Print

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

[Chrysalis]

Someone somewhere mentioned we should copy japan's system which apparently has end users renting the line directly from the owner of infrastructure (openreach) and companies like sky can sell calls and broadband on that line but not resell the line itself.

I think this is what we should move to, I can forsee a problem where you would get on faults openreach and the isp passing the blame to each other, but thats still better than what we have now as at least the customer is able to contact both directly.

[c6em]

I'll also add that I recently had an electrical supply problem, did I contact my supplier? No I went straight to UK Power Networks and spoke to them, and they sorted out the problem. Now I can't do that with Openreach can I becuase they hide behind CP's.

But unfortunately the problem is that the average consumer should not in reality be allowed to control anything more complicated that a TV.
ISP's are in effect acting as a triage system so that only the real faults (hopefully!) are passed on to BTOR.
Can you imagine it if the general public were allowed to contact BTOR - your genuine problem would be submerged in all the rubbish.

There was one like this on TBB. Internet would not work and poster was ranting about how they could not contact plusnet late a night to complain about the line failure.
Somewhat later they admitted the "fault" was actually someone in the house having swapped round some cables during cleaning and then despite being asked had they changed anything said no.
Had they actually been able to get hold of Plusnet that would have been more time(money) wasted investigating a problem that was not a problem.

I'd agree with @Chrysalis analysis of the situation of why BTOR patch up defective cabling, plus the sheer cost of doing a replacement is far higher than many forumites think.  It would take a lot years of £17pm line rentals to pay for a cable replacement.
Having 3 payments, one to the infrastructure provider, and one each to your data and voice provider is one I have advocated for years on forums. The snag is that BTOR would need to set up a full customer billing and call/faults interfacing systems at yes yet more cost to the consumer.

[Chrysalis]

Well if you consider now 'most' CPs are marking up line rental by 60+%, then openreach already have a buffer to pay for those things without a consumer price increase.

and yeah I remember that post on TBB, was funny.  But to be fair they probably would have done all that before any openreach visit and of course then cancelled the appointment.

[Ronski]

But unfortunately the problem is that the average consumer should not in reality be allowed to control anything more complicated that a TV.
ISP's are in effect acting as a triage system so that only the real faults (hopefully!) are passed on to BTOR.
Can you imagine it if the general public were allowed to contact BTOR - your genuine problem would be submerged in all the rubbish.

There was one like this on TBB. Internet would not work and poster was ranting about how they could not contact plusnet late a night to complain about the line failure.
Somewhat later they admitted the "fault" was actually someone in the house having swapped round some cables during cleaning and then despite being asked had they changed anything said no.
Had they actually been able to get hold of Plusnet that would have been more time(money) wasted investigating a problem that was not a problem.

That's the case with all walks of life though isn't, it doesn't matter what trade your in you will always get the idiots that shouldn't be let loose near something, but that is no excuse for not giving good service or for being passed from pillar to post with lame reasons like I was when I had to sort out my brothers broadband (he shouldn't be let near anything technical!). It took 3 months and was only resolved after I made a CEO level complaint to BT, and it was all down to the crap quality of their copper!

I'd agree with @Chrysalis analysis of the situation of why BTOR patch up defective cabling, plus the sheer cost of doing a replacement is far higher than many forumites think.  It would take a lot years of £17pm line rentals to pay for a cable replacement.

I fully appreciate this, I'm a workshop manager for a commercial workshop and am fully in charge of the repairs to our own vehicles, our customers have the final say as to what gets repaired on their own trucks. You get some who try to save every last penny, doing the bare minimum, this bites them very hard in the pocket when it comes round to MOT time as they have to spend to make sure it will pass and don't get black marks against there record if it fails. The ones who keep there trucks up to good standard at every inspection don't end up with huge bills. BTor is the former, they've penny pinched for years, now it's just too expensive to do anything about and if they were it'd wouldn't make sense to do it with fibre. If they'd been keeping the copper network well maintained then we would all have benefited, well except for the shareholders dividends!

Having 3 payments, one to the infrastructure provider, and one each to your data and voice provider is one I have advocated for years on forums. The snag is that BTOR would need to set up a full customer billing and call/faults interfacing systems at yes yet more cost to the consumer.

This sounds a great idea, now imagine if you took it a step further and all infrastructure providers like VM, Gigaclear, etc all did the same, not just BTor, that would be really good. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for BTor to set up full customer billing and call/faults interfacing systems, after all BT retail has systems in place and the expertise to maintain it they just need to replicate it, not simple but doable.

[broadstairs]

Having 3 payments, one to the infrastructure provider, and one each to your data and voice provider is one I have advocated for years on forums. The snag is that BTOR would need to set up a full customer billing and call/faults interfacing systems at yes yet more cost to the consumer.

This is something I'd support as I would not bother with voice, Skype and a mobile would be all I'd need.

Stuart

[Ktor]

Most service providers back in the days of yore (ADSL), employed some kind of 'Dumb ass DLM', it's only due to the fact that FTTC products are solely controlled by BTw DLM that EU's/ISP get frustrated that they can't hit the reset button whenever they wish.

In the last 9 days my interleaved downstream has racked up a whole 2 CRC errors, the fastpath upstream 5. About 3000 times better than what the dumb arse DLM considers stable. Why is the downstream still interleaved? Why was it ever interleaved?

The DLM isn't just dumb arse, it is broken and BTOR singing "la la la la la" with their fingers stuck in their ears means it isn't worth wasting my time even mentioning it to my ISP.

[kitz]

@ktor

Out of curiosity have you tried putting the TDW-9980 back on the line?

I seem to recall there were some problems with the DSL-AC68U on the Huawei cabs with g.inp last year too.   
There were various f/w versions issued, some lost 10Mbps, there was also something about interleaving being applied despite g.inp.  Im afraid I lost track of the f/w bugs and upgrades though.

However G.INP should have been rolled back by now.  Im hoping that DLM didnt see your modem as g.inp incompatible and as such apply interleaving and therefore why its not come back off

[Ktor]

Out of curiosity have you tried putting the TDW-9980 back on the line?

So now this thread is drifting back towards technical. I could find no mention of G.INP problems on Huawei cabinets including in the 30 page DSL-AC68U thread here. With this recent ECI G.INP implementation yes the cabinet seems to apply +1 level of DLM instead of G.INP.

I tried the TD-W9980 2 days ago and it was also downstream interleaved so perhaps G.INP has been removed except if it was removed it didn't cause a re-sync so I don't know if/when it happened or when I might expect the dumb arse DLM to recover.

About the 13th April I was talking to Asus to try to sort the problem (still completely unaware this ECI/G.INP fiasco was the cause) and swapped modems as a test and changed a couple of settings. On the 14th thinking I had left it 24 hours I tried one more setting change and triggered the dumb arse DLM giving me 64/20 interleave/interleave again. I switched to the TD-W9980 which at least gave me 78/20 interleaved/fastpath and resigned myself to waiting for the dumb arse DLM again. On the 28th April the TD-W9980 re-synced in the early afternoon while a BTOR van was parked next to the cabinet - that was 14 days so it looks like it was stuck then and the BTOR man rebooted the DSLAM or something. The TD-W9980 synced without interleave so it probably wasn't G.INP removal with post G.INP interleave.

I put the DSL-AC68U back on and it has not resynced itself since.

[niemand]

Just lol - if their customers don't like the OR service they can get it from someone else, oops no they can't. Maybe you should look up the definition of monopoly.

There is more to accountability than being able to use another supplier.

[niemand]

Someone somewhere mentioned we should copy japan's system which apparently has end users renting the line directly from the owner of infrastructure (openreach) and companies like sky can sell calls and broadband on that line but not resell the line itself.

That was probably me, back when I remembered what a monopoly is.

NTT supply the underlying service via their NTT East and West subsidiaries. Customers pay NTT and their service provider.

Not possible in the UK for a few reasons. This would be anathema to Sky, TalkTalk and others, and would potentially require structural separation of retail am of BT from wholesale and infrastructure.

Those guys were unhappy enough about having Openreach branded CPE in customers' premises let alone customers continuing to pay what would be seen as BT directly. Also makes it harder for them to hide broadband cost in line rental, as said rental wouldn't be paid to them.

[niemand]

Now I can't do that with Openreach can I becuase they hide behind CP's.

They don't have much choice. When they made noises about being more accessible to end users their customers, the ones they are in no way accountable to, ensured it wouldn't happen.

[Chrysalis]

That was probably me, back when I remembered what a monopoly is.

NTT supply the underlying service via their NTT East and West subsidiaries. Customers pay NTT and their service provider.

Not possible in the UK for a few reasons. This would be anathema to Sky, TalkTalk and others, and would potentially require structural separation of retail am of BT from wholesale and infrastructure.

Those guys were unhappy enough about having Openreach branded CPE in customers' premises let alone customers continuing to pay what would be seen as BT directly. Also makes it harder for them to hide broadband cost in line rental, as said rental wouldn't be paid to them.

Why is there a requirement to keep them happy? Ofcom seem to have got sidetracked in thinking the people it regulates have to be happy, its like a police officer telling a burgler we will only arrest you if you agree to it.

Of course your comment about a split is one of the reasons I wanted a split, split off oepnreach, then have it as its own entity dealing with customers direct, and no accusations of favouring BT as they not the same company.  Keeping the two together as you said would cause issues with this idea, but I think the current arrangement is too anti consumer.

[niemand]

Ofcom have/had an obsession with competition at retail and wholesale level as you know. They have now turned to infrastructure competition somewhat.

The NTT model, in common with Singapore, Korea, etc, a abandons LLU in favour of bitstream in a similar manner to GEA services and infrastructure competition from the cable company.

Actually Openreach will be most of the way to NTT soon, only exception being BT still having a retail arm. GEA and VULA are basically the NTT product.

I keep hearing rumbles about Sky buying TalkTalk. That happens they will be able to lean on Openreach in a big way. Not necessarily bad however Sky aren't famed for being consumer or competition friendly. They want to pay the bare minimum for a product that allows them to continue to rinse consumers for access to their overpriced content. Their complaints about FTTP are purely geared towards hobbling the competition.

[Dray]

I don't understand how you think that "Sky want to pay the bare minimum for a product that allows them to continue to rinse consumers for access to their overpriced content" works. I can see it for Virgin, but Sky?

[kitz]

That was probably me, back when I remembered what a monopoly is.
NTT supply the underlying service via their NTT East and West subsidiaries. Customers pay NTT and their service provider.

I think the topic was also covered on here too last year as a possible solution and it is something that I wouldn't be averse to if it makes things better for the consumers.  It was also mentioned at the time likely objections by the LLU/GEA providers.  I'm sure you had some input.. if not wombat certainly covered it too.

Actually Openreach will be most of the way to NTT soon, only exception being BT still having a retail arm.

One of the things that Ive been saying for about the past year is that it may be more logical to split off the retail arm rather than Openreach.  One of my main objections to an Openreach split is the mess and complications with Wholesale and who owns what..  and how much time and money would be wasted in legal battles trying to decide what belongs to who.     Money which could be better spent on the infrastructure.  An Openreach split also makes me wonder about R&D..  for all our moans about BT, R&D is still one of the things that they do quite good at yet we hear little about, but if you ever went through the patent lists then you'll see just how big their research into new technology is.. its just a shame that it takes them so long to roll out any ideas and inventions.   Its things like Chinese walls that stops Openreach being able to interact with the EU and certain SPs object to EU contact.   Before we got into the Openreach walled situation, BT did use to have trials directly with the EU's and you could interact with them for feedback on the trials. Multi-cast and IPTV for example...  and Im still wondering about the RIN trial about 10yrs ago and if that was the fore-runner to what is now dedicated WBMC.  10years ago there seemed to be more going on and in many ways we as EU's seemed to have more info about what they were planning.   

 If you split off the retail arm then it puts BTr at a far more level playing field with the other SPs.    BT are then able to wholesale whatever service the SP needs, be it GEA/WBC/WBMC etc.   Would it also make things better for some of the SPs such as Zen & AAISP?  Sky is always going to be the big boy, its apparent from their history.  These underground rumours about a Sky take-over of TT are going to make them massive and they will have the monopoly by a long shot as an SP.   Not entirely sure if I like the way things are progressing its all about cheap and less focus on service.  Once upon a time if you were unhappy with your service provider, there was plenty of choice.  Now we are just left with a few main players and a handful of smaller niche providers.