The goal is to make our services work as best as they can. Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Aug 2016, at 11:01, Phillip Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tuesday, 16 August 2016, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: If you send me the details of what version and box I can take a look for you. While it's obviously good of you to offer to help out here - for the life of me - I cannot understand why information required to be in compliance with BTs own rules (under penalty of disconnection) is (partially) treated like a secret. In the case of own branded hardware I can maybe - and only then, maybe - see that the information is of limited use to others, but IMO it should still be possible to verify that the kit and firmware you have been supplied is in compliance with BTs requirements. It does not appear likely that this approach is helpful to end users (because yes, end users still want/need to buy their own equipment despite the trend in bundling in some so-so kit), CPs (who can't reliably determine certified kit for themselves or their end users), or even BT (who at the least create work for themselves fielding enquiries about whether such-and-such is certified and who run a greater risk having non-compliant kit connected because the process is unnecessarily opaque). Likewise it seems odd to me that manufacturers (appear to?) have to go via a CP to get their own kit approved. Vendors (for it is they with the greatest interest in passing certification) submitting their own kit and firmware to BT, and any approved device/firmware list being public [1] seems the obvious route to take here, but it's possible there's something I (and, evidently, others) are missing about the overall reasoning here. Phil [1] though vendors would of course promote their efforts here, it should still be possible to independently verify their claims, and verify which is the latest certified firmware
