Print

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

[kitz]

Also thanks for above reply wombat.

I have now changed my view a bit, to me the priority is to have openreach deal direct with the customers, as well as create a environment that encourages investment.  If that happens without a split I would be happy with it.

What weve been saying is not that Openreach shouldnt split just for the sake of keeping BT together and its not because we are BT apologists/flunkies.   
We are all singing from the same hymn sheet and calling for better service to the EU.   Its the EU experience that I care about.

What most of us are saying is that splitting of Openreach wont provide the magic answer that some people think.   There is no guarantee that a split company would perform any better if it was in the hands of foreign investors (which is usually what happens) and they are just as likely, if not more so, to put profit over anything else.
The split just adds more layers of complication and tying up of funds in legal fees and accountants... money which should be put into the infrastructure.

Although I can still only see ofcom increasing regulation if a split doesnt happen.

Of that Ive little doubt.

[kitz]

I give up. This forum is just so pro-BT I'm actually speechless.

You've been given opportunity plenty of times to explain the constant one liner "BT are garbage".   If you can come up with reasons why you think this then fine.  What I got fed up with is the constant negativity and one line "BT is crap" every time anyone posted anything about BT and often totally unrelated to the topic.  It wasnt just me who was saying this, people were getting sick of it and it was becoming disruptive.

Walter is firmly in the anti-BT camp, yet you will find that his posts and comments are respected.  What is said here is no different than debates carried out on other forums such as TBB or ISPr where people who have an understanding of the technology tend to congregate.  RevK sticks up for himself against BT and you'll find I have a great deal of respect for him and agree with what he's saying because it is usually justified. 
Last year tommy had an issue with Plusnet and you will see I went over to the PN forums and also got involved and finger pointed at BTw.   For that I got involved in a load of garbage posts and accusations by those who didnt agree, who thought I was covering up for Plusnet because I was blaming the BTw MSILs.   I spent hours & hours explaining why I thought it was BT to blame.   Even Chrys can back me up on that.

I have absolutely no objection to someone calling BT when they are in the wrong, but Im calling a halt to the personal attacks and jibes that often followed the continual negative remarks.  It is not constructive on any forum.

If you wish to point out that any of the facts provided by wombat, ignitionnet or me or any of the others are wrong, then feel free to do so.
If you wish to find a forum where people can sit all day posting  BT are spawn of the devil..  I suggest you go elsewhere.

--------
ETA

Whilst I was typing out that reply there was yet another post by you using uncalled for language about the actions of one of my mods, which I will not tolerate.   Said posts have now been deleted.   You had more than ample warnings.   The decision has now been made for you.

[WWWombat]

BTW has anyone noticed this?

Yes.

I made a veiled reference to precisely this sale (from KC to CityFibre) in my earlier post to GigabitEthernet, this morning.

I said something like

For a comparison of the alternative, look at Hull. SF coverage there is the worst in the country, bar the Western Isles - because KC are installing FTTP in their Lightstream project. The two adjoining constituencies (towns & villages surrounding Hull) join the city in the bottom ten in the country; KC part-covers these too, but has favoured the Lightstream rollout into these more affluent areas - and they're still low.

There is no BDUK project for Hull, and KC are going it alone - presumably having assured the council of eventual coverage. But I suspect they were about to run out of money, or were "persuaded" by BDUK to accelerate their rollout; it looks like they had to sell off a bunch of assets - including a UK fibre backbone network - to keep funding the Lightstream rollout. Only since they completed that sale, have they finally started to talk of a completion date of 2020.

IIRC, the sale was around £100m, and they have something like another 100k premises to deploy to. £1,000 per home rings a bell.

KC have an advantage, at least - much lower risk. Their vertically-integrated monopoly (truer monopoly than BT has had for a long time) has no competition from Sky, TalkTalk, Virgin or BT. Even though subscribers are taking the lowest tier (50/5 speeds), though with good takeup figures, KC have much more assurance that the extra £5pm will keep coming for decades. But they could really do to have a content strategy too, to get that ARPU higher.

KC had never mentioned any kind of completion date before this sale, and had seemed to be drifting along somewhat.

[burakkucat]

I give up. This forum is just so pro-BT I'm actually speechless.

You've been given opportunity plenty of times to explain the constant one liner "BT are garbage".   If you can come up with reasons why you think this then fine.  What I got fed up with is the constant negativity and one line "BT is crap" every time anyone posted anything about BT and often totally unrelated to the topic.  It wasnt just me who was saying this, people were getting sick of it and it was becoming disruptive.

Just for the record, and so that GigabitEthernet is made perfectly aware, if Kitz had not got to your latest pointless post before me then I would have promptly deleted it. (Just as I have so done, with others of your posts, in the near past.) 

[WWWombat]

Something would have to be put in place to ensure that you can only speak to Openreach with a referral from the SP.

I agree there needs to be some process around this - especially when the issue is with the service over the cable, rather than the cable itself. Some control - and something that manages the financial side of the equation. The ISP is the one who deals with money with the EU, after all.

I do think direct access is needed sometimes - relatively rarely - when the issue relates to the cable or infrastructure itself, without seeing service impacts. But it will be hard to distinguish sometimes.

If you are going to be doing any splitting or merging.. would it actually be more sensible to merge wholesale and openreach?    That could open a whole new can of worms debate.

I have wondered about this too. I also have a recollection that BT asked Ofcom for permission to merge BTW into Openreach.

If there is split company, with no separate BTW, which should be left in charge of the main UK core network? The Openreach side, or the retail side? I'm unsure - and have to think through the consistency with my other principles.

Perhaps the other main players (Sky, TT, Virgin) are large enough that their core networks and transmission networks rival BT's own now.

[kitz]

I think there may have been, but it was first proposed a looooooong time ago possibly in Livingstones early days or thinking about it further, possibly even Verwaayen, so >10years ago?    I cant even recall now what it was over, but it sounds like the sort of thing that Verwaayen would propose.

Ive just tried a quick search, and it appears the subject was brought up even more recently than the one I was recalling.   This is from 2014, but all seems to have gone quiet since.   It mentions it wouldnt be favourable with Sky and TT... so I guess there goes that idea.

>> which should be left in charge of the main UK core network?

My thinking would be Openreach.  You have the bRAS and other equipment in exchange buildings.  That shouldnt be passed over to a retail arm. Otherwise if it went to retail then you'd have the likes of AAISP having to purchase from BTr which would only IMHO make things worse.  Much of the core is maintained (fibre) is maintained by Openreach, and there is a lot of duplication. 

...  which is why I said really perhaps it should be retail that is split off if anything?   
BTr would in effect then just like any other ISP and could then be able to buy from BTw or Murphx/Daisy or even TT...  and their bean counters would have to look at costs and which core transit they use.   It could perhaps cause BTw/Openreach to be more competitive if they know that their largest purchaser could now look outside the group for their suppliers.

No doubt there are lots of flaws in this line of thinking.    A lot of the planning for the core network provision is based on what they know BTr will purchase from them.   

 

[Chrysalis]

Where is the public info on the VETO of openreach direct contact with customers? as its been reported here by people who say they got no affiliation with BT or isp's in the industry so I assume its public somewhere for me to read.  Thanks.

This is probably one of the stories I read...
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/12/bt-openreach-charter-retreats-from-direct-customer-contact-pledge.html

thanks wombat

[jelv]

There is one way that OpenReach could be sorted out and it involves no change to ownership or organisation: compensation.

If OFCOM ruled that missed appointments automatically resulted in an equivalent payment to the EU as the 'fine' the EU has to pay if there's no-one there to let the engineer in.

If for faults there was a fix in two visits rule and any further visits resulted in automatic compensation to the EU.

If for new line orders there was a four week period for them to do the install and then automatic compensation to the EU of £x per week.

If there was compensation for failed installations.

The ISPs would obviously pass those charges on to OR and that would sharp make the bean counters (and shareholders) sit up and take notice and sort out the processes.

[jelv]

BT Engineer appointments

Obviously I had a bit of a rant yesterday, so maybe a chance to be a bit clearer on the real issue here...

Clearly mistakes can happen, appointments can be missed, work can be done wrongly or not completed, p00 happens. It always seems to happen too much, but that is largely because we only "see" the problems.

The big issue here is how BT deal with such things.

The basic process is to arrange another appointment to rectify the problem or complete the work - and this seems to be done as a "normal" appointment. There is no concept of this being a screw up or having any urgency.

Now, we know BT can do work quickly - orders can be expedited (for a fee), and fault work can be done on a 24 hour a day working basis and 4 or 7 hour fix targets, if you have paid for the right service or the right "care level".

So it is possible to get another engineer out now, even if it is 8pm, and even if he is on overtime, to finish the job that should have been done by 6pm. It is possible to send someone on Saturday or even Sunday to finish.

It is certainly possible to make the failed job the first job for the engineer the next morning. That would not even add any cost but it would make a massive difference to end user perception.

But right now there seems to be no concept of a "priority" appointment for where BT have screwed up! Of course, where the CP has screwed up and not BT, BT could sell priority appointments for a fee as well.

If this does add cost that simply adds an incentive within the business to avoid the errors in the first place, and that is important. Without it business processes can simply become lax. Indeed, in some cases the problems mean more paid for work (I am thinking failed SFI visits here).

So, that is what I think needs to change.

P.S. why is a missed appointment charge about £80 where an engineer can simply go on to next job wasting maybe 10 minutes, but when an engineer missed an appointment wasting the end user a half day, BT pay out around £30? Is a BT engineer's time really that much more valuable than the end user's?

[Chrysalis]

Well kitz yes we all want the same thing, but I see this openly and as I said I wouldnt be against openreach staying part of BT as long as they key issues get fixed, however what I observed during discussions is people are saying BT should keep openreach no matter what without giving a really valid reason other than BT will sabotage the company via legal battles etc. if forced to lose it.  So for me I am ok with it staying part of BT if the company direction changes, but I am also ok with it been split off.  The reason I pushed for the split was because I see that its more likely things would progress due to both ofcom backing out on regulation and the extra companies involved pushing for improvements, that was the basis of my points.

Ofcom has already said the status quo isnt going to stay.  So if it isnt split off, then regulation is going to be increased, which I guess will further move openreach away from the end user and also further pressurise low wholesale prices.

Ofcom's clear mistake is to focus too much on wholesale and not enough on retail, they have allowed abuse of fixed line charges, misselling of bundled packages, and openreach to have no accountability to end users.  The openreach situation is to blame by both CPs and openreach themselves, because we the end users have no idea what the CPs are doing in regards to openreach visits, pushing for improvements etc. but instead just assume the CP is innocent everytime.  The CPs obviously like the situation as the blame gets pushed onto another entity.

For this reason its easy to see how ofcom have got so astray, they have been listening too much to the companies they supposed to be regulating, its akin to a criminal telling a judge how to do his job in court.  the consultation processes should ban the companies from taking part.

Whats the largest fine ofcom has imposed e.g.?  Here if an isp is lieing about what its selling they get told nicely to change their adverts, meanwhile elsewhere http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/at-t-fined-100m-us-for-throttling-unlimited-internet-plans-1.3117225

[kitz]

I totally agree this is one of the areas that really does need looking into.

but when an engineer missed an appointment wasting the end user a half day, BT pay out around £30? Is a BT engineer's time really that much more valuable than the end user's?

Is there actually any compensation paid at all?  When I had a HR fault a couple of years ago I was told there was no compensation if its just one failed visit, finding something in print about compensation was at the time exceedingly difficult to find anything about what rights I had.  The only thing I could find is compensation paid by BTretail for missed appts which is £10 - link

So it is possible to get another engineer out now, even if it is 8pm, and even if he is on overtime, to finish the job that should have been done by 6pm. It is possible to send someone on Saturday or even Sunday to finish.

One of the no show appts I had was a Thursday.   I phoned up my ISP to complain and they arranged for a Saturday morning slot.

On sat morning an OR engineer arrived and decided I needed some new external wiring.   Unfortunately he was about in his 50's and had arthritis and as such didnt carry ladders as he couldnt climb them, but would arrange for someone else to come.  I was told it would be Monday.  However I got a phone call at about 8.30 on the Sunday morning saying an engineer was on his way. 

But right now there seems to be no concept of a "priority" appointment for where BT have screwed up!

During that HR episode I also had another no show, appt.   
However it was automatically picked up first thing the next day.  My job turned out being a practically all day to fix job and he worked his but off (10 mins to eat his packed lunch in the back of his van was the only time out he took).

Being that my 2 hour slot was turning into an all-dayer I asked what they did in these situations.   It turned out this particular engineer appeared to have more lee-way as he was sent out on the more complicated to fix issues that could sometimes run over.     

I was told the normal procedure is that if an engineer is going to run over allotted time and can clearly see he is not going to make the next visit then he should report to somewhere (cant recall now what he called it) and they should attempt to contact the customer.    These 'failed' appts then go into a pool which any other engineers could pick up if they wished to make some overtime.   So you could end up getting an engineer come later in the eve..  however its not always the case it did get picked up then problems may start and you have to re-appt.

---
So it is possible for them to turn up weekends etc.   It should also mention that this was at a time when there were mega screw-ups from the contractors and Openreach engineers were very busy.  So if Openreach at that time was being more lenient towards paying overtime I have no idea. 
I didnt ever get any compensation for the 2 no shows though.

[Chrysalis]

CPs get compensated, but there is no CPs I am aware of that compensate the customer (at least not automatically).  This is another reason why the current system is bad, openreach cannot compensate the end user because they cannot have direct dealings.

The only 2 time's I got a sunday engineer was when I was with falconnet a enta reseller many years ago, it was for a voice fault and he turned up on a sunday unexpected, rupert the guy who ran falconnet (great guy) was in surprise as openreach told him noone was available.  That engineer was a good guy as he also went to the exchange to fix my adsl (which stayed down when he fixed the voice before he fixed) to save me the hassle of reporting a new fault.  The second time was when aaisp arranged a BT engineer to clear loose cabling of my roof, that guy was there for about 2-3 hours.  Also years ago in my adsl days when openreach were not so bad.

In the years before openreach was formed, I remember ringing freeserve about 2pm to report my adsl went down on a sunday, by 5pm BT had attended to it at the exchange and I was back online.

[kitz]

Just had a thought triggered by recalling the period of time when I had a fault. 

1) The Sat and Sunday visits were originally as a result of a botched contractor installation who made a total mess of my internal wiring.*

Its since that time that you see a heck of a lot more complaints about Openreach engineers and how useless they were.    Here on these forums we know about Quinn and Kelly contractors, yet often they arrive in vans which have an Openreach sticker and in smaller letters something like 'Working on behalf of'.  Are the general public aware that these weren't true Openreach engineers.    During the same period Openreach also took on ex-Service personal.   
One of the visits I had was an ex-marine and was actually quite rude and belittling when I tried to explain my fault.   He refused to do a TDR test.  One of the things he saw when connecting he JSDU was lots and lots of CRCs.  We actually got into a bit of a debate  over his statement "They dont matter because they carry data which they can recover form..  and Im not getting FECs which indicate more of a problem"  - Bear in line this line wasnt interleaved so there wouldnt be any FECs.   I complained about his rudeness and insistence that he was correct.

My point here being,  not all OR engineers are perfect, but the use of contractors and ex service personal will not have helped public facing perception of Openreach.   There is no doubt complaints rose during this period.

2) VDSL is far less tolerant of HR type faults which are hard to track down.

Im not aware of any statistics anywhere, but from what we see on the forums, because vdsl pushes the line more then there are more faults reported since fttc than when just adsl. 
Some of these faults are very hard to resolve.  Should Openreach engineers be far more aware of the effects of SNRm, CRCs etc.    The lack of decent modem stats on the equipment supplied to the EU equipment doesnt help much either.



*It should be noted that I started with what initially looked like some sort of EMI fault at the same time that I had ordered FTTC.   I was not going to delay the FTTC installation and migration if there could be a chance that it may sort during the process.    As it turned out perhaps I should have got it fixed first via BE* because the fault was much easier to see and far more service disruptive when on an adsl2+ with a 3dB SNRm than on fttc with 12db of surplus SNRM  

----------
ETA

Also years ago in my adsl days when openreach were not so bad.

Our posts crossed, but having just seen yours, it fits quite nicely with what I just typed. 
So why has Openreach got worse since fttc?  Could the 2 points above not be helping?

[Chrysalis]

check my edit kitz

The current system allows an isp to profit from faults, if engineer is a no show they get payment from openreach whilst customer still paying them for a faulty service.

[kitz]

lol... I just did an edit too.

The current system allows an isp to profit from faults, if engineer is a no show they get payment from openreach whilst customer still paying them for a faulty service.

That is just plain wrong that the ISPs dont pass this back to the EU.  OFCOM should be looking at that practice 

Whats the largest fine ofcom has imposed e.g.?  Here if an isp is lieing about what its selling they get told nicely to change their adverts, meanwhile elsewhere http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/at-t-fined-100m-us-for-throttling-unlimited-internet-plans-1.3117225

Again an area which OFCOM in the UK seems to ignore and its more down to ASA.

You are correct that OFCOM does appear in instances like this, not really protecting public interests.