You can't compare the 2.
Openreach are simply adding a liitle FEC overhead by default. It doesn't need testing.
It cant just be enabled and reversed if it doesn't work.
Last time round applying G.INP caused all the White Openreach ECI modems to lose sync.
It caused other modems to considerably lower sync speeds and add huge latency.
G.INP is a relatively new tech, which ECI had problems with.
They had to completely reverse the rollout because of numerous problems with numerous modems.
They've had to back to ECI a number of times after abandoning roll-outs and trials.
I don't blame Openreach for taking their time with G.INP and doing extensive testing.
Just want to say I think g.inp is "not" a new tech, its been used by broadcom on some adsl providers for about a decade now.
Now what do I think about this new default profile and the bodged g.inp rollout?
On the new profile, I think its ok providing there is still a fast path profile for lines with good behaviour to switch to. For some of us its not just about the "bandwidth" but also the latency. Although like kitz I am baffled as to why they even have decided to do this because problematic lines tend to be DLM'd within 48 hours and isp's have a script that fobs people off with "10 days training". I expect this has came about for the same reason as ECI g.inp got rolled back, because CPs are trying to minimise support calls and they prefer to not have the calls at all instead of the fob off "10 days", probably so they can reduce the manning levels in their call centres to save some pennies.
On ECI g.inp I dont think openreach are blameless, especially as openreach modems have been identified as broken, these are not some 3rd party devices that openreach had no control over, they are "openreach issued" devices, to abandon a rollout because of your "own devices" is pretty shambolic, only highlights there was no forward thinking/planning by openreach during the vdsl2 rollout. Generally speaking a proper rollout would be using the latest chipset available (ECI did not, was V41s at time of rollout), and some kind of forward planning, I think its not unreasonable to expect both vectoring and g.inp to have been part of rollout plans, especially as BT have been involved in vectoring trials. Mistakes were clearly made as the rollout clearly was done with a remit of "minimum cost". I was also going to say they should have carried on issuing devices, and using a whitelist approved devices only, although given their own devices have caused problems we know that would not have solved this particular issue.
Now here is another question, does anyone remember the hg612 modem recall for overheating modems? if openreach did one modem recall why cant they do another for the ECI modems. I expect the answer is it wont be approved because of ££.