Looking at kitz post they were seen as a leader just because of capacity? I consider things like stability, compatibility, and features as technology superior rather than capacity, capacity is just something that allows a higher scaled rollout at lower cost. They even struggling to enable g.inp which is a decade old technology.
Read the whole sentence where did I say it was just because of capacity?
The line cards had more capacity and historically ECI had made some serious technological advances when it came to VDSL /snip/ ECI were known and respected by other Telco's outside of the UK.
ECI was the first DSLAM manufacturer to bring out system based vectoring. Historically they were respected by many other Telcos around the Globe for their ADSL equipment. Germany and France had been using them for years.
They even struggling to enable g.inp which is a decade old technology.
I dunno whats gone wrong with g.inp, whilst it may have been around for years.. originally it was PHYR invented by Broadcom.
We've seen Lantiq modems struggle with g.inp with the Huaweis.
There's the ASUS modems which dont work well with Huawei cabs, so much so that G.INP is switched off on Huawei cabs for anyone using those ASUS modems.
When Openreach did implement G.INP on the ECI's it worked fine for most of us here because we use BCM chipsets modems. Those using [hacked] ECI modems were reporting excellent results. The standard ECI/lantiq modems seemed to be ok, but no way of monitoring stats to be certain.
The ECI g.inp problems were with the non Lantiq and BCM chipset based modems eg Draytek, ASUS & even a Fritzbox.
Seems more like some sort of compatibility issue with certain modem chipsets.