On 10 September 2015 at 14:59, Neil J. McRae <n...@domino.org> wrote: > >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater <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 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 opposite when it comes to a DSL modem. I *want* standardisation, responsibility and support. I *want* your BTOR field guys to have the knowledge, stock and confidence to swap out their white box (or subsequent) I'm a specialist EMC troubleshooter on long-line interference from an almost infinite variety of sources from ELF to low VHF. This is no idle rant. It's a complex EMC battlefield with shit from every direction even if your lines are balanced, dry and fault-free, it's no simple task. EMC problems are very poorly understood especially in the ISP and CP industry. It's costly and requires buckets of experience regardless of the investment in test equipment your guys carry. Not all faults or problems are caused by EMC issues but the march towards wider throughput on copper lines is naturally going to show a significant proportion of confusing and difficult-to-trace and difficult-to-prove-blame situations. Customers commercial or otherwise have no clue or even any interest in EMC - they just want a fast-as-possible working product and one-callout fault repairs with no fight or excuses. Giving customers the flexibility to choose their DSL modems, integrated or otherwise is one thing. "Encouraging" them by dropping BT-supplied modems is another. I'm saying that I see this as a very retrograde step for BT-group, consumers, businesses and the digital well being of the country as a whole and a source of large-scale problems and arguments between ISP and their customers. I think it illustrates just how out-of-touch your decision-makers are with your customers and the needs of their end-users on a national level. Where the end-user supplies their own modem, multi-play integrated or modem/router, the fact that the customer has to organise the swap out of the modem or it's power supply is now made a non-BT-group issue with the onus for the arrangement and supply on $someone else. I've been involved in countless examples of RWT that don't even work properly with an Openreach-supplied modem even when swapped out with several new ones. RWT has a cost and BT group charge for it. They have even charged for it when subsequently a fault was eventually found that cleared the original problem. > 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. Maybe that's an ideal world for your employer. But that view is/was not necessarily and ideal world for your customers, be they commercial, domestic, ISP or whatever. Having to regularly lend your guys Ebay-sourced ancient 18Cs and 301Cs to solve BT's own faults might speed things up but is no way to run a circus. BT group (or rather one of their hardest-working and experienced guys for miles around) still owe me half a box full of crimps from last week. My own 301C, H-field kit and receiver has just been returned after yet another difficult job. I've stopped counting how many favours they owe me. I have always run an open house for engineers in need of parts at short notice but this grinds on your when it happens year after year after year. We've had multiple situations where we've lived with poor (sub-threshold) lines but we've been too scared to report a fault in case they (once again) nick another line we're using. Bitter experience leaves a substantial aftertaste when it happens at several different site on the trot. I personally *fear* the noise of ladders or manholes being moved. Fear is probably not a word your customers should be uttering. A change of ISP does NOT change the plant or the attitude of the people charging for the faults. Nor does it stop your field guys shrugging their shoulders when their supervisor or manager has nagged them to clear the job and go on to the next one due to lack of time. Even if they apologise profusely, as most do. From my point of view this has been a consistent situation for many years without any sign or hope of improvement. you are free to call that customer satisfaction if you wish. I see the move to drop support for BT-group modems as a very poor move for everyone involved except BT-group themselves. Opinions differ, naturally. These are mine. -- sent via Gmail web interface, so please excuse my gross neglect of Netiquette
