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.