Friday, 11 August 2017

Why do Openreach lie?

This is the statement from someone in Openreach today, and it is, in my humble opinion, a lie:

As I have said in my previous emails, Openreach is not a communications provider. We only maintain and install the network.

Why do I think it is a lie? Well, let's look at what a "communications provider" is exactly...

Communications Act 2003 section 405: “communications provider” means a person who (within the meaning of section 32(4)) provides an electronic communications network or an electronic communications service;

So let's look at 32(4): In this Act references to the provision of an electronic communications network include references to its establishment, maintenance or operation;

To me that is crystal clear that someone that simply maintains and installs [establishes] the network is categorically a "communications provider" by legal definition. Did I get that wrong?

What puzzles me is why they tell these lies - what have they got to gain by it? And if they do have something too gain by it, does that make the lie actually criminal fraud?

P.S. This is after he confirmed (eventually) that "Openreach" is UK company 1800000, so he is basically saying that British Telecommunications plc, company 1800000, is not a communications provider!

10 comments:

  1. Is a network the physical wires or the use of them to transmit data in a structured way?

    Is dark fibre a network? Or fibre that transmits only noise? How about an electrician who installs mains wiring that subsequently has powerline tech installed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mains wiring one is interesting - read the act yourself and try and work it out :-)

      Delete
    2. The network is the wires and fibres. It actually gets interesting when you talk of VoIp services, as they are "over the top". I suspect, if done right, many VoIP providers could fall totally outside OFCOM remit and requirements of a CP - something OFCOM would not like, but then it is not fundamentally different to email or web pages, which we accept are outside such scope with no problem.

      Delete
  2. When a law is so vague that even top industry experts can't agree what it means it is, almost by definition, useless.

    Trouble is, Lawyers make the laws and it in their best interest that only Lawyers are allowed to interpret the laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > Lawyers make the laws

      If only... *Politicians* make the laws.

      Delete
    2. And also lawyers don't interpret laws, that's what the courts/judges do.

      Delete
  3. What SimonF - said, lawyers making themselves into the high priesthood, the only ones who can interpret the sacred texts. Maybe all laws ought to be required to pass an intelligibility test, that an educated reasonable non-specialist British person should be able to successfully interpret them and make decisions correctly. If they fail, they go back for rework. Laws that are incomprehensible are hidden bear traps/landmines or whatever the cliché analogy might be, just dishonest. If only we had a constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've had Spitfire - a supposedly clued-up outfit - trying to tell me that Openreach is nothing to do with BT and one cannot control the other. Referred them to Companies House records and two hours later they admitted that Openreach is merely a department or trading name of BT. And my whinge about BT blaming Openreach or vice versa got resolved immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why do Openreach lie to you? Their people have been brainwashed by management PR talk. Which is also known as "BS". Not one of them has done their own research or Google searches into the people they are working for. Management has told them "Openreach and BT are now separate. No link between our two companies. Make sure you say that in response to every customer complaint." and they have believed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, but this specific lie is extra special as it would still be a lie if Openreach were indeed separate. They are claiming they are not a communications provider which is wrong either way.

      Delete