That would make sense, another option is that just prior to going live we have seen estimates vanish

So for now it is sit tight and see what happens

Hello,

I am only going to address this once so we can clear this up because I am still at a loss about what the hell your talking about. What contradicting information did I post? I clearly posted that my speed test showed I was getting around 71mbps and then I posted the stats from the modem to see if they would help determine if the speed/stats could help as an indication about distance to the cabinet and that has been a clear no that it does not, so thats the end of that. In response to your previous post yes I am a "newbie" at the stats but I do understand what the Downstream rate means but I still have no idea how that contradicts what I said earlier against speed vs stats.

As for the e-mail I can assure you this is a legitimate e-mail from OR (Infrastructure Solutions Customer Service) which I am happy to forward a screenshot to the moderators for verification (just won't post publicly here).

Edited by deleted (Wed 06-Jun-18 16:52:15)

Blimey things have escalated.

The 71 Mbps was not originally communicated as a speed test result, particularly as the connection speed is a lot more important than a speed test in evaluating possible G.fast availability.

End of story is this....do nothing else until such time as someone with 20m of the cabinet is able to order g.fast

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Blimey things have escalated.

The 71 Mbps was not originally communicated as a speed test result, particularly as the connection speed is a lot more important than a speed test in evaluating possible G.fast availability.

End of story is this....do nothing else until such time as someone with 20m of the cabinet is able to order g.fast

Ah ok gotcha so its a case of not being clearer on the language or technical terms I used. So I apologies if that original 71mbps came across as a line stats and not a speed test result as it originally was.

Edited by deleted (Wed 06-Jun-18 17:01:29)

In reply to a post by ansam:

Fibre Delivery Manger

Not sure that someone from OR would get the word Manager wrong, just saying.

I sent a screenshot to MrSaffron of the e-mail thread to confirm its authenticity.

Ok, I will wait and see if this gets activated. As you said @MrSaffron perhaps the "Planned" was removed ready for activation so I will keep an eye on it with properties closer to the cabinet see what comes up and when I see G.Fast available on their lines I will check my line again.

I hope you included the source information with that screenshot and not just pic of the email as it's very easy to have an email from any email address and only the source information will validate where it's from.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

I hope you included the source information with that screenshot and not just pic of the email as it's very easy to have an email from any email address and only the source information will validate where it's from.

Isn't it better to give the benefit of the doubt? I think it more likely that someone in BT typing a quick email has made spelling mistakes than that a forum user would make up an email that doesn't give any benefit to them in this forum.

Normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but in this instance it's just seems weird that when they are asked for information it then contradicts what they have previously said.

I also know from my experience with OR that mostly they do have pre-written emails (template emails) that they just changes some of the details (as it saves typing out a whole email).

Also it does seem weird that they are not prepared (on several occasions) not to post things that could prove their point

I am not going to go down the road of having to chase numerous people in Openreach to verify an email, i.e. would take my time and their time for zero actual benefit.

I will say this, one of the reasons there has been a shrinking back of projects from the public comment side of things is arguments over emails and promises that were often not a promise but an aspiration but people took it as a promise. Also sometimes staff may something in an email that was private to a correspondent and repeating this can cause problems, so for others consider what you publish online carefully.

I'll close this thread now, and will say this I know people get upset about confusing language used in posts but we all do need to be accommodating towards others. How we ask the questions to get to the underlying reality is always a difficult game, but when we all do probe and question can we attempt to remain welcoming.

Calling out someone like me on poor grammar/spelling is par for the course but expect people to be more tolerant of others.