In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

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.

Sorry the confusing yesterday was I thought wrongly that my elderly neighbour still had their BT DV over FTTP but then learnt they had cancelled and thats why its now showing as 'ONT exists with no active service'.

In reply to a post by DFScale:

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.

Openreach aren't responsible for this transition it's down to the individual CPs how they manage their customers. Openreach just provide the fibre.

More likely both are trying to avoid ending up in the Daily Mail for mistreating poor, vulnerable pensioners complete with the obligatory quote from a politician.

DV being tied to their equipment is unlikely to be a consideration. So few people care it's a non-issue for a company with millions of customers.

On the product they offer their regular business broadband customers you have to use their phones or their ATA adapter. Seems to expect you to use their Hub too.

https://business.bt.com/help/guides/getting-started-...

The actual VoIP service they offer they're using RingCentral and it's perhaps a tad excessive for a home phone service.

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

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.

Sorry the confusing yesterday was I thought wrongly that my elderly neighbour still had their BT DV over FTTP but then learnt they had cancelled and thats why its now showing as 'ONT exists with no active service'.

Was responding to APTMAN, you'd already clarified.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

DV being tied to their equipment is unlikely to be a consideration. So few people care it's a non-issue for a company with millions of customers.

In the immediate, you are right. But in the longer term, I think it could be problematic.

Once someone, for whatever reason, has gone to VoIP, they are unlikely to go for DV subsequently. I would only do it if the DV adapter could be plugged into a 3rd party router. This would of course make it a drop in replacement for a ATA with a VoIP operator, even if it did not use VoIP. Perhaps this is the product that OP's contacts in the CEO's office are grasping for, even if they don't quite realise.

FWIW , given falling residential voice traffic,I suspect it likely that BT/EE would quite like nothing more to abandon residential telephony completely and leave it to third party providers for those that want it , but the regulator isn’t likely to allow that ….personally I don’t see BT having a proprietary IP telephony service as anti competitive, (it’s also the way Sky and Vodafone have went ) it’s a marketplace , don’t like what one vendor (BT) is offering there is plenty of choice , what’s more BTDV is more secure (so they say ) than a traditional VoIP service , I dare say if BTDV was available via third party equipment, BT supplying the credentials to all and sundry any dispute over call charges will be a lot more complicated to resolve.

As far as the OP is concerned though , they are clearly looking to exploit a workaround for those that genuinely don’t want broadband but require a telephone service , that’s presumably something BT are still obligated to provide , the OP already has broadband so they won’t qualify for the discount on the telephony price BT offer to customers without broadband from any source ( that’s around £13-£15 AFAIK )
Given that the OP uses SMPF /CPS presumably indicated their prior reluctance to using BT as their calls provider, it’s curious why they want to use BT now , given the BT call costs were uncompetitive when they first went to a SMPF solution, and they are hardly more competitive now .

Edited by Iniltous (Fri 04-Jul-25 11:12:47)

The big downside for OR is that providing a 0.5/0.5 service for a property with an existing fttp services means soembody else could miss out on fttp, if it was a new ont install ..

In reply to a post by Taras:

The big downside for OR is that providing a 0.5/0.5 service for a property with an existing fttp services means soembody else could miss out on fttp, if it was a new ont install ..

No, the OP has gone on about having their own CBT with 2 ports lit

Having said that I have just found this historical post

In reply to a post by APTMAN:

Today had another surprise when the contractors came back to my manhole opposite our farm gates and said they have to put in a 4 port CBT in the manhole just for my use with only one port being lit for my connection

Edited by PCJM40 (Fri 04-Jul-25 14:07:54)

If the demand on the 4 port CBT was 1 address , then only 1 fibre in the CBT ‘tail’ is spliced through at the splitter , the 3 other CBT ports are ‘dark’ (unlit) , if a second service were needed at the CBT , designed as a full installation, fibre lead in from the CBT , second separate ONT etc. then the second fibre in the CBT tail would need to be spliced to a splitter tail , that in itself requires the splitter to have at least one spare , but as a general rule , 30 not 32 is a self imposed limit splitter limit , so its unlikely that the splitter is maxed out

….providing a multi port ONT has several advantages over a second full installation , no network intervention at the splitter (a big cause of problems is people poking around in the network ) no extra lead in from the CBT , so time saving etc , and the punter doesn’t need to provide an extra power outlet … the downside is logistical , the chances of an installer having a multi port ONT available are (apparently) slim to none existent, even if the order is taken as ‘a multi port ONT may be ordered’ .

FWIW , no one has their own CBT , it’s a network asset, but clearly in some circumstances it’s effectively for a single customer if the CBT location can only serve a single address , in this case the CBT in a manhole so could be be used , for example a new building erected within 300 metres and this manhole was used to provide service to it , wether that’s likely is a different question

Edited by Iniltous (Fri 04-Jul-25 14:30:54)

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

FWIW , no one has their own CBT , it’s a network asset, but clearly in some circumstances it’s effectively for a single customer if the CBT location can only serve a single address ,

I know, It was a simple turn of phrase by which I and probably he meant the CBT is only serving one property.

In reply to a post by RetsimLegin:

You don't have to have outgoing calls routed via your incoming number provider. I have an AA number - but anything outgoing goes via a totally different provider who
- charges way, way less for calls - about £25 per YEAR
- transmits my AA number as caller ID
- but does not provide incoming numbers themselves.

Hi RetsimLegin,

Out of curiosity who do use as an outbound provider? If you don't wanna say on here feel free to PM me.