17070 test

Just did a 17070 test for fun (sorry) and got the following result:

One or both legs disconnected
Capacity imbalance 97
Line length 1404 meters

There is nothing obviously wrong with PSTN or ADSL services, but is this result something I should be worried about? How can the service function with a wire disconnected?

Time to put your tin helmet on, I think.

ROFL........

I know the answer, but since I do not agree with 'Joe Public' using the engineers test system, I shant be telling you.

Either it is a duff test result or an indication of a stuck B-RAS profile, I can't remember which

Isn't that the test result that ADSL 2+ 24meg secret triallists get ?

But he must have got authorisation, to press the "I have been authorised" button

Thanks chaps, yes of course I was specifically authorised by Ben and yes of course I am part of the 24Mb trial. Off to look at my BRAS profile.

Edited by Kayak (Tue 26-Sep-06 23:51:30)

I have heard that BT are now tracking every use of 17070 and will be invoicing end users a fixed fee of

LOL

...and here was me thinking it was actually because MI5 were bugging his phone line!

Only he's not joking....

Deadly serious ... As others here know I spent a lot of tme at a senior level in BT and still have some very good high level contacts.

It may be an idea but it is highly unlikely that they would be able to do that. In order to make a charge they would either need to make the service available to all, in which case it would be fair to charge for it, or they would need to prove a loss caused by someone using it without authorisation. Since it is an automated service it would be very difficult to prove an actual loss. If they went around just billing people

Just ask the BT technicians who try to use teh service and find it unavailable because it is being abused. That costs BT money.

There is a record on one user dialling it 2500 times during a 12 month period ... what did he expect to see? A line getting shorter and less noisier the more often he used it?

BT don't need to prove anything of the sort. The system is provided for authorised use. Automated or not, they will still be able to identify you from your phone number (i.e. the number of the line used to access the system) and they will know the time you dialled the service, and unless there was a report of a fault (real or otherwise) being investigated at the time then they can reasonably assume that the use was not authorised.

Billing unauthorised users

"It would technically be no different to a bank charging you for going overdrawn."

Yes it would be. Bank charges can be levied because they are specified in a contract that you have previously signed. That is why they are penalties and not fines: you have agreed to them. You have not agreed to a

Edited by Kayak (Thu 28-Sep-06 13:56:59)

I don't think it is that the system can't handle the calls, it's the line testers in the exchange that get busy which is a bore when you are clinging to the top of a pole.

I can't see anyone getting a bill but I do wonder what punters get out of it when they can't interpret the results!

Edited by deleted (Thu 28-Sep-06 14:18:23)

I only ever use 17070 to (a) check the number when I am in a strange house and there's more than the one line I've been told about and (b) to do a ringback to ensure the phone is OK. I would hope BT would view such usage as reasonable. OTOH, if you want to go further, there could be a message warning that unauthorised use of the system will incur a charge.

In reply to:

---

Bank charges can be levied because they are specified in a contract that you have previously signed.

---

That is precisely the same, the bank specify in a contract what services are available to you and the limits on those services. Where in your contract with BT does it say that you can use the facility in question? If it doesn't say that you can use it, you may not do so. Using facilities to which you not entitled are likely to require not just payment but penalty payments, such as those for an unauthorised overdraft.

In reply to:

---

Anyway, clearly the way to proceed is for BT is to introduce a password-type system as they have already done. I'm not clear on why the menu options still allow non-password access too though

---

Probably for much the same reason as sweet shops do not have locked doors over all their counters to make it clear that unauthorised taking of their goods is not permitted. The cost would be ridiculous considering that the majority of the population have an idea of what they can and must not do. The system you suggest would be paid, in the main, for those who do not need it. Only those who break any good practices they can get away with make it necessary. This way is far fairer at least for the well behaved - but the habitually anitsocial may not see that.

I sense a new dialler trojan in the making...

In reply to:

---

Yes it would be. Bank charges can be levied because they are specified in a contract that you have previously signed. That is why they are penalties and not fines: you have agreed to them. You have not agreed to a

Me? There are a fair few upset people on this thread, but I'm not one of them

I'm afraid, chaps, that companies or individuals are not allowed to bill unagreed amounts for services whether or not they are authorised or not. The reason overdraft charges can be made is that the amount of the charge is either specified in the contractual terms or the terms say something to the effect that the bank will give notice of the amount of such charges to the customer from time to time.

A parallel situation would be if I found your bicycle outside your house and borrowed it for a day, bringing it back of course. Agreed, it is wrong to do so without being authorised, but you could not bill me

Edited by Kayak (Thu 28-Sep-06 20:50:20)

In reply to:

---

I'm afraid, chaps, that companies or individuals are not allowed to bill unagreed amounts for services whether or not they are authorised or not.

---

That's not strictly true, but in any case you're missing the point. You're getting hung up on some notion of agreed charges, which has to be based on the provision of agreed services. The testing service isn't contractual nor is it agreed; you have no right to use it. BT would be well within their rights to bill you for the use of the service in order to cover their costs incurred as a result of your misuse. It would be up to you to prove that (a) you hadn't misused the service (difficult given that you had) and (b) that the costs were unfair in some way.

Of course we could take a different tack and point out that BT could pursue a criminal case against you for misuse of the telecommunications systems. Then take a civil action against you for losses incurred. Then probably cut off your line.

In reply to:

---

A parallel situation would be if I found your bicycle outside your house and borrowed it for a day, bringing it back of course.

---

Bad anaolgy: taking without consent is theft, whether or not you brought it back (or intended to). I'd then sue the pants off you for loss of earnings, grief, etc. etc. that I had suffered as a result of you depriving me of my bike.

In reply to:

---

BT would be well within their rights to bill you for the use of the service in order to cover their costs incurred as a result of your misuse. It would be up to you to prove that (a) you hadn't misused the service (difficult given that you had) and (b) that the costs were unfair in some way.

---

Aaaargh.

Jolly good. So I'll bill you

Edited by Kayak (Thu 28-Sep-06 21:55:42)

In reply to:

---

It is up to the person wanting money to prove that the money is owed and that the amount is fair.

---

Exactly - You make use of a BT service (which they can prove), they charge you for it,

I'm sorry, am I missing something here?
If BT don't want unauthorised use of 17070, why not password protect it?
Or, as the charging scheme would require manual input anyway (somebody has to tell the billing computer not to charge for 17070 on a particular date, as a BT engineer may be testing the line), and this will have to happen every time it's used properly, why not just have it blocked at all times, and enable it prior to an engineer call out?

In reply to:

---

Exactly - You make use of a BT service (which they can prove), they charge you for it,

In reply to:

---

If BT don't want unauthorised use of 17070, why not password protect it?

---

They have in fact password protected some of the service. I don't know why they haven't protected all of it, but as you say it is the obvious solution rather than spending a lot more than

I'm finding all this hard to swallow. Someone using 17070 seven times a day (on average) for a whole year ?

And BT charging for a service that starts with a "1", without any prior warning that a charge will be made ? I'm sure OFCOM would have something to say.

Sounds like scaremongering to me.

Funny though, isnt it?

Just to add my two pennyworth..............

Does not the same argument also apply to BT's speedtest?

This is used - when it's working - by various users, a good percentage of which do not use BT as their ISP.

So was this test intended to be a test for BT engineers or the general public?

Perhaps their should be a public offering of 17070 - even a chargeable one ie a premium rate call?

I think the main problem is that BT do not want end users to know their line length, which then starts a "why is my line so long?" style of complaint when the user is just across the road from the exchange.

Then again, if BT do silent tests which are logged, why not make these available on-line.

If the FOI Act ever changes to include public utilities (which I believe has been mooted), then BT will have no option than to make results available. Assuming that they do log them. Or do we (BT) destroy the files before the law comes into effect?

I thought the FOI only referred to personal data. Data about a telecoms companies networks could not be regarded as personal. If it were where would it end?
I have to say this thread has become quite amusing.

In reply to:

---

So was this test intended to be a test for BT engineers or the general public?

---

For the general public. The engineers have access to Woosh, and their own test kit. The whole point is moot anyhow, as MHC's original comment was a wind-up.

A bit of a shame it was a wind-up.
Charging for it at premium rates (maybe

Currently FOI is about ANY data held by a central government or local government body on virtually anything. This is the weekly log from the Min of Defence FOI section. As you may guess, UFO's are a favorite subject, as has been the use of RAF aircraft by senior politicians. If the act gets extended to public utilities, well ...................... say no more.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8F6A98D2-A05A-4EF0-BC82-86F2589DEA7D/0/reqsept06_03.pdf

Ah, Woosh, you can access that on ################## Best I say no more.

No, FoI does NOT refer to personal data. In fact, quite the opposite; FoI is about access to official information from public organisations. The Data Protection Act (DPA) is about the protection of (and access to) personal data.

For a complete view of which act covers what, see the Information Commissoner's website here, specifically the sections on DPA and FoI.

Scotland has its own Information Commissioner dealing with FoI here.

Not quite any information....personal data is generally exempted from the Act, for example in Scotland Section 38(1)(a) exempts information if it constitutes personal data where the applicant is the data subject. Many people mistakenly ask for personal data about themselves under FoI, only to be told that it is exempt and that they need to submit a subject access request under DPA.

Ah, righty oh.
Sounds like it cold be an expensive business then.

It can certainly be a PITA if that's what you mean, yes. That's not to say it shouldn't exist; I firmly believe that the public should have access to the information they want (subject to certain exemptions as safeguards of course) in the interests of transparency and accountability.

But when you get journalists submitting countless FoI requests in the hope that they stumble upon some newsworthy story or scandal, it can become quite a burden.