Legal Position Regarding Openreach Modem

People often comment that you can't touch the Openreach modem (to hack it or replace it), what's the official position on this does anyone know? Whenever people mention this rule they never follow up with a link to any Ts&Cs, it certainly seems plausible but without evidence is it just a myth?

a) It belongs to Openreach

b) That's it.

It is Openreach's demarcation point for their FTTC product, as the NTE is for their copper pair.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

a) It belongs to Openreach

b) That's it.

c) Like I said no one ever provides a link to any Ts&Cs

Take it from me, what I and anon are saying is correct.

I read the BT infinity terms and there's no mention at all of the modem....

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

It is Openreach's demarcation point for their FTTC product, as the NTE is for their copper pair.

Erm yeah I know what it is, the question was... well you can read the question yourself

Why are you querying this any way ? If you have your own combined VDSL modem router, then go use it, but keep the Openreach modem for future reference.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Take it from me, what I and anon are saying is correct.

So where did you read it, or did you just hear it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from his brother's uncle's mate? Like I said it seems perfectly plausible, I don't doubt your sincerity, I'd just like one person to show me it in black and white

try this link to it on google

Reveals also that if you have the data extension kit, the warranty lasts 12 months, after which that is yours

FTTC modem becomes the active demarcation point

Edited by MrSaffron (Sun 22-Apr-12 14:52:40)

My ISP informed me this afternoon that replacing the OpenReach modem was a bad idea...

BT will sometimes attempt to send updates through to the modem automatically and, if it is not detected on the line, they would suspend your account. This would then require an Openreach engineer to attend on site to enable the reconnection, and would likely result in an engineer charge being applied. Removing the BT modem would also impact our ability to run diagnostic tests against the line - we would not be able to view any of the line stats for your circuit.

This is not something I've seen stated anywhere else. It is clear that Openreach's service to the ISPs ends on the ethernet port on their modem, so it kind of makes sense. Would dearly love some confirmation (ideally refuting) of the "suspend your account" bit.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Why are you querying this any way ?

Now that's just odd as a reply. It's a bit like someone saying the world is flat trust me, we don't fall off do we, so why question it.

Suspension of the account is very unlikely, and would only expect this to happen if something connected was shown to be damaging their active hardware in the street cabinet.

I generally spend a fair bit of time reading BTW and Openreach documents particularly when new products appear, some public and some information is from asking appropriate questions of a supplier

Now I can be wrong obviously sometimes, but generally given a few minutes can find appropriate backup, as I have done in another post in this thread.

So where did you read it, or did you just hear it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from his brother's uncle's mate?

Well I knew it already, but the point was reiterated yesterday to me by the trainer and the powerpoint show on my FTTC SVFR (VDSL faulting techniques) course. All a bit odd, as I have been installing and fixing these things for around a year and a half.

There are probably in-depth legal documents around, but these are extracts from the relevant Openreach descriptions of the service:-

Openreach engineers will install a 'Service Specific Front Plate' (SSFP) to the NTE5 and Openreach VDSL2 Active NTE in the premises.

The VDSL2 Active NTE offers two Ethernet ports, one for fast data presentation (supporting CP provided broadband) and the other will be spare in anticipation of future product developments.

The VDSL2 Active NTE offers two Ethernet ports, one for fast data presentation (supporting CP provided broadband) and the other will be spare in anticipation of future product developments.

The interface is the Network Termination Point (NTP), i.e.the point of connection between the BT Network Termination Equipment (NTE) and the CPE interface. The Customer Interface consists of an RJ-45 type socket. The customer provides the Category 5 connecting cords between the NTE and their own CPE. The maximum cable length between the NTP and the Customer CPE is 100m.

The RJ-45 type connector is as specified in the 10Base-T and 100Base-T IEEE 802.3u/x specifications.

I expect you know that NTE means Network Termination Equipment.

For ADSLx that is the wall mounted part of the NTE5 including the test socket. (Or older equivalent). That is and remains Openreach property. I expect any legal statement of this to be in the PSTN specifications, as this was the case long before broadband was supplied through it.

For FTTC it is the LAN1 socket (NTP) of the Active NTE, i.e. the modem.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Now I can be wrong obviously sometimes, but generally given a few minutes can find appropriate backup, as I have done in another post in this thread.

Forgive me if I'm being a bit thick but was there anything in the doc you referenced that says the end user cannot remove or hack the modem? If so please copy n paste the specific clause, thanks

Edited by deleted (Sat 21-Apr-12 19:29:25)

hacking seems a strong word more like glitching into to have a look at line stats

It doesn't need to be put "in black and white". Its a common law principle that if you receive someone else's property (and the modems are bought by Openreach from the supplier so they are their property like a piece of hardware you buy from a computer shop or your food you buy from the supermarket is your property - unless they're stolen goods, of course) and it's not made clear at the time that its given to you that it's a gift - and I'd guess the engineer didn't say to you "this is a gift to you from OpenReach" (at least not with the permission of his employer, anyway) - you have it on what is called a "resulting trust" - that is on behalf of the giver - to look after it on their behalf and return it accordingly when the giver wants it back. Fail to do so and it's an actionable "breach of trust" - in theory you can be sued: similar to when a bank loses money from your account (NOT the same as making a poor investment before anyone comments, though!).

EDIT Just to add - look after means not damage or lose, so you might argue it seems to me that merely retrieving information (hacking, in that sense) isn't damage, nor is substituting a different modem - but I know of no court case on that point so, as the lawyers say, that view is given without responsibility on my part!!
EDIT2: I'd suggest the hacking does cause damage if OR couldn't use the returned modem in the way they use it, but whether there is a loss to them in that would they re-use it anyway is another matter. It's a grey area, that's the best that can be said. I'm certainly not going into the Computer Misuse Act and its application to open source software!!

Edited by deleted (Sat 21-Apr-12 19:56:43)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

There are probably in-depth legal documents around, but these are extracts from the relevant Openreach descriptions of the service......

Hi Robertos, all those quotes just explain what the service is. There's no dispute that the modem is the NTE and that it belongs to Openreach. That's not the question. The question is can the end user interfere with it and if not, where is this rule documented?

In reply to a post by smurf46:

It doesn't need to be put "in black and white". Its a common law principle...

That would be a perfect explanation if the intention was to steal the modem or otherwise deprive the owner (openreach) of it. The modem stays in the property and OR can have it whenever they want so this is not a question of 'common law'

In reply to a post by Alexir:

There's no dispute that the modem is the NTE and that it belongs to Openreach.

Surely you have therefore answered your own question. Isn't the answer to that obvious?

If you hired a car would you doubt that you were not allowed to alter the setup of the ECU?

If someone lends you a book, would you happily write margin notes in it?

It doesn't belong to you. You agree that. So that's the end of the matter.

Some of us load a hacked version of the firmware onto it. That is probably prohibited, but we can easily restore the original if challenged.

Others don't use it, and obtain their own VDSL2 routers. With varying degress of success, I might add! VDSL2 implementations seem to be far from standardised. Again, if challenged they can reattach the OR modem.

In reply to a post by Alexir:

In reply to a post by smurf46:

It doesn't need to be put "in black and white". Its a common law principle...

That would be a perfect explanation if the intention was to steal the modem or otherwise deprive the owner (openreach) of it. The modem stays in the property and OR can have it whenever they want so this is not a question of 'common law'

I suspect you didn't read the edit.

You can believe us, or you can take a sledge hammer to the Openreach modem and find out what happens

Have found plenty of docs that confirm what we have said, but not in the precise wording you seek. There is also the computer misuse act, which could be brought into play if Openreach really got annoyed with someone accessing the modem in a way it was not intended to be by consumers

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It doesn't belong to you. You agree that. So that's the end of the matter

That sounds like the reply a harassed parent rather than someone hoping to add clarity to a question on a forum

There are two given facts here:
1) The modem belongs to Openreach
2) People can and do interfere with it regardless of any rules

OK now that's out of the way, back to the question. Regarding the legal position, does anyone have a link to any Ts&Cs saying the end user cannot interfere with the modem

I suggest you take a look at the Computer Misuse Act

Accessing a computer that you are not authorised to can result in a charge. That can be as simple as a provider not giving you the admin password to a device, and uploading different firmware would fall in that category.

Another option is to spend the night reading SINET to find the wording you seek

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You can believe us, or you can take a sledge hammer to the Openreach modem and find out what happens

Have found plenty of docs that confirm what we have said, but not in the precise wording you seek. There is also the computer misuse act, which could be brought into play if Openreach really got annoyed with someone accessing the modem in a way it was not intended to be by consumers

Vague wording will suit for now if you have any instead of precise??? BTW if the modem was simply put in a drawer and the end user provided their own equipment, where would the Computer Misuse Act come into play?

Or that it belongs to openreach?

Or that it ever becomes the property of the customer?

Or what happens on termination of the contract?

Edited by deleted (Sat 21-Apr-12 19:57:48)

I am not a lawyer so cannot say for sure, it would most likely require a test case.

If you can be shown to have not damaged any kit, and Openreach could say uploading firmware that stops them updating a modem is akin to damaging their ability to control the network.

BT can be fairly tolerant, but if people push the case they can clamp down very hard with large teams of lawyers

Alexir- i The Moden provied is designed to work with GEA FTTC and which is why it is provdied to any one who buts a FTTC service from a Consuming CP -- which is why it is provied and installed by aon Openreach engineer

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Another option is to spend the night reading SINET to find the wording you seek

It's not in there. The quotes I gave earlier are all there is.

I suspect this is one of those areas that cannot be clarified without a test case.

however, its likely that such a thing would never have got that far. as you are the customer.

In most instances, if a piece of kit stopped working, they would just give you a new one. and if it is their kit, then they would HAVE to.

Its probably not in any T&C's .. simply because they see no reason to put it in black and white.

Can I draw a parallel?

The question you are asking, and the points you make is response to all the replies you have received, are that nothing in any ISP T & Cs that you have seen cover this.

I have bought many cars in my life. I have never found any that provide either the detail of, or links to, the Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations to which I must adhere.

For example, Para 3 in:-

Schedule 4 - relating to dipped obligatory and optional front lamps. This says that only 1 pair of dipped beam lamps can be illuminated at any one time. It also says that the lamps are not to be lower than 500mm and not higher than 1200mm and not more than 400mm from the side of the vehicle.

1) If the extra lights come on with the main beam, then Schedule 5 applies and relates to obligatory main-beams and optional main-beams (i.e. front driving / fogs). Have to be no closer to the side of the vehicle than the outer edges of the illuminated areas of the obligatory dipped-beam headlamps (i.e. the pop ups). There is no requirement on separation of the additional lamps or the vertical position.

2) If they come on in conjunction with obligatory dipped headlights they have to also be dipped or extinguished.

3) If they are on without the headlights (dipped or main beam) then they are fog lights. They should only be used in "conditions of seriously reduced visibility IN PLACE OF the obligatory dipped-beam headlamps". So as long as the obligatory headlamps are lit (either main or dipped-beam) then there is no requirement for the horizontal position of the lamps only that they must be up to a maximum height of 1200mm.

In what you are given you will only find the position of the switch, and how to change the bulb.

It may only answer half the original Q, the hacking part, but not the replacing Q.

There is no rule/law/contract term to stop you hiring a car but using another, maybe also hired, car for the hire duration. Other than wasting money . You could hire a Rolls-Royce to attend your Palace Garden Party, but use your own Mini to pop down the shops to buy H.M. a prezzy the same day.

I think the underlying situation could be that he wants to hack the modem and is worried about the possible consequences.

He possibly hasn't picked up on the fact that the hacked version simply removes the locking down, and the place we get the hacked version also provides the unhacked. So reverting to the original is easy.

I think the question is this: Where does it say you can't use your own modem or load different firmware onto the OR modem?

I think the answer is: Nowhere.

To revert, I think all you have to do is to go back to factory settings by a hard reset.

Factory Settings are not the same as Factory Firmware! The former is data and the latter code, which nowadays are kept physically separated.

Well I remember the days when I modified machine code as data ; now frowned upon.

I know the original Q is:

In reply to a post by Alexir:

People often comment that you can't touch the Openreach modem (to hack it or replace it), what's the official position on this does anyone know?

Either way will work.

Do you know the answer?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

To revert, I think all you have to do is to go back to factory settings by a hard reset.

Flashing the firmware overwrites the master copy in the EEPROM. Factory reset merely restores the user configuration to the original state.

Yes, you may replace it as long as you retain the original but you may not modify it; it being someone else's property.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Yes, you may replace it as long as you retain the original but you may not modify it; it being someone else's property.

Where does it say it is someone else's property?

Iirc correctly, every router I've ever had recommends resetting to factory defaults after updating the firmware.

In Batboy's world, this would rather defeat the object of the exercise

In reply to a post by billford:

Iirc correctly, every router I've ever had recommends resetting to factory defaults after updating the firmware.

Every router I've ever had resets to factory defaults when you update the firmware.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Every router I've ever had resets to factory defaults when you update the firmware.

You mean it reloads the firmware that was there when you bought it and over-writes the firmware you've just loaded into it?

Remind me not to ask you for a router recommendation...

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Every router I've ever had resets to factory defaults when you update the firmware.

You mean it reloads the firmware that was there when you bought it and over-writes the firmware you've just loaded into it?

No, you load the hacked firmware, which resets the router to the factory defaults.

Then you make whatever changes you want.

If you want to revert to the factory defaults, you either do a "long reset" or you load the unhacked firmware.

I've just read though the last 4 pages and not one person has admitted that they didn't know the answer to the OP's question.
I'd love to know the answer as well but most people here seem to just want to give responses in political form.

He's been given the answer by any number of people, what he wants is a link to something in words of one syllable (or less).

And most people have said that there probably isn't one- where something is covered by current legislation or contract requirements then there is no need. Also, as has been admitted, there has yet to be a test case in the courts.

Whenever I updated firmware on every router I have, I have never had to reset it so that it retains my specific configuration w/out having to set them again, and I have never seen instructions to contrary.

I must admit I got mixed up with resetting to defaults and loading configuration data from a backup file

But I still don't believe that a hard reset will reload the firmware that was present when you bought it. If it did, there'd be no such thing as bricked routers due to updates that went wrong.

The OP has agreed the supplied modem is Openreach property.

End of. He is not entitled to mess with it without their permission.

It is also specified in publicly available documents, which I have quoted, that it is the NTE/NTP. I think my comparable example of car fog lights covers the situation. He is not therefore entitled to replace it with anything else.

Many have replaced the firmware. Several have swapped the modem for VDSL2 routers. As has been said, unless anything anyone does can be reasonably shown to have damaged anything in the BT Group systems or equipment then they aren't going to be dragged off to the cells in the middle of the night.

There are definitely legally backed regulations about the specifications of and approval required for any equipment attached to a telephone socket. It is also a fact that by the time you have been out of your house for ten minutes, travelling to another location, you will have broken a myriad of laws, of which your ignorance "is no excuse".

The fact that we are not specifically advised of something obvious does not make it untrue.

Perhaps the local council should post warning notices on the inside of every property. Maybe you and the OP should start a Downing Street petition to have the matter clarified by all ISPs.

Anyone doubting that the general view that the Openreach modem should not be tampered with or replaced is correct is being unrealistic. Or deliberately mischievous.

And there would be no problem about unwanted firmware updates sent down the line by ISPs.

Indeed.

Afaics, the hard reset is only there so that you can recover the situation if bad/corrupted configuration data causes the router to crash so that you can't log in to it.

In reply to a post by billford:

But I still don't believe that a hard reset will reload the firmware that was present when you bought it.

Quite right! It doesn't!

I thought he was asking where it specifically states that you can't hack/modify/change/alter the firmware in the Openreach modem that belongs to BT.

Thanks anyway. I raised the question of who the modem belongs to a while back and understand that it's not mine so I won't fiddle with it regardless of T&C's

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The OP has agreed the supplied modem is Openreach property.

I'm not sure. I think it belongs to me.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I think it belongs to me.

Then you think wrong.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I think it belongs to me.

Then you think wrong.

They gave me another. I have 2.

So?

Both belong to OpenReach.

In reply to a post by billford:

So?

Both belong to OpenReach.

There appears to be no way to send it back. There's no documentation that says I have to send it back, and there's no address to send it to. Also, I have no contract that says I have to return it at the end of the contract period. As far as I can see it is mine. In fact, they both appear to be mine.

They supplied you with another. If it was to replace the one you had, that should have been taken away by the engineer. I'm sure you would not claim that its not being removed bestows legal ownership of it upon you.

Wrong.

You can find it online somewhere (and I cba'd to look for it again) that the demarcation point for FTTC is the ethernet port on the modem.

It is part of your contract with BT that everything prior to the demarcation point belongs to, and remains the property of, BT.

Now I suggest that you either prove me wrong or quit trolling.

That is a potential issue between you and your ISP. Openreach's contract is with them, not you. Loop to here.

Bedtime methinks .

No, I don't know why it came.

Anyway, I could buy one from Ebay. There's always some for sale.

In reply to a post by billford:

Now I suggest that you either prove me wrong

Easy

In reference to www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?top...:

Your new equipment

You'll need two pieces of equipment. You'll get your new BT Home Hub two days before your installation date and your engineer will bring your BT Infinity modem and install both for you.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Anyway, I could buy one from Ebay.

No problem there.

Provided it's not stolen property (which, if it says "Openreach" on the front, it probably is) then you've paid for it, it's yours.

Maybe from your fairy godmother.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by billford:

Now I suggest that you either prove me wrong

Easy

In reference to www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?top...:

Your new equipment

You'll need two pieces of equipment. You'll get your new BT Home Hub two days before your installation date and your engineer will bring your BT Infinity modem and install both for you.

That's colloquial usage to make it easy to understand for the consumer (study the url), it does not over-ride any contract terms.

If you really want to get banned you're going the right way about it.

Last warning- quit trolling.

Hehe! Neat .

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Anyway, I could buy one from Ebay.

No problem there.

Provided it's not stolen property (which, if it says "Openreach" on the front, it probably is) then you've paid for it, it's yours.

My TV says "Sony" on the front...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

My TV says "Sony" on the front...

Mine says it on the back.

In reply to a post by billford:

That's colloquial usage to make it easy to understand for the consumer (study the url), it does not over-ride any contract terms.

As I said, there's no contract terms to be overridden.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

My TV says "Sony" on the front...

Mine says it on the back.

Maybe it's stolen?

I don't do "last plus one" warnings.

Here's a contraindication:

In reference to www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?top...:

On your installation day, the engineer will call you before visiting your home and connecting you to your new BT Infinity service. They will also be able to recommend the best place to connect your Openreach fibre modem and Hub along with any home wiring (which they will bring with them) if required.

So unless You = Openreach ....

And here's confirmation that the modem is not yours:

In reference to bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/13737/c/346,3014,3015:

Will I be able to take BT Infinity with me if I move home?
You should take your Hub with you, but leave the Openreach fibre modem for the people who move in. The engineer will bring a new Openreach fibre modem as part of the installation at your new home.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It is also a fact that by the time you have been out of your house for ten minutes, travelling to another location, you will have broken a myriad of laws, of which your ignorance "is no excuse".

Fact is it? utter twaddle , i have traveled to lots of places without breaking the law as I'm sure plenty of others have too ,
As for this argument over what will bt do if i hack their modem or use another, I would say if flashing/hacking the modem kills it, and they can or actually bother to have it checked to see what caused it to fail, then they would at the most simply charge you for a replacement modem,

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Anyone doubting that the general view that the Openreach modem should not be tampered with or replaced is correct is being unrealistic. Or deliberately mischievous.

This is the whole point of the initial question. The general view is indeed that the modem should not be touched, I know that I said it upfront. The problem is there's no proof, it's just what lots of people think. And asking questions is not mischievous, that's how we make progress.

BTW your parallel drawn in the post at 21:32:09 is perfect. You say in all the cars you've bought none has ever given detail of, or links to, the Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations, quite true. Then you paste details of the act which are freely available. So now complete the parallel you wish to draw and paste the rule about not removing the modem, keeping it safe and using your own one.

In reply to a post by billford:

He's been given the answer by any number of people, what he wants is a link to something in words of one syllable (or less).

Hi Bill, I've not been given the answer, only opinion by people which is what I had before, hence starting the thread. And the link doesn't need to involve words of one syllable.

In reply to a post by billford:

where something is covered by current legislation or contract requirements then there is no need. Also, as has been admitted, there has yet to be a test case in the courts.

Great if it's covered by legislation or contract it must be written down somewhere?

In reply to a post by Alexir:

BTW your parallel drawn in the post at 21:32:09 is perfect. You say in all the cars you've bought none has ever given detail of, or links to, the Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations, quite true. Then you paste details of the act which are freely available.

I was hoping you wouldn't spot that .

So now complete the parallel you wish to draw and paste the rule about not removing the modem, keeping it safe and using your own one.

It's simply that I happened to know the name of the relevant act, so finding it was easy .

I think it fairly likely that if the loo on a train is occupied, one would be committing an offence if one then urinated against its door. (Orientating ones position so as not to be guilty of indecent exposure). I expect this is the general view.

I haven't looked for the relevant legislation.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It is also a fact that by the time you have been out of your house for ten minutes, travelling to another location, you will have broken a myriad of laws, of which your ignorance "is no excuse".

Fact is it? utter twaddle , i have traveled to lots of places without breaking the law as I'm sure plenty of others have too

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

... the engineer will call you before visiting your home and connecting you to your new BT Infinity service.

Ouch. I didn't like my finger being pushed into that rectangular socket!

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think it fairly likely that if the loo on a train is occupied, one would be committing an offence if one then urinated against its door. (Orientating ones position so as not to be guilty of indecent exposure). I expect this is the general view.

I must say, despite not being able to answer the central question, I thoroughly enjoyed your legal parallels especially this one, made me chuckle anyway.

BTW, fully agree 'Ignorance is no defence in law'. It is not necessary for every door to have a sign saying "It is illegal to urinate here" for it to be illegal. Just as it's not necessary for every car parked in the street to have a sign saying "It's illegal to steal this car", however somewhere the law or by-law will be written down and frankly will be quite easy to find what with the power of this internet thing. On the other hand, despite many people saying 'trust me, you can't remove the Openreach modem', no one has yet pointed to anything in black and white

In reply to a post by billford:

Wrong.

You can find it online somewhere (and I cba'd to look for it again) that the demarcation point for FTTC is the ethernet port on the modem.

It is part of your contract with BT that everything prior to the demarcation point belongs to, and remains the property of, BT.

Now I suggest that you either prove me wrong or quit trolling.

The Infinity T&C's got changed last April and the whole section about the OR modem and you had to use it and where the demarkation point was all removed.

I suspect that BT were getting ready for self installs or that the kegal department left it out for some other reason.

But when I signed up for Infinity there is absoultly nothing stating anything about the status of the modem.

Which puts the whole question of it into legal limbo as how can any conditions be put onto it when nothing is stated in the contract?

I've given you a quote where Openreach stipulate that the LAN1 port of the moden, so in effect the modem, is the demarkation point. As you agree it is their modem surely that is sufficient?

You should not urinate upon it, and neither can you remove it.

The latest Anon ([cough]) post makes a very good point. I have no reason to doubt what is said there. Self-install is certainly supposed to be coming, and I believe is or was intended to remove the stipulation of the Openreach modem. Maybe that has been delayed due to the lack of approvable alternative devices, to which I think I alluded earlier - people using VDSL2 routers all seem to have some problem or other, though they still work overall.

The Openreach FTTC/P modems form the Active NTE within a premises
This is referred to as the demarcation point.

The biggest risk in replacing the modem is that a line fault develops, that is not present when the Openreach modem is connected, and thus the consumer gets billed for it.

The chances of Telecommunications Act 1984 and fiddling with the telco network beyond the NTE being brought into play are slight, and only likely to arise if you someone how break the cabinet hardware.

There is plenty of documenation referring to NTE and Active NTE and demarcation points, but none that will satisfy the original posters target wording.

At the end of the day, only solution would be to get a lawyer to give you the expanded version of the myriad of the documents.

There is no need to keep reiterating that the modem is the NTE and belongs to Openreach, that's a given as far as this thread is concerned. And whilst any risks associated with removing the modem are interesting, they do not address the original question, so for now please just looking for proof that removing it is against the rules

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The chances of Telecommunications Act 1984 and fiddling with the telco network beyond the NTE being brought into play are slight

They are not slight they are non existant

OK we've moved on from suggesting the Misuse of Computers Act could be involved to mentioning the Telco Act 1984. Just to refute another poster's idea that I need the proof in words of one syllable I read the Act. It says an offence occurs if a person dishonestly obtains a service with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the provision of that service. Or if a person has in his custody anything which may be used for the purpose of obtaining a service with intent to avoid payment.

Since there is no intent to avoid payment then no offence has occurred. This is not a loophole or get out clause. The central facts are if the modem is replaced with the users own equipment then nothing has been damaged or stolen and no service has been obtained without payment.

Sorry guys I know you are desperate to hold on to the idea that the modem can't be removed and don't like anyone questioning your authority on the matter but there remains no proof that this is the case

Edited by deleted (Sun 22-Apr-12 12:05:48)

I will ask Openreach the question once people are in the office.

Based on your take, there is also nothing wrong with people removing the NTE5 to replace the backplate area with something they would prefer.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Based on your take, there is also nothing wrong with people removing the NTE5 to replace the backplate area with something they would prefer.

No idea, but to be honest I have no interest in that question, I'm only interested in removal of the modem. Feel free to start your own thread if you would like to discuss the NTE5.

Thanks for offering to talk to Openreach, much appreciated but whatever info they give you, please ask for links to something written down, more hearsay won't clarify anything

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

try this link to it on google

Reveals also that if you have the data extension kit, the warranty lasts 12 months, after which that is yours

FTTC modem becomes the active demarcation point

Andrew -- You link does not show up in the post due to the inadvertent inclusion of a space between the url= and the http. Would you care to correct it? As it stands, your post is pretty pointless.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

To revert, I think all you have to do is to go back to factory settings by a hard reset.

No, that is incorrect. You will need to re-install the original firmware. A "hard reset" will still leave the firmware with access available.

In reply to a post by burakkucat:

As it stands, your post is pretty pointless.

Even with a full link http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=openreach%2... shown as intended, the post is pointless as all the doc does is talk about what NTE is, which is not is dispute.

Also gents, whether or not factory resets restore firmware is not really at issue here, please feel free to start another thread if that is of interest

Edited by deleted (Sun 22-Apr-12 14:19:09)

http://tinyurl.com/89ge5oe

is pretty much the only reseller T&C that specifies that the openreach modem remains the property of...


the absence of any qualification of ownership is a bit of mystery from all other T&Cs, even if there is a self-install coming up... there is always a engineer install option available.

The actual proof may well be behind the CP interfaces so do not hold your breath for a precise wording that meets your goal

I would add if the Openreach modem was considered optional post activation, then providers would probably have already swapped it over

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It is also a fact that by the time you have been out of your house for ten minutes, travelling to another location, you will have broken a myriad of laws, of which your ignorance "is no excuse".

Fact is it? utter twaddle , i have traveled to lots of places without breaking the law as I'm sure plenty of others have too

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

I didn't imply or say that it was ,

Have to admit it, this has been the most pointless and boring thread I have read for along time

In reply to a post by smurf46:

It doesn't need to be put "in black and white". Its a common law principle that if you receive someone else's property...<snip>

That does still not preclude somebody from updating the firmware. They are not breaking anything and it is reasonable to expect to find something in black and white.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I think the question is this: Where does it say you can't use your own modem or load different firmware onto the OR modem?

I think the answer is: Nowhere.

Exactly. That is the whole point of the OP. Many people are giving examples not applicable to this case - especially as they are using regulations written in black and white to make their point!

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The OP has agreed the supplied modem is Openreach property.
End of. He is not entitled to mess with it without their permission.

You say that with great conviction, as if it were written down somewhere. The OP is entitiled to assume that in the absence of any limitation, he IS entitiled to modify the OS of the router - providing the changes are not permanent. This is not the same as being allowed to hit it with a hammer or FUBAR it.

He is not trolling, he is just disagreeing - just as you are. It takes two to tango. Don't start banning people just because they disagree with you.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It's simply that I happened to know the name of the relevant act, so finding it was easy smile.

If such a basic point were available in writing, one would not have to look far for it. TBH, I'd expect a piece of paper to be handed over by the engineer saying what can and cannot be done with the modem.

In reply to a post by Squirrel:

Have to admit it, this has been the most pointless and boring thread I have read for along time

Only because nobody is answering the question that the OP asked.

If the OP wants to know the 'official' position he should contact Openreach's legal department.

He cannot, as the OP has no relationship with Openreach.

Posting whilst under a ban is not a good idea.

http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/submitFeedback....

The T&C's of the product that are supplied to ISP's (as they are the customer of BTW/Openreach) say:

We'll supply and connect a VDSL2 active NTE to the data port of the SSFP. This allows us to monitor and test the product. The active NTE needs to be located within reach of a power supply and must remain connected to the power and data port at all times.

Whether or not the same terms are passed on to the End User by the ISP is another matter.

In reply to a post by Alexir:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Anyone doubting that the general view that the Openreach modem should not be tampered with or replaced is correct is being unrealistic. Or deliberately mischievous.

This is the whole point of the initial question. The general view is indeed that the modem should not be touched, I know that I said it upfront. The problem is there's no proof, it's just what lots of people think.

I think the question of loading hacked firmware is almost certainly covered by this Statutory Instrument, in that the hacked firmware will not have been certified for use in equipment connected to the Openreach network. The certification of the modem will be invalidated.

Whether any of the VDSL2 routers that have been used to replace the Openreach modem, by posters on these forums, are certified for connection is another question, requiring the relevant details of such equipment.

I shall continue, sporadically, to look for regulations directly addressing the specific case of equipment substitution per se.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The actual proof may well be behind the CP interfaces

CP, Communication Providers yes I get that bit. Erm, the overall meaning in plain English please.

CPs have a different web interface to Openreach that mere mortals, and this will include their contractual information, that lays this out in lawyer speak.

The onus is then on the provider to communicate this to the consumer. This is generally done in a manner that states modem is owned by Openreach, and must remain connected to a continuous power supply.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

... people using VDSL2 routers all seem to have some problem or other, though they still work overall.

I'm having no troubles whatsoever with my Fritz!Box 7390 working as a VDSL2 modem / router (on 80/20 and running IPv6 natively on dual stack fwiw).
'My' Openreach modem is available, if required, for any troubleshooting should there be a problem at any point.
I could be wrong, but wasn't ADSL originally in the same position with an engineer install and a BT modem?

In reply to a post by panda:

The T&C's of the product that are supplied to ISP's (as they are the customer of BTW/Openreach) say:

We'll supply and connect a VDSL2 active NTE to the data port of the SSFP. This allows us to monitor and test the product. The active NTE needs to be located within reach of a power supply and must remain connected to the power and data port at all times.

Whether or not the same terms are passed on to the End User by the ISP is another matter.

What you quoted has no relevance to this thread. It does, however, say that I cannot turn it off, as I do when away from home for an extended period .

In reply to a post by Al1264:

I'm having no troubles whatsoever with my Fritz!Box 7390 working as a VDSL2 modem / router (on 80/20 and running IPv6 natively on dual stack fwiw).

But on the other hand, there is this thread about that specific one. Still running.

Of course you're absolutely correct on that one, I should have said 'no troubles whatsoever on the VDSL2/broadband' which is what we're really talking about.
Those who had early (hot) Openreach modems will know that they had their own share of problems

In reply to a post by Alexir:

People often comment that you can't touch the Openreach modem (to hack it or replace it), what's the official position on this does anyone know? Whenever people mention this rule they never follow up with a link to any Ts&Cs, it certainly seems plausible but without evidence is it just a myth?

There is no legal position. It's against the T+Cs to do so but it's not illegal. The VDSL modem becomes the Openreach demarcation point for the FTTC service so anything up to and including the modem is covered by the standard conditions on leaving Openreach stuff alone.

Worst that could happen is Openreach terminate your service for breach of T+Cs, that's it.

Quite why this needed so many responses is beyond me

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Worst that could happen is Openreach terminate your service for breach of T+Cs, that's it. Quite why this needed so many responses is beyond me

Lots of responses because there are entrenched views and a slightly more complicated situation than at first might seem. Those Ts&Cs you refer to are the terms between Openreach and the Communication Provider, the end user has no relationship with Openreach

Edited by deleted (Mon 23-Apr-12 09:09:31)

In slightly different words I have said that many times, but been told that is not what the question was.

If the modem is the demarcation point then all the people that have changed the filter and cables have also broken the T&Cs

Cable maybe, but there isn't a separate filter with FTTC, it's built into the new faceplate supplied by BT when they install it.

The engineer used my existing ADSL cable from the socket to the modem. I wonder where that leaves us .

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The engineer used my existing ADSL cable from the socket to the modem. I wonder where that leaves us .

That would seem to suggest Openreach are now using your home wiring as part of their network. You should probably be charging them line rental

Post deleted by billford

Advertising is not permitted.

Post deleted by Sadoldman

A related discussion can be found on the TalkTalk members forum. [1]

Veteran contributor, redchiz provides a useful link to an Openreach document on FTTC demarcation rules.

The document is entitled "Flexible Demarcation - An Industry Guide" (v1.0 - 1st December 2011). [2]

That document states that in FTTC installations, the Network Termination Point (NTP) - that is the statutory point of demarcation between the network and the consumer premises - is still the NTE5 (or similar termination box).

** FTTC demarcation rules are as follows -

The NTE5 is the Network Termination Point of the Openreach access network within the end user’s premises, although Openreach also maintains the active NTE.

The active NTE is the FTTC VDSL modem and will be located close to a power source and the desired service location.

The active NTE can be located separately from the NTE5 and can be connected via Data Extension Kit (DEK) cabling up to a length of 30m.

Any Openreach-installed data extension wiring comes with a one-year warranty and becomes the end user’s property.

cheers, a

[1] http://www.talktalkmembers.com/forums/showthread.php...
[2] http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/helpandsupport/...

Thread over a month old and you now opt to indicate ways to make a bomb, illustrating a basic method as an analogy, is not appropriate for our site.