A pole climb does not automatically mean two engineers required.

A joint user pole, or a road crossing, yes.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

A pole climb does not automatically mean two engineers required.

A joint user pole, or a road crossing, yes.

I was just about to ask you if all pole climbs needed 2 engineers.

But how many does it take to change a lightbulb?

Claim it's a welfare case. Elderly, disabled, carer, home worker for key organisation, just use your imagination but has to have ring of authenticity to it.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Exceptions were allowed, for instance if the customer had no service at all, or if their existing slow service meant they were unable to carry out a key role ....

That's not individual exceptions justified on an individual basis. The exceptions you refer to were part of the blanket ruleset that Openreach applied to decide whether to delay a provision.

I guess you work for OR and agree with the stance they took and that's fine - I understand, but from a consumer side when there has been a genuine need for an exception outside of the Openreach stance, this whole process has been pretty frustrating - even more so when they then don't hit the date that they agreed to!

In reply to a post by rogan8:

Claim it's a welfare case. Elderly, disabled, carer, home worker for key organisation, just use your imagination but has to have ring of authenticity to it.

That's not me as that would be disingenuous, hence I just accepted the delay at the time regardless of the big inconvenience to us.

In our case it's due to the sensitive nature of a job role - hence the FTTP was ordered as an additional connection alongside the existing FTTC to facilitate home working with separate connections (required by company policy). Not having the additional connection resulted in no home working - hence my comments about the Openreach blanket stance not taking account of individual circumstances. I even asked about having an additional FTTC connection instead and they still said no.

Anyway - that's all irrelevant now as the restrictions have been relaxed and just need them to come and install it!

In reply to a post by ashlez:

In our case the FTTP connection was an additional connection solely for home working (as required by policy due to sensitive nature of job role).

How is that even a thing? Is the line specially connected direct to a non-internet network at the ISP end?

If the avoidance of any kind of shared infrastructure is a requirement, it's hard to see how anything short of a direct leased line is acceptable, and even then... Sounds likely to me to be a policy crafted by someone who should know better.

If it had been ordered as a business connection it may have been delivered as no existing business connection exists.

As you already had a res connection and most homeworking just requires a VPN for security there was no exception for you. Security wise there is little difference having a 2nd connection as the security risk is all with the people in the house with access to the router. ( I assume that you would have the wifi off on the router)

If it was required for an 'official' high security connection your security controller should have ordered it through the correct channels and it would not have been with a public ISP. that could access the packets but a vendor signed up to govn security standards.

Or in the case of mine THREE Kellys staff!

Have you heard anything today about when they will be coming to do the install?