Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Edward Dore]

Hi Neil,

Were you able to find out the reason behind there not being an option for CPs 
to pay extra to keep the BT/Openreach supplied VDSL modem with the customer 
facing Ethernet port as the demarcation point for the service?

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet

Whilst we try to ensure that all of our messages are free of viruses we can 
make no guarantees and advise you to check them with your own anti virus 
software.

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 20:29, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> 
> Edward
> It's a fair challenge I will comeback with a fuller response.
> 
> Regards
> Neil
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:50, Edward Dore  > wrote:
> 
>> Hi Neil,
>> 
>> I may have missed this, so apologies if it has already been explained 
>> elsewhere, but are you able to shed any light on what the official reason is 
>> for not leaving CPs with the option of paying extra to have a BT/Openreach 
>> supplied VDSL modem with the customer facing Ethernet port as the 
>> demarcation point for the service?
>> 
>> Surely if CPs are willing to continue to pay extra for this option over the 
>> line-only service, then it shouldn't be a problem to offer both variants of 
>> the service? The likes of Sky and TalkTalk get their reduced cost service 
>> where they can bundle their own integrated VDSL modem/router at the cost of 
>> moving the demarcation point back to the master socket similar to ADSL and 
>> smaller CPs get to keep using the BT/Openreach supplied separate VDSL modems 
>> with the demarcation point at the customer facing Ethernet port, but pay 
>> extra for doing so.
>> 
>> Edward Dore
>> Freethought Internet
>> 
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Neil J. McRae > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
 On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater >>> > wrote:
 
 But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
 principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
 business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
 the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.
>>> 
>>> What absolute codswallop.
>>> 
>>> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs 
>>> fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would 
>>> assert we make more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't.
>>> 
>>> In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given 
>>> the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it 
>>> was felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable.
>>> It's a very different world now.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Brian Candler]

On 17/09/2015 10:19:46, James Bensley  wrote:

A common deployment is that we are using static IPs between CPE and
exchange device, then the customer is running DHCP relay (it's
configured on our CPE LAN interface) back to a central DHCP server
somewhere else in their WAN. We've had some issues with this not
working at a handful of exchanges and they were the only NGA sites we
had at those exchanges so we had nothing to compare against.
DHCP relay is just unicast UDP. It would be extremely evil if an 
upstream device were to intercept that and mangle it.


You could easily get around it though, for example by routing your DHCP 
traffic over IPSEC or GRE, or perhaps just by using non-standard port 
numbers.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Robin Williams]

On 17/09/15 10:01, James Bensley wrote:

On 14 September 2015 at 22:55, Tom Hill  wrote:

On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:

I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
switch.

I know if I were building it, I'd be avoiding switch stacking at _any_ cost.

I agree with Tom, stacking in my experience is a nightmare waiting to
happen


I guess 'switch stack' could have been equally been 'bigger single 
chassis switch with more ports', though that may have made it harder 
with the vlan duplications.  Of course, if the GEA cable links were 
priced more reasonably, it wouldn't be a problem - perhaps I'm thinking 
of technical solutions to a problem with the OR cost model...


Cheers,
Robin.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[James Bensley]

On 14 September 2015 at 13:34, Alistair C  wrote:
> On 14 September 2015 at 12:43, James Bensley  wrote:
>>
>> On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C  wrote:
>>
>> > Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay
>> > for
>> > their LAN side, on FTTC?
>>
>>
>> Yes.

> Interesting, are you using DHCP, PPPoE, Static, or a mixture for the WAN
> side for these sites?

We typically use static for the WAN connection from our CPE back to
Exchange PE device. We did test DHCP, it worked, but we prefer static.

> I'm having a dig through my email archives to see if I still have the
> original test results but essentially we have to tunnel the DHCP requests,
> in order to correctly relay and receive a properly formed response, for our
> customers.
>
> I just mentioned this to a colleague and there may have been a few instances
> where we did not apply the workaround, yet the relay seemed to function
> correctly. Perhaps a difference between the different DSLAM manufacturers
> though this seems unlikely.

Funny you should say that...

I always suspected something dodgy about the Openreach set up and I
still believe that, see below, I wonder if these exchanges (well
street-cab-DSLAMs really) used different model DSLAMs, maybe a
different firmware version or configuration, where there a couple of
duff deployments that slipped through the net?

> We have been and are able to demonstrate, time and again that if the request
> is not tunneled to our PE, the end user LAN side equipment will not obtain a
> valid lease, from their central DHCP servers. Something we do not need to do
> with our EAD or EFM connected sites which have an identical configuration.
>
> Would be interesting to hear if other operators echo this or if indeed it
> seems to be just an oddity with our particular setup.

A common deployment is that we are using static IPs between CPE and
exchange device, then the customer is running DHCP relay (it's
configured on our CPE LAN interface) back to a central DHCP server
somewhere else in their WAN. We've had some issues with this not
working at a handful of exchanges and they were the only NGA sites we
had at those exchanges so we had nothing to compare against.

We have NGA cable links at hundreds of exchanges but for this handful
(spread out, we couldn't find any commonality between them) of end
sites at this handful of exchanges, our CPE was forwarding the DHCP
request over the FTTC link and the customer's central DHCP server was
never receiving it. (or I think maybe it received it but it was
mangled somehow?).

At sites where it does work, we can see that BT are intercepting the
DHCP request even though it leaves our CPE with a VLAN tag on it push
on by the CPE (so it arrives at our exchange device double-tagged),
and inserting the sync speed (as they should do, per the SIN document,
although it doesn't say if they will only do it for untagged, tagged
or both kinds of traffic).

I moved on to another project at that time so another engineer began
investing. I've had a dig through the records, we obviously spoke to
Openreach about this. They declined any issue at any of the exchanges,
we also asked if they could disable the DHCP inspection feature but
they said it was a [VDSL] DSLAM wide setting and would affect all CPs,
so they couldn't. It seems we have tried replacing the CPE, and
different firmware versions (even though the first set up is working
at hundreds of other exchanges and thousands of sites).

The records show that since this was chewing up delivery time and
since we are an LLU provider we have rolled out EFM to these handful
of sites instead and cancelled the NGAs due to the issue not being
resolved.


Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[James Bensley]

On 14 September 2015 at 22:55, Tom Hill  wrote:
> On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:
>> I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
>> smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
>> switch.
>
> I know if I were building it, I'd be avoiding switch stacking at _any_ cost.

I agree with Tom, stacking in my experience is a nightmare waiting to
happen however OP could certainly expand their VLAN range, they only
go up to like 20 or 30 or something stupid per cable link.

James.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tom Hill]

On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:
> I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
> smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
> switch.

I know if I were building it, I'd be avoiding switch stacking at _any_ cost.

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Alistair C]

On 14 September 2015 at 12:43, James Bensley  wrote:

> On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C  wrote:
>
> > Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay
> for
> > their LAN side, on FTTC?
>
>
> Yes.
>

Interesting, are you using DHCP, PPPoE, Static, or a mixture for the WAN
side for these sites?

I'm having a dig through my email archives to see if I still have the
original test results but essentially we have to tunnel the DHCP requests,
in order to correctly relay and receive a properly formed response, for our
customers.

I just mentioned this to a colleague and there may have been a few
instances where we did not apply the workaround, yet the relay seemed to
function correctly. Perhaps a difference between the different DSLAM
manufacturers though this seems unlikely.

We have been and are able to demonstrate, time and again that if the
request is not tunneled to our PE, the end user LAN side equipment will not
obtain a valid lease, from their central DHCP servers. Something we do not
need to do with our EAD or EFM connected sites which have an identical
configuration.

Would be interesting to hear if other operators echo this or if indeed it
seems to be just an oddity with our particular setup.

-- 
Alistair Cockeram

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Robin Williams]

On 14/09/15 12:43, James Bensley wrote:

On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C  wrote:

On 14 September 2015 at 09:00, James Bensley  wrote:


I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
it!), they just intercept it an insert the link speed as extra values.


Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay for
their LAN side, on FTTC?


Yes.

Cheers,
James.



Likewise here.  I was once told it wouldn't work but I've never had any 
problems with it.  Ditto QinQ and other 'business' requirements (though 
having handover tags repeat per cable link, per exchange can be a bit of 
a pain for re-writing.


Off topic, but never have understood why OR don't stack switches on 
their side, instead requiring CPs to purchase £2k cable links to each 
FTTC handover switch, of which there can be many per exchange 
(especially as after the first link, additional links are just a patch 
cable).  some suggest that this could be a money 
making venture   I'm sure there's a sound technical 
reason, but again, it disadvantages smaller CPs disproportionately who 
may only have a few customers on each switch.


Robin.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[James Bensley]

On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C  wrote:
> On 14 September 2015 at 09:00, James Bensley  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
>> service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
>> it!), they just intercept it an insert the link speed as extra values.
>
>
> Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay for
> their LAN side, on FTTC?


Yes.

Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Alistair C]

On 14 September 2015 at 09:00, James Bensley  wrote:

>
> I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
> service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
> it!), they just intercept it an insert the link speed as extra values.
>

Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay
for their LAN side, on FTTC?

-- 
Alistair Cockeram

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[James Bensley]

On 12 September 2015 at 19:58, Alistair C  wrote:

> That and the fact they effectively block DHCP option 82, utilising it for
> sync data as per the SIN, thus needing a workaround for those customers who
> require it. I'd argue this is a fairly typical requirement for a business
> network.


I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
it!), they just intercept it an insert the link speed as extra values.

The same is true I believe for WBMC. I haven't checked that one but
again I think they just insert the sync rates to that we can see the
link speed, which you need for QoS :)

Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Alistair C]

On 10 September 2015 at 17:39, Paul Astle  wrote:

> Openreach have an excellent pedigree in offering tiered SLAs and the
> removal
> of the CPE leads me to question whether Openreach continue to view FTTC as
> a
> business grade option with future enhancements in this area - putting this
> into context would Openreach ever entertain removing the NID for an EAD
> service and consider this as a workable solution?


I don't *think* BT view FTTC as a business grade option, in the same way
they didn't and don't view DSL as a business grade option. The available
SLA's provide a clear picture on this, in my opinion.

The historical picture for rollout *seems* (conjecture) to be, in my
experience, one of targeting residential but avoiding cabinets that have
business parks / premises, presumably avoid eroding the EAD / other
services, which are likely to be more profitable.

That and the fact they effectively block DHCP option 82, utilising it for
sync data as per the SIN, thus needing a workaround for those customers who
require it. I'd argue this is a fairly typical requirement for a business
network.

All said and done, happy to be able to use FTTC to our advantage. We see
far fewer faults than with our EFM services, as you'd expect, yes I think
it will be a step back to lose the option for supplied modems, from a fault
resolution perspective only.

-- 
Alistair Cockeram

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Paul Astle]

I have asked the same question to my CRM and the OTA with no response so any 
light you could shed on it would be great.

Thanks,

Paul Astle

This email was Sent from my iPhone please excuse any grammar and spelling 
mistakes. 

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 8:29 pm, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
> 
> Edward
> It's a fair challenge I will comeback with a fuller response. 
> 
> Regards
> Neil
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:50, Edward Dore 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Neil,
>> 
>> I may have missed this, so apologies if it has already been explained 
>> elsewhere, but are you able to shed any light on what the official reason is 
>> for not leaving CPs with the option of paying extra to have a BT/Openreach 
>> supplied VDSL modem with the customer facing Ethernet port as the 
>> demarcation point for the service?
>> 
>> Surely if CPs are willing to continue to pay extra for this option over the 
>> line-only service, then it shouldn't be a problem to offer both variants of 
>> the service? The likes of Sky and TalkTalk get their reduced cost service 
>> where they can bundle their own integrated VDSL modem/router at the cost of 
>> moving the demarcation point back to the master socket similar to ADSL and 
>> smaller CPs get to keep using the BT/Openreach supplied separate VDSL modems 
>> with the demarcation point at the customer facing Ethernet port, but pay 
>> extra for doing so.
>> 
>> Edward Dore 
>> Freethought Internet 
>> 
>>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
 
 But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
 principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
 business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
 the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.
>>> 
>>> What absolute codswallop.
>>> 
>>> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs 
>>> fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would 
>>> assert we make more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't. 
>>> 
>>> In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given 
>>> the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it 
>>> was felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable. 
>>> It's a very different world now.

-- 

--
The Networking People (NorthWest) Limited. Registered office: c/o Hanleys, 
Spring Court, Hale, Cheshire, WA14 2UQ. Registered in England & Wales with 
company number: 07667393

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient 
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any 
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Neil J. McRae]

Edward
It's a fair challenge I will comeback with a fuller response.

Regards
Neil


Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:50, Edward Dore 
mailto:edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk>>
 wrote:

Hi Neil,

I may have missed this, so apologies if it has already been explained 
elsewhere, but are you able to shed any light on what the official reason is 
for not leaving CPs with the option of paying extra to have a BT/Openreach 
supplied VDSL modem with the customer facing Ethernet port as the demarcation 
point for the service?

Surely if CPs are willing to continue to pay extra for this option over the 
line-only service, then it shouldn't be a problem to offer both variants of the 
service? The likes of Sky and TalkTalk get their reduced cost service where 
they can bundle their own integrated VDSL modem/router at the cost of moving 
the demarcation point back to the master socket similar to ADSL and smaller CPs 
get to keep using the BT/Openreach supplied separate VDSL modems with the 
demarcation point at the customer facing Ethernet port, but pay extra for doing 
so.

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet

On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Neil J. McRae 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:


On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater 
mailto:gordsla...@gmail.com>> wrote:

But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.

What absolute codswallop.

"Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs fixing 
then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would assert we make 
more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't.

In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given the 
lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it was 
felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable.
It's a very different world now.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Neil J. McRae]

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:20, Alex Bloor  wrote:
> 
>> On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> What absolute codswallop.
> 
> I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.

Alex
Do i agree we need to do better at managing faults? - absolutely. Do I agree 
that we deliberately don't want to fix things that are a problem on the network 
- absolutely no freaking way, if we see a fault we fix it. The fault rate 
across the network continues to improve and my target is that we are the best 
in the industry - we are absolutely focused on that. 

> 
>> In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but
>> given the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL
>> chipsets it was felt that having this as part of the product was
>> unavoidable. It's a very different world now.
> 
> Yes, it's a different world where it takes many months to get a
> modem/router approved by Martlesham.

If you see any problems in this process - please let me know. We are working 
through a lot of testing. 

Regards,
Neil.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Edward Dore]

Hi Neil,

I may have missed this, so apologies if it has already been explained 
elsewhere, but are you able to shed any light on what the official reason is 
for not leaving CPs with the option of paying extra to have a BT/Openreach 
supplied VDSL modem with the customer facing Ethernet port as the demarcation 
point for the service?

Surely if CPs are willing to continue to pay extra for this option over the 
line-only service, then it shouldn't be a problem to offer both variants of the 
service? The likes of Sky and TalkTalk get their reduced cost service where 
they can bundle their own integrated VDSL modem/router at the cost of moving 
the demarcation point back to the master socket similar to ADSL and smaller CPs 
get to keep using the BT/Openreach supplied separate VDSL modems with the 
demarcation point at the customer facing Ethernet port, but pay extra for doing 
so.

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet

On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:59, Neil J. McRae  wrote:

> 
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
>> 
>> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
>> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
>> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
>> the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.
> 
> What absolute codswallop.
> 
> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs fixing 
> then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would assert we make 
> more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't.
> 
> In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given 
> the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it 
> was felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable.
> It's a very different world now.
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Paul Astle]

Openreach have an excellent pedigree in offering tiered SLAs and the removal
of the CPE leads me to question whether Openreach continue to view FTTC as a
business grade option with future enhancements in this area - putting this
into context would Openreach ever entertain removing the NID for an EAD
service and consider this as a workable solution?

Andy

Unfortunately OR are in the process of trialling the removal of the EAD NTE
and providing a fibre only service. Prepare for a race to the bottom with
enterprise grade fibre Ethernet circuits!

-- 

--
The Networking People (NorthWest) Limited. Registered office: c/o Hanleys, 
Spring Court, Hale, Cheshire, WA14 2UQ. Registered in England & Wales with 
company number: 07667393

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient 
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any 
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[John Devine]

On 10/09/2015 17:19, Alex Bloor wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> What absolute codswallop.
> I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.
>
>> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it
>> needs fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I
>> would assert we make more money having stuff that works than stuff
>> that doesn't.
> Where I sit, a spreadsheet that spans sixteen A4 pages of faults that
> have all been round the disputes process multiple times is pinned to the
> wall behind me.
>
> About half of them have finally been (rightfully) credited, and half
> still in laborious "dispute".
>
> Whilst I cannot disagree with the spirit of your comment that you make
> more money from happy customers, I suspect BT does, in fact, make some
> money out of customers who've been wrongly charged for SFI, and *not*
> wasted their time disputing.
>
> I think SFI might even be a profitable activity for BT. I hardly need to
> point out how morally wrong this is, if it's true.
>
> I can only see this SFI income increasing under a regime where the
> demarcation point is blurred and modems can be casually classed as "not
> approved", and therefore "to blame" by default.
>
> "Right When Tested" will no doubt by surpassed by "Wrong Modem In Use"
> as the leading excuse for charging an SFI.
>
> Pretty much every dispute we have, we eventually win. But only after
> we've wasted huge amounts of man-hours chasing them. This comes off our
> bottom line.
>
>> In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but
>> given the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL
>> chipsets it was felt that having this as part of the product was
>> unavoidable. It's a very different world now.
> Yes, it's a different world where it takes many months to get a
> modem/router approved by Martlesham.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alex.
>
Nicely Said Alex, I agree completely, the number of BT engineers I have
had out on faults coming back a 2nd, 3rd,4th,5th and 6th time for the
same fault and leaving having done nothing is exasperating to say the
least...timewasting to an execeptional degree, why do most of us
here say BT are bad at fixing faults, we can't all be making it
up..surely.

JD

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Andrew Symons]

On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> What absolute codswallop.

+1 for maintaining a managed NID option - we are a niche ISP and don't enjoy a 
large FTTC estate - We have insufficient scale to test and deploy large no's of 
early day buggy FTTC modems - generally the only USP left to smaller ISP's is 
providing excellent levels of support for the customer and the removal of the 
FTTC modem will only serve to decrease the reliability, create bad feeling 
between the customer and the ISP and increase fault resolution times.

I fully understand the need for a wires-only unmanaged FTTC service for the 
mass consumer market however our customers are looking for reliability over the 
savings this "improved method" could ever offer - we will now have to decide on 
a reasonable quality, always in stock, reliable modem - something which in the 
early days of ADSL was hard to come by - IMO (for what it is worth) Openreach 
should see sense and realise there is actually a reasonable business case to 
provide a chargeable add-on to standard FTTC that would include a managed 
installation/modem and stronger SLA - certainly most business customers would 
consider this and therefore allow Openreach to maintain the all too valuable 
income stream from this base.

If such an option was to appear OR would need to ensure this is fully delivered 
end to end within Openreach ensuring the issues that BTW EFM suffers from are 
avoided (where too often EFM faults bounce between Wholesale (equipment/cables) 
and Openreach (LLU) with each bounce suffering a day of delay)  <- Is this not 
the argument for keeping a managed FTTC NID when two companies in BT Group 
(albeit "separate")  cannot line their ducks up to solve simple copper line 
fault issues - what hope does an external untrusted party like us have.

Openreach have an excellent pedigree in offering tiered SLAs and the removal of 
the CPE leads me to question whether Openreach continue to view FTTC as a 
business grade option with future enhancements in this area - putting this into 
context would Openreach ever entertain removing the NID for an EAD service and 
consider this as a workable solution?

Andy

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Alex Bloor]

On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> What absolute codswallop.

I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.

> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it
> needs fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I
> would assert we make more money having stuff that works than stuff
> that doesn't.

Where I sit, a spreadsheet that spans sixteen A4 pages of faults that
have all been round the disputes process multiple times is pinned to the
wall behind me.

About half of them have finally been (rightfully) credited, and half
still in laborious "dispute".

Whilst I cannot disagree with the spirit of your comment that you make
more money from happy customers, I suspect BT does, in fact, make some
money out of customers who've been wrongly charged for SFI, and *not*
wasted their time disputing.

I think SFI might even be a profitable activity for BT. I hardly need to
point out how morally wrong this is, if it's true.

I can only see this SFI income increasing under a regime where the
demarcation point is blurred and modems can be casually classed as "not
approved", and therefore "to blame" by default.

"Right When Tested" will no doubt by surpassed by "Wrong Modem In Use"
as the leading excuse for charging an SFI.

Pretty much every dispute we have, we eventually win. But only after
we've wasted huge amounts of man-hours chasing them. This comes off our
bottom line.

> In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but
> given the lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL
> chipsets it was felt that having this as part of the product was
> unavoidable. It's a very different world now.

Yes, it's a different world where it takes many months to get a
modem/router approved by Martlesham.

Kind regards,

Alex.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Alex Bloor]

On 07/09/2015 15:27, Robin Williams wrote:
> What are the thoughts of smaller OR CPs represented here regarding the
> withdrawal of Openreach FTTC CPEs as an option?

Absolutely terrible idea, from our/my perspective.

At present (with OR supplied modem) we have a fairly clear demarcation
point of sorts at the ethernet port. Wonderful.

In future there will be a significant grey area.

What is significantly more galling is the sort of veiled threat
surrounding the use of "unapproved" (at Martlesham) modems. This
wouldn't be quite so bad if Martlesham were rattling through the testing
process and approving lots of new models.

But apparently it takes FIVE MONTHS to test a single item, and oh,
there's a queue. So, submit one now, and you might wait eight months.

This is not really on.

Whilst I recognise this might not be a malicious act on BT's part, I do
find it hard not to feel that we are being backed slowly into a corner
where we report a fault, OR simply toss it back due to an "unapproved
modem" and we are at a bit of a loss what to do.

I am quite happy with the idea of allowing a choice - i.e. SP to supply
the all CPE, or SP to supply router, with modem from OR.

Some providers do favour a "one box" setup, and that is fine.

But actually stopping the optional (extra cost) provision of the whole
end-to-end (i.e. inc. modem) is a terrible idea, and we've said so to
the (far too many) account managers we've had since the idea was announced.

A.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Gord Slater]

On 10 September 2015 at 14:59, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
>>
>> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
>> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
>> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
>> the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.
>
> What absolute codswallop.
>
> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs fixing 
> then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would assert we make 
> more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't.

In every occasion I've been involved with a problem they've enjoyed
the same income regardless, in some case charging for SFI that hasn't
reached a conclusion. Changing ISP does not change the copper plant,
only the attitude of the ISP in chasing the fault.

The customers are not responsible for underinvestment,
under-performance, lack of future planning or other business excuses
whether they have actually happened or are merely perceived. I'm sure
your group has faced many big challenges along the way, as do others.
Customers are simply responsible for paying the bills. I can't speak
for others but I pay mine, directly and indirectly, to BT Group by
several routes depending on the actual product I pay for.b
I appreciate your person enthusiasm and acknowledge that you and your
gang have done a hell of a lot which is often forgotten in the
custard-pie fighting that crops up occasionally. But there's a lot you
aren't personally or departmentally responsible for and has directly
affeced the customers of BTOR, BTW and even BTR in many different
ways.

In particular, I don't expect you to defend on apologise for any
failings outside your sphere of responsibilty, your group is simply so
huge that would be impossible even if you wanted to. Having worked
with many ex-BT staff over the years I understand the extreme
complexities and pressures your group faces. Even the simple things
you do are well beyond the grasp of the average consumer.

All I'm saying is that as a customer (and a customer or several levels
and standpoints) I *want* a standardised, supported, reliable BT group
modem for VDSL at the CPE end with the demarc on the ethernet side of
the box - it's that simple as that. That's your end, link quality
issues are your legal responsibility and problem, within such SLAs you
specifically charge for or apply by default to various products. I
want the *confidence* that if the problem is in the plant betwixt
exchange and premises right up to the ethernet socket on terminating
CPE of the xDSL, that's your problem. The rest of the problems are
mine beyond that point.
I want that to apply to *every* line in the country, by default,
unless specific arrangements have been made to the contrary and the
customer or ISP is prepared to take that responsibility themselves at
their own risk.


 The ADSL days were simple. The bits on the line were using less
spectrum and less density. It was all new and fast and wonderful. The
magic has long worn off in the eyes of the average consumer - they
care not. They want a fast plug-in service that just works. When it
fails, or significantly reduces in performance, they want a fix and
answers ASAP. MTTR is all they care about and the more demanding will
want their previous speeds or better even even at the expense of
stability. I don't want or need to be told to get onto someone else to
replace the box. I don't want to have to buy second-hand or even
stolen BT-Openreach modems to use the service effectively or in a
consistent manner, nor do I want to be tied to a specific or limited
range of router CPE provided by any one supplier. I'm a customer.
That's what I want. I have limited choice. When my hand is forced I
will whinge. My hand is being forced. I want your Openreach hardware
for the modem. I want ethernet presentation as a demarc.

We've been in a situation for several years, too many years in fact,
where the stock answer to difficult lines has been to buy dubious or
in many cases, stolen BT group white modems to "solve" various
problems. This has been official advice from many SPs.

Engineer-install has various advantages for the customer as well as
the ISP, though I appreciate (and I would guess that most on the list
would agree) that is not needed in may situations. I also appreciate
it has a cost. It think would be hard to deny that on some occasions
an experienced set of eyes, hands and mind can pick up potential or
actual problems during an engineer install.

The move away from engineer install has been a long time coming, but
the modems being dropped is a heavy blow to smaller ISPs yet this
barely affects major players in the field.

I'm arguing that I *want* BT Group kit for everyone, not just me or
mine. I'm prepared to pay a (small) premium for it - I'm certainly not
arguing I want to use a competitor's kit, actually quit the oppos

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Paul Astle]

Its not a matter of faults not being handled professionally its all about
where the demarcation point is and where BT's responsibilities begin and
end. Currently with FTTC the demarcation point is an Ethernet port in the
customer's premises.
This means if there is an issue such as a slow connection, packet loss or
a complete loss of service your engineers have an Ethernet port to test to
allowing them to. Once you move this demarcation point further back into
the network this is lost which then leads to arguments regarding end user
equipment and wasted effort on behalf of a CP dispatching replacement
modems when the fault actually lies in OR's network.

Removing the OR provided modem renders it the same as ADSL in terms of T2R
with CP's expected to pay OR for an SFI visit or suffer multiple WRT
visits where the OR engineer can easily claim EU equipment as the issue.

The other major advantage for CP's such as ourselves with the current
offering is we want an Ethernet service from the customer to our exchange,
the OR modem will be plugged into an enterprise grade piece of equipment
such as a Cisco or Juniper router, we do not want an all in one modem /
router / wifi point.

I personally think OR have done a stonking number on OFCOM and the
industry. After LLU and removing OR from managing active DSL equipment
thus enabling innovation from CP's who are just delivered a copper pair we
are now back to a national infrastructure of OR managing the DSLAM's which
is very rapidly migrating back to the bad old days of ADSL.

This decision was made at a forum of very large CP's with almost no input
from small CPs who mainly operate outside of general consumer
connectivity. I have so far emailed the OTA and my CRM in OR. The OTA are
ignoring me and my CRM could give no justification for the decision to
remove the modem or how the decision was arrived at.

I urge everyone to email david.halli...@offta.org.uk at the OTA to
register your disappointment over this decision and to request an
explanation of how the decision was made and what data was used in terms
of CP CPE usage. You never know he may reply to you!

Paul


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J.
McRae
Sent: 10 September 2015 16:18
To: Stuart Henderson 
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Tom Hill ; Brandon
Butterworth 
Subject: Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

If you have a situation were a fault is not being handled professionally
please feel free to contact me and I will look into it.

Neil

-- 

--
The Networking People (NorthWest) Limited. Registered office: c/o Hanleys, 
Spring Court, Hale, Cheshire, WA14 2UQ. Registered in England & Wales with 
company number: 07667393

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. 
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and 
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient 
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any 
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly 
prohibited.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Dave Taht]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:11 AM, David Reader  wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:00, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>> I would in general, like to be building better CPE with open drivers
>> all the way down the stack.
>>
>> has anyone seen this effort yet?
>>
>> https://lite.turris.cz/en/
>
>
> Yes.
>
> The problems, really, are around the closed-ness and un-availability of the
> xDSL chipsets and their documentation.
>
> There are lots of low cost ethernet boards out there.
>
> IMO the world would be a better place if it were possible to have more hands
> and eyes iterating over the xDSL stuff in the open source world… but no-one
> looks set to allow their implementation to be opened.

No kidding! In progress is a letter intended to protest the FCC's
recent rulings over wifi radios, and suggest alternative legeslation.
Please feel free to comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VTOHEpRXSvhWvQ0leM-sROJ_XC7Fk1WjFXq57ysFtAA/edit?usp=sharing

And more background on the savewifi effort here:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi/Individual_Comments

And make-wifi-fast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vWrFCZXOWk

The problems in xDSL are similar to the ones in wifi, as are the
potential solutions outlined above. I think a separate letter would be
needed, however.

I have another project, outside the context of make-wifi-fast, which
is attempting to bring up a fully fq_codel'd[1] switch design in the
Zynq FPGA. Boards built around the same FPGA would be capable of a
truly open dsl design, and if they used the same berkeley design
language ("chisel"), the total could be easily integrated into the
resulting chip.

I gave a brief talk about the fix-the-switches effort here, at
battlemesh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdL2Wu7M-8

... anyway...
Nowadays, we have a ton of dslreports results for bufferbloat, all
over the world, sorted by AS number, etc -
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/isp - as well as a truly
spectacular bloat comparison by technology, covering a million user
tests.

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat?up=1

While dsl has many other problems...

Fixing bufferbloat well on a dsl modem also requires deep access to
the dsl firmware. There are a couple ways to go about this aside from
the legal method in the first url, or designing our own chips -
lantiq, for example was recently bought by intel, and their firmware
is written for the ARC256 vliw. Requesting or purchasing their source
code would make way for way better dsl on their chipsets.

After a bit of personal experience on the complexities of
dsp/vliw-ness of the arc256, I am pretty sure that nobody understands
that codebase anymore, and the original author in an insane asylum...
but as compiler support for that cpu has been arriving in gcc of late,
so I would hope, that finally, we can write better DSL firmware with
less effort than ever before.

[1] well, the upcoming FPGA switch design is based on "cake", actually.

http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/CakeTechnical

> d.



-- 
Dave Täht
endo is a terrible disease: http://www.gofundme.com/SummerVsEndo

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Neil J. McRae]

If you have a situation were a fault is not being handled professionally please 
feel free to contact me and I will look into it. 

Neil


Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 16:05, Stuart Henderson  wrote:
> 
>> On 2015/09/10 13:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
>>> 
>>> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
>>> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
>>> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
>>> the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.
>> 
>> What absolute codswallop.
>> 
>> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it
>> needs fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy,
> 
> When you have a line fault and are stuck in a loop of "talk to BT call
> centre in the evening, they pass things onto OR to look at the next day,
> rinse & repeat" with OR disputing the information given by the customer,
> it really doesn't feel like this is the case.
> 
> Do BT do any "secret shopper" tests of fault resolution going through
> the whole standard end-user procedure? Few people I've known that have
> had faults have been entirely happy about how it was handled.
> 

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2015/09/10 13:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> 
> > On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
> > 
> > But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
> > principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
> > business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
> > the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.
> 
> What absolute codswallop.
> 
> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it
> needs fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy,

When you have a line fault and are stuck in a loop of "talk to BT call
centre in the evening, they pass things onto OR to look at the next day,
rinse & repeat" with OR disputing the information given by the customer,
it really doesn't feel like this is the case.

Do BT do any "secret shopper" tests of fault resolution going through
the whole standard end-user procedure? Few people I've known that have
had faults have been entirely happy about how it was handled.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Peter Knapp]

" What absolute codswallop."

Hmm While the cited possible option may not be true, on the front line of day 
to day fault handling with BT I can assure you there is an epic volume of buck 
passing and challenged SFIs on ADSL and a massive percentage less on FTTC as 
you (BT) can see the fault condition and will attend to it rather than claiming 
it is everything other than the copper/dslam port.

I am sad to see BT owned modems not being left as an option..

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Neil J. McRae
Sent: 10 September 2015 14:59
To: Gord Slater
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Tom Hill; Brandon Butterworth
Subject: Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs


> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
> 
> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark 
> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a 
> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing 
> the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.

What absolute codswallop.

"Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs fixing 
then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would assert we make 
more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't. 

In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given the 
lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it was 
felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable. 
It's a very different world now. 

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[David Reader]

On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:00, Dave Taht wrote:


I would in general, like to be building better CPE with open drivers
all the way down the stack.

has anyone seen this effort yet?

https://lite.turris.cz/en/


Yes.

The problems, really, are around the closed-ness and un-availability of 
the xDSL chipsets and their documentation.


There are lots of low cost ethernet boards out there.

IMO the world would be a better place if it were possible to have more 
hands and eyes iterating over the xDSL stuff in the open source world… 
but no-one looks set to allow their implementation to be opened.


d.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Neil J. McRae]

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater  wrote:
> 
> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
> the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.

What absolute codswallop.

"Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it needs fixing 
then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I would assert we make 
more money having stuff that works than stuff that doesn't. 

In an ideal world the FTTC OR box would never have been deployed but given the 
lack of maturity and compatibility issues back then in VDSL chipsets it was 
felt that having this as part of the product was unavoidable. 
It's a very different world now. 

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Chris Russell]

On 10/09/2015 14:00, Dave Taht wrote:


https://lite.turris.cz/en/


 The UKNOF PC are looking to see if we can get some Open Source 
hardware folks to present at a future meeting (that being on the list).


 Am guessing from the thread, this is something folks would like to see 
?


Chris

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Dave Taht]

I would in general, like to be building better CPE with open drivers
all the way down the stack.

has anyone seen this effort yet?

https://lite.turris.cz/en/


On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Tom Hill  wrote:
> On 09/09/15 22:37, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> This is a game you can't win, best not play it with them
>
> In principle, I agree on the fact that Openreach are reducing the
> service that existed - and was improved upon - when FTTC was first
> introduced. I also empathise with anyone that has to deal with them on a
> regular basis, especially WRT to faults.
>
> Two things now spring to mind:
>
>  1. There /are/ other ISPs playing this game, and finding their own USPs
> to continue doing so - if they were dropping like flies, I would believe
> it was completely worthless to pursue it - just doesn't appear to be the
> case. Case in point: this thread exists.
>
>  2. Unifying such a CPE/NTE product could also serve to provide a
> unified voice with which to deal with Openreach over faults. Surely they
> inevitably deal in large numbers or not at all, and that's (hopefully)
> what you would have by the time enough providers were using the same
> hardware - safety in numbers (well, statistics).
>
> At the end of the day, I can't imagine a commodity/consumer service
> coming with free NTEs for longer than is required - no doubt the same
> will also happen with G.Fast (as it did ADSL - damned Stingrays).
>
> Getting angry with the way Openreach operate hasn't solved anything to
> date, that I'm aware of.
>
> --
> Tom
>
>



-- 
Dave Täht
endo is a terrible disease: http://www.gofundme.com/SummerVsEndo

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tim Bray]

On 10/09/15 13:07, Gord Slater wrote:
> However, I'm reasonably sure that OpenWRT (which has TR069 stuff, see
> UKNOF presentations passim, iirc?) on some recent 128MB+RAM hardware
> will be a good starting point, though care will need to be taken to
> ensure that throughput can cope with future speeds.


Does anybody have OpenWRT running on hardware doing VDSL on a BT FTTC line?


TP link TD-W8970 looks like an option.  £33.89 on amazon.
http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/td-w8970

Or using an openreach ECI modem:

http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/bt/vg3503j

Tim

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Gord Slater]

On 9 September 2015 at 22:37, Brandon Butterworth  wrote:
>>   I did just wonder if it's worth the time of a few of the
>> smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,
>
> We could but that's not the main issue. I want BT to be responsbile
> for the service we're paying them to deliver

+1
therein lies the crux of the matter.

However, I'm reasonably sure that OpenWRT (which has TR069 stuff, see
UKNOF presentations passim, iirc?) on some recent 128MB+RAM hardware
will be a good starting point, though care will need to be taken to
ensure that throughput can cope with future speeds.
Please that most customers are non-geek, so skinning and greying out
features is the way to go to protect them from themselves and prevent
your support lines melting under the strain of finger-fiddlers.

But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
the faults in their plant. I can see only one winner there.

-- 
sent via Gmail web interface, so please excuse my gross neglect of Netiquette

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tom Hill]

On 10/09/15 00:05, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> 2. Unifying such a CPE/NTE product could also serve to provide a
>>> unified voice with which to deal with Openreach over faults
> Might be a hard battle, what % of lines aren't the big 5? How many do
> we need to have an effect?

Good point...

>>> Getting angry with the way Openreach operate hasn't solved
>>> anything to date, that I'm aware of.
> Dunno, ask Adrian. The no CPE is being forced on Openreach so this
> time they appear blameless, they were doing good.

Oh? I'm presuming incorrectly then, I guess. I figured it was a margin
thing.

Though in reality, perhaps I should have paid more attention to this bit
from Robin in the OP:

> If this is something people are concerned about, it's worth raising
> your concerns with your Openreach CRM, the OTA
> (http://www.offta.org.uk/) and the FCS (http://www.fcs.org.uk/ - the
> FCS attend Openreach forums on behalf of small CPs).  It was
> indicated to us that sufficient voices may change the stance.

... I'm sure it's better advice than anything I've come up with this
evening. :)

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tom Hill]

On 10/09/15 00:03, Dave Bell wrote:
> With ADSL a lot of faults got passed back to the CP with a message
> along the lines of "fault not on our network, its on the customers
> network". They would then threaten with a charge (£150?) to send an
> engineer out to go look at the fault. FTTC fixed this, as the modem
> was BTORs. If it broke, they had to go fix it. It saved a lot of
> hassle getting BT to actually do their job.

Mmm.. Yes, ownership is where my suggestion fails. Where the ownership
was more useful than the reputation of the device itself. Bah. :)

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Brandon Butterworth]

> > This is a game you can't win, best not play it with them
 
>  1. There /are/ other ISPs playing this game, and finding their own USPs
> to continue doing so - if they were dropping like flies, I would believe
> it was completely worthless to pursue it - just doesn't appear to be the
> case. Case in point: this thread exists.

Yes, the don't play their (bt retail/similar) game, play your own.

>  2. Unifying such a CPE/NTE product could also serve to provide a
> unified voice with which to deal with Openreach over faults

Might be a hard battle, what % of lines aren't the big 5? How
many do we need to have an effect?

> Getting angry with the way Openreach operate hasn't solved anything to
> date, that I'm aware of.

Dunno, ask Adrian. The no CPE is being forced on Openreach so
this time they appear blameless, they were doing good.

brandon

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Dave Bell]

On 9 September 2015 at 23:44, Tom Hill  wrote:>
> I was thinking more along the lines that you'd be able to convince them,
> over time, that your hardware was a relatively well-known quantity and
> not just any old tat from Ebay.

It doesn't matter if its tat from ebay, or some gold plated shiny box
from BT themselves. It can still be faulty.

With the BTOR supplied NTE, the onus was on BT to prove the circuit up
to the Ethernet port on the NTE. Now they don't supply that bit they
are not selling a full end-to-end service.

With ADSL a lot of faults got passed back to the CP with a message
along the lines of "fault not on our network, its on the customers
network". They would then threaten with a charge (£150?) to send an
engineer out to go look at the fault. FTTC fixed this, as the modem
was BTORs. If it broke, they had to go fix it. It saved a lot of
hassle getting BT to actually do their job.

-- 
Regards,
Dave

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tom Hill]

On 09/09/15 23:37, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> And if you did this, could you force BT Openreach to accept a change
> of demarc to the ether socket on the modem rather than the phone
> master socket, because you're using equipment they have fully tested
> and approved of?

I was thinking more along the lines that you'd be able to convince them,
over time, that your hardware was a relatively well-known quantity and
not just any old tat from Ebay.

No-one (especially me) believes that there's a golden pill you can
swallow to make everything better overnight.

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Paul Mansfield]

On 9 September 2015 at 20:59, Tom Hill  wrote:
> smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,

How many modems do you have to buy off Huawei or ECI to get them to brand them?

And if you did this, could you force BT Openreach to accept a change
of demarc to the ether socket on the modem rather than the phone
master socket, because you're using equipment they have fully tested
and approved of?

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tom Hill]

On 09/09/15 22:37, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> This is a game you can't win, best not play it with them

In principle, I agree on the fact that Openreach are reducing the
service that existed - and was improved upon - when FTTC was first
introduced. I also empathise with anyone that has to deal with them on a
regular basis, especially WRT to faults.

Two things now spring to mind:

 1. There /are/ other ISPs playing this game, and finding their own USPs
to continue doing so - if they were dropping like flies, I would believe
it was completely worthless to pursue it - just doesn't appear to be the
case. Case in point: this thread exists.

 2. Unifying such a CPE/NTE product could also serve to provide a
unified voice with which to deal with Openreach over faults. Surely they
inevitably deal in large numbers or not at all, and that's (hopefully)
what you would have by the time enough providers were using the same
hardware - safety in numbers (well, statistics).

At the end of the day, I can't imagine a commodity/consumer service
coming with free NTEs for longer than is required - no doubt the same
will also happen with G.Fast (as it did ADSL - damned Stingrays).

Getting angry with the way Openreach operate hasn't solved anything to
date, that I'm aware of.

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Brandon Butterworth]

>   I did just wonder if it's worth the time of a few of the
> smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,

We could but that's not the main issue. I want BT to be responsbile
for the service we're paying them to deliver (lots, more than they
retail to their own customers). Not half the job leaving us
guessing what isn't right in someones home 200 miles away and
with no info on what is going on but they're sure it must be
our kit or the home wiring and not the external wire they just
disturbed while isntalling someone else. Once you're done eating
your profit (if any) on that line for the next 10 years they
slap a fine (SFI) on you for insisting they go fix it

All that BS has to stop, and it had for a while. My experience of
BT FTTC service, with supplied modem, is it is excellent. Not
everything we'd like but way better than the ADSL mess.

It's great for Sky/etc to save a few quid, so they can buy more
customers with prices lower than our cost, by substituting their own
rubbish cpe instead of BTs rubbish CPE but they should not be
allowed to use their scale to further disadvantage smaller suppliers

> including hardware & software specification. Incorporate it as a
> co-operative entity and, together, compete with the 'big few'.

Whatever CPE you have you're still paying many times their
cost of backhaul, then they add TV which cannot afford to
let your users do much of, even if you could get the sports
right.

This is a game you can't win, best not play it with them

brandon

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Tom Hill]

On 07/09/15 15:27, Robin Williams wrote:
> Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)

Oh, of course not:

 http://www.revk.uk/2013/12/wires-only-fttc.html
 http://www.revk.uk/2014/10/bt-losing-plot-on-fttc.html

  I did just wonder if it's worth the time of a few of the
smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,
including hardware & software specification. Incorporate it as a
co-operative entity and, together, compete with the 'big few'.

Customisation on the outside is relatively easy (stickers), web GUI
skinning takes care of the interface (if you choose to expose it) and
the cumulative investment - not to mention buying power - would reduce
the exposure to certain risks.

Has something like this been tried and failed already? I can't be the
first to think of it... UKNOF as it is today might be a good platform to
garner interest. 

** No reference to BSkyB intended. I just like pie-in-the-sky ideas. :)

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Mike Jenkins]

>> " Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)"
> 
> Robin, I can assure you it isn’t only you. The absolute winner for us is the
> fault ownership as you've already detailed and indeed the fault management
> and recovery process without the passing of the buck which tends to
> dominate ADSL delivery issues.
> 
> I'm personally quite sad and wish it remained as an option, even if separately
> costed.
> 

+1 from us too.
The demarcation point of an Ethernet port on a modem was a major step forward 
over ADSL and will be sadly missed.
Suddenly all faults are now our kit or on-premise wiring..

Mike

PS I bought a load of modems on eBay to use as CPE (from an OR engineer 
no-less!)

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Peter Knapp]

" Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)"

Robin, I can assure you it isn’t only you. The absolute winner for us is the 
fault ownership as you've already detailed and indeed the fault management and 
recovery process without the passing of the buck which tends to dominate ADSL 
delivery issues.

I'm personally quite sad and wish it remained as an option, even if separately 
costed.

Peter 


-Original Message-
From: uknof [mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Robin 
Williams
Sent: 07 September 2015 15:27
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

What are the thoughts of smaller OR CPs represented here regarding the 
withdrawal of Openreach FTTC CPEs as an option?

To me it seems like a backward step, and while the big volume boys may well 
want to provide their own quad play CPEs (and avoid having two boxes etc), for 
smaller operators, the Openreach provided CPE had a lot of benefits - it was a 
circuit provided end-to-end by Openreach which included the CPE equipment as 
part of the support.

The removal of the option to receive the CPE means we go back to the line-only 
'please check your equipment' and SFI visits days (arguing whose fault it is).  
It also means for each site install the CP needs to send out an engineer to 
site with a CPE (smaller CPs may not always have local engineering), or 
alternatively use costly BT project managed services for 'while we're here' 
installation, meaning more cash goes to Openreach by default.

It feels somewhat as if this is a decision which has been made with larger 
operators in mind.  It would seem to make more sense if the supported CPE was 
an order option rather than withdrawing it entirely.

If this is something people are concerned about, it's worth raising your 
concerns with your Openreach CRM, the OTA (http://www.offta.org.uk/) and the 
FCS (http://www.fcs.org.uk/ - the FCS attend Openreach forums on behalf of 
small CPs).  It was indicated to us that sufficient voices may change the 
stance.

Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)

Cheers,
Robin.

Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs

[Paul Mansfield]

On 7 September 2015 at 15:27, Robin Williams  wrote:
> for smaller operators, the Openreach provided CPE had a lot of benefits - it
> was a circuit provided end-to-end by Openreach which included the CPE
> equipment as part of the support.

+1

If I was a gambling man..

* start buying up VSDL modems off ebay whilst prices are low
* hoard them, waiting for supply from OpenReach to dry up
* sell off
* profit!