It's only free to disconnect hardwired extensions where the customer has no NTE5 and can't disconnect them themselves.

Faults proved to extensions that connect to an NTE5 should get disconnected and a visit charge raised or fixed for a visit charge + labour.

Funnily enough, word on the street says a new external NTE will be getting fitted to newbuilds soon enough.

So, depending how you look at it, one could either say that the customer will have exciting new freedoms and competition in choosing who maintains the wire to the master socket from their boundary wall or that there will be a few extra visit charges getting banged in in a few years time.

Edited by deleted (Sat 27-Jan-07 18:02:33)

In reply to:

---

I think BT installed extensions were fitted with a one year warranty. Outside that you pay them to fix it.

---

I vaguely remember my parents paying rental for extension line jack sockets for their trimphone. Don't know when it stopped as their records show that they had been converted to LJUs before 1990. They also have a letter from BT around this time saying that all the sockets are part of the BT network and BT's property.

In reply to:

---

How many people have you seen taken to court over phone wiring issues ? Like RJ says the worst they'll do is disconnect the whole lot if there's a fault and you decline to pay them, you can then reconnect to the NTE5 when you have fixed it.

---

Not so simple if the terminal block has more than one spur and the customer is not able to do wiring? If BT own the stuff, they should service it; if they sold it to the customer then they should separate it. What's wrong with that?

I wasn't trying to imply there were any engineer related difficulties; it's only BT management that should be taken to court!

In reply to:

---

Hardwired extensions are not rented and so will not get free maintenance other than to be disconnected. Seems fair enough to me.

---

But BT installed the hardwired extensions and say they own them. In my case they were originally rented I think when they were trimphone jack sockets. At some stage they were converted to LJUs by BT and extra rental ceased.

In reply to:

---

I don't know of many firms that offer free lifetime maintenance on their work. If you find a plumber who does, can you let me know?

---

Well BT do on the line from the customer's property to the exchange! It's the extra 50 feet at the end they are being unreasonable about!

If it goes wrong, they do seperate it for free!

In reply to:

---

Well BT do on the line from the customer's property to the exchange!

---

That'll be the bit that you pay line rental and have a maintenance contract on.

In reply to:

---

It's the extra 50 feet at the end they are being unreasonable about!

---

That'll be the bit that you don't

But as I mentioned, if the customer has a terminal block with spurs off to various extensions including the master, they could lose all their extensions if a NTE5 is fitted. That is not fair. If BT want to say that they do not own all the extension wiring and sockets then what you say is fair. The present situation is an anomaly.

Easy. Disconnect faulty extension, fit NTE5 at terminal block, hand customer NTE5 leaflet, put shoes back on and move to next job.

Not if customer shoots engineer while putting shoes on too slowly.

Certainly on a "Plan 4" system it will have been a PO telephones installation, it was in the days when there was no master socket and everything belonged to the Post Office which became BT. I would assume that BT would have taken over all the liabilities from PO Telecommunications so my first post stands that they may look kindly on replacing the Plan 4 Jack with a NTE5

In reply to:

---

When did BT and fair ever get used in the same sentence.

---

Er, yes. The above is a single sentence and contains the words BT and fair.