hope few people notice it!
There's no other logical explanation for:
a) The text, thanking her for placing an "order".
b) The follow-up letter, after I had spoken to them, saying that no such order had ever been placed, confirming said order.
Nah, this is a fast one by Sky, I'm afraid!
Cheers, Les.

How come it's ONLY happened to your sister?

In all they time I've been with TBB, Batboy, I'd say that 75% of your posts are plain provocative - offering little to the matter in hand.
Do you not see how inane your comment is? How do you conclude that this "has only happened to your sister".
Foolish, baseless comment - but so typical, sadly.
Cheers, Les.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

How come it's ONLY happened to your sister?

Sky T&C say: "Existing [TV] customer set-up £60 for Lite or free for Unlimited."

Sounds like the OP's Sister managed to get out of the £60 Lite fee by complaining.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

she had previously been with o2

How much previously?

Do you mean she is 1 of the O2 custs that have been sold to Sky? In which case she should not have to do or pay anything. Sky should just transfer her to their network (I assume she had both phone + BB from O2). I believe even the O2 router will work on Sky.

Or do you mean she was an O2 cust in the past before the sale by O2?

my sister would only want the basic phone service, and the 2GB 'free' BB

What 'free' BB? O2 never had a 'free' BB, did they? If you mean a Sky offering then it would be a new contract.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

In all they time I've been with TBB, Batboy, I'd say that 75% of your posts are plain provocative - offering little to the matter in hand.
Do you not see how inane your comment is? How do you conclude that this "has only happened to your sister".
Foolish, baseless comment - but so typical, sadly.

I note you did not answer the question.

OP's Sister would have been entitled to Sky Broadband Unlimited with no setup fee as part of the O2 migration.

If Fibre or Lite wasn't ordered then the £50 would have been an error. We have no way of knowing if an order had been placed manually or not, but this is the first report of a £50 "automatic" setup fee out of many migrations.

Sky Broadband Lite would indeed be a new contract with a £60 fee, as would Sky Fibre with a £50 fee.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

Hello, Despite being a reasonably satisfied Sky customer - since early analogue days - their latest stroke appals me.
My sister, aged 74, recently received a text from Sky, thanking her for placing a broadband order - she had previously been with o2: she has never been in touch with Sky about broadband - although she does have Sky TV.
I immediately phoned them and said that no such order had been placed, and that when I visit my sister on the weekend (yesterday) it would be discussed - but to do NOTHING until then. They said at the time "if she wants Sky BB and phone, then she'll be a new customer, and have to pay a £50 charge for "installation/router": I politely told them to forget it!
I went to her part of London yesterday and found her a little distressed, as she had received a letter - despite my calling Sky - thanking her for "choosing Sky BB & phone".
I phoned Sky on her behalf, but was put through to the wrong department when, even though he could not help me, a pleasant NI guy called Mark, said that the transition from o2 should be FOC: he then put me through to Customer services.
They told me that there would indeed be a charge - £60, this time - if my sister wanted to be with Sky: I told them, in the politest possible way, to go diddle themselves!
I said that both she and I would close down our respective Sky TV accounts there and then, because of this financial chicanery: at that point, his demeanour changed completely. He rescinded the £50/60 charge, and the only thing to pay was the £2.98 postage for the new router
Despite me telling this guy - at least five times during his sales pitch - that my sister would only want the basic phone service, and the 2GB "free" BB, he kept on talking about unlimited/half price offers. I finally got through to him, after asking to speak to a supervisor, that I knew what was wanted - and we didn't want what he kept wittering on about!
Finally, it was sorted - £15+ for phone/no charge for basic BB and the postage charge for the router.
My sister - and I'm sure many others - should not have to jump through hoops to persuade Sky that they did not order a product, nor did they wish to be overcharged, if they did.
This is a pretty poor "seamless transition" for former o2 customers, who wanted a phone/BB: the management at Sky and o2 should be ashamed of themselves, having the temerity to assume something which, in my sister's case, was rejected at the first opportunity
Anyone else aware of this bit of deviousness? Cheers, Les.

Isnt the free 2GB broadband on sky connect which is rubbish and has lots of latency/speed issues?.

Sky have brought O2 Borabdand so surely any migrations are free and did sky not recently do an update to O2/BE routers to enable them to connect to skys network?

No, the free 2GB broadband is on Sky's LLU.

Hello Jamie, Thanks for the reply,
No the 2GB is on "ordinary" adsl - not connect.
Pattie was with o2, paying for the phone line and a "cheap" amount (about £3) for the normal adsl BB.
As I said, when Sky took over o2, they seem - presumably only in my sister's case, according to batboy - to have assumed she would "want" to be a new customer with Sky - and pay for that privilege.
She needed/wanted phone and minimal BB which is what she had with o2, but Sky wanted her to pay £50/60 to "migrate".
Cheers, Les.

Hello X , Thanks for the reply,
No the 2GB is on "ordinary" adsl - not connect.
Pattie was with o2, paying for the phone line and a "cheap" amount (about £3) for the normal adsl BB.
As I said, when Sky took over o2, they seem - presumably only in my sister's case, according to batboy - to have assumed she would "want" to be a new customer with Sky - and pay for that privilege.
She needed/wanted phone and minimal BB which is what she had with o2, but Sky wanted her to pay £50/60 to "migrate".
Cheers, Les.

I'm

In reply to a post by lelboy:

Despite me telling this guy - at least five times during his sales pitch - that my sister would only want the basic phone service, and the 2GB 'free' BB

Assuming she is an existing O2 cust being transferred to Sky, isn't it dangerous saying she wants Sky Lite when as an O2 user she is entitled to being seamlessly transferred to Sky Unlimited? To the Sky agent it would seem you are asking for a new package, even if it a downgrade.

Unless she is out of Sky's LLU area. What exchange?

What are you missing, batboy? How the hell would I, or you, know if she were the "only one"? Answer is - neither you nor I would, so don't keep on being a provocative, troll-type poster, and give us all a break. Is that an adequate answer?

It seems odd she was paying £3 for broadband if she could get free 2GB broadband as a Sky customer.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

What are you missing, batboy? How the hell would I, or you, know if she were the "only one"? Answer is - neither you nor I would, so don't keep on being a provocative, troll-type poster, and give us all a break. Is that an adequate answer?

I haven't seen any other posts about this. Have you?

What's the point of quoting whole of OP just to make a couple of small points that don't need quotes? Just wasting screen space!

Just so, Oliver, That's the whole point. Former o2 customers did not ask to be "sold-off" to Sky: that being the case, it's not reasonable to expect them to pay for the facility of being able to "join Sky"; there are far better deals out there..
Cheers, Les.

Indeed I haven't - yet - but that means what, exactly?
Maybe I'm the only one that can be arsed to air the subject!

O2 customers were migrated to Sky for free. I thought their existing deal was guaranteed for a year?

In reply to a post by lelboy:

it's not reasonable to expect them to pay for the facility of being able to "join Sky"; there are far better deals out there..

I agree, but there was & is no fee for joining Sky Broadband Unlimited.

Hi Oliver, Perhaps that's so, but the issue is about "basic, free BB & a basic phone" not the "all singing and dancing BB and phone" offers. Pattie only wanted/needed something comparable to the o2 setup she had before.
Cheers, Les.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

Hi Oliver, Perhaps that's so, but the issue is about "basic, free BB & a basic phone" not the "all singing and dancing BB and phone" offers. Pattie only wanted/needed something comparable to the o2 setup she had before.

Sky Broadband Unlimited is comparable so that's what O2 customers are migrated to.

Sky Broadband Lite has a 2 GB cap and is free of charge for Sky TV customers. O2 never offered anything like that. If that's the option she wants, I can't see why the standard £60 fee shouldn't be applicable to her.

That's pretty much the point!
Pattie (I) was told - explicitly - that she would be treated as a new customer, by two different Sky staff members: only when I told them that they could keep all their products, did they acquiesce. People shouldn't have to go through this nonsense!

Ha ha,
I'm beginning to suspect, Oliver, that you and batboy might be the same person - such is your determination to see Sky as the "good guy"!

In the email content below, you will see what Pattie had been paying for - and that was phone and "not" unlimited BB. What's so hard to understand?
From what you are implying, Pattie should have to take Sky's "unlimited offer" - which she never had/needed with o2, just a modest DL (no one ever said she had "free" BB from o2, she was paying for what she DID have)

Given the negativity in the replies from you and batboy, I wonder why I ever bothered to post the situation on TBB!
Just as an aside, the average Sky user does not, I imaging, use TBB - it's just we folk that have an interest in such things.
Having said that, how would a layman have knowledge about the "background activities" of Sky?
Cheers, Les

----------------------------------------------------------------0000000000000000000000000----------------------------
Hello margaret

You can see your latest bill online now. We'll take the payment from your bank account on, or shortly after, 20/02/14.

Please check your bill summary and Direct Debit carefully.

Total bill: £18.18

Direct Debit due date: 20/02/14 (we'll take payment on or after this day)

You can view your bill here. Just sign in with your username and password. Don't worry if you've forgotten either of them, we can help.

It looks like someone simply made a mistake. Mistakes are allowed you know?

You answered my Qs with the answers for jamie

In reply to a post by lelboy:

Pattie was with o2, paying for the phone line and a 'cheap' amount (about £3) for the normal adsl BB.

So she was paying a cheap price for normal O2 unlimited BB. Sky would expect to transfer her to the same type of unlimited BB like everyone else, but that would be dearer than she was paying with O2. So you are arguing on comparable price, not comparable product, and requesting Sky Lite, which Sky would see as a change of product.

Not out of the LLU area, X.
Abbeywood exchange.
"it would seem to the agent" - that's the whole point of this thread content. I consider myself articulate, and both "dubious" Sky operatives should have understood clearly what was required - despite them trying to "force-feed" me the script they had in their hands.
As Pattie is already a Sky TV customer (for many years), then using your - what would seem - valid point, she should be entitled to free "lite". All she wanted - in the final analysis - was for her phone to be taken over by Sky, and the freely offered "lite" BB.
Nothing about needing more, despite the agents trying to flog her something.
But going back to my initial post: the first problem was that Sky, without any authority, tried to commit her to something she'd not asked for. You can see Schirmfoto copy of the original text from Sky, and the letter thanking her for joining them - and now in some sort of contract with them - should you wish.
The fact that a "concession" was made - upon threat of us both leaving Sky entirely - would seem to me an admission that, perhaps, the initial situation was flawed.
All this, without any input from Pattie. Ah, the wonders of all things Sky!
Cheers, Les.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

In the email content below, you will see what Pattie had been paying for - and that was phone and "not" unlimited BB.

No, can't see what she is paying for; only what she is paying.

Indeed they are but....
a) Incorrect text sent, corrected by me telephoning them, advising them of their error.
b) Follow up letter from Sky, despite me telling them that "nothing" must change until my sister and I speak to them on Saturday.
c) That having been given a point-by-point explanation of the situation to the final agent - Mohammed - he persistently failed to take on board that Pattie did NOT want anything extra, and repeatedly wittered on about "special half price deals, and unlimited BB and phone (he kept trying to flog Pattie "talk anytime", despite being told, at the very start of the conversation - what was wanted.
Are you an apologist for three consecutive Sky agents?

Why didn't you just stay with the migrated O2 package?

This is getting tedious.
The figure shown is £15+ for phone line, the other part for BB.
Would you like me to post a copy of her passport, last six month's bank statements and her birth certificate, so you can actually see that she's a real person?
Why are you trying to be awkward?
What might you - in your infinite wisdom - imagine the DD figure relates to?
You are aware, of course, that when you get an email advising you of a due DD payment, that they don't itemise the details?
Not sure that I'll bother replying to anyone any more, as all I seem to be generating is replies from trolls or wannabes.
Maybe that's not completely fair, but I truthfully can't understand all the weird responses, when you ALL have the precise details of my original post.
Yours in despair, Les.

In reference to www.sky.com/shop/welcome/migration/:

At least two months before we plan to move your services

We'll give you all the details and plenty of notice

We'll write to you well ahead of when we plan to transfer you over with all the details of your new Sky package, along with the new price you�ll pay if you move to Sky.

Here�s the approach we�ve taken:

� Move you to the nearest equivalent or better Sky package wherever possible
� Try to match or beat your current combined home broadband and phone (where applicable) monthly subscription price, where we can, including any monthly offers you get
� Transfer only the services that you subscribe to with O2/BE - you won't have to take Sky Talk if you only have home broadband from O2/BE
� Transfer your home phone number if you take or transfer to Sky Talk
� Keep your current payment date wherever possible - we won't ask you to sign a new minimum term contract, unless you'd like to move over to us right away
� And we won't ask you to sign a new minimum term either (unless you choose to take up one of our special offers and switch sooner)

If you are happy with all the information in the letter we send, you don't need to do a thing - just continue using and paying for your existing services as normal. If you want to talk through your options, or you're interested in other Sky packages, just give us a call on 08448 245 480.

Edited by deleted (Sun 09-Feb-14 16:24:38)

No, you have no way of knowing....
Clearly I'm someone who has little to do on a Sunday afternoon, other than post untruths or inaccuracies.
The offer of Schirmfoto screenshots applies, as does the emails from Sky, received yesterday, after the conversation with them, which clearly states when this new "contract" was applied - and that was YESTERDAY, and not some time prior - in error or not, by Sky.
First report out of many migrations?
Just so, but that only illustrates that persistent errors have been made in THIS case.
Another point, related to that comment, is that despite TBB being a lovely site, very few "ordinary" people would use it to complain about this sort of thing - as I suspect "ordinary" folk live their lives without needing to consult, or even be aware, of "our" forums.
- only people who are somehow involved/interested in things related to electronics/phone/BB and computing etc.

Because that "option" was not offered. The opening gambit, by Sky, was that Pattie would be a "new" customer/£50 etc. Don't ask me what goes on at Sky - I don't know.

From that link I posted it says "If you are happy with all the information in the letter we send, you don't need to do a thing - just continue using and paying for your existing services as normal."

I'm seriously wondering if you think I'm daft!
Do you not think I've taken on board all the bumpf leading up to this situation? Posting a glut of stuff from Sky - that I've already seen - does not get away from the actions by the staff members of Sky, that I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with.
Did you not notice, in my first post, that the issue came about because Sky said my sister would be starting a new contract with them, and not, as has been alluded to on this thread - seamlessly migrated. Had there not been any erroneous contact from Sky, then I don't suppose my sister would have noticed anything untoward but, would you imagine her direct debit would still be claimed by Telefonica, instead of Sky?
How would she rearrange said DD, if not advised, in some way, by Sky?
Closing my input into this thread, as there seem to be agendas here that I don't understand. Suffice it to say that my sister now pays £15+ for phone and BB lite - without the £50/60 charge.
It has to beggar the question why such a charge was levied in the first place if, in my sister's case, they rescinded it.
Signing out now, as I can't be arsed anymore!

Were you happy with the offer that Sky made in the letter?

What do you not understand? She was paying o2 the money - not Sky, because she was NOT a sky customer for phone or BB until NOW! This debacle is the first contact she's had with Sky, regarding phone or BB!

Are you saying they didn't send a letter?

Not sure where you're coming from. Are you saying that a person should pay a not small premium - for a pensioner - for a service that she doesn't want (Sky unlimited) when she'd be entitled to BB Lite FOC as a long-standing Sky TV customer - simply because of a financial exchange between o2 ownership, and Sky?

No details were given in the letter - just "your contract with Sky...." That is what started the whole problem - along with the text. The subsequent emails - yesterday - explain in great details all the information necessary, and these have been accepted by my sister i.e £15+ phone, no charge for BB lite or migration and postage for the "new router" which others on here have said she doesn't need: clearly those posters know more than Sky - you know, the people sending the router!

The only letter she recieved about this "migration" was Saturday last - AFTER my telephone conversation re: the text she received.

Omitted to mention, in my earlier reply, that they wanted to charge her considerably more - even with the "half price offer" than she had been paying with o2: that being all she wanted and needed i.e. she has no use at all for "unlimited", and certainly did not want to pay for it. Cheers, Les.

All's well that ends well, eh?

Yeah, thanks for the banter! Cheers, Les.

Getting sarky now are we?

I was believing your words 'paying for' but not seeing that in what you posted. I was hoping to see which BB package she was paying for. My ISP details in my bill all of package name, speed and price w/out me presenting my passport etc.

I thought I was trying to help you but no longer.

In fact this whole thread is useless as your sister got what she wanted from the get-go and it is clear that a mistake was made by Sky in not sending the usual transfer letter that BatBoy alluded to and which invited to you do nowt if you wanted to continue the status quo.

Not sarky, but can only provide what o2/Sky have sent my sister.
The issue isn't what she's finished up with, but the suspect way the situation presented itself, and the obstacle course that was necessary to get the correct thing.
Perchance you feel that the less able or savvy, perhaps, than we, should just be left to the vagaries of Sky?
Hardly the ethos that TBB is about.
You remember, offer help to others, and warn others of pitfall, wherever?
Seeing as I'm, apparently, just a sarky so & so, I'll not bother sharing any concerns about anything in future: let those in a pickle sink or swim - although it goes very much against the grain.
Cheers, Les.

I was out, I missed all the fun.

There is no £50 activation for Sky Broadband Unlimited, either for migrants or new customers. So, assuming no contact was made to Sky by your Sister about Sky Fibre or Lite, this appears to be an error by Sky.

A key point quoted by BatBoy was "We will move you to the nearest equivalent or better Sky package wherever possible".

There was never a 2 GB capped product on O2, so this product can be considered worse. Lite carries a £60 fee which has been waived for you. The £3 price on O2 was a heavily discounted price as a result of a retention discount.

So, as has been said, result for you. But the only thing your Sister was really entitled to was Sky Broadband Unlimited without the £50 setup charge. I do not accept your accusation of "deviousness" on Sky's part as it appears nothing more than an error.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

But the only thing your Sister was really entitled to was Sky Broadband Unlimited

But do you think Sky is able to offer that at around £3 pm?

I think with the sister getting such a cheap unlimited product from O2 there are 2 elements pulling against each other:

• Product: Sky Unlimited BB is comparable with the O2 product, but
• Price: Sky Lite is more comparable with the price she was paying O2.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

But do you think Sky is able to offer that at around £3 pm?

I think with the sister getting such a cheap unlimited product from O2 there are 2 elements pulling against each other:

• Product: Sky Unlimited BB is comparable with the O2 product, but
• Price: Sky Lite is more comparable with the price she was paying O2.

Of course "better" is subjective, but I would generally assume this relates to product specification rather than price.

Not sure what the cheapest O2 product cost, but I don't think Sky are matching retention discounts since in some cases this made the products half price or indeed completely free of charge, including the unlimited packages. I took the "monthly discount" in Sky's "promise" to mean the mobile discount.

From what i have read if o2/be customers where still in a 12mths min term at the time of migration Sky would continue to honour the price of the monthly fee for upto 12mths( or till end of existing contract term) after which the price would revert to the normal sky price,
They would have to do this otherwise it would be a price change to the detriment, and sky would have to allow those who didn't want to pay more the opportunity to leave/migrate without penalty
So it sounds like someone jumped the gun a little and ended up getting less than they may of done, if they had done nothing, as suggested, it does sound like the letter was sent out in error, the op should of been offered unlimited for the same price for 12mths or given the option to migrate, or choose a different product, (which would also mean entering into a 12mth min term contract)

Edited by tommy45 (Mon 10-Feb-14 03:01:35)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

They would have to do this otherwise it would be a price change to the detriment, and sky would have to allow those who didn't want to pay more the opportunity to leave/migrate without penalty

All migrants have the option to leave without penalty rather than move. In addition automatic migrants have no minimum term once moved over.

One thing is quite clear, is that the majority of the sky cs staff who answer the phones have no real clue about the deals offered to be/o2 customers, probably because sky has failed to enlighten them, or they are pretending not to be aware and are just stuck in sales = commission mode

Did your sister ever receive the letter that Batboy posted?

I certainly did and irrespective of any other bumf sent, that is what should have have happened and you would have been able to quote the letter to the sales person.

If she didn't receive the letter then there has been an almighty *&^% up and someone ought to be put up against the wall and shot.

Hello, 66,
That's the whole point - she heard nothing from them until:
a) The text, thanking her for her order
b) The letter confirming her order had been placed..
This, despite my having phoned them, saying do nothing until both my sister and I speak to you.

Ha ha, not sure if I'd want 'em up against the wall and shot but, it behoves them to deal properly with their shortcomings.
Won't ramble on ad infinitum, but they didn't follow the procedure that some Sky apologists on TBB say that they should have - and that Pattie "must be the only one let down"..
Not really Victor Meldrew's cousin, but Sky - in their failings - have no business causing a pensioner to jump through hoops, just to stay pretty much where she had previously been.
The fact that Sky capitulated says much i.e. that they c****d up, and had to put the situation right.
Some here on TBB seem to think that Pattie wanted something for nothing and she "ought" to pay the 50 quid: well I didn't, and the outcome clearly shows what persistence - when a company has screwed up - can do!
Thanks for your interest, 66.
Cheers, Les.

Just so Tommy,
We experienced Sky's "lack of enlightenment" four times - once by text, twice by phone and once by letter. Your comment about being sales driven is spot on: as I said earlier, the job I had making the last guy understand that my sister did "not" want half-price, unlimited BB, nor 24/7 phone calls - was unreal.
The situation worked out fine in the end, but it shouldn't have taken all the "leaping through hoops" that it did - despite some apologists for Sky, on TBB, seeming to take Sky's side!
Cheers, Les

The problem partly seems to stem from Sky trying to move the person to an equivalent product in terms of from one unlimited product to another.

Suspect some of the 'apologists' actually have dealt with Sky and in my own dealings, armed with some information and keeping things calm you can usually negotiate easily enough, and they are usually very good at ensuring you have heard key T&C

Must admit reading the posts on the issue I have been confused over the precise conversation. Probably not helped by what seems to be a letter probably lost in the post.

Well a read through the BE members forum, it would appear that sky have managed to cause confusion , they are reported to of been sending out a generic information booklet this booklet also mentions sky talk(their phone service) which apparently does imply that they are talking over the phone line too, until the customer gets to the 3rd page, where it informs them

If you currently only have broadband with O2/BE, please ignore any Sky Talk elements of this booklet"

which is fine, but then they go and add more problems m which again should be ignored because they won't increase the price of you tarrif for 12mths , if they do, you get your MAC & leave

However, there is a £5 a month charge included in the stated price for not taking Sky Talk"

If you have negotiated a different deal with sky,your sister maybe now locked in to a 12mths min term contract, and they may want the line (line rental & calls) as well so your sister would be fully llu, which can make things difficult if she wanted to switch supplier in the future

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 12-Feb-14 16:31:15)

I also got confused with their overlapping explanation. However, after reading it properly I can safely assume that I will be paying £10 after a discount of 50% on the Sky Unlimited Pro package with Static IP. The letter also states that a charge of £5 is included for not taking Sky Talk + £2.50 for no Sky TV. I have had no further correspondence on the subject of migration.

The letter sates the deadline of 15th Feb 2014, if I wanted to change my mind etc. I am willing to let the service roll-over into Sky from Be before making any decisions and had a chance to assess the service. Although, Sky Talk looks good - considering I am paying BT the standard rental charge and don't make any calls. However, I don't know that I might be able to change the package later and still retain the 12 month no-contract get out in addition to being full LLU...

A change of product/package would trigger a new min term contract, no two ways about that, as it would with most providers
you could get line rental saver from BT with the free calling plan , or you could switch your phone provider to some one like Zen, or primus

Thanks. Yes, did not think I would get away without a contract! I was aware of Primus, but read some negative reviews. However, did not know Zen had a similar offering; although, the Line Rental Saver seems like a better option comparatively, if I choose to stick with BT.

I have been waiting patiently for the O2/Be handover to complete before taking any drastic steps and might grudgingly end up putting all the eggs in one basket, as I cannot justify staying contract-free vs savings any more. I am also aware that if I go with Sky all the way, then will have to play the retention/discount blagging game every year - not so keen. But if the savings are good and the service is above par, then I will have to bite the bullet and get on with it.

Hello Andrew, Thanks for the input.
Letter lost in the post? Perhaps, and I have no issue with that possibility.
However, as I said, four incidences of "less than joined up" communication is more than a pensioner should reasonably expect. It was sorted in the end, but it took far too long - and having to deal with a pushy guy, seemingly intent on signing my sister up to a product she didn't want despite a "calm, precise set of comments" made to him by me, was not acceptable.
The "o2" DD was cancelled (due to be paid on 20/02/14, and the "Sky" account commence on 25/02/14). My sister got an email saying she could have her services closed down immediately if she didn't make a card payment: this would have been for a "month in advance" despite the fact that for that month, she would now be with Sky! This was sent from SKY!
I phoned Sky, and they advised me that all o2 email traffic was actually being sent from the Sky address, as there were two "computer systems" that did not know each other!
He said ignore that email, the transition date is only a day or two further on, and ultimately o2 (Sky?) would send a pro rata bill for the few intervening days. This seemed logical to me, so I said that's fine.
My issue with the apologists is that o2/Sky should have dealt with an initial problem (missing letter?) the first time I spoke to them after the initial text - they didn't.
They then had the temerity to ask for £50-£60 - take your pick - which some TBB users think is fine: this only complicated an avoidable situation, leaving us where we were at the end.
I've been a quite happy Sky customer for 25 plus years, and have no axe to grind with them but, this merger/takeover has brought some avoidable situations/complications - if some TBB users are anything to go by - to the fore, and given that the average Sky/o2 user probably doesn't use or know of, TBB, then there is quite a possibility that many others - that the apologist are not aware of - that have been left to fight.
Generally pleasant people at Sky is my opinion - but this merger should have gone better.
Cheers, Les.

Sorry about the long ramble, but my initial post was merely meant to advise others that this was not a seamless transition for some: that some TBB users took up the cudgel is for their psyche, not mine.

Thanks for the input, Johnny. I hope you finish up with exactly what you want/need - but it could have been simpler!
Cheers, Les.

Indeed they have, Tommy, but for us it has been resolved - albeit with a lot of unnecessary effort! Cheers, Les.

As have we, Johnny. Cheers, Les.