General Discussion
  >> Fibre 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] | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 06-Jan-13 20:54:39
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: eckiedoo] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by eckiedoo:
Not having FTTC, I don't have any experience of those modems.
Nor have I. I'm solely looking at the legal aspects of it.

However, with Fibre, I believe the NTE5 ceases to be the borderline of OR's fiefdom; the OR modem becomes an NTE (Network Termination Equipment) in its own right.

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 19 Meg WBC
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Sun 06-Jan-13 20:55:48
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: XRaySpeX] [link to this post]
 
Fortunately, I have already posted proof that this is wrong.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________ this is not usenet __________________
Moderator billford
(moderator) Sun 06-Jan-13 21:03:23
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: RobertoS] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by RobertoS:
The information you were given, and the form in which it was given, is probably legally binding in your case.
Not necessarily.

If it was on company stationery it probably had "E&OE" somewhere at the bottom...

Bill
[email protected] __________________Planes and Boats and ... __________________BQMs: IPv4 IPv6
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband moderator but it does not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.


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

Standard User Uilebheist
(legend) Sun 06-Jan-13 21:04:57
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: billford] [link to this post]
 
And if it was in email it probably had a huge disclaimer at the bottom, although nobody ever reads them.
Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 06-Jan-13 21:06:46
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
You have no proof!

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 19 Meg WBC
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Sun 06-Jan-13 22:16:07
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: XRaySpeX] [link to this post]
 
Not only do I have proof, I have also posted the link for you - even though you don't have Infinity.
But as I may have said before, I encourage anyone who is so minded, to request proof from Openreach as I did, rather than take my word for it.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________ this is not usenet __________________
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 06-Jan-13 22:40:05
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by BatBoy:
I disagree as I have been informed otherwise.


You are aware that Openreach employees get things wrong too? I have seen more than one instance of this in the past months, from the CEO downwards.

http://www.openreach.co.uk/flexibledemarcationguide

** FTTC demarcation rules are as follows - The NTE5 is the Network Termination Point of the Openreach access network within the end userís 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 userís property.


http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/indust...

Future Evolution
Ė Self Install SSFP?
Ė CP-owned Active NTE?


Seems a bit strange to be discussing the possibility of CPs owning an active NTE when giving them to end users, nor mentioning specifically that the data extension wiring becomes the end user's property rather than, say, everything after the NTE5.

Did you ask for this information from nga.enquiries? In my experience I've received some quite dubious info from them at times.

EDIT: I'll ask a contact from Openreach about this, see if he can confirm. Have been liaising with him over a few issues so he should be able to supply reliable information.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Sun 06-Jan-13 22:55:04)

Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Sun 06-Jan-13 23:04:48
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
EDIT: I'll ask a contact from Openreach about this, see if he can confirm. Have been liaising with him over a few issues so he should be able to supply reliable information.
Well, there's your answer
** FTTC demarcation rules are as follows - The NTE5 is the Network Termination Point of the Openreach access network within the end userís premises



_____________________________________________________________________________________________ this is not usenet __________________
Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 06-Jan-13 23:14:44
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: BatBoy] [link to this post]
 
That's a cheat, truncating the sentence.

Anyway it does not matter, since that doc scope is:
The document is produced for information purposes only. Communications Providers should refer to the applicable Openreach terms and conditions and the Openreach Price List. Their contents take precedence over any information held herein.
and so has no legal part to play between you, the end-user, and your ISP.

PS: Not received anything you promised.

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 19 Meg WBC
Standard User BatBoy
(legend) Sun 06-Jan-13 23:18:17
Print Post

Re: So In Summary...


[re: XRaySpeX] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:
That's a cheat, truncating the sentence.
No, just removing the excess after the comma. The statement regarding the termination point is unchanged.
PS: Not received anything you promised.
No, no, I posted the link (much) earlier in this thread.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________ this is not usenet __________________
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | [8] | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to