The EU BEREC guidelines regarding terminal equipment are in relation to provision of an �internet access service�, which is technically not something that Openreach sells to CPs, it purely provides an access service from the customer premise to the handover point of the nearest fibre serving exchange. So that moves the liability onto your ISP who are providing the IAS, however given their contract with OR mandates the MCT process they are somewhat hamstrung in rectifying if OR decide that it is causing issues.
There is also reference to an �objective technological necessity� to mandate obligatory equipment. Given that OR have had issues in the past with uncertified devices causing issues with their DSLAMs (eg the notorious Asus DSL-AC68U) and monitoring systems I don�t think it is as cut and dry as MCT equals a direct contravention. I can�t see a national regulator raising a case where the user connects a device which fails to meet the published technical specification (which a lot of devices do not adhere 100%, especially in the OAM fault diagnosis space), impairs access for other users who are using compliant devices and is then cut off. Given that reporting details on CPE model/manufacturer/firmware to the DSLAM is part of the SIN spec, it is quite easy for OR to determine which devices are and are not compliant.



Pages in this thread:
Print Thread
deleted