In reply to a post by candlerb:

I'm sure they don't, as they have no obligation to provide *any* kind of service at all. It's left to market forces to weed out the rubbish ones.

Thanks, as I suspected.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

(Only because the telephone exchanges had rooms full of batteries!)

Pretty much all of them have generator backup around here - they proved to have insufficient supply of fuel for them durin Arwen but it's the thought that counts.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Do the alt nets have any Ofcom requirements over resilience ?

I believe that, if they provide internet access then, as a minimum, clause A3.2 of the "General Conditions of Entitlement" applies which says:

A3.2 Regulated Providers must take all necessary measures to ensure:
(a) the fullest possible availability of Voice Communications Services and Internet Access Services provided over Public Electronic Communications Networks in the event of catastrophic network breakdown or in cases of force majeure; and
(b) uninterrupted access to Emergency Organisations as part of any Voice Communications Services offered.

That, as written, is a very strong requirement - if the network fails during a power failure then by definition the requirement has not been met. The word "reasonable" doesn't feature in the text so if the network would fail after a three week country wide power failure then they have failed to meet that requirement and are in breach of their license.

I suspect that Ofcom's enforcement approach doesn't match the strength of the regulation however.

In reply to a post by Dassa:

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Do the alt nets have any Ofcom requirements over resilience ?

I believe that, if they provide internet access then, as a minimum, clause A3.2 of the "General Conditions of Entitlement" applies which says:

A3.2 Regulated Providers must take all necessary measures to ensure:
(a) the fullest possible availability of Voice Communications Services and Internet Access Services provided over Public Electronic Communications Networks in the event of catastrophic network breakdown or in cases of force majeure; and
(b) uninterrupted access to Emergency Organisations as part of any Voice Communications Services offered.

That, as written, is a very strong requirement - if the network fails during a power failure then by definition the requirement has not been met. The word "reasonable" doesn't feature in the text so if the network would fail after a three week country wide power failure then they have failed to meet that requirement and are in breach of their license.

I suspect that Ofcom's enforcement approach doesn't match the strength of the regulation however.

Is does say "possible". So, in the case of storms making access to charge batteries or fuel, or a long term power outage, they is a get out.

In reply to a post by MHC:

In reply to a post by Dassa:

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Do the alt nets have any Ofcom requirements over resilience ?

I believe that, if they provide internet access then, as a minimum, clause A3.2 of the "General Conditions of Entitlement" applies which says:

A3.2 Regulated Providers must take all necessary measures to ensure:
(a) the fullest possible availability of Voice Communications Services and Internet Access Services provided over Public Electronic Communications Networks in the event of catastrophic network breakdown or in cases of force majeure; and
(b) uninterrupted access to Emergency Organisations as part of any Voice Communications Services offered.

That, as written, is a very strong requirement - if the network fails during a power failure then by definition the requirement has not been met. The word "reasonable" doesn't feature in the text so if the network would fail after a three week country wide power failure then they have failed to meet that requirement and are in breach of their license.

I suspect that Ofcom's enforcement approach doesn't match the strength of the regulation however.

Is does say "possible". So, in the case of storms making access to charge batteries or fuel, or a long term power outage, they is a get out.

I disagree. It is possible for someone to run their own power network, it is possible to keep a years supply of diesel in tanks, it is possible to have a stock of 10,000 generators and the personnel to deliver them to where they are needed sat around drinking tea waiting for a major power failure.

Your post illustrates the problem with the requirement, I am taking it as its English meaning, you are taking it as its practical meaning (for some definition of practical). Who knows how Ofcom interpret it?

It would be more helpful if the requirement was specified in more detail. What protection against power failure is considered reasonable? What protection against terrorist attack is considered reasonable? What protection against civil unrest in considered reasonable? What protection against <insert threat here> is reasonable?

I did ask Ofcom what they thought was reasonable for the power question (why would I size a UPS to deliver more protection to comms. equipment than the rest of the network?) - I didn't get a response to my email.

I am taking it from a contractual viewpoint and having been responsible for a key UK comms network at one time, I know fully what the requirements are. There is always a level or "reasonable endeavours" and putting a year's worth of fuel in a location may not be reasonable, 10,000 generators - not rreasonable.

In addition to this, if there's a country-wide power outage that lasts three weeks then the availability of your internet service won't be in the top 100 considerations.

In reply to a post by jpm:

In addition to this, if there's a country-wide power outage that lasts three weeks then the availability of your internet service won't be in the top 100 considerations.

Of course it will .... all those millions who will not be able to use Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok &c to post pictures of empty fridges, being wrapped up in 19 layers, ... they will be riotting.

In reply to a post by MHC:

I am taking it from a contractual viewpoint and having been responsible for a key UK comms network at one time, I know fully what the requirements are. There is always a level or "reasonable endeavours" and putting a year's worth of fuel in a location may not be reasonable, 10,000 generators - not rreasonable.

I am reading the "General Conditions of Entitlement" under which most (all?) public communications networks operate and stating what the English means. That is not a matter of contract but a matter of law.

I haven't traced up through the legislation under which those conditions exist to see whether there is a requirement for the conditions to be reasonable. It wouldn't surprise me if there was, but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't either. I note that the conditions apply reasonability to some requirements and not others so I'm leaning towards there not being a reasonability test in the legislation but that is speculation - feel free to prove me wrong.

Contracts don't always have a "reasonable endeavours" element, or, if they do then it doesn't apply to all parts. Whilst the parties receiving the money really want there to be a reasonable endeavours clause, that usually doesn't apply to the essence of the contract. If I pay you to paint my door red and you paint it black then saying that you used reasonable endeavours to get red paint but black was all you could get hold of isn't going to cut it if you sue me when I don't pay you.

If I was buying a communications link which was expressly to be used in the event of a power failure then a reasonable endeavours clause permitting non-performance in the case of power failure makes the whole supply useless to me. Of course, that might mean that I can't buy what I want - there are solutions to that - one is that I buy some dark fibre and do it myself, the other is that I point out to government that critical national infrastructure should be protected from power failure and they should require people who provide it to do that so I don't need to ask for it on a commercial basis (which would never be offered) - see above.

In my case when upgrading from FTTC to FTTP with Vodafone I explicitly agreed to removal of the copper after the installation was complete. However the OpenReach team installing the fibre cracked the copper connection while installing the fibre (tugged it to see if it was in a buried duct) but the broadband continued working. They repaired it and installed the fibre ready for connection.
Then a different OpenReach team installing fibre next door cracked our copper again (without interrupting broadband) apparently by damaging an original junction box in the duct along the street! Finally, several days later, I was connected to FTTP and have been promised some compensation for about 10 days without a landline telephone. In fact the OR engineer who activated the FTTP did not connect the telephone as it was not included on his jobsheet and it took another few days before the necessary adjustments were made by Vodafone.