Found RF interference - won't tell anyone.

Seriously, can a simple grid reference be considered "personal information" and so subject to DPA? Even an address is not something that inherently identifies a living individual.

BT will send engineers to find the source of radio interference (REIN) affecting a DSL line. But they won't actually tell anyone what they find. They won't even provide a grid reference where they found RF! They blame the DPA first, and then insist that they (BT plc) don't have the information, but the REIN team (BT plc) have it and will not tell them. This is a communication company point blank refusing to communicate with themselves to the detriment of the customer and it really pisses me off.

Am I too mean? My latest reply to them:-

Stop doing that now.

I am asking you, British Telecommunications plc, for information that British Telecommunications plc have.

Stop refusing to communicate with YOURSELF - you are ONE COMPANY, ONE LEGAL ENTITY and are a COMMUNICATION COMPANY. Your constant refusal to communicate internally is demonstrating how totally INEPT and INCOMPETENT you are as an organisation and I am totally fed up with it.

As a shareholder in BT Group plc the sole shareholder of British Telecommunications plc, the company that has the data we are asking for, please provide the data. Also explain to this shareholder why you have wasted money getting information that you are refusing to provide. Do not make up crap about DPA. I am not asking for any PERSONAL INFORMATION. I am asking where you detected RF, a grid reference, nothing personal.

Try again.

If you once again even suggest or imply that any other part of British Telecommunications plc is a different entity from any part of British Telecommunications plc that you work for, as any sort of excuse to not do something, I will have to consider that a knowingly false or misleading statement that is for the purpose of some gain on your part (to avoid work) or to some detriment on my part (even just to annoy me), both of which constitute a criminal breach of the Fraud Act. Is that clear?

I am really really fed up with this crap.

P.S. There are people that will say "this is what the industry asked for". I did not ask for this. And I am sure the industry did not ask for BT to use this as a way to cause more problems to customers or for BT to start lying to us. Regardless of OFCOM rules, BT plc is a single entity, and they cannot escape that.


  1. Weren't you trying to claim an IP address fell under the DPA a while back.....?

    1. He he. Yes. Where it is the IP address assigned o and used by one individual. DPC thought not.

  2. What sort of accuracy/error margin would be helpful?

    Could they say this map reference ±1/10/20/50 metres?

    1. Who knows, I am just pissed off that they won't say.

  3. Probably because the interference was caused by BT Homeplug adaptors supplied with BT Vision kit. VDSL really does not like it! (It wipes out <30MHz around the local area quite effectively).

  4. Probably because the interference is caused by BT Homeplug adaptors supplied with BT Vision kit. VDSL really does not like it. Quite effectively wipes out <30MHz around the local area.

  5. One of my customers had a faulty PLT networking plug that wiped out DSL for houses within about 300m of them!

    Rev: Did you get anywhere with the BT request / complaint?
    My guessing would be that they don't know where to get the RF info (ie, which engineer or department to prod) but are hiding behind other excuses.


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.

NOTSCO (Not TOTSCO) One Touch Switching test platform (now launched)

I posted about how inept TOTSCO seem to be, and the call today with them was no improvement. It seems they have test stages... A "simul...