When you are using the service, the word "terminal" normally refers to the piece of kit you are looking at and typing into. As in computer, tablet, phone, console or dumb terminal.

Is it defined in the Regulation? I would expect it to be. The Sky/Now modem/router could well be an integral part of "their access service" in this regard.

Terminal equipment is well understood piece of terminology in the industry and includes things like VDSL modems, routers etc. The law is crystal clear and Sky are flouting it. Complain to Ofcom who are aware of the situation as documented in their last report on compliance with the directive. I am with PlusNet so have no standing to make a complaint.

Note that BT's SIN498 is also flat out illegal as well. Approval of terminal equipment in telecommunication networks is controlled at an E.U. level. Not much of a single market if you have to get your VDSL device approved in 28 different countries is it. It's why you don't see those green BABT stickers anymore.

I don't think the Openreach network operates outside the UK .

I don't accept your redefinition of "terminal" as being in common usage for modem/routers. I'm be pretty certain it isn't a usage that carries legal weight.

With regard to SIN 498, Openreach only define the requirements of CPs' filters and modems to be attached to the network.

The CP provided modem and filtering devices must meet the requirements of this specification in order to provide reliable operation and to avoid harm to other VDSL2 lines sharing the same cable binder. Openreach reserves the right to withhold or limit service where potential violation of the Access Network Frequency Plan (ANFP)[9] or impact to another customers� service is detected.

They do provide conformance testing and advice for CPs, but nowhere in SIN 498 am I aware of any current ban. Nor of any requirement for certification by Openreach.

With the initial introduction of ADSL and subsequently FTTC there were periods when only Openreach or its contractors could connect anything to the network. There is no EU law against that. it is perfectly normal for a company providing infrastructure services to specify what its customers may attach to that service. When Openreach removed that requirement, they obviously needed to specify the requirements of their service.

As for BABT, you seem to be unaware of the following:

- BABT is wholly owned by T�V S�D Product Service, Germany's leading testing and certification body;
- BABT is a Notified Body for the following European Directives: 98/13/EC TTE & SESE Directive (now superseded by the R&TTE Directive); 89/336/EEC EMC Directive; 73/23/EEC Low Voltage Directive; 1999/5/EC R&TTE Directive. BABT is a Competent Body for the following Directives: 89/336/EEC EMC Directive.

I suggest the absence of such green labels, if you are correct, is nothing to do with SIN 498, or Openreach at all.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I don't accept your redefinition of "terminal" as being in common usage for modem/routers. I'm be pretty certain it isn't a usage that carries legal weight.

Well you would be wrong, it is actually the standard terminology used in the industry and is a usage that absolutely carries legal weight. Basically terminal equipment in telecommunications means anything you connect to the end of the line. Just because it is not the terminology used by consumers is completely irrelevant. May I politely suggest that you go read up on the subject.

Further I will note again that the practice of tying users to ISP provided hardware was flagged by Ofcom as an issue in their last report on compliance with implementation of the directive. Why would they do that if the directive did not prohibit it?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

With regard to SIN 498, Openreach only define the requirements of CPs' filters and modems to be attached to the network.

The CP provided modem and filtering devices must meet the requirements of this specification in order to provide reliable operation and to avoid harm to other VDSL2 lines sharing the same cable binder. Openreach reserves the right to withhold or limit service where potential violation of the Access Network Frequency Plan (ANFP)[9] or impact to another customers� service is detected.

They do provide conformance testing and advice for CPs, but nowhere in SIN498 am I aware of any current ban. Nor of any requirement for certification by Openreach.

Like I said the threat to deny service to a device that has been approved by a relevant body as being compliant with relevant E.U. directives is illegal. One of the primary goals of the E.U. is the creating of a single market in goods. As such approval for telecommunication equipment is now done at an E.U. wide level. BT/Openreach are therefore legally bared from restricting the use of an approved device on their network. Further BT/Openreach are not even an approved body for approving devices in the first place.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

With the initial introduction of ADSL and subsequently FTTC there were periods when only Openreach or its contractors could connect anything to the network. There is no EU law against that. it is perfectly normal for a company providing infrastructure services to specify what its customers may attach to that service. When Openreach removed that requirement, they obviously needed to specify the requirements of their service.

Sorry but there are E.U. laws against it.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As for BABT, you seem to be unaware of the following:

- BABT is wholly owned by T�V S�D Product Service, Germany's leading testing and certification body;
- BABT is a Notified Body for the following European Directives: 98/13/EC TTE & SESE Directive (now superseded by the R&TTE Directive); 89/336/EEC EMC Directive; 73/23/EEC Low Voltage Directive; 1999/5/EC R&TTE Directive. BABT is a Competent Body for the following Directives: 89/336/EEC EMC Directive.

I suggest the absence of such green labels, if you are correct, is nothing to do with SIN 498, or Openreach at all.

Yes I am perfectly aware of that and it proves my point thank you very much. That is approval of devices is done at an E.U. wide level, and once a device is approved it can be used legally in any E.U. member state. Further any attempts to restrict the use of an approved device is illegal. As such SIN498 is an attempt by BT to restrict terminal equipment approved for use in the E.U.

So like I said you don't see those green BABT stickers because there is no BT standard to approve against, only E.U. ones, and it is relevant to the issue of the illegal SIN498 standard, because BT are not legally allowed to enforce compliance with such standards as the only standards allowed are E.U. ones.

It's not much of a single market is it, if as a terminal equipment manufacturer you have to get your devices approved individually in all 28 countries of the E.U. is it now.

I am not quite sure why these two concept are so hard to understand frankly. Now what happens come 21st March next year god only knows, but right now the law is VERY VERY clear. No tying of the service to ISP provided hardware, and no extra restrictions on approval of hardware that can be connected to the telecommunications network above those mandated by the E.U. There are legally NO if's and NO buts. BT/Openreach with SIN498 and ISP's insisting on their equipment being used are flouting the law and it's time Ofcom came down on them like a tonne of bricks.

So Openreach has no recourse if someone is using a VDSL2 modem that does not support vectoring i.e. one user can cause them to have to switch off vectoring for everyone else who has 'compliant' hardware?

How do the FTTP providers across Europe cope with this, i.e. freedom of user choice for fibre ONT

Have a read of https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/04/uk-bro...

Thanks jelv. That's quite a good article as usual from that source. Clearly things are not quite as clear cut as jabuzzard makes out.

I've only followed a couple of the more pertinent looking links so far, but it looks like the only relevant part re the Sky modem/routers is the username and password one.

As for Openreach and SIN 498, the poster here (particularly in the latest diatribe) seems unable to distinguish between specifying the technical requirements of kit to be attached and the approval of specific branded or even unbranded kit. SIN 498 does not demand approved kit. Only that anything that does not adhere to SIN 498 and in use is shown to adversely affect the service for other users is likely to cause the service to that device to be halted.

There seems to be no mention of the regulation specifying the technical characteristics that the Openreach service must use to provide what is clearly a net-neutral connection.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

How do the FTTP providers across Europe cope with this, i.e. freedom of user choice for fibre ONT

Maybe, in the case of FTTP, the interface to the public telecommunications network is the ethernet port of the ONT?

If that is allowed for FTTP then the same can be done for xDSL services

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If that is allowed for FTTP then the same can be done for xDSL services

LOL

But it really is illegal to force users to only connect through ethernet ROFL

My laptop hasn't got ethernet.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 28-Aug-18 18:42:53)