* Posts by tstaddon

4 publicly visible posts • joined 28 May 2010

BT Openreach boss wants you to know that deep down, they care

tstaddon

The problem with the ISPs taking ownership of the communication with the ISP is that it overlooks the problem that not only are Openreach ruddy useless at communication, or even prioritising their own workloads, meeting their own SLAs etc - they don't care about the ISP's SLAs either. So quite often issues drag on forever not because the ISP's doing nothing, but because the ISP simply cannot get Openreach to do their job.

In the past I've had BTOR stall an internet provision by 3 months because of a work order they failed to action a whole year earlier - a failure to deliver that ensured all properties connected to the same cabinet incapable of getting any internet at all - you'd never guess what their solution was. Put it this way - they instructed BT Retail to tell any customers registering for broadband off that street cabinet that they all lived in a notspot and couldn't get it. Fortunately for me, I was with a different ISP at the time and they knew different, and they supported me when I called bollox on Openreach's bull. Reported it to the CS director of BT, and within a week the engineers were doing the job they'd ignored for over 15 months.

Currently experiencing 3 weeks of no internet after a house move where BTOR swears blind they've already activated FTTC to my line and not fouled it up, but an availability check on the BTOR systems tells me my West Yorkshire phone number is connected to a cabinet near to its exchange in a rural town in Scotland, and multiple known-working test devices at my end are telling me there is no VDSL or DSL chatter detectable at all on the line. I managed to collar an Openreach engineer at the cabinet, and I got the usual "don't know anything at all about that side of the business guv, nothing on my job sheet here" brush-off.

How will Ofcom reduce our reliance on BT if it won't break them up?

tstaddon

It doesn't have to be wired

A village I used to live in built its own fixed antenna wifi system. Not a normal wifi mesh, a proper setup with rooftop antennae and CPEs connecting to MIMOs on masts, on the 5.8Ghz spectrum. For the cost of £26 a month per household we were getting 15mbit symmetric at peak times, with sustained bursts at 60mbit symmetric during the night. THIS WAS FIVE YEARS AGO.

A lot of small communities including some very rural spots could have serviceable broadband by using dark fibre / community fibre, with an outlay of no more than £5,000 for the kit to get started. In theory 65mbits/sec should be perfectly feasible for £30/month. Of course, when the politicians looked into dealing with notspots they completely ignored this option.

Facebook simplifies controls but continues exposing users

tstaddon
Headmaster

Granularity Roolz KO (sic)

SNS is almost right. Key word being "almost".

I've got a list for work colleagues, a list for family, a list for mates, and so on. Friends from one list, cannot see posts from friends in another list. This part of it is not difficult to do at all.

However, the "custom settings" only allow for one set of permissions to be in effect - so for example you can set it so that every single app-generated post in the entire macrouniverse of Facebook is shown to mates and hidden from your work colleagues by default, but you then have to manually amend every single post from every single app if you want it to be shown to work colleagues and hidden from your mates.

What's wrong with making those permissions app-specific?

A second issue is, you can hide the "Friends" box from your profile page but this is a bit pointless given there's a "show all" link in "Mutual Friends". And you can't hide the "Mutual Friends" box.