In reply to a post by PCJM40:

Added the word 'perceived' for for the benefit of Pheasant

Thank you (I think) for considering my sensibilities in all of this 😀. However may I politely suggest that we simply await a final (hopefully) positive update from @CJT tomorrow and then matters hopefully can be laid to rest.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

we simply await a final (hopefully) positive update from @CJT tomorrow and then matters hopefully can be laid to rest.

Absolutely fella, I'll keep my fingers crossed for a positive outcome

Hello,

I am back with the latest update.

An engineer from MJ Quinn arrived on my street just after 8:30am today and about 8:45 he knocked at my door. I asked him if he’d had any issues relating to the job and he advised he had, at which point I explained the previous situation to him. He advised the pole nearest to me was on a different “head end” so that’s why it could not be used. Just before he arrived I also spotted two Openreach vans on my road, and engineers working at the next pole down from mine.

The MJ Quinn engineer advised me he had spoken to those OR engineers who advised him they were commissioning that pole for FTTP and to connect my house to the same pole and that it could take up to a week to be finalised and commissioned at which point either my service will go live or if the ONT flashes Green to text him and he will request it’s provisioned.

I have no idea if the appearance of OR was a coincidence or related to my e-mail to the CEO team but I am glad things are progressing

Good update. So as potentially thought, not a straight-forward hook up for you as the CBTs are served from different handover exchanges.

Sit tight and let Openreach do the commissioning of the new CBT. It's starting to become clearer (to me at least) why Aquiss suggested you reach out to the exec handling team to assist with getting this sorted out.

I've been in similar merry go round with Openreach for similar crazy situations (like waiting for a pole to be replaced for a serving pole for a leased circuit - which already was serving us FTTP - weeks, weeks and weeks of chasing and finally another Openreach inspector decided their initial surveyor was incorrect all along and all it needed was a cherry picker...😂

We effectively lost 2 months of install time, because of a simple mistake

Sometimes you just have to remain cool and calm. 😅

It’s very unlikely that it’s a different headend exchange, it’s much more likely that the CBT is on a different splitter , but the same headend exchange building , the contractor probably dumbing it down ( or uniformed ) the new CBT may be on a different ‘card’ on the same OLT , or possibly on an adjacent OLT in the same headend building, but not in a completely different headend exchange ,
Openreach don’t put multiple CBT’s on the same pole or jointbox from different splitters ( admittedly this is two different poles ) let alone infrastructure from different headend locations, if these poles are so close that spans could be put up between them (DILOR , dropwire in line of route ) the CBTs on them almost certainly will go back to the same headend building.

Edited by Iniltous (Mon 31-Mar-25 13:06:48)

In reply to a post by CJT:

Hello,

I am back with the latest update.

An engineer from MJ Quinn arrived on my street just after 8:30am today and about 8:45 he knocked at my door. I asked him if he’d had any issues relating to the job and he advised he had, at which point I explained the previous situation to him. He advised the pole nearest to me was on a different “head end” so that’s why it could not be used. Just before he arrived I also spotted two Openreach vans on my road, and engineers working at the next pole down from mine.

when they provisioned the existing infrastructure; one pon went to headend x and the other to headend y. One conector is typically provisioned per property. Some how i think yours may have been missed and whilst putting you on the other pon, it would still result in a property to be missed. Hence a new cbt!.

In reply to a post by CJT:

I have no idea if the appearance of OR was a coincidence or related to my e-mail to the CEO team but I am glad things are progressing

Martin did the right thing to ask you to contact the MD of OR, as it was a fuzz up and the quickest way was the route suggested.

In reply to a post by CJT:

I have no idea if the appearance of OR was a coincidence or related to my e-mail to the CEO team

Its unlikely to be a coincidence. I do still have questions how your service will go live on the new CBT in a weeks time without additional intervention once the CBT goes live. Hopefully the necessary work like your Aquiss service configured for that PON and your ONT registered against that PON are in hand with someone via your direct escalation.

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

...the contractor probably dumbing it down ( or uniformed )

Well wouldn't be the first time or the last 😅

Either way, sounds like this is not the same PON - or even the same OLT - maybe that's what they meant by literal 'headend' rather than 'headend exchange' (the latter to my mind being however many OLTs make up an overall headend, rather than a headend = a single chassis).

But this is sort of semantic to the main event anyway; which is that Openreach still need to complete physical stuff rather than soft configuration, which apparently could take some time yet. But hopefully not too long.

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

I do still have questions how your service will go live on the new CBT in a weeks time without additional intervention once the CBT goes live. Hopefully the necessary work like your Aquiss service configured for that PON and your ONT registered against that PON are in hand with someone via your direct escalation.

If the PON exists and is already active, then so long as they've registered the ONT to it - it should come up and be authenticated immediately once it gets light.

If they have to build a new PON etc. then further back end intervention obv needed. Some additional testing etc, but again if they hold the registration details of the ONT, then it should be able to be done remotely.

If @CJT see the LOS light glowing then he knows there is no light at all hitting the ONT- so someone needs to complete the physical work to get light all the way there. If LOS is out but the PON light is blinking - then that soft configuration work is incomplete

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

In reply to a post by Iniltous:

...the contractor probably dumbing it down ( or uniformed )

Well wouldn't be the first time or the last 😅

Either way, sounds like this is not the same PON - or even the same OLT - maybe that's what they meant by literal 'headend' rather than 'headend exchange' (the latter to my mind being however many OLTs make up an overall headend, rather than a headend = a single chassis).

yup in many ways even if it was correctly suggested that it was a different headend, the same issue surfaces. Also somebody may have ordered a second ont at the same property and that left cjt with no spare port. At the end of the day a new (presumably a 4 port cbt will be placed on the pole.

basically in my head thats what ended up for cjt, no correct port or no spare port.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

But this is sort of semantic to the main event anyway; which is that Openreach still need to complete physical stuff rather than soft configuration, which apparently could take some time yet. But hopefully not too long.

yep and completing the database updates etc.