Your observations on this FTTC installation please

I tend to baby sit for new FTTC installations for the company's remote workers as they pay for the installation and on-going monthly charges. Done close on 11 installations so far of which only 9 have gone in without any kind of issues. Yesterday's installation was another one which has become problematical and I seek to establish whether I am being unreasonable in complaining about the work that was done.

Prior to FTTC installation, there existed two exchange lines each with wanted extensions throughout the home. The master socket was a dual flush mounted plate with one exchange line supporting an ADSL service. This line was to be upgraded to FTTC.

The OR engineer was from Kelly's who mounted the new interstitial master socket adjacent to the dual master socket and proceeded to wire it up with just two strands of un-sheathed wires by punching down one end onto the existing broadband line face plate and bringing these into the new broadband master socket surfaced mounted alongside. Plugged in the OR modem, waited for the DSL light to become steady and went to leave saying "you are connected now".

While this is perhaps a working "solution" it has the disadvantage of not being able to disconnected extensions for testing purposes. When I commented upon the job was not installed as expected, the response was that only materials for the job are supplied and there was no other solution that could be adopted in this case in this unusual setup.

I responded by saying that the work done should have seen the existing dual master socket being discarded and replaced with a normal master socket for the other line, either on a pattress or using the existing sunken box lugs to support it. Apparently he didn't have a spare master socket with him and in any case it wasn't on his job sheet as a task to do. So on his way he went.

So that was that. I subsequently complained to the ISP who are giving me the complete run around and refusing to request OR to return to site to do a proper job. Yes, I guess I could do the job myself, but why should I?

The OR engineer was from Kelly's who mounted the new interstitial master socket adjacent to the dual master socket and proceeded to wire it up with just two strands of un-sheathed wires by punching down one end onto the existing broadband line face plate and bringing these into the new broadband master socket surfaced mounted alongside.

Some photo's would be helpful. Are you saying that the feed to the 'new NTE' is terminated on the IDC terminations of the original 'double' master socket ? If so the plonker has left a bridge tap on the circuit which will be to the detriment of the VDSL service.

The contractors take the pee, big time, they are a false economy for Openreach.

Getting organised with pictures, anything particular you would like?

You read me correctly, so the answer is yes.

With the FTTC cabinet around 100 yards away, predicted speeds on the 80/20 were close to their maximum. Achieved was less than half of that! So understandable not very happy,

Response from the ISP was a) wait for stabilisation and b) it is within an acceptable range.

Stabilisation on FTTC is normally within three days, and downwards if there is a change, hardly ever upwards.

What the previous posters have said is correct - the newly installed socket is no longer working correctly as either master, test socket, or as VDSL2 data socket.

However, I wondered about this ...

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

Prior to FTTC installation, there existed two exchange lines each with wanted extensions throughout the home. The master socket was a dual flush mounted plate with one exchange line supporting an ADSL service.

I know you can buy dual-master plates, but is this actually a valid Openreach installation in the first place? Do they install 2 lines to a single plate that isn't an NTE5? Or rather a pair of NTE5's?

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

... I seek to establish whether I am being unreasonable in complaining about the work that was done.

Prior to FTTC installation, there existed two exchange lines each with wanted extensions throughout the home. The master socket was a dual flush mounted plate with one exchange line supporting an ADSL service. This line was to be upgraded to FTTC.

In my opinion, you're being unreasonable.
Even though you may have been unaware of the following, you cannot reasonably expect 'Conversion of hard-wired master socket to Linebox and Regularisation of illicit master socket:' on 2 x lines, free of charge, which appears to be what you're expecting.
Prior to visiting the premises,you weren't aware of the ilicit socket. Neither was the Openreach rep!
He should have billed you for time-wasting an aborted visit, with a recommendation to 'Regularise' the lines.

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...by punching down one end onto the existing broadband line face plate and bringing these into the new broadband master socket surfaced mounted alongside.

A better (by no means perfect) solution would be to disconnect the incoming pair from the illicit socket, extend (crimp if necessary) the incoming pair to the A & B terminals on the rear of the approved NTE5/filter combo, then feed 2, 5 & 3 from the NTE5 front/bottom detachable plate back to the illicit socket. However, that probably didn't occur to the Openreach rep when he saw the mess illicit installation he was confronted with.

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...it has the disadvantage of not being able to disconnected extensions for testing purposes.

That facility didn't exist prior to the FTTC installation. If it wasn't considered a 'disadvantage' then, why do you consider it a 'disadvantage' now? It has always been a 'disadvantage' for any type of xDSL! And it'll be the 'norm' next year.
The line should have been (and should still be) 'Regularised'!

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...I subsequently complained to the ISP who are giving me the complete run around and refusing to request OR to return to site to do a proper job.

Have you (or the householder) offered to pay for 'Regularisation'? You 'babysat'. You saw the illicit socket.
Your complaint should have been directed towards the installer of the illicit socket.

My two pence...

The entire response from 'JimmyBoy' makes the assumption that the dual master socket is illicit implying that it was a DIY installation. This was simply not the case. As a newish property, it was prewired by the builder with flush sockets throughout the house with a master socket located in the living room.

While in recent years it has been common to be able to isolated internal wiring, this has not always been the case and there exist many installations where this remains the case. As a general rule of thumb the need to isolate internal wiring is seldom necessary but is a useful facility when broadband of any flavour is installed.

For the purchaser of the home, this pre-wiring with phone sockets avoids unsightly internal or external wiring but increasing, over time, a second exchange line is desired, perhaps to have simultaneous dial up broadband and voice calls and/or a business line. It is up to the installing engineer to decide how to deliver this additional service, after establishing in which room the additional line is required. As it happens the existing flush master socket was replaced by a dual master socket by BT employee and therefore in my book, quite official.

An engineer installed FTTC converts the existing master socket and is advertised by the ISP as a free install. In my book the rare arrangement presented of an ***official*** dual master socket, should have been the de-wiring of the broadband line from the dual master socket and bringing the connections into the new master socket.

Effectively in a technical incorrect way this is what exactly happened. Had the dual master socket been surfaced mounted, irrespective of age or type, it would have been an easy job to do but as it was claimed that only the hardwire for a standard install was supplied and to do the link wiring was too difficult, I had to accept the unsatisfactory solution provided or face abortive installation charges and the desired improvement to broadband speeds for several days/weeks.

Your response describes a better solution [although for some reason says is not perfect, why?] but hammer on about al illicit installation when it was quite officially installed as stated above.

The only reason that we have a current need to isolate the existing wiring is because predictive speeds are 40% lower and we want to eliminate any extension wiring issues that is causing this. ADSL provided the top speed available on that service so there has never been any need for isolation tests.

You talk about paying for 'regularisation", yes it might come down to that or an illegal tampering with BT/OR 'plant' with a DIY solution. Being an officially installed setup in the first place, who exactly do you suggest I contact to complain about how it has affected the current upgrade? I believe had it not been am OR contractor, this entire thread would not have appeared on TB.

I think I have covered everything here and I don't expect something for nothing; to me it was a straight forward job and therefore within the remit of a free installation as advertised by the ISP.

In reply to a post by JimmyBoy:

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

... I seek to establish whether I am being unreasonable in complaining about the work that was done.

Prior to FTTC installation, there existed two exchange lines each with wanted extensions throughout the home. The master socket was a dual flush mounted plate with one exchange line supporting an ADSL service. This line was to be upgraded to FTTC.

In my opinion, you're being unreasonable.
Even though you may have been unaware of the following, you cannot reasonably expect 'Conversion of hard-wired master socket to Linebox and Regularisation of illicit master socket:' on 2 x lines, free of charge, which appears to be what you're expecting.
Prior to visiting the premises,you weren't aware of the ilicit socket. Neither was the Openreach rep!
He should have billed you for time-wasting an aborted visit, with a recommendation to 'Regularise' the lines.

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...by punching down one end onto the existing broadband line face plate and bringing these into the new broadband master socket surfaced mounted alongside.

A better (by no means perfect) solution would be to disconnect the incoming pair from the illicit socket, extend (crimp if necessary) the incoming pair to the A & B terminals on the rear of the approved NTE5/filter combo, then feed 2, 5 & 3 from the NTE5 front/bottom detachable plate back to the illicit socket. However, that probably didn't occur to the Openreach rep when he saw the mess illicit installation he was confronted with.

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...it has the disadvantage of not being able to disconnected extensions for testing purposes.

That facility didn't exist prior to the FTTC installation. If it wasn't considered a 'disadvantage' then, why do you consider it a 'disadvantage' now? It has always been a 'disadvantage' for any type of xDSL! And it'll be the 'norm' next year.
The line should have been (and should still be) 'Regularised'!

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...I subsequently complained to the ISP who are giving me the complete run around and refusing to request OR to return to site to do a proper job.

Have you (or the householder) offered to pay for 'Regularisation'? You 'babysat'. You saw the illicit socket.
Your complaint should have been directed towards the installer of the illicit socket.

My two pence...

COWBOY - where did he tie up his horse?

Zarjaz has covered most of it. Pictures of the inside of the sockets would be useful showing which wires are going where and maybe a wiring diagram that identifies the wires and sockets.

As for a dual master - I have a couple of original BT dual masters lying around here, they did exist and were legitimately used.

Well said, I get a daily digest by email, and when I saw that post I thought straight away, that it might not be a cowboy job, I would keep on at the ISP, and failing a decent response, push it up to their CEO, the only thing that made any sense in that rant, was that the engineer should have wired it correctly in the first place by taking the pair to the A&B terminals then back wiring to the double for the phone line.

In reply to a post by JimmyBoy:

In reply to a post by trolleybus:

...it has the disadvantage of not being able to disconnected extensions for testing purposes.

That facility didn't exist prior to the FTTC installation. If it wasn't considered a 'disadvantage' then, why do you consider it a 'disadvantage' now? It has always been a 'disadvantage' for any type of xDSL! And it'll be the 'norm' next year.

Eh? Wot?

What does an NTE5A do if it doesn't isolate extension wiring when using the test socket on an ADSLx or even an FTTC setup?