Print

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

[waltergmw]

Gentlefolk,

As a cautious purchaser you should read from the BT wholesale checker:-

For all ADSL and WBC Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) services, the stable line rate will be determined during the first 10 days of service usage. Throughput/download speeds will be less than line rates and can be affected by a number of factors within and external to BT's network, Communication Providers' networks and within customer premises.

However what isn't said is:-

BT Openreach no longer guarantee to check at the EU's premises that the line is fit for VDSL purpose (particularly if a subcontractor is employed).

Here's the latest installation delight from sunny Ewhurst.

The Quinn engineer uses his VDSL modem at PCP 20 to check a VDSL service has been enabled on the required pair.
He then goes to the EU's house and installs the new VDSL modem and proudly demonstrates a sync speed of 39.993 Mbps before hurtling off to his next appointment in blissful ignorance.
(Even if he had been fully trained, and unlike his Openreach counterpart, he is quite unable to do any VDSL tests as he is not equipped with a test instrument such as an EXFO or JDSU.)
The next day is fine with the same speed reported but by 08:09 on the second day the speed has reduced to 4.380 Mbps and remains so for the next 23 days.

I have "frozen" screen picture evidence available for Trading Standards or Ofcom enquiries.

Kind regards,
Walter

[ColinS]

For all ADSL and WBC Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) services, the stable line rate will be determined during the first 10 days of service usage. Throughput/download speeds will be less than line rates and can be affected by a number of factors within and external to BT's network, Communication Providers' networks and within customer premises.

Yes indeed, including BTOR itself 'intervening' on the line during that period.

BT Openreach no longer guarantee to check at the EU's premises that the line is fit for VDSL purpose

The concept of 'fitness for purpose' has been particularly difficult to adequately define post-hoc, and has therefore has had a troubled time in the courts in similar IT cases.  I doubt very much that it would be any easier in terms of communications performance.

However, I do agree with you Walter, that there is a crying need for a better overall approach to this. For example, how would we suggest that we define the reasonable expectations of service on an arbitrary line chosen at random? While it might not be impossible, I think it would be extremely difficult.

IMO part of the problem here - and frankly I think this would be no different no matter who was responsible for 'the last mile' - is that there is no obligation on and no incentive for the incumbent to maintain the line plant in a 'reasonable' state (in cost/benefit terms).  Again, a very subjective term to start with - what you or I may think is 'reasonable' is not necessarily what others might think.  Especially when there is constant downward pressure on the cost of line rental which otherwise might pay for it.  It has to be narrowly defined before we can rely upon it.

Like all regulators - and it is no different in this respect -Offcom is more interested in 'competition' in the manifest belief that 'the market' will always give rise to a better service, than in 'protecting' the consumer.  Personally, I know of no instance where that has actually occured, outside of the narrow criteria solely of a race to the bottom on cost.

For these reasons, I doubt you would get anywhere with either Offcom or Tranding Standards. What is really needed is a grown-up debate about our national infrastucture, its guardianship, and how it should be paid for.

However, I have nothing but sympathy for your affected client.  It is of course both ridiculous and infuriating, particularly to the informed.

[waltergmw]

@ Colin S
Sadly the grown up debate has been distorted out of all proportion by Public Servants and Politicians of all persuasions.
When are statements such as "the best broadband in Europe" a substitute for a properly engineered national design using the latest fibre technology ?
Were that the case, the vast proportion of serious performance issues would be quite irrelevant and wouldn't require all the circumlocution and weasel words.
Why has everybody ignored the advice of the expert, Dr Peter Cochrane, BT's former CTO, to the H o L select committee ?
When will somebody being paid by the taxpayers be brave enough to announce that "The Emperor is indeed naked" ?

Kind regards,
Walter

[ColinS]

Walter,

Personally I don't want to get into another 'everything should be fibre' debate.  IMO there are loads of practical reasons why it hasn't and perhaps won't become universal, especially in a time of financial crisis. You and many others have different views.

In the meantime, since you raised the concept of (any) service being 'fit for purpose', how would you actually define it? 

[c6em]

Why has everybody ignored the advice of the expert, Dr Peter Cochrane, BT's former CTO, to the H o L select committee ?
When will somebody being paid by the taxpayers be brave enough to announce that "The Emperor is indeed naked" ?

Because he has become a self publicist
I stopped listening to him some 10years+ ago
http://www.cochrane.org.uk/bio/
says it all really

[waltergmw]

@ Colin S

I would not think it unreasonable that all VDSL installation engineers are equipped to perform the same set of tests that have been carefully engineered presumably by BT's product development organisation.
This would not avoid human error but at least the same set of tests are then recorded for everyone.

As to further definitions, a simple set of averaged speed calculations linked to a fixed charge tariff, might be a more transparent way.
That would avoid other complications where ADSL2 and VDSL2 products are employed.
It might just encourage all suppliers to attempt reasonable remedial works to increase their revenues.

Kind regards,
Walter

[ColinS]

Thanks Walter, a good start. 

Let's give the floor now to others to improve on it ....

[DeadMan]

My guess would be to base it upon customer expectations via the advertising of such products. If a fibre connection is advertised as being able to download movies etc within minutes not hours then you should reasonably be expected to do so. Also if the connection you get is only marginally faster than your existing ADSL connection then that also should be taken into account. Any sensible judge would look at these factors and take them into consideration. It's just how do you get a judge (with some reasonable knowledge and common sense) to hear it?