User comments on ISPs
  >> BT Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 28-Dec-13 15:40:17
Print Post

Who is responsible?


[link to this post]
 
As far as I know, BT are responsible for repairs to the telephone line from the master socket on wards to the exchange. And the in-house wiring is the home owner's responsibility.

Am I correct? Or has something changed?

My mothers internet connection has gone to pot.

Line stats when all was fine:

snr down 6
Attenuation down 12
Connection up/down 448/8128

Now:

snr down 6
Attenuation down 38
Connection up/down 220/3740

I connected her home hub directly to her master socket to bypass the internal extension and the stats where the same.

BT Told her on the phone that if there is a problem with the line between the pole and her house that she would have to pay a fee of something like £120.

I call BS.

I have a telephone number for High level Complaints and I'm tempted to ring them instead of the usual script monkeys.

Thoughts?

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24575 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.2 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 1.2 dB 11.8 dB

BT 8Mb
Virgin 50Mb
BT 7Mb

Other ISP's used over the years: AOL Supanet Pipex Tiscali Eclipse Zen
Standard User StephenTodd
(experienced) Sat 28-Dec-13 15:53:48
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
I certainly thought that BT (specifically BT Openreach) were responsible for everything up to the master socket, and were obliged to make appropriate repairs free (as rather as part of the telephone contract). The charge would only apply if they were called out and found the issue was with your internal wiring. However, if you still have broadband and the phone works correctly, they are not obliged to do work to bring the broadband quality up to where it may have been in the past.

I too would be interested to know if the rules have changed. It is very poor if they try to evade their responsibility by pretending not to be responsible when in fact they are.

--
Moved (with trepidation turned relief) to BT Infinity 2 for upload speed. Happy BE user for several years.
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 28-Dec-13 16:02:47
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: StephenTodd] [link to this post]
 
Just talking to an online help at BT.com and was told this:

"I can see there is a fault on your line. There is no charge for us to fix this unless the engineer finds our network has been damaged within the boundary of your property by things like trees, building works, corrosion or damp. In these instances, a charge of £129.99 will be applied to your BT bill. Shall I go ahead and book an engineer?" "

Not sure how true that actually is.

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24575 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.2 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 1.2 dB 11.8 dB

BT 8Mb
Virgin 50Mb
BT 7Mb

Other ISP's used over the years: AOL Supanet Pipex Tiscali Eclipse Zen


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Oliver341
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 28-Dec-13 16:04:56
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Seansmit17:
"I can see there is a fault on your line. There is no charge for us to fix this unless the engineer finds our network has been damaged within the boundary of your property by things like trees, building works, corrosion or damp. In these instances, a charge of £129.99 will be applied to your BT bill. Shall I go ahead and book an engineer?" "

Not sure how true that actually is.

Can't see how it would be fair for them to charge you for the effects of "corrosion or damp".

Oliver.
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 28-Dec-13 16:13:55
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Oliver341] [link to this post]
 
Thats what I thought.

If we had damaged it or a tree on our land had damaged the line then fair enough.. but general ware and tear.. nope

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24575 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.2 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 1.2 dB 11.8 dB

BT 8Mb
Virgin 50Mb
BT 7Mb

Other ISP's used over the years: AOL Supanet Pipex Tiscali Eclipse Zen
Standard User Ribble
(experienced) Sat 28-Dec-13 17:16:44
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Damp/ corrosion would apply within the property up to the demarcation point, specifically the NTE and any block terminals within.
Damage to line plant within the property boundary is also chargeable.
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 28-Dec-13 17:43:55
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Ribble] [link to this post]
 
So if the line was lets say, corroded somewhere from where the line enters the house but between the pole, BT are responsible for repairs?

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24575 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.2 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 1.2 dB 11.8 dB

BT 8Mb
Virgin 50Mb
BT 7Mb

Other ISP's used over the years: AOL Supanet Pipex Tiscali Eclipse Zen
Standard User Ribble
(experienced) Sat 28-Dec-13 18:04:21
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Correction. Openreach are responsilbe for the repair.. No charge would be due as long as there is no damage within the property curtilage

Edited by Ribble (Sat 28-Dec-13 18:32:01)

Standard User KelvinBridge
(learned) Sat 28-Dec-13 18:15:15
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Seansmit17:
As far as I know, BT are responsible for repairs to the telephone line from the master socket on wards to the exchange. And the in-house wiring is the home owner's responsibility.

Am I correct? Or has something changed?

My mothers internet connection has gone to pot.

Line stats when all was fine:

snr down 6
Attenuation down 12
Connection up/down 448/8128

Now:

snr down 6
Attenuation down 38
Connection up/down 220/3740

I connected her home hub directly to her master socket to bypass the internal extension and the stats where the same.

BT Told her on the phone that if there is a problem with the line between the pole and her house that she would have to pay a fee of something like £120.

I call BS.

I have a telephone number for High level Complaints and I'm tempted to ring them instead of the usual script monkeys.

Thoughts?


Who is the provider of her internet service, as BT may be responsible for the Telephone line service , but NOT for her Broadband service, have you tried a Quiet line test by ringing 17070 BT Line test Facility option 2, the line should be silent, using a corded phone plugged into the master socket !!
Standard User KelvinBridge
(learned) Sat 28-Dec-13 18:19:43
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: KelvinBridge] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by KelvinBridge:
In reply to a post by Seansmit17:
As far as I know, BT are responsible for repairs to the telephone line from the master socket on wards to the exchange. And the in-house wiring is the home owner's responsibility.

Am I correct? Or has something changed?

My mothers internet connection has gone to pot.

Line stats when all was fine:

snr down 6
Attenuation down 12
Connection up/down 448/8128

Now:

snr down 6
Attenuation down 38
Connection up/down 220/3740

I connected her home hub directly to her master socket to bypass the internal extension and the stats where the same.

BT Told her on the phone that if there is a problem with the line between the pole and her house that she would have to pay a fee of something like £120.

I call BS.

I have a telephone number for High level Complaints and I'm tempted to ring them instead of the usual script monkeys.

Thoughts?


Who is the provider of her internet service, as BT may be responsible for the Telephone line service , but NOT for her Broadband service, have you tried a Quiet line test by ringing 17070 BT Line test Facility option 2, the line should be silent, using a corded phone plugged into the master socket !!


Ps ..Might I suggest this excellent site for Help, as well as the tbb forums







http://www.robertos.me.uk/html/high_snrm-margin.html


http://www.thinkbroadband.com/
Standard User iand
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 28-Dec-13 18:22:30
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
the question is for her, does she notice the difference. If not then you could leave alone and do nothing. If yes then call the broadband company you use and ask them to fix the fault. As the problem is seen on the test socket, then there should be no charge. Just make sure it is tested on the test socket while the engineer is there (e.g. leave it connected to the test socket so there is no change the engineer can say its internal wiring.

IanD
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Sat 28-Dec-13 18:24:03
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: KelvinBridge] [link to this post]
 
?
Thanks for the recommendation, but she hasn't got a high noise margin. It's the attenuation hat has rocketed.

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Sat 28-Dec-13 18:24:35
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Have you tried a factory reset of the router?

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 28-Dec-13 19:59:58
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: RobertoS] [link to this post]
 
Yes, i reset the router I would try another router but she only has the Home Hub, I suppose it may be faulty but i doubt it.

And yes she is with BT for her phone line and BB.

She does not have a phone connected to the line at all its just used for Internet access.

And yes she has noticed a change. She uses Netflix on her TV as well as Sky on-demand and it buffers all the time now.. if it even loads.

An engineer is coming out again in a few days i think to have a look.

There is not much I can do to help her in the way of testing stuff now as I was only there for Christmas and I live in North Wales and she lives in Peterborough.

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24575 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.2 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 1.2 dB 11.8 dB

BT 8Mb
Virgin 50Mb
BT 7Mb

Other ISP's used over the years: AOL Supanet Pipex Tiscali Eclipse Zen
Standard User eckiedoo
(committed) Sat 28-Dec-13 21:45:04
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Evening Sean

You should first try the Quiet Line Test on your own phone a few times, to get experience of doing so.

There are NO costs for doing this!

There is a slight chance that the facility is not available on your phone or your mother's phone.

OPENREACH BT has only a legal obligation to maintain the line to simple telephone quality, NOT to Broadband requirements, hence having to test it by preferably a corded/old phone handset.

Plug that phone with an ADSL Splitter in to the BT Master Socket, usually hidden in a cupboard etc.

Dial 17070, wait for the Response.

Several Test Options will be offered.

Normally it is Option 2 (Dial 2); but with SKY, it is Option 4 (Dial 4).

The Line should either be silent or a very low hum.

If it is noisy, "Snap, Crackle and Pop", engineering tones similar to dial tones etc, then it should be reported to the Telephone Provider, ie the company that you/your mother pay the LINE RENTAL to.

And specifically NOT to OPENREACH BT.

The Line Provider may or may NOT be another part of BT; or may part of the Broadband package, so possibly SKY, EE, PlusNet etc.

Report it as a PHONE Problem, avoid mentioning Broadband; and in your mother's case, do NOT mention that she normally does not use it for conventional phone purposes.

========================

If you do NOT hear any noises etc at the Master Socket, then reconnect your internal wiring; and try the QL Test from each of the internal sockets, also trying with each Broadband item connected and disconnected.

Also switch ON and OFF other potential sources such as Plasma TV sets, microwave cookers, Christmas Lights etc.

If you hear any untoward noises during this stage, then it is your/your mother's responsibility to arrange remedial action, either by yourself or a knowledgible friend etc.

Specificallly it is NOT OPENREACH's responsibility.

==============================

I acknowledge the difficulties with your mother being in Peterborough and yourself in North Wales; as I frequently have to deal remotely with technical problems from up here in the Kingdom of Fife, to down in Devon, Glamorgan and around Scotland.

BUT unless you have suitable contacts in Peterborough, there is no other free or cheap way of getting the situation sorted out.

And whatever you do arrange/arrive at, first practise on your own line, so that you have a clearer idea of what needs to be done in Peterborough.

If it is Line problems, not only are they affecting the present BB service; but they will continue to affect in varying degrees any future apparent "improvement" such as if you try different modem/routers; or moving to FTTC/VDSL;

Edited by eckiedoo (Sun 29-Dec-13 07:49:56)

Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sat 28-Dec-13 23:09:10
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Openreach are responsible upto and including the nte5 socket.

The problem is they are doing their best to relieve themselves of that responsibility, threatening charges is one such effective method which stops people/cp's from raising faults.

when a fault does get raised they have a habit of checking for local issues first and if any are found regardless if a issue exists openreach side the fault is likely to get closed of as a CPE side and fee raised. also if hey dont find a fault their policy allows them to raise a fee with the CP (who are likely to pass onto end user), although its my opinion a judge would laugh at such a fee been taken to court on the basis of a software based test alone.

On another forum a openreach engineer posted if his jdsu tests pass he has been trained to treat any line issues as 'not' openreach remit, when I asked him whos remit it is he went silent.

you done the right thing, escalate it, and you will likely get a call out without threat of fee's. with non BT retail providers tho the threat will always be there, although aaisp go to great lengths to avoid fees for the end user, other cp's arent so persistent.

BT Infinity 2 Since Dec 2012 - BQM

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 28-Dec-13 23:10:50)

Standard User Zarjaz
(knowledge is power) Sun 29-Dec-13 16:05:45
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Report it to her broadband service provider, LTB, lower threshold breach.

Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 29-Dec-13 17:31:36
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Zarjaz] [link to this post]
 
For the 2nd time.. as no one seems to be paying attention..

My mum IS with BT.. thats why I'm posting in the BT section!

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24575 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.2 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 1.2 dB 11.8 dB

BT 8Mb
Virgin 50Mb
BT 7Mb

Other ISP's used over the years: AOL Supanet Pipex Tiscali Eclipse Zen
Standard User eckiedoo
(committed) Sun 29-Dec-13 18:05:36
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Initially, it does not matter who is is her Phone Provider; nor who is her Broadband Provider, whether two separate companies or one and the same company.

Additionally, it is only those companies that can exert contractual pressure on OPENREACH.

OPENREACH is positioned similarly to NETWORK RAIL - if your train is late, you deal with the company providing that train, eg FIRST GREAT WESTERN, SCOTRAIL etc.

By doing the Quiet Line Test - at no cost to yourself, nor to your mother at that stage, you will have extracted information about the condition of your respective phone lines, thus can approach her Phone provider with some basic facts, along the lines of "Forewarned is Forearmed"; or "Knowledge is Power".

Also another analogy, if your local road has pot-holes etc, you might get a better ride from a softer-sprung car; but basically, the pot-holes need repairing.

So do the Quiet Line Tests first, ie identify if there any pot-hole equivalents in your mother's phone line.
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Mon 30-Dec-13 09:40:40
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
It is possible that it is the router or the ADSL filter. If you don't try replacing both of these in the test socket then there is still a risk that a charge could be placed if one of these turns out to be faulty. If you live close enough are you able to temporarily plug your router into it? Even if you don't change the settings it should do the line connect to give the stats without the correct login details.
Standard User Zarjaz
(knowledge is power) Mon 30-Dec-13 18:25:16
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Oliver341] [link to this post]
 
Can't see how it would be fair for them to charge you for the effects of "corrosion or damp".

So they've fitted a line, done all the required, a drip loop, mastic in the hole, not siting line plant in clearly damp areas .. and then the owner allows damp ingress in to the property, or just spills a drink on it, or lets their pets pee on (Oh yes) Why should this be repaired free of charge ?

Standard User Oliver341
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Tue 31-Dec-13 01:51:11
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Zarjaz] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Zarjaz:
So they've fitted a line, done all the required, a drip loop, mastic in the hole, not siting line plant in clearly damp areas .. and then the owner allows damp ingress in to the property, or just spills a drink on it, or lets their pets pee on (Oh yes) Why should this be repaired free of charge ?

The way I took the wording "within the boundary of your property by things like trees, building works, corrosion or damp" was that they were quoting external events in as much that trees don't usually grow indoors. I accept that the phrase could refer to internal events though I think it would be unreasonable for them to charge for the repair of a cable external to the property walls due to damp, since it sometimes rains in this country.

Oliver.
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Tue 31-Dec-13 08:19:53
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Oliver341] [link to this post]
 
How long before BT do the same as the water companies and start terminating at the property boundary and anything inside the property boundary is down to the home owner?

That is almost what is happening here except that the only people you can get to fix the line from the boundary to the NTE are BT as they consider it their property. And if it's their property and the failure is not directly caused by the homeowner then BT should pay to fix it.
Standard User FelixTCat
(committed) Thu 02-Jan-14 19:27:22
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
How long before BT do the same as the water companies and start terminating at the property boundary and anything inside the property boundary is down to the home owner?


As soon as Openreach put the master socket on the boundary, as water companies do the meter!
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 02-Jan-14 19:30:07
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: FelixTCat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by FelixTCat:
As soon as Openreach put the master socket on the boundary, as water companies do the meter!

They almost started by having an external NTE mounted on the outside of the building. Not sure that has got very far.

James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Sold 42/6 - Getting 49/8.5 - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m approx
14 years of broadband (ntl: cable to BT FTTC) - Router: Asus RT-N66U - Modem: Huawei HG612 speedtest
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Thu 02-Jan-14 19:38:54
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
In reply to a post by FelixTCat:
As soon as Openreach put the master socket on the boundary, as water companies do the meter!

They almost started by having an external NTE mounted on the outside of the building. Not sure that has got very far.


That was partly due to people complaining that they had to take a day off work if there was a problem.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User JohnR
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 02-Jan-14 20:53:14
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: FelixTCat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by FelixTCat:
As soon as Openreach put the master socket on the boundary, as water companies do the meter!


Just had water meter fitted.....



UNDER SINK, where pipe comes into house, for free. If I wanted it fitted outside at boundary. It would have been £120.

\_0-0_/ AdsL is Hell \_0-0_/
To Infinity
Wats SUP doc.... You using too much.....
Standard User Oliver341
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 02-Jan-14 23:31:04
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: JohnR] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by JohnR:
UNDER SINK, where pipe comes into house, for free. If I wanted it fitted outside at boundary. It would have been £120.

Sounds unusual. Typically all the water pipes on the customer's property is their responsibility, including repairs and leaks. The water meter usually sits just outside the property boundary, forming the demarcation point.

I guess it works in your favour though, since if your supply pipe leaks on your property it will not register on your meter.

Oliver.
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:23:15
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
I need to know when and where the BT charge of £129.99 applies.

BT want an engineer to visit. but want to avoid the charge.

Is the charge applied just for the engineer to visit? Is it applied if he finds a fault in the house or applied if he fixes the fault?

If the engineer finds something and its chargeable to fix I want him to stop.

Might just need a new faceplate/nte box witch is up to BT to maintain.

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24272 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.5 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 0.3 dB 11.8 dB
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:28:40
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Except within a warranty period, the faceplate is not up to Openreach to maintain.

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:30:31
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: RobertoS] [link to this post]
 
But BT/OR claim that the box is theirs and the home owner is not to "mess" with it so surly they must maintain it?

If not ill just buy my own and replace it and see if that fixes the line issues.

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24272 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.5 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 0.3 dB 11.8 dB
Standard User johnjburness
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:30:40
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Seansmit17:
I need to know when and where the BT charge of £129.99 applies.

BT want an engineer to visit. but want to avoid the charge.

Is the charge applied just for the engineer to visit? Is it applied if he finds a fault in the house or applied if he fixes the fault?

If the engineer finds something and its chargeable to fix I want him to stop.

Might just need a new faceplate/nte box witch is up to BT to maintain.


AFAIK, it is charged if the fault is anywhere within your own wiring/equipment (which he will not repair) - in other words, it is a charge for a wasted visit.

The problem occurs where the BT Engineer cannot find a fault, which is then "assumed" to be outside of BT's control (hence they try to charge you).

This is the reason that everyone advises you go check at the Test-Socket, within the Master Socket (which eliminates the possibility of internal wiring or misc Equipment Faults) - plus arrange to also test it with an alternative known working Router and/or ADSL Filter (to eliminate these as possibilities).

Regards,
John
Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:48:34
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: johnjburness] [link to this post]
 
I think I will get a new NTE Box fitted and replace the internal wiring and also get new filters and another known working ADSL router before calling BT out then.

Want to make sure 100% that the internal stuff is good first.

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24272 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.5 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 0.3 dB 11.8 dB
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:49:48
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
The demarcation point is the test socket, that the faceplate plugs into. The test socket and anything behind it is Openreach's.

The faceplate that plugs into it is yours, so that you can connect extensions to the terminals on the back of it. Or replace if you feel like it.

If you try to replace the back box/test socket, you could easily short out your line, killing it, and possibly damaging the exchange equipment. Could be expensive.

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 08-Jan-14 17:51:12)

Standard User Seansmit17
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 08-Jan-14 17:53:39
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: RobertoS] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by RobertoS:
If you try to replace the back box/test socket, you could easily short out your line, killing it, and possibly damaging the exchange equipment. Could be expensive.


Really? I'm not some "noob" who don't know what he's doing.

TalkTalk 24Mb
Current Line Status

Connection Speed 24272 Kbps 1019 Kbps
Line Attenuation 14.5 dB 5.5 dB
Noise Margin 0.3 dB 11.8 dB
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 08-Jan-14 19:35:32
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Seansmit17:
Really? I'm not some "noob" who don't know what he's doing.

But unless you're an openreach employee, they have no choice but to assume that.

James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Sold 42/6 - Getting 49/8.5 - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m approx
14 years of broadband (ntl: cable to BT FTTC) - Router: Asus RT-N66U - Modem: Huawei HG612 speedtest
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Thu 09-Jan-14 08:58:14
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Maybe not but can you disconnect the line at the exchange to ensure that anything you do at the NTE5 faceplate does not cause an issue down the line? A BT engineer can - and if they don't and something goes wrong then it is their problem.

You should not be replacing the whole NTE only the faceplate.
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Thu 09-Jan-14 10:36:22
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
I'm sure I could change a light fitting or light switch without removing power from the circuit, (fuse or cut-out switch), but I certainly wouldn't try it. Similarly a qualified (house or other) electrician wouldn't, I hope.

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 09-Jan-14 10:38:38)

Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Thu 09-Jan-14 12:24:46
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: RobertoS] [link to this post]
 
Light fitting - yes, and have done. Light switch - no, and never would. The light fitting if the switch is working will not have live current. The light switch however does have live current and will give you a very nasty jolt.

The problem with the BT circuit is the end user has no way of disconnecting the wires at the back of the NTE from the BT network (unless they cut the cable but that would probably be an even more drastic and costly way to do it).
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Thu 09-Jan-14 13:18:52
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
I doubt shorting the BT wires would do anything wink


______________________________________________________________________________________Go_girl!__________________
Standard User cheshire_man
(knowledge is power) Thu 09-Jan-14 13:22:41
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by ian72:
Light fitting - yes, and have done. Light switch - no, and never would. The light fitting if the switch is working will not have live current. The light switch however does have live current and will give you a very nasty jolt.
Depends what you mean by the light fitting, The ceiling rose can be a junction box containing the L+N+E feed in, the L+N+E feed out, the LL to switch, as well as the L+N drop wires to the bulb holder.

I don't think I'd change a ceiling rose without switching off the circuit - and checking all the wires in the rose were dead.

Tony
We have more and more laws, and less and less enforcement
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Thu 09-Jan-14 14:33:49
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by ian72:
Light fitting - yes, and have done. Light switch - no, and never would. The light fitting if the switch is working will not have live current. The light switch however does have live current and will give you a very nasty jolt.


THAT IS A DANGEROUS AND INCORRECT STATEMENT.


A light fitting may very well have an unswitched live. UK standards normally have the live fed to the fitting or junction box supplying the fitting and then a live feed to a switch which returns a switched live.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User cheshire_man
(knowledge is power) Thu 09-Jan-14 15:10:21
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
Just as I said in my email reply to Ian72, though not perhaps so emphatically.

Tony
We have more and more laws, and less and less enforcement
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Thu 09-Jan-14 16:27:07
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
Lights controlled by two switches, such as landing lights, being interesting.

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Thu 09-Jan-14 16:48:27
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
Interesting, wasn't the case with the ones I have done. I do normally cut the power to the lighting circuit but the latest one I didn't and didn't have any need to. Obviously, you should check if there is a live feed first by using appropriate tools and I take no responsbility for anyone else who plays with electrics without taking the correct precautions.
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Thu 09-Jan-14 16:59:41
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by ian72:
Interesting, wasn't the case with the ones I have done. I do normally cut the power to the lighting circuit but the latest one I didn't and didn't have any need to. Obviously, you should check if there is a live feed first by using appropriate tools and I take no responsbility for anyone else who plays with electrics without taking the correct precautions.



Maybe you should consider whether to make dangerous statements on a subject yiou are not qualified or fully experienced in.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Thu 09-Jan-14 17:04:54
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MHC:
In reply to a post by ian72:
Interesting, wasn't the case with the ones I have done. I do normally cut the power to the lighting circuit but the latest one I didn't and didn't have any need to. Obviously, you should check if there is a live feed first by using appropriate tools and I take no responsbility for anyone else who plays with electrics without taking the correct precautions.



Maybe you should consider whether to make dangerous statements on a subject yiou are not qualified or fully experienced in.


Maybe anyone reading forums also has to assume it is a comment based on a persons current experience and people are not presenting themselves as experts in the field - but luckily other people are on forums to point out any mistakes. Shame we aren't all perfect.
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Thu 09-Jan-14 17:14:55
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by ian72:
based on a persons current experience
Is that ohms or raisins?


______________________________________________________________________________________Go_girl!__________________
Standard User RobertoS
(sensei) Thu 09-Jan-14 17:28:59
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
it is a comment based on a persons current experience
Or avoidance of such, one hopes. wink

My broadband basic info/help site - www.robertos.me.uk | Domains,site and mail hosting - Tsohost.
Connection - Plusnet UnLim Fibre (FTTC). Sync ~ 59.4/14.4Mbps @ 600m. - BQM

"Where talent is a dwarf, self-esteem is a giant." - Jean-Antoine Petit-Senn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allergy information: This post was manufactured in an environment where nuts are present. It may include traces of understatement, litotes and humour.
Standard User lelboy
(member) Thu 09-Jan-14 19:12:41
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Seansmit17] [link to this post]
 
Hmm, not a particularly polite comment to Bob - who's trying to be helpful. If you're not a "noob" and you think you know what you're doing, then why ask what you did? Anyone who's not a "noob" should be fully aware that anything before the master socket - test point - is BT's liability: this negates the point of your question and your ramblings. Bob, Andrew and many others here try to help: your overdefensive indignation is pretty poor, I think.
Standard User lelboy
(member) Thu 09-Jan-14 19:18:04
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: ian72] [link to this post]
 
I think Bob is being a little facetious with his comments. The point I think he's making is that we all "could" do something, but commonsense dictates that we wouldn't. I don't think endless, pointless comments about domestic electrical wiring has any worth here at all. And certainly wouldn't help the "non-noob" original poster - who clearly knows what he's talking about (not).
Standard User lelboy
(member) Thu 09-Jan-14 19:18:59
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
Of course not, Malcolm! No voltage on the line?
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Thu 09-Jan-14 19:33:38
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: lelboy] [link to this post]
 
I would be shocked if BT couldn't cope with shorts.


______________________________________________________________________________________Go_girl!__________________
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 09-Jan-14 21:26:03
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by BatBoy:
I would be shocked if BT couldn't cope with shorts.

Given how many wires there are on poles, they must bang together in the wind, years after any insulation has worn out in the elements.

In fact wasn't that the reason given for 999 originally instead of 111, as wires banging together in the wind could pulse (loop disconnect) dial these digits. Now we have tone dialling its a moot topic.

James BT Infinity 2 19/09/2012 - Sold 42/6 - Getting 49/8.5 - Sync 53 / 9.5 Mbps @ 470m approx
14 years of broadband (ntl: cable to BT FTTC) - Router: Asus RT-N66U - Modem: Huawei HG612 speedtest
Standard User lelboy
(member) Thu 09-Jan-14 22:13:24
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
Possibly so - but your "doubt if" wouldn't cut it if it did cause problems. Bit of an odd take on the fact that a pair of wires - carrying current (or indeed raisins) - could be "touched together - with gay abandon". Let's do away with insulation altogether!
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Thu 09-Jan-14 23:16:38
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
In fact wasn't that the reason given for 999 originally instead of 111, as wires banging together in the wind could pulse (loop disconnect) dial these digits. Now we have tone dialling its a moot topic.


It is one reason and there were others.

On the old call boxes it was easy to make 9xx a free call alongside the 0 use to call the operator.
It was easy to locate the hole on a rotary dial - one away from the zero.
It was not susceptible to inadvertent contact during installation/repair work.

Other countries went for 112 and 911 to avoid the possible problems with accidental contact.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User Jaggies
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 02:06:12
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MHC:
Other countries went for 112


112 can also be used to call the UK emergency services and certain fault conditions can cause a line to do just that.

Brian
From September 2001 on BTopenworld Home 500/Home 1000/Home 2000. Then ADSLMax on <n>ildram. Moved to ADSL2+ from ADSL24. I'm now with plusnet. I'm not saying who I work for. Any opinions expressed here are my own.
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Fri 10-Jan-14 09:31:57
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: Jaggies] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Jaggies:
In reply to a post by MHC:
Other countries went for 112


112 can also be used to call the UK emergency services and certain fault conditions can cause a line to do just that.



Not in the 1930's ...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User PeterProxy
(newbie) Fri 10-Jan-14 10:00:38
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
To take this even more off topic wink..when you dial 999 or 112 on your shiny new smartphones, the handset doesn't actually dial 999 or 112.
Standard User The_Voyager
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 11:43:25
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: cheshire_man] [link to this post]
 
No neither would I, I recently wanted to shorten the drop from the rose to the lamp socket, I made sure I tripped the circuit breaker first, just in case smile

Bob WRBRIX
PN Unl.Fibre - Fritz! 7390 ~ Sync 79.99/20 Mb/s Avg 74.54/18.62 Mb/s @ 320m
DialUp to CIX, BT Home Highway to CIX, ADSL to Nildram, SKY & Be*Unlimited, Fibre to BT http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/049baa48c1f...
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Fri 10-Jan-14 11:58:22
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: The_Voyager] [link to this post]
 
Even tripping the circuit breaker may not give you full protection. You need to either trip the RCD or the Main Incoming CB as they are dual pole and a standard CB is single pole.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User StephenTodd
(experienced) Fri 10-Jan-14 12:00:07
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: The_Voyager] [link to this post]
 
One (irrelevant) point on 999.
Used to be a problem from an internal switchboard when you dialled 9 to get external line, and 99 for local call (eg Peterlee->Durham).
If you were on an outside line when you thought your weren't, accidental 999 call.

--
Moved (with trepidation turned relief) to BT Infinity 2 for upload speed. Happy BE user for several years.
Standard User johnjburness
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Fri 10-Jan-14 12:01:53
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: cheshire_man] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by cheshire_man:
I don't think I'd change a ceiling rose without switching off the circuit - and checking all the wires in the rose were dead.


Obviously your advice is extremely good - particularly the checking (even after switching of the circuit) that all wires are dead!

Some years ago I failed to do that & got a very nasty jolt from a still-live connection - which wasn't a good thing as I was on some step-ladders on the landing at the top of the stairs!

I was trying to replace the ceiling rose of the landing light &, as you do, put the light on & then pulled the fuse ensuring that the light was now disconnected/isolated.

To cut a long story short, I discovered that this upstairs Light (because of 2-way switching) had been fed from the downstairs light cct & not from the upstairs light cct. However, for convenience, it had been installed using the upstairs' Neutral & the Rose had BOTH the upstairs Neutral & Line connected (although the Line connection was not feeding the switch - just being used as a connection point).

Hence, although I had isolated the "active" Line (from the downstairs' cct) the "non-active" Line (from the upstairs cct) was still live!

I think, at the time, I said something like "Oh dear how unfortunate"!! wink

Regards,
John
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Fri 10-Jan-14 12:08:55
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
I always phone up the Electricity company and have them disconnect my town from the National Grid before letting the wife change a light-bulb.


______________________________________________________________________________________Go_girl!__________________
Standard User The_Voyager
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 12:31:32
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
Sorry, when I said CB I probably meant RCCB, it's the one in the main Circuit box that trips automatically when there is a fault in the circuit, I have an older system, that has 2 push buttons (rather than a switch) on the front, a small one to trip and a large one to reset , the Main incoming CB is inacessible as it is controlled from a locked cupboard in this Council Block, even the Power companies cannot gain access without getting in touch with the council, found this out when they wanted to change my meter to a new type recently, and the EDF engineer didn't have a key.

Bob WRBRIX
PN Unl.Fibre - Fritz! 7390 ~ Sync 79.99/20 Mb/s Avg 74.54/18.62 Mb/s @ 320m
DialUp to CIX, BT Home Highway to CIX, ADSL to Nildram, SKY & Be*Unlimited, Fibre to BT http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/049baa48c1f...
Standard User eckiedoo
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 12:41:05
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
Apart from the technical aspects, I recollect from visiting Aberdeen Telephone Exchange in 1950, just after the Emergency Call procedure was introduced there, that 999 was-

a) relatively easy for the Blind and Partially-sighted (and others in the dark) to locate

b) was less likely to be dialled accidentally by younger children, reaching up and playing with the rotary dial.

In the Exchange, such a call was identified by a flashing red light, if I remember correctly.

Before that, there were the Emergency Phones in Police Boxes (of the classical design variety in Edinburgh etc; and "Doctor Who" variety south of the Border.

Edited by eckiedoo (Fri 10-Jan-14 12:42:06)

Standard User MHC
(sensei) Fri 10-Jan-14 13:05:46
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: The_Voyager] [link to this post]
 
As well as an RCCB in your CU there should normally be a main incoming CB too.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User The_Voyager
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 15:45:37
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
Just a big ON/OFF switch for if you need to get to the wiring behind it.

Bob WRBRIX
PN Unl.Fibre - Fritz! 7390 ~ Sync 79.99/20 Mb/s Avg 74.54/18.62 Mb/s @ 320m
DialUp to CIX, BT Home Highway to CIX, ADSL to Nildram, SKY & Be*Unlimited, Fibre to BT http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/049baa48c1f...
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Fri 10-Jan-14 17:09:31
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: The_Voyager] [link to this post]
 
That is the one ... so just a Switch Disconnect and not high current breaker.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User The_Voyager
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 19:00:24
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
I suppose so, I know it turns everything off, I'm no electrician and wouldn't dream of touching anything except the CBs (RCCBs), before doing any work, like changing roses, light switches or sockets and that's my limit. wink

Bob WRBRIX
PN Unl.Fibre - Fritz! 7390 ~ Sync 79.99/20 Mb/s Avg 74.54/18.62 Mb/s @ 320m
DialUp to CIX, BT Home Highway to CIX, ADSL to Nildram, SKY & Be*Unlimited, Fibre to BT http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/049baa48c1f...

Edited by The_Voyager (Fri 10-Jan-14 19:01:33)

Standard User The_Voyager
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 19:12:08
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: eckiedoo] [link to this post]
 
Exactly, I used to be an Observation Supervisor in exchanges after I was promoted from an International Operator, and some of the exchanges I went to were local ones, like Colombo Street, SE1, which also had a Crown above one of the boards.

In reply to a post by eckiedoo:
In the Exchange, such a call was identified by a flashing red light, if I remember correctly.


Bob WRBRIX
PN Unl.Fibre - Fritz! 7390 ~ Sync 79.99/20 Mb/s Avg 74.54/18.62 Mb/s @ 320m
DialUp to CIX, BT Home Highway to CIX, ADSL to Nildram, SKY & Be*Unlimited, Fibre to BT http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/049baa48c1f...
Standard User eckiedoo
(committed) Fri 10-Jan-14 19:35:06
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: The_Voyager] [link to this post]
 
Thanks for that confirmation.

Also I seem to remember that the ideal, given those parameters, would have been "000"; but as a single "0" was already in use to "call the Exchange", any combination starting with "0"was excluded, leaving "999" as the working choice.

I suspect that it is why the USA "911" was arrived at for similar considerations, the leading "9" again to avoid the normal Operator call; and the trailing "11" to apparently speed up the process, due to the shorter rotations.

BUT that meant trying to find a second, different digit hole in possibly stressed situations, so removing any apparent technical advantage.

And the use of three digits generally to reduce the incidence of false calls.
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Fri 10-Jan-14 21:45:28
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: eckiedoo] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by eckiedoo:
Also I seem to remember that the ideal, given those parameters, would have been "000"; but as a single "0" was already in use to "call the Exchange", any combination starting with "0"was excluded, leaving "999" as the working choice.

[...]

And the use of three digits generally to reduce the incidence of false calls.

My understanding was slightly different, but it dates back to a bit of my training from the 80's, which I've never since used, so the information could be wrong, as could my recollection...

One need was a desire for the number to work from whatever location/exchange it was dialled from. A second need was for it to be free, especially from public phone boxes.

The choice of the first digit being 9 was then made because it was already used in small outlying exchanges to route local calls back to a main exchange, and could be made free from a call box.

So, for a call from an outlying exchange, local routing of the first '9' takes the call to a larger exchange, the 2nd and 3rd digits (whatever they would be) caused the call to be routed to the emergency operator (with the flashing red light).

Meanwhile, any call placed on the large exchange only needed to dial the 2nd and 3rd digits. If you wanted to publicise a single emergency number on every main & rural exchange around the country, the 2nd digit would have to be the same as the 1st (local routing) digit (i.e. a 9), and then the 3rd digit would also have to match the 2nd (i.e. a 9 too).

So, anyone connected to a main exchange strictly only needed to dial 99; the third was superfluous and ignored.

Clear as mud?

(The same training taught me that it was possible to get a cheap national call, so long as you knew each individual local ('9'-prefix) routing code to hop from exchange to exchange until you reached the final hop. Possibly a myth, I never tried it)
Standard User MCM
(fountain of knowledge) Fri 10-Jan-14 22:08:39
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
(The same training taught me that it was possible to get a cheap national call, so long as you knew each individual local ('9'-prefix) routing code to hop from exchange to exchange until you reached the final hop. Possibly a myth, I never tried it)
No, not a myth. This was one of a number of methods that I was using as a uni student back in the mid 60's. There was another method, the details of which I have long forgotten, that used "private" pre STD trunk codes. In compiling our list of trunk codes we used to ring various combinations of numbers always ending in 1212 as this invariable ended in a Police Station where the person answering could be relied on telling us where they were, or rather the name of the police station. This avoided us having to say anything before hanging up and logging the newly established code.
Standard User cheshire_man
(knowledge is power) Fri 10-Jan-14 22:12:51
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: johnjburness] [link to this post]
 
That, I was once told, is known as a borrowed neutral, and is (or was) against the regulations.

It was a common trick as it saved cable, but it had the effect to creating some interconnection between the downstairs lighting ring and the upstairs lighting ring.

Tony
We have more and more laws, and less and less enforcement
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Fri 10-Jan-14 22:24:27
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: cheshire_man] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by cheshire_man:
That, I was once told, is known as a borrowed neutral, and is (or was) against the regulations.

It was a common trick as it saved cable, but it had the effect to creating some interconnection between the downstairs lighting ring and the upstairs lighting ring.


Basically yes, an installation with a "borrowed neutral" is likely to fail testing and could cause inadvertent/nuisance/false tripping or failure to trip of RCDs/RCBOs.

There are situations where it is legitimate but they are few and will be documented.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User MHC
(sensei) Fri 10-Jan-14 22:26:04
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
(The same training taught me that it was possible to get a cheap national call, so long as you knew each individual local ('9'-prefix) routing code to hop from exchange to exchange until you reached the final hop. Possibly a myth, I never tried it)


Myth ... although there were a couple of places and routes it would work on.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

M H C


taurus excreta cerebrum vincit
Standard User johnjburness
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Fri 10-Jan-14 22:34:34
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: MHC] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MHC:
In reply to a post by cheshire_man:
That, I was once told, is known as a borrowed neutral, and is (or was) against the regulations.

It was a common trick as it saved cable, but it had the effect to creating some interconnection between the downstairs lighting ring and the upstairs lighting ring.


Basically yes, an installation with a "borrowed neutral" is likely to fail testing and could cause inadvertent/nuisance/false tripping or failure to trip of RCDs/RCBOs.

There are situations where it is legitimate but they are few and will be documented.

Without checking back through the Regs, I strongly suspect that it was Legit at the time my House was built (mid-70s), but I certainly don't believe that its permitted now - even if only for the potential reason of adversely affecting RCDs/RCBOs.

Regards,
John
Standard User KelvinBridge
(learned) Fri 10-Jan-14 23:58:34
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by BatBoy:
I always phone up the Electricity company and have them disconnect my town from the National Grid before letting the wife change a light-bulb.



.......and I'll bet you warmed the water in the basin she was standing in !
Standard User The_Voyager
(committed) Sat 11-Jan-14 10:31:09
Print Post

Re: Who is responsible?


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
I think you are right, I seem to remember this as well, not from training, but from my school days, back in the 60s smile

I also remember from my BR days that there was a way to make calls on the BR system to European Railway Admins, I have quite a few railway friends in different countries , although some of the countries you had to go through the Paris operator, so needed to be able to speak a little French.

Another thing that was not well known, before IDD came in International Operators could direct dial using a keypad (omitting the zero on what is now IDD numbers) except to countries where there were manual or radio circuits (e.g: Saudi Arabia, Ghana)

In reply to a post by WWWombat:
(The same training taught me that it was possible to get a cheap national call, so long as you knew each individual local ('9'-prefix) routing code to hop from exchange to exchange until you reached the final hop. Possibly a myth, I never tried it)


Bob WRBRIX
PN Unl.Fibre - Fritz! 7390 ~ Sync 79.99/20 Mb/s Avg 74.54/18.62 Mb/s @ 320m
DialUp to CIX, BT Home Highway to CIX, ADSL to Nildram, SKY & Be*Unlimited, Fibre to BT http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/049baa48c1f...
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to