New migration procedure - the OfCom document

So far as I can see this May 2015 document is the latest version at the moment. For ease of direct reference I suggest this extract link supplied by vimto_girl.

The relevant part starts at Condition 22, on Page 80 in the full document.

Edit 1: . Found a later document and have corrected the link and page number. At the time of this edit I haven't checked for any other changes that may affect this post.

Edit 2: Added the link to the extract of the document.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 18:40:48)

If a MAC still exists at some point in the ordering process like your quote suggests (ISP obtain it rather than user), guess it doesnt matter if Joe Bloggs gives the ISP the MAC or they get it themselves.

Guessing there will be a transitional period where both systems may work

Sorry, but you didn't pay proper attention to the document you found.

Annex 3, the MAC Broadband Migrations Process, applies prior to 20th June.

It is not the latest document anyway. That is here: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/telecoms/g...

You're right that I'd found an earlier version. I found this post of yours immediately after editing the OP.

The "Prior to the Harmonisation Date" appears to have been added on 27 April 2015. Hence my mistake.

I've now edited the OP again about that correction.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 18:31:48)

As I said, it was already there in the old version of the Condition you found, that the MAC process was applicable prior to the harmonisation date and the new process applicable from the harmonisation date. For any document you usually need to read the terms to see where and when an annex applies and what it refers to, they cannot be read stand-alone. They did helpfully make it clearer in the new version, glad it helped clarify.

Errrrr .

No it wasn't. Original link - Page 91.

Also see the Note 100 cited against it in the current version.

Read 22.16 - 22.21 of the old version more carefully. Particularly the use of the words "not require".

I'm not the only one that makes mistakes. You can.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 22-Jun-15 19:04:00)

If you read a word I wrote, you certainly wouldn't be trying to quote the Annex back at me.

22.21 Prior to the Harmonisation Date, Communications Providers shall comply with the provisions of the MAC Broadband Migrations Process...

22.30 (ff) �MAC Broadband Migrations Process� means the obligations and processes set out in paragraphs A3.1 to A3.22 of Annex 3 to this Condition

I make mistakes, yes (occasionally ), but I always accept them graciously, I don't automatically hunt around trying to save face

You clearly cannot, or refuse to, understand what the clauses say. In any case there is no point in continuing what is now a completely irrelevant argument over a twice-superseded document and a paragraph long removed from the OP.

The fact that A cannot require B to request A do C in no way precludes B from so requesting and A complying with the request. Paragraphs 22.18 and 22.19, unchanged from the original are the ones where this applies.

The later amendment to A3.1 didn't clarify it. It corrected it. Very clumsily in fact - as written it applies only to A3.1. Not to the rest of A3. So making a pig's ear of the whole thing. The heading should be "MAC Broadband Migrations Process Prior to the Harmonisation Date".

As said, we are talking about a twice-superseded document. The Opening Post started with "So far as I can see this September 2014 document is the latest version at the moment" and is clearly inviting correction on that date/link.

Before your rather ungracious correction I had already found the correct document and was in the process of editing my link and checking/correcting the two page references. I accept you didn't know that, but the tone of your post is the tone of your post.

As a result of your post I added your useful link to the extract, with due acknowledgment. Hardly an ungracious response from me or a hunt to save face.

I posted at 18:25 that I had made those changes, adding at 18:31 the date the document itself had been changed wrt what we are talking about, and acknowledging my mistake!

At 18:40 I decided the "interesting discovery" which is precisely what you are quibbling about was no longer relevant to an Opening Post made for the express purpose, (as it originally said but doesn't need to after that removal), of providing information that other forum users may find useful.

As in another recent thread, it is you that is getting heated and dreaming up fanciful things to say, adding in this case gratuitous insults.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

I don't automatically hunt around trying to save face

That is exactly what you are doing.