In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Stops others getting the poor installs you complained about

I don't think it would. All it would do is stop people buying a Huawei HG612 and so stop them fixing their connection themselves.

What we need is G.INP turned on for everyone whose equipment supports it on the upstream.

I have to wonder who the "we" are

So about £600 per adult in the UK.
If you say give first year BB for free.

I'd go for that..

That's precisely why they don't go for it.

The solution is simple but not cheap... a recall of incompatible equipment for replacement with capable equipment.

and new rules on 3rd party equipment... so those with 3rd party equipment that shares similarities with capable BTO equipment can have G.INP assigned by DLM but anyone using equipment with say chipsets other than Broadcom will be stuck on standard Fast path or interleaved profiles even if their chipset supports G.INP on downstream or upstream..

or better still, ban incompatible chipsets from connection to the DSLAM and those with 3rd party equipment will be told they must switch back to a HG612 (if they had one originally) or will be issued a replacement for an ECI modem!

Those who no longer have their HG612's will obviously then have to find an alternative method as it does belong to Openreach and passing it on is "supposed" to be theft!

Edited by mlmclaren (Sun 07-Jun-15 14:31:21)

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Those who no longer have their HG612's will obviously then have to find an alternative method as it does belong to Openreach and passing it on is "supposed" to be theft!

This is not true, I checked.

Really?? Oh OK!

I was lead to beleive they had the same status as the master socket and also aren't they supposed to be left where installed... so no ring them between properties?

This still doesn't excuse anything mentioned above though...

Open reach will still thrown upon those who have removed equipment installed and approved by themselves and "shouldn't" cover users that have removed equipment and replaced it with 3rd party equipment...

Just like if we had issues that where found to be the router beyond the modem..

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

The solution is simple but not cheap... a recall of incompatible equipment for replacement with capable equipment.

But a lot of those modems were installed before G.INP was enabled. They were fully compatible with the service at the time they were installed. What you're suggesting here is that you want to punish BT for improving their service.

or better still, ban incompatible chipsets from connection to the DSLAM and those with 3rd party equipment will be told they must switch back to a HG612 (if they had one originally) or will be issued a replacement for an ECI modem!

So you're not a fan of freedom of choice then? Tell you what - why don't we just roll the clock back and say no-one can fit any telephony equipment to a BT line unless BT have supplied it. Except that, of course, this whole issue is the result of using BT supplied equipment.

Edited by Andrue (Sun 07-Jun-15 20:55:17)

The problem is wholly down to BT. They created it, they should fix it, not fudge it.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The problem is wholly down to BT. They created it, they should fix it, not fudge it.

But they have fixed it. They've disabled G.INP in the upstream. That solves the problem and means no-one is worse off than they were before G,INP was introduced. That that some modems can't take full advantage of a new feature is irrelevant.

Edited by Andrue (Sun 07-Jun-15 20:58:51)