Monday, 4 January 2016

Talk Talk (wholesale) once again do not understand what they sell

They sell us broadband, not a copper pair.

They sell a service with a demarcation point of a master socket. That means they are responsible for everything that side of the demarcation point.

Sometimes there will be a fault in some part of what they sell us that means the broadband service is not working. They may have to pay someone to fix that fault.

Yet again, like BT, they seem to think that just because they have to pay a subcontractor to fix some aspect of the service they are providing, then they can expect us to reimburse them for that subcontractor's charges.

They even sent some e-learning Q&A that tries to ram this home, down right condescending and offensive if you ask me.

I sent them some new Q&A to try and explain :-

Q1. The fault turned out to be in the BRAS. Talk Talk had to engage a subcontractor to replace a card in the BRAS. Is this chargeable.

A. No - because the work was Talk Talk's side of the demarcation point for the broadband service they provide, it is their responsibility to fix the service when it breaks at their cost.

Q2. The fault turned out to be in the DSLAM. Talk Talk had to engage a subcontractor to replace a card in the DSLAM. Is this chargeable.

A. No - because the work was Talk Talk's side of the demarcation point for the broadband service they provide, it is their responsibility to fix the service when it breaks at their cost.

Q3. The fault turned out to be in the exchange jumpering to the DSLAM. Talk Talk had to engage a subcontractor to replace the faulty exchange jumpering. Is this chargeable.

A. No - because the work was Talk Talk's side of the demarcation point for the broadband service they provide, it is their responsibility to fix the service when it breaks at their cost.

Q4. The fault turned out to be in the copper pair between the exchange and end-user premises, it also affected telephone service (i.e. did not meet SIN349). Talk Talk had to engage a subcontractor to fix the copper pair. Is this chargeable.

A. No - because the work was Talk Talk's side of the demarcation point for the broadband service they provide, it is their responsibility to fix the service when it breaks at their cost.
Q5. The fault turned out to be in the copper pair between the exchange and end-user premises, but it did not affect telephone service (i.e. did meet SIN349). Talk Talk had to engage a subcontractor to fix the copper pair. Is this chargeable.

A. No - because the work was Talk Talk's side of the demarcation point for the broadband service they provide, it is their responsibility to fix the service when it breaks at their cost.

Q6. The fault turned out to be in the end-user router/modem. It seems that a replacement router/modem had not been tried. Talk Talk had to engage a subcontractor to investigate. Is this chargeable.

A. Yes - because the work was not on Talk Talk's side of the demarcation point for the broadband service they provide. It shows that the ISP did not carry our the agreed steps to eliminate the end-user router/modem, so they have to pay, as a penalty, the cost of engaging the subcontractor.

8 comments:

  1. It'd be interesting to view the e-learning Q&A originally sent to you by Talk Talk (wholesale).

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's a depressing habit of passing the buck that way - "it wasn't our fault, it was our subcontractor who screwed up".

    "Why didn't my order arrive on time?"
    "It wasn't our fault, the courier lost the parcel."
    "So, which of us was it that chose and contracted that courier to do the job, then ...?"

    The notion of vicarious liability is apparently beyond their grasp. If you screw up by not doing the job properly, of course it's your fault. If you screw up by trying to get someone else to do the job and they fail, that's still your fault - which bit of this is so complicated?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. How about "The fault turned out to be in the copper pair between the exchange and end-user's NTE5 and on the end-user's premises, but did not affect telephone services"? (end user isn't legally allowed to fix it themselves but Openreach charge in some cases).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's before the demarcation point for the service, so not chargeable.

      Delete
    2. It gets complicated there however, because if for example someone manages to take out the copper between their house and the cab (say by hitting it with a large moving van or window cleaners pole) then Openreach (not TalkTalk) is entitled to recover the cost of that repair from the person who caused the damage. However because the person causing the damage likely has no direct contract with Openreach, Openreach must sue the person responsible for the damage.

      Does make me wonder though if Openreach has recovery language in metallic path users contracts to allow them to bill the end user through the metallic path user if the end user damages BT property. Not that such language is much use, as in domestic premises it's very unlikely that the owner is the one doing the damage, but rather a third party.

      Delete
  4. Perhaps this is the cycle of abuse. They got treated like this themselves by BT so they go on to behave similarly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well yes, but open reach charging to fix broadband issues makes sense as they sell copper pairs for telephone - it is TT charging us that is the issue.

      Delete
  5. It's the equivalent of being charged extra for a cheeseburger because they had to fix the grill before cooking it.

    ReplyDelete