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?