BT SFI Should not exist any more

It is a while since I have ranted about "Special Faults Investigation" service that Openreach sell.

Why did SFI exist?

• Openreach sold a service called metallic path or shared metallic path which is the wires from exchange to master socket. The standard for it was that of wires capable of making a telephone call, though the standard was improved in time.
• BT Wholesale (at the time pretending not to be the same legal entity as Openreach) buy that, add equipment at the exchange (DSLAMs), backhaul, more equipment (BRASs, switches, etc), more backhaul, and sold a DATA service, at one end being a hand over (typically at a data centre) which is fibre with ATM or Ethernet, and at the other end the master socket with ADSL encoding.
• ISPs buy that and add equipment in the data centre (LNS, Switches, DNS, email, etc) and transit and peering links, and sell an INTERNET service to customers - sometimes terminating at the master socket as ADSL, sometimes including a supplied router and Ethernet and/or WiFi

This system worked pretty well, and at each level someone is providing a service to some spec for a fee, and if the service breaks and does not meet that spec, then of course, they have to fix it, at no charge to their customer. Each layer builds on many parts to make a service to their customer.

This is where SFI comes in - there is gap. If the metallic path breaks, Openreach will fix it, however if it meets the spec (based on telephone calls) but is not good enough for ADSL data (e.g. below the min sync level BTW have agreed with the ISP), then Openreach DON'T HAVE TO FIX IT because it meets the metallic path spec. So they SELL an extra service to BTW, a Special faults Investigation, which, for a fee, involves the engineer trying to improve the metallic path (beyond the spec) to be better for data (e.g. ADSL). BTW have to buy this so as to fix the broken data service that they are selling to the ISP.

Why was SFI controversial?

All of the above sounds fine, at first. Bear in mind, BTW sell a data service to ISPs, and if a DSLAM breaks they will get it fixed (at not charge to ISP) and the same should apply if the data over the metallic path breaks (e.g. below agreed minimum sync rate), and again as not to spec that should be at no charge to ISP. But BTW DID CHARGE ISPs for the SFI. What is worse is many ISPs then charged their customers for the SFI!

This led to a lot of disputes, and the pettiness got mental. Some examples are BTW used to say SFI was optional so on all faults said we do not opt for SFI. They then refused to actually fix lines unless and SFI was booked but said charge was for work beyond the master socket, so we said do no work beyond master socket. They then said they could not accept that request, and also said that a visual inspection of the end user router and wiring counted as (chargeable) work beyond the master socket. At one point we instructed customers (who did this) to remove their router and all wiring and physically hide it out of sight before the BT engineer arrived. We had pictures even. BTW still tried to charge. On one occasion the engineer immediately closed the fault as "no customer router plugged in", without testing or fixing the fault! We have done well disputing SFI charges at every stage, usually quoting their own terms to them and again explaining that we (as an ISP) are not buying a metallic path.

Note: there is a logic for a charge for wasting time - reporting something that is not a fault, e.g. an engineers visits and finds the end users router is on fire - a charge on that basis, as a penalty of some sort, does make sense and makes sense to be passed on to whoever screwed up.

Why should SFI not exist now?

Now we have the crux here - we are still getting SFI charges, and still spending time disputing them, but for almost all lines SFI should not exist. To explain, that initial bullet point has changed for most lines now - because of the UK telephone service switch over from old copper pairs to the exchange.

• Openreach sell a DATA service with handover on a fibre at the exchange, Openreach equipment in the street cabinet, and wires or fibre to the end user premises handed over as VDSL or Ethernet.
• BTW buy that DATA service, and have equipment at the exchange, backhaul, etc..
• Etc

What we have here is no longer a gap - no longer is Openreach selling a metallic path and BTW using it to sell a data service. If the data service is not working it is Openreach not providing something to spec, and so Openreach should fix that as a NORMAL FAULT INVESTIGATION. There is no gap for which SFI was invented to cover. Indeed, BTW should dispute every such SFI charge before even thinking of charging us (ISP).

There are still some ADSL, but they are quickly going, so SFI could exist for those lines for now - with the same original controversy of BTW trying to charge ISPs, but this is dwindling. Somehow BT try to charge for SFI for VDSL and FTTP services even now where it logically makes zero sense.

If BTW really are separate from Openreach now, they really have no excuse for not disputing every SFI charge related to FTTC or FTTP on this basis.

Giving BT some credit where it is due

One thing BT never had the nerve to do with all their changes to contract terms was make it so that their customer would have to pay them to fix a service they agreed to provide, but were failing to do so. Such a contract, even on a commercial basis, would be very challenging, and I would hope OFCOM could be persuaded to step in if that happened. The basic concept of I agree to pay you for a service and you agree to provide that service relies on the provider having to provide what they agreed, or they fix at their own cost. They tried a lot - the whole visual inspection is perhaps the most creative, but never that.

I may not be able to say that for all providers, but that is another story.