Rented house, getting in UPC or Eircom?

Richard Dower · 24-05-2013 07:00PM #1

How do landloards feel about tenants getting in a landline or UPC?
Do you insist the tenant ask permission?

I personally think having the stuff installed adds to the "value" of a rented property for future prospective tenants.

Yawns · 24-05-2013 07:07PM

These days in most houses I would expect a landline installed at the least. It doesn't have to be active, just installed would meet my requirements. Then if the tenant wanted internet, all they have to do is sign up to a company who will then get Eircom to activate the line.

I wouldn't expect UPC cable as a minimum but I would like to think a LL wouldn't have a problem against it. Broadband is more popular these days and I think LL's should try to provide a way of accessing it. I wouldn't rent a place if I couldn't get broadband in and I won't use 3G mobile broadband.

athtrasna · 24-05-2013 07:12PM

As a tenant you should NEVER cause holes to be drilled through the landlord's property without permission so if the place isn't pre-wired you need to talk to your landlord and be prepared for them to say no.

Tenants should check services before moving in and not expect to be able to have them installed after that.

ProudDUB · 24-05-2013 08:01PM

Agree that the landlord should be consulted before anyone comes in and starts drilling into his walls. Whether or not it would add to the properties rental value, is irrelevant. That is a decision to be made by the owner of the property, and no one else. It is especially important if it is an apartment instead of a house. An apt will share walls, floors and ceilings with others apartments & having new cabling installed in it is not as simple or easy as it in in house.

vue02 · 24-05-2013 09:10PM

Even if cable is installed, the next tenant will have to pay for it to be activated,
That means paying the line rental, and whatever package you get from upc or whoever.

For instance, if you move in to a place that has a upc cable connection, it won't be active until you subscribe to upc.
If you just get a tv package for say 30 per month, you pay them for the line rental also, just like eircom do.

Yawns · 24-05-2013 09:17PM

Yes Vue02 but that's a given that the tenant will have to pay for the service. My point was that these services should be available to the tenant should they wish to use them. When I moved to my apartment I knew that UPC didn't do broadband but I made sure that there was broadband available in the area from Eircom, Vodafone etc. So when looking at houses & apartments I made sure that an Eircom line was in the house. The apartment I settled on in the end had a line in but wasn't active which is fine as when I took out a package with Vodafone then & now Sky, they got Eircom to activate the line and give me a new number.

I think in these days, it's more prudent for a LL to have these services available to the tenant. I'm not suggesting someone just ring UPC and have holes put in the wall without the LL's consent.

vue02 · 25-05-2013 05:43AM

Sorry i might have misunderstood, but i agree the property owner should have these installed even though they are deactivated.
And it's probably one of the first things someone would look for when moving to a new address, phone line or cable connection.

The_Conductor · 25-05-2013 09:56AM

Phone lines are increasingly uncommon- there are a myriad of providers who can supply you with a local phone number by any of a number of different means. If you're not willing to rent a property without one- don't- but they becoming increasingly uncommon.

Some manner of cable tv is almost more ubiquitous than physical phone lines in most places built in the last 15 years, and more often than not, this connection is also capable of supplying broadband (whether its active or not is another thing).

Lots of companies have fibre to the door in the larger urban areas (indeed often in some villages too)- the idea of a copper connection is almost quaint.

Eircom has by and large fallen out of favour with most consumers who've had the misfortune to be customers over the past decade- they have limited investment in infrastructure, and the entire company is often held up as an international example of what happens when asset stripping goes haywire. They have invested significant money in hyping their new fibre offerings- which while they describe them as next generation, are less than a quarter the speeds available from Metro, UPC or others of their competitors- with incredibly onerous tie-in periods (most people only look at the initial monthly price, not realising its a teaser that doubles after 6 months, and they're tied in for 2 years- or however long their marketing people think they'll get away with).

Personally- I'd look unfavourably at a property that had an Eircom phone line installed. I'd like a UPC connection- but only for broadband, I'd have no interest in their phone or tv offerings. I'd also like permission to put up a Saorsat satellite dish, alongside a UK Freeview system. Very few people rely on landlines any more- I send over 10 times more e-mail than I make phone calls, I even send more cards and letters in the physical post, than I make landline calls. If it was a particularly rural area- perhaps your options might be more limited, but if you have choice- why not choose the more affordable and technically better options?

djimi · 25-05-2013 10:01AM

In this day and age as far as Im concerned its a minimum requirement of any property to have some form of cabled broadband (be it UPC where possible, or Eircom when not). If a landlord is unwilling/unable to accomodate this then the property is not worth renting in my view.

Rented house, getting in UPC or Eircom?

Comments