"Well you would be wrong, it is actually the standard terminology used in the industry"

>be me
>earned my HND in computer networking around 6 years ago followed by a BSc in computer networking
>work in the industry since then
>almost never heard anyone use this term

am i missing something here ???

Edited by epyon (Tue 28-Aug-18 18:53:38)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

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.

Oh they are as clear cut as I make out. That everyone is not in compliance with the directive yet does not make what ISP's are doing any less illegal. The difficulty in enforcing your rights is that we are about to leave the E.U. which makes matters more complicated, and secondly it would likely take years and cost many many thousands of pounds to get a ruling. As such ISP's can play fast and loose with the law and until Ofcom grows some balls will get away with it because unless you have an consumer who has just won the jackpot on the lottery no consumer is ever going to enforce their rights under the law.

Honestly the law does not work the way most people think. You soon learn that when you have siblings as lawyers and judges.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

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.

Threatening to disconnect terminal equipment that has met E.U. wide approval of the relevant ITU standards because it has not been approved by some arbitary BT/Openreach standard is the issue. Nothing wrong with putting up a specification to say conform to this and we guarantee it will work well on our system. However BT SIN498 goes further than that and steps over the line into illegality.

Take for example a DrayTek VigorNIC 132. I was going to buy one of these (still might). It meets all the relevant ITU standards and has E.U. approval. However DrayTek have choosen not to submit and pay through the nose to have it "approved" under BT SIN498, and therefore I have chosen not to purchase one because of the fear of having one's internet connection randomly disconnected because someone at BT/Openreach decides it's not on the approved list. Draytek have lost a sale, innovation in the market has been stifled etc. etc. These are the sort of things that the E.U. really does not like and goes against it's core fundamental principles. So it's not remotely surprising that it's illegal. Note the purpose of the Net Neutrality directive is really to spell out things that are already illegal under core E.U. principles, so that it is easier to bring those flouting them to heal.

In reply to a post by epyon:

"Well you would be wrong, it is actually the standard terminology used in the industry"

>be me
>earned my HND in computer networking around 6 years ago followed by a BSc in computer networking
>work in the industry since then
>almost never heard anyone use this term

am i missing something here ???

Yes go read an ITU standard, which is what is relevant in this context. You will find things like modems, phones etc. are all referred to as "terminal equipment" in the ITU standards, and the ITU predates the invention of the computer by many decades.

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

By either flouting the law or letting users pick their own ONT. Here for example is someone posting last week about getting a Huawei SFP based ONT working on a Dutch GPON network in an EdgeRouter 4. Exactly the sort of thing the directive is intended to facilitate.

https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeRouter/Edgerouter-..."]

Of course if an ISP provided SFP ONT's on request the chances are nobody is going to try and enforce their rights because really who cares if the ONT is made by vendor X over vendor Y. All they care about is not having extra unnecessary boxes and using the router of their choice.

My prediction is that in due course this is exactly what will happen. The ISP provides an SFP based ONT and you stick it in whatever device takes your fancy.

Network terminating equipment is not a terminal. A terminal is a piece of equipment with which a person has some direct interaction. This could include a card reader such as you use in shops, or a touch-screen in an estate agent's window, Oyster card and bus pass readers. It does not include networking equipment such as modems and routers.

I think it may be your conflating the word "terminal" and the phrase "network termination/terminal equipment" that is the problem. They are not the same thing. I suggest before you argue against that you go and find the specific paragraphs in the EU regulations you refer to and come back with the full detailed reference path.

Oxford English Dictionary terminal.
Section "Adjective" where a following noun is required exactly as you say. Several examples of usage of that kind.
Section "Noun", definition 3. Definition exactly as I gave you previously and above in this post.

In respect of the Openreach network they normally define their network termination equipment as exactly that. That's why the modern master socket is called an NTE.

For short periods after the introduction of ADSL and later FTTC, as I've already said, they did define their network termination point as the modem they supplied. This being completely so as to guarantee that until the system was well established in real world use and any problems sorted out that no problems on the network itself were created by equipment they had not exhaustively tested. There was nothing illegal about that, and certainly nothing to do with internet neutrality.

You can now connect any modem or modem/router you wish. But if it wrecks the network you will get disconnected. No EU regulation forbids a network infrastructure provider or a Communications provider from stopping a non-compliant user having access.

Agreed with this "telecommunications terminal equipment" is not a terminal. Similar language, different overall. Easy thing to confuse given the way ISPs often just state "terminal" when discussing (well my clients do anyways).

In reply to a post by Davey_H:

They don't allow it on a Fibre connection (just like Sky, unsurprisingly) but it's perfectly possible to use third party routers as long as they support Sky's peculiar use of DHCP option 61/MER.

Plenty of lists on routers that support it, plus guides on user/password extraction and setup available on the web

I do not think my router supports it, typical for Sky to go with something different to other providers. so I doubt very much I would change to them, from what I have heard their router is rubbish.

Can I take my corded BT phone and plug it in to any European telecomms system?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by Davey_H:

They don't allow it on a Fibre connection (just like Sky, unsurprisingly) but it's perfectly possible to use third party routers as long as they support Sky's peculiar use of DHCP option 61/MER.

Plenty of lists on routers that support it, plus guides on user/password extraction and setup available on the web

I do not think my router supports it, typical for Sky to go with something different to other providers. so I doubt very much I would change to them, from what I have heard their router is rubbish.

I can agree wholeheartedly it's fairly awful. As is their instance on sending out an "external" engineer to fix a fault he couldn't find.... twice!

Black cake with green icing on it - that's what I had for NowTV router - need to throw it away that's reminded me