Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

30 lines. That's one looong signature file... :) scott --- ghe...@suretec.co.uk wrote: From: Gavin Henry > the actual MCT form is: > http://www.formwize.com/run/survey3.cfm?idx=505d040c0e0a0e > > That's one long form -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

Disclosure: I'm not a direct customer of BT, though I do buy their services indirectly as a contractor and I contract at a company that has a *huge* BT bill each month. As we know the problem isn't Neil, it's BT. I've dealt with Google (lots), Facebook and Microsoft. All are responsive with clear

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On 19 Aug 2016 14:50, "Phillip Baker" wrote: > > That you are just about the only face of (part of) BT who both engages on a regular basis Indeed, Neil is to be commended for being willing to do this and put up with the he must face on a regular basis, and to have

[uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

Whoops, sent this direct to Neil only rather than reply-all to the list, Neil, you'll need to resend your reply (which is clearly intended for the list) to the list also, sorry :) On Thursday, 18 August 2016, Neil J. McRae wrote: > > On 18 Aug 2016, at 16:52, Mike Jenkins

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On 18 Aug 2016, at 21:19, Phillip Baker > wrote: On Thursday, 18 August 2016, Neil J. McRae > wrote: On 18 Aug 2016, at 16:52, Mike Jenkins wrote: > If BT encouraged

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

Hi, I am imagining a mutual non-profit-making organisation that could handle this sort of thing (like LINX is) to get us out of the current daft situation. Kind regards, Mike On 18 Aug 2016 20:17, "Paul Mansfield" wrote: maybe CPs can get into the market of selling

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

maybe CPs can get into the market of selling tested and approved equipment to others? but then I guess they'd have to disguise the hardware/firmware combination otherwise their secret would be lost. but then a CP could simply pay their staff to take broadband from their rival CPs to find that

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On 18 Aug 2016, at 16:52, Mike Jenkins wrote: >> I did look into the wider situation. >> >> And all those that hurled abuse at me lol – this is especially for you ☺ >> >> CP’s have asked us not to share what has been tested. > > I was thinking this was because

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

> I did look into the wider situation. > > And all those that hurled abuse at me lol – this is especially for you ☺ > > CP’s have asked us not to share what has been tested. > I was thinking this was because the process is quite drawn out (read expensive in time terms for the CP). If BT

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

Neil Christie Technical Director Converged Communication Solutions Limited Office: Converged House, Unit 18, Spires Business Park, Mugiemoss Road, Aberdeen, AB21 9BG

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

.uk> Date: Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 14:29 To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" <uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk> Subject: Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware On 17 Aug 2016 12:09, "Neil J. McRae" <n...@domino.org<mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:58:05PM +, Neil J. McRae wrote: > If you send me the details of what version and box I can take a look for you. Thanks for the offer, it is a Zyxel VMG1312-B10D with firmware version 5.11(AAXA.3)C0. I was rather hoping there would be a website though, as asking a

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Keith Mitchell wrote: > > The solution at the time was that approval testing was spun out into an > independent 3rd party, BABT (* British Approvals Board for > Telecommunications). AFIACT it appeared to resolve the situation very > well. I don't

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

I'm slightly astonished that we're in this situation in 2016. My old fart memory goes back as far as the mid 1980s, when BT had just been privatised out of the Post Office, and people were trying to move beyond their 300/1200 acoustic coupler modems on phones hard-wired into the wall. The approval

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

Agreed Paul - watch this space. Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2016, at 14:36, Paul Mansfield > wrote: On 17 Aug 2016 12:09, "Neil J. McRae" > wrote: > > The goal is to make our services work

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On 17 Aug 2016 12:09, "Neil J. McRae" wrote: > > The goal is to make our services work as best as they can. > How will that goal translate to taking action in this case to make as many tested CPE hardware/firmware combinations public, so as to maximise the chances of end users

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

The goal is to make our services work as best as they can. Sent from my iPhone On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:01, Phillip Baker > wrote: On Tuesday, 16 August 2016, Neil J. McRae > wrote: If you send me

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

On Tuesday, 16 August 2016, Neil J. McRae wrote: > > If you send me the details of what version and box I can take a look for > you. > While it's obviously good of you to offer to help out here - for the life of me - I cannot understand why information required to be in

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

> > Is there any way to track which hardware and firmware versions have been > submitted to BT (or whoever does it on their behalf) for Modem Conformance > Testing? I can find the details of how the process works but not which devices > have been approved or submitted and pending approval. >

Re: [uknof] Tracking BT MCT progress for VDSL hardware

Paul, If you send me the details of what version and box I can take a look for you. Neil. On 16/08/2016, 17:07, "uknof on behalf of Paul Waring" wrote: Is there any way to track which hardware and firmware versions have been