On 18 Aug 2016, at 21:19, Phillip Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thursday, 18 August 2016, Neil J. McRae <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 18 Aug 2016, at 16:52, Mike Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > If BT encouraged equipment vendors to test instead of CP's, then perhaps this > would be different. What makes you think we don't? The most recent evidence (June 2016) of this I saw is here, on Page 6: https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/super-fastfibreaccess/downloads/ProcessGuideforCPEeModemConformanceTestingIssue1.4.pdf - It seems unlikely (though not impossible) that this policy is standalone for products intended exclusively for GEA. We work with many vendors but remember those vendors have to deal with thousands of service providers. Nobody is hurling abuse at you, we're criticising an unnecessarily inefficient system that CPs are expected to abide by, by BTOR, in pursuit of better services for everyone. Sorry my fault - to be specific I got a handful of emails with nothing but abuse as part of this thread sent me to off list - All of them amusingly making fools of themselves given what I posted about CPs and data release :) That you are just about the only face of (part of) BT who both engages on a regular basis (often to defend the procedure or whatever is being criticised, putting you at odds with most everyone else right out the gate) Actually I think you'll find often I'm not defending - in this case though OR unfairly blamed for not releasing information that isn't their's to release! Many here will also state that once I know about something that is sub-optimal I try to see what the art of the possible is (across all of BT not just OR) to adjust it fix it or stop it. But what I don't stand for is bulling nonsense that a few resort to get their point across no matter how right they might think they are - hero worshippers in this space take note! and might have the necessary contacts and input to make helpful change means you get the shitty end of the stick in a thread, but we're not hurling abuse. If we aren't good enough then we deserve the shitty end of the stick. Right now though some have big mouths, deep pockets but short arms and spend more time whinging than investing. Simply removing the option for CPs to hide test passes (given everyone benefits whether they know it or not from any effort to approve kit *anyway*, and BTs intent behind the MCT, hiding the approval seems especially daft), and/or insisting (allowing?!) manufacturers do the testing themselves if they want their kit to be eligible for use in the UK (BABT green circle style) will provide the shortest path to the aim of more compliant devices being used/noncompliant firmware being fixed. I couldn't agree more and especially in this case which allows V6 to work- however some CP's invest the time and money to test a capability that gives them a market advantage and they clearly don't want to give that away - I understand this completely. Absent manufacturers being able to test direct, does anyone seriously think that CPs would take their bat and ball home and stop selling broadband if the list of any off the shelf equipment/firmware that passed MCT was simply made public as part of the process? Well you'd hope but actually sadly there are many that are blindly on an agenda that is not in the interests of their customers. If there are CP's reading this that have done MCT and are happy for the information to be released please let me know from @yourcompany to me @bt.com<http://bt.com/>. For the MCT work that downstream BT has done I'm working to release this ASAP. Regards, Neil
