In reply to a post by PCJM40:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

AFAIK there has been no BT instigated migration to DV for phone only customers, but that’s only really my observation, and not necessarily true, I certainly don’t have any inside information about this

This person is a difficult customer on the best of days, wouldn't surprise me if they called up BT and asked to be moved over as everyone around them is now on FTTP and they are not one to miss out. The telephone number is no longer recognised by the DSL checker which is a bit of a giveaway that they are now on DV.

TBH , I’d have thought the DSL checker wouldn’t show ‘no active service’ if the ONT had any service over it , ‘no active service’ suggests that it not currently assigned to any provider , if BT via some sophistry had provided them with BTDV without charging for an underlying BT broadband service , then it would have an active service .

The comment that their telephone number is not recognised isn’t just an indicator of BTDV , it could now be spare , or exported to another CP and return the same ‘no longer recognised’ script from BTw

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

TBH , I’d have thought the DSL checker wouldn’t show ‘no active service’ if the ONT had any service over it , ‘no active service’ suggests that it not currently assigned to any provider , if BT via some sophistry had provided them with BTDV without charging for an underlying BT broadband service , then it would have an active service .

The comment that their telephone number is not recognised isn’t just an indicator of BTDV , it could now be spare , or exported to another CP and return the same ‘no longer recognised’ script from BTw

Just been told they were migrated to BT DV only over FTTP but they have since ceased the service and gone to mobile only so that answers the question why its now showing as inactive

Edited by PCJM40 (Wed 02-Jul-25 14:20:52)

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

TBH , I’d have thought the DSL checker wouldn’t show ‘no active service’ if the ONT had any service over it , ‘no active service’ suggests that it not currently assigned to any provider , if BT via some sophistry had provided them with BTDV without charging for an underlying BT broadband service , then it would have an active service .

The comment that their telephone number is not recognised isn’t just an indicator of BTDV , it could now be spare , or exported to another CP and return the same ‘no longer recognised’ script from BTw

Just been told they were migrated to BT DV only over FTTP but they have since ceased the service and gone to mobile only so that answers the question why its now showing as inactive

It would be interesting to know if they were approached by BT or they approached BT and in either case if they were basically given ‘broadband’ possibly the 0.5Mb. profile , and provided with a standard SH2 for no other reason but to access BTDV , its broadband functionality limited by the low bandwidth and possibly some restrictions placed on the account by the ISP ,and the bill was the same as a PSTN customer with telephone only , or the bill had an entry for broadband but a credit entry equal to the cost made it effectively ‘free’ , TBH I assumed this would be the way things were in addresses that had FTTP only like new builds or a previous occupant had FTTP installed in a retro fitted address , where FTTP is the default

This is the only ‘example’ of standalone BTDV I’ve heard of and as it’s not directly from the user, I’d caveat it with ‘as far as I or we know’ when it comes to telephony only customers that are ‘happy’ with what they have got and resistant to change

Edited by Iniltous (Wed 02-Jul-25 15:34:02)

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

I’d caveat it with ‘as far as I or we know’

100% agree

Interesting comments all read with an open mind, thanks all .

With talking to both executive offices about different ideas it was me who suggested what about using the WBC FTTP 0.5 /0.5 Mbps product feed for a separate digital phone line with BBU.
After all that what it was created for (well plus the internet of things as well) so I am trying BT to see if it's going put in at there cost (that is what I meant in my earlier post that said cost me £0 that was for the install not the line and call costs ) , But yes I will be paying them for a standard BT line cost and any calls made on it and we should still get incoming calls on it.
I think it's gone to a higher level at BT at the moment to see if they will put it in..
So it's not gospel that it will get put in yet.

The comments about a Either a separate Fibre feed and 1 port ONT or 4 port ONT came from BT, Openreach comments about that it is the isp choose what produce they buy from Openreach, BT being a isp. so BT may not provide 4 port ONT but put in a separate FTTP feed.

Re PCJM40 ...I'm lead to believe one of my elderly neighbours had their telephone only service migrated over to use FTTP 'ONT exists with no active service'

I think you are seeing the service I am describing above.
Look up there address please and note what it says about WBC FTTP ..............

'Asterisk sytem' is something to do in the evenings than watching TV, a Challenge that keeps my remaining three brain cells active

I'm still at a loss as to why you would want to pay BT for a 0.5Mbps broadband connection to use Digital Voice on when you already have an FTTP internet connection. What is the objection to something like Voipfone's £14 unlimited plan if you are a heavy user of voice calls?

I know you're a former scientist but your proposed solutions seem massively over engineered but at the end of the day if you and your lovely wife are happy with that even after all the good advice you've received on here then I don't know what else us on this thread can say as it appears you're not listening to us and this thread is more of a blog for you.

You stated previously that a advantage of your SMPF arrangement with Eclipse as the ISP and BT as the ‘line rental’ provider, was the included phone minutes via a CPS arrangement (carrier pre select ) with Eclipse which meant BT didn’t charge you for any calls , this presumably means you use the phone extensively for outgoing calls otherwise SMPF was always unnecessarily expensive if you didn’t take advantage of those minutes, so presumably your outgoing calling requirements make BTDV PAYG an extremely expensive choice so presumably you will opt for the £48 BTDV ‘inclusive’ calls option , this makes the value of your supposedly free installation moot, if you claim you don’t make outgoing calls anymore, why maintain the SMPF for as long as you have ?

It frankly beggars belief that you are even pursuing this unnecessary expensive option when it offers nothing extra over simply adding a cheap VoIP provider to your existing FTTP service from No One , you seem to want this arrangement for no other reason than it’s possible to have it , as stated your mind seems set , and as you for the last 10 to 15 years have been using a ludicrously expensive and unnecessary SMPF arrangement, I suppose it follows you want to maintain something equally ludicrously expensive and unnecessary, I’m not sure if BT should ‘love’ or ‘hate’ customers like you , great from an income point of view , awkward in respect of providing what you want

Edited by Iniltous (Fri 04-Jul-25 07:53:34)

In reply to a post by APTMAN:

With talking to both executive offices about different ideas it was me who suggested what about using the WBC FTTP 0.5 /0.5 Mbps product feed for a separate digital phone line with BBU.
After all that what it was created for (well plus the internet of things as well) so I am trying BT to see if it's going put in at there cost (that is what I meant in my earlier post that said cost me £0 that was for the install not the line and call costs ) , But yes I will be paying them for a standard BT line cost and any calls made on it and we should still get incoming calls on it.
I think it's gone to a higher level at BT at the moment to see if they will put it in..
So it's not gospel that it will get put in yet.

The comments about a Either a separate Fibre feed and 1 port ONT or 4 port ONT came from BT, Openreach comments about that it is the isp choose what produce they buy from Openreach, BT being a isp. so BT may not provide 4 port ONT but put in a separate FTTP feed.

It looks a crazy idea, but I think I can see why BT might want to talk about it. To my mind, BT-OR were making an anti-competitive move by choosing to go digital with DV rather than VoIP. The legitimate benefits to BT would be not supporting third party VoIP hardware, but it is anticompetitive because you have to have BT or EE internet if you want to keep your phone line with BT. The disbenefits to the consumer are the anticompetitive aspect compounded by having to use the ISP's hardware for your own network - no choice if you have DV.

The downside for BT is that there are plenty of ISPs out there and plenty of VoIP providers. So customers like myself have reluctantly ditched BT telephony for freedom of ISP and LAN hardware. BT hung up on me when I tried talking about having their service over VoIP.

OP's account of contact with the CEO's office suggests to me that BT-OR are actually aware that DV is a showstopper for some customers and that some of their people are thinking about how to address that without overturning a strong corporate decision for DV rather than VoIP. To me, the multiple port ONT solution does not sit right, backed up by most posters here. But in the medium term, it may help BT-OR fend off VoIP until such time as they feel able to offer a VoIP product to residential customers - as they apparently already do for business customers.

In reply to a post by APTMAN:

Interesting comments all read with an open mind, thanks all .

With talking to both executive offices about different ideas it was me who suggested what about using the WBC FTTP 0.5 /0.5 Mbps product feed for a separate digital phone line with BBU.
After all that what it was created for...

The comments about a Either a separate Fibre feed and 1 port ONT or 4 port ONT came from BT, Openreach comments about that it is the isp choose what produce they buy from Openreach, BT being a isp. so BT may not provide 4 port ONT but put in a separate FTTP feed.

Re PCJM40 ...I'm lead to believe one of my elderly neighbours had their telephone only service migrated over to use FTTP 'ONT exists with no active service'

The 0.5 was created for people with a copper telephone line only, no Internet connection, to provide the piece of string to carry voice.

On ONT existing with no active service whether 0.5M or 10G if the ONT port is mapped to a service it will show as in use.

Interesting use of the executive complaints teams of BT and especially Openreach being used for you to air your ideas on how they should provide you phone service given you've a live ONT there and they haven't switched off the PSTN yet. Good reminder that their incompetent handling of the whole affair has compounded Ofcom's and politicians' failings.