Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

Ofcom Provisionally Finds BT Overcharged Sky for Engineer Fault Finding

The UK telecoms regulator has today echoed last month’s TalkTalk linked investigation by provisionally concluding that BT “overcharged” Sky (Sky Broadband) for their Special Fault Investigation (SFI) engineer service and Time Related Charges (TRC).

SFIs and TRCs are often used to help find and resolve customer phone and broadband faults (usually following an ISP’s request). Over the years’ plenty of providers have moaned about the cost and efficiency of these services, thus it’s perhaps no surprise that such a case has been raised.

Last month Ofcom provisionally ruled on a very similar case between TalkTalk and BT, which also found that BT had overcharged for SFI + TRCs between 1st April 2011 to 30th June 2014. Today the regulator has reached a virtually identical conclusion in a dispute between Sky and BT, albeit for the period between 1st January 2009 and 30th June 2014.

[Weaver]

This practice seems to be a nasty scam, high-pressure sales. According to RevK of Andrews and Arnold, BT are always hassling them to try and extort money for unnecessary SFI.

[kitz]

I dont think its high pressure sales.  I dont know the specifics of this as atm I cant read and digest the details which seem rather confusing - see here.
I think its something to do with Time related charging.  Basically Sky estimate (without figures) that BT overcharge for SFI visits and make too much profit on them.   I think Sky & TT disputes are more to do with how much they think they should be charged for an SFI visit.

Re RevK..  I think his gripe is well founded in that some SPs get charged.. especially if there is a genuine fault that comes back as either no fault found or not part of the BT network. 

[Chrysalis]

revk will be happy

[WWWombat]

I think @kitz is on the right track here. The Sky and TT complaints are that BT didn't use the correct analysis in working out what an SFI task ought to cost, relative to the actual costs incurred by BT in performing the task ... resulting in overcharging for all their SFI visits.

@RevK's complaint is that SFI visits are optional, and shouldn't be used as a pre-requisite before work is done to fix a fault.

A particular distinguishing feature is that @RevK's complaint is about BT-Wholesale, and he applies his argument where BTW have sold AAISP a "broadband service", rather than just the metallic pair. In such a setup, he believes BTW should eat the SFI charge imposed by Openreach.

Sky and TalkTalk, of course, don't buy a "broadband service" from BTW.

The complaints are apples and pears, where the only thing in common is the name of the service being complained about.

[Chrysalis]

His argument is more that BTw insist he buys a SFI service to fix what is a known fault when a SFI is pointless.

Want a pppoe fix? order SFI please.
Want a lift and shift? order SFI please.
Want us to investigate packet loss within the core BT network? order SFI please.

[Weaver]

My apologies, I put two and two together and made 97 

Very fuzzy today, a poor excuse I know.

> Sky and TalkTalk, of course, don't buy a "broadband service" from BTW.

Because Sky is always LLU? And so buys only ‘parts of’ a service from BT? Something like that? What happens in the case of FTTC?

[WWWombat]

Yes, because Sky is an LLU.

For ADSL, they buy/rent the metallic path from Openreach, then put their own broadband service on top.

For FTTC, they buy a "broadband" GEA service from Openreach. Which makes me realise that I'm not sure how SFI applies to GEA services, other than the fact it isn't via BTw.

[WWWombat]

I just went back to look at the original ISPr story again, and see that @RevK makes the same point there.

[Weaver]

Perhaps the CPs need a proper, specific-to-the customer SLA from BT, from a menu of appropriate SLAs depending on what the CP is and is not buying from BT? With regulatory involvement to keep BT in line, given its monopoly position in some areas. Don't know enough to speculate about how this would apply to Sky, given the more complex situation.

Whatever, RevK claims that SFI is so expensive that it would be cheaper just to put in a new line. More than a year’s worth of BT standard monthly charges iirc.

[Chrysalis]

here is one of his recent blog entries.

http://www.revk.uk/2016/08/hard-sell-from-bt.html

[kitz]

here is one of his recent blog entries.

http://www.revk.uk/2016/08/hard-sell-from-bt.html

Thanks for the link

The BT plc t/a Openreach side is not that daft – they define SFI differently, and they sell that service as a means to help address broadband faults. They charge because (at least for ADSL) Openreach don’t sell broadband, they sell metallic paths.

The issue here is actually BT plc t/a BT Wholesale, not BT plc t/a Openreach. BT plc t/a BT Wholesale redefine SFI as a service simply to check the line to SIN349, and not a service to fix broadband faults. After all, we would not want to buy a service to fix broadband faults as that is already part of the broadband service we already pay for. That redefinition means we would never want to buy that SFI service. However, logically, BT plc t/a BT Wholesale would want to buy the SFI service from BT plc t/a Openreach to help fix broadband faults (as they are the only people that can work on the line), and as fixing broadband faults is part of the broadband service, they should not charge us when they pay for that service. I hope that make some sense.

Which shows that RevK's gripe with BTw is totally different to what Sky are saying in that Sky think Openreach should charge £x for SFI when they estimate (without figures) that it should be £y.

This is another reason why I think rather than splitting off Openreach... it should be retail that is split. 
Openreach and Wholesale has too much overlap.   In my mind it would be easier if SP's could purchase from one group... regardless of their size..  and purchase just the service(s) they need.  The complexity is that for ISPs such as AAISP have to go through wholesale which has to buy elements from Openreach and then resell to the SPs, yet other ISPs can go straight to Openreach.
Wouldnt it be simpler if all the SP's regardless of who they are purchases direct from the same place the products that they need.

Then let retail buy its own sport packages blah blah blah in the same way that Sky and TT also buy TV services for their EUs and so we can take that old argument out of the books.

[Chrysalis]

yes they different gripe's but I think he will be happy still

[niemand]

This is another reason why I think rather than splitting off Openreach... it should be retail that is split. 
Openreach and Wholesale has too much overlap.   In my mind it would be easier if SP's could purchase from one group... regardless of their size..  and purchase just the service(s) they need.  The complexity is that for ISPs such as AAISP have to go through wholesale which has to buy elements from Openreach and then resell to the SPs, yet other ISPs can go straight to Openreach.
Wouldnt it be simpler if all the SP's regardless of who they are purchases direct from the same place the products that they need.

Then let retail buy its own sport packages blah blah blah in the same way that Sky and TT also buy TV services for their EUs and so we can take that old argument out of the books.

This - BT wanted to merge Openreach and Wholesale anyway, and with FTTC and FTTP meaning Openreach run active hardware now rather than just managed ducts and cables the lines are thoroughly blurred between the two.

[kitz]

yes they different gripe's but I think he will be happy still

I dont see why, as this doesn't address his own issue.   RevK isnt exactly in the pro-split Openreach camp, he also sees that this isnt the solution.  His problems are caused because he purchases from wholesale, who in turn purchase from Openreach.   Too many layers of complexity.

I've said for well over 18 months or so that an Openreach split isn't logical because of overlap... and afaik I was the first person to say that logically it would make more sense to split off retail.   (iirc you called me pro-BT back when dad was still alive, because I didnt say much more than retail was more logical and that splitting off Openreach would be too difficult and only line the pockets off accountants and lawyers and cause too much confusion in the process).

In fact last Dec RevK himself even implied similar - link

Personally I am not convinced the logical split we have now is in the right place.

TBH I think much of the split off Openreach is being driven by Sky and TT etc purely for their own benefit rather than that of the consumer.  I could imply more but I wont go there.

I cant see why OFCOM doesn't see the logical grounds either... and TBF BT themselves are hardly going to suggest it - they are too tied up fighting their corner against any sort of split. 
The LLU based SP's  certainly arent going to suggest it as it would put retail more on a level playing field and they wouldn't have an axe to grind about anything that retail does.   They wouldn't be able to moan if retail offered cheaper Infinity, nor what they decided to do with TV services.