We have a residential BT phone line that's been suffering from intermittent
crackling for the last few years.  Because it's intermittent I've not
managed to isolate it, but tonight I have.

Our installation is as follows:
Pole on the street around which a tree has grown
Dropwire comes through the branches to an insulator on our roofline
[I don't know if there's a junction box here, but don't think so]
Dropwire drops down into our hall above front door
Dropwire has four cores, only two are connected to one of these:
http://www.markettos.org.uk/ephemeral/IMG_0893.JPG
Out of that goes a 6 core cable to the bottom of the front door, where
there's an LJ2/1A socket with a British Telecom 'T' on it
(and no internal master socket).
On the terminal block in parallel with the incoming 6 cores are 6 cores that
go off to a bedroom extension.

The socket on the LJ2/1A has its internal plastic broken, such that the only
way to properly plug a cable is to unscrew the faceplate, plug in a 2-way
adaptor while supporting the socket, and then plug other cables into the
adaptor.

I've tried, with no effect:
1 Each of our two phones on their own straight into the LJ2/1A socket
2 Wiggling the broken plug in the LJ2/1A
3 Swaying the dropwire gently with a broom handle
4 Poking the external cabling on our house
5 Poking the tree branches
6 Wiggling the wires going into the black socket above
(I have to admit 4 and 5 weren't terribly effective as I couldn't reach far
enough)

I haven't yet:
7 Taken the bedroom socket apart.  I can't disconnect the bedroom extension
without pulling wires out of the terminal block.
8 Unscrewed the house connections from the black socket and wired up an
direct connection to a phone (because BT probably wouldn't like me and I
don't have the right connectors nor the components to make two wires into
four)

The last two times it's happened there has been no wind, and AFAICR no rain
recently.  Today has been fine warm weather.

So we've got an intermittent fault and some antique line plant. Apart from
the problem of getting BT faults to take the fault seriously, if someone
comes and can actually see it what are they likely to do?  Whose
responsibility is the broken master socket (the LJ2/1A is dated 1984)?  Will
they charge for upgrading me to an NTE5?

Can BT/OpenReach log a crackling signal on the line when I report the fault?
Tonight I can hear it on 17070 quiet line test - will their other automated
tests pick it up?  I can ring next time it happens, but don't want someone
to test the line several days later when it might have gone away.

Just want to be prepared for all the possible ways BT might want to charge
me for their fault :(

Theo

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:07:30 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an empty day by
writing:

> We have a residential BT phone line that's been suffering from
> intermittent crackling for the last few years.  Because it's
> intermittent I've not managed to isolate it, but tonight I have.
> 
> Our installation is as follows:
> Pole on the street around which a tree has grown Dropwire comes through
> the branches to an insulator on our roofline [I don't know if there's a
> junction box here, but don't think so] Dropwire drops down into our hall
> above front door Dropwire has four cores, only two are connected to one
> of these: http://www.markettos.org.uk/ephemeral/IMG_0893.JPG Out of that
> goes a 6 core cable to the bottom of the front door, where there's an
> LJ2/1A socket with a British Telecom 'T' on it (and no internal master
> socket).
> On the terminal block in parallel with the incoming 6 cores are 6 cores
> that go off to a bedroom extension.
> 
> The socket on the LJ2/1A has its internal plastic broken, such that the
> only way to properly plug a cable is to unscrew the faceplate, plug in a
> 2-way adaptor while supporting the socket, and then plug other cables
> into the adaptor.
> 
> I've tried, with no effect:
> 1 Each of our two phones on their own straight into the LJ2/1A socket 2
> Wiggling the broken plug in the LJ2/1A 3 Swaying the dropwire gently
> with a broom handle 4 Poking the external cabling on our house 5 Poking
> the tree branches
> 6 Wiggling the wires going into the black socket above (I have to admit
> 4 and 5 weren't terribly effective as I couldn't reach far enough)
> 
> I haven't yet:
> 7 Taken the bedroom socket apart.  I can't disconnect the bedroom
> extension without pulling wires out of the terminal block. 8 Unscrewed
> the house connections from the black socket and wired up an direct
> connection to a phone (because BT probably wouldn't like me and I don't
> have the right connectors nor the components to make two wires into
> four)
> 
> The last two times it's happened there has been no wind, and AFAICR no
> rain recently.  Today has been fine warm weather.
> 
> So we've got an intermittent fault and some antique line plant. Apart
> from the problem of getting BT faults to take the fault seriously, if
> someone comes and can actually see it what are they likely to do?  Whose
> responsibility is the broken master socket (the LJ2/1A is dated 1984)? 
> Will they charge for upgrading me to an NTE5?
> 
> Can BT/OpenReach log a crackling signal on the line when I report the
> fault? Tonight I can hear it on 17070 quiet line test - will their other
> automated tests pick it up?  I can ring next time it happens, but don't
> want someone to test the line several days later when it might have gone
> away.
> 
> Just want to be prepared for all the possible ways BT might want to
> charge me for their fault :(
> 
> Theo

If you can hear it on a QLT, then any half decent engineer should be able 
to find it.

You should have an NTE5 as the demarcation point. It has been the 
required standard for many years. A visiting engineer is required to make 
sure the installation is at the current standards before they leave.

Charging is a sensitive subject. With noisy faults the book says 'charge 
em' if there was no noise during the visit. It used to say; 'Change 
something, make notes of what you have done'. The problem is many 
engineers would put down that they had done something, when in fact they 
had done sod all.

In your case if you can hear the noise and you can't isolate you wiring 
because the installation is not at the current network standards you are 
reasonably safe to call Hopelessreach in. The problem comes if the noise 
is down to your extensions or kit and nobody will know that until they 
break it down and listen.

In a line of several miles the probability of the fault being in your 
home is low, but there is always the possibility that it is and that you 
may be charged. We've already seen in this group what a fight it is to 
get an unjustified charge removed too.

>
>If you can hear it on a QLT, then any half decent engineer should be able 
>to find it.
>
>You should have an NTE5 as the demarcation point. It has been the 
>required standard for many years. A visiting engineer is required to make 
>sure the installation is at the current standards before they leave.
>
>Charging is a sensitive subject. With noisy faults the book says 'charge 
>em' if there was no noise during the visit. It used to say; 'Change 
>something, make notes of what you have done'. The problem is many 
>engineers would put down that they had done something, when in fact they 
>had done sod all.
>
>In your case if you can hear the noise and you can't isolate you wiring 
>because the installation is not at the current network standards you are 
>reasonably safe to call Hopelessreach in. The problem comes if the noise 
>is down to your extensions or kit and nobody will know that until they 
>break it down and listen.
>
>In a line of several miles the probability of the fault being in your 
>home is low, but there is always the possibility that it is and that you 
>may be charged. We've already seen in this group what a fight it is to 
>get an unjustified charge removed too.

Good advice but the NTTP would be a good idea to change that first then
there is a BT demarcation point and then your wiring runs from -that-
and in fact it will then be done as it ought be:)

See if theres anyway you can record the noise at all. Seems a shame that
this silly buggers attitude happens these days do Openreach think that
people make this sort of complaint up as most all people have to take
time of work to be in when they call!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:10:17 +0100, tony sayer passed an empty day by
writing:


>>If you can hear it on a QLT, then any half decent engineer should be
>>able to find it.
>>
>>You should have an NTE5 as the demarcation point. It has been the
>>required standard for many years. A visiting engineer is required to
>>make sure the installation is at the current standards before they
>>leave.
>>
>>Charging is a sensitive subject. With noisy faults the book says 'charge
>>em' if there was no noise during the visit. It used to say; 'Change
>>something, make notes of what you have done'. The problem is many
>>engineers would put down that they had done something, when in fact they
>>had done sod all.
>>
>>In your case if you can hear the noise and you can't isolate you wiring
>>because the installation is not at the current network standards you are
>>reasonably safe to call Hopelessreach in. The problem comes if the noise
>>is down to your extensions or kit and nobody will know that until they
>>break it down and listen.
>>
>>In a line of several miles the probability of the fault being in your
>>home is low, but there is always the possibility that it is and that you
>>may be charged. We've already seen in this group what a fight it is to
>>get an unjustified charge removed too.
> 
> Good advice but the NTTP would be a good idea to change that first then
> there is a BT demarcation point and then your wiring runs from -that-
> and in fact it will then be done as it ought be:)
> 
> See if theres anyway you can record the noise at all. Seems a shame that
> this silly buggers attitude happens these days do Openreach think that
> people make this sort of complaint up as most all people have to take
> time of work to be in when they call!...

Personally I would just clip across the end of the dropwire and listen 
for noise. That said, the 'network test and termination point' in this 
case is the line jack. It is not the old boxcon as the line is not 
terminated/presented to the customer at that location. The phrase is 
often used incorrectly but the key to it is the word 'termination'. An 
NTTP is usually the end of the run where the customer connects his/her 
kit or switch.

>> Good advice but the NTTP would be a good idea to change that first then
>> there is a BT demarcation point and then your wiring runs from -that-
>> and in fact it will then be done as it ought be:)
>> 
>> See if theres anyway you can record the noise at all. Seems a shame that
>> this silly buggers attitude happens these days do Openreach think that
>> people make this sort of complaint up as most all people have to take
>> time of work to be in when they call!...
>
>Personally I would just clip across the end of the dropwire and listen 
>for noise. That said, the 'network test and termination point' in this 
>case is the line jack. It is not the old boxcon as the line is not 
>terminated/presented to the customer at that location. The phrase is 
>often used incorrectly but the key to it is the word 'termination'. An 
>NTTP is usually the end of the run where the customer connects his/her 
>kit or switch.

OK Master socket then;!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:07:38 +0100, tony sayer passed an empty day by
writing:

>>> Good advice but the NTTP would be a good idea to change that first
>>> then there is a BT demarcation point and then your wiring runs from
>>> -that- and in fact it will then be done as it ought be:)
>>> 
>>> See if theres anyway you can record the noise at all. Seems a shame
>>> that this silly buggers attitude happens these days do Openreach think
>>> that people make this sort of complaint up as most all people have to
>>> take time of work to be in when they call!...
>>
>>Personally I would just clip across the end of the dropwire and listen
>>for noise. That said, the 'network test and termination point' in this
>>case is the line jack. It is not the old boxcon as the line is not
>>terminated/presented to the customer at that location. The phrase is
>>often used incorrectly but the key to it is the word 'termination'. An
>>NTTP is usually the end of the run where the customer connects his/her
>>kit or switch.
> 
> OK Master socket then;!...

Is that ash dropping off a cigarette? ;-!...

Klunk  wrote:
> Personally I would just clip across the end of the dropwire and listen 
> for noise.

Thanks both of you for your replies - very useful.  I managed to connect a
phone across the dropwire with the house wiring disconnected and could
indeed hear it.  Since the adaptor I was using to do this had a ring
capacitor in it I tried 17070's ringback test and all of a sudden the noise
disappeared.  Is it plausible that a ring pulse might have cleaned out the
line somehow, if there was water in it or something like that?

So now I have to wait until it comes back.  Perhaps I should get incoming
calls barred until it does :(

Theo

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:32:38 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an empty day by
writing:

> Klunk  wrote:
>> Personally I would just clip across the end of the dropwire and listen
>> for noise.
> 
> Thanks both of you for your replies - very useful.  I managed to connect
> a phone across the dropwire with the house wiring disconnected and could
> indeed hear it.  Since the adaptor I was using to do this had a ring
> capacitor in it I tried 17070's ringback test and all of a sudden the
> noise disappeared.  Is it plausible that a ring pulse might have cleaned
> out the line somehow, if there was water in it or something like that?
> 
> So now I have to wait until it comes back.  Perhaps I should get
> incoming calls barred until it does :(
> 
> Theo

It is not unknown for the ring voltage to either (1) temporarily clear 
the noise (2) make the noise worse. What is for sure is that the fault 
won't fix itself.

In passing, the old insulator that you referred to; Engineers used to 
join the drop wire and tuck them underneath, (or take the top of and do 
it 'properly'). This tends to be a failure area but I would not suggest 
that you get a ladder out and look!

Klunk  wrote:
> It is not unknown for the ring voltage to either (1) temporarily clear 
> the noise (2) make the noise worse. What is for sure is that the fault 
> won't fix itself.

I realise that :)  It's just makes tracing it a bit of a pain (will have to
tell 151 not to try to ring the number when testing it).

> In passing, the old insulator that you referred to; Engineers used to 
> join the drop wire and tuck them underneath, (or take the top of and do 
> it 'properly'). This tends to be a failure area but I would not suggest 
> that you get a ladder out and look!

In fact I was confused.  Next door have a whacking great insulator but we
don't.  There's a screw eye in the soffit, with a piece of plastic coated
wire (the sort used for supporting plants on walls) which is twisted with
the dropwire to tension it.  It's a continous run from the pole to the
boxcon inside our front door.

Thanks for your help!
Theo

Theo Markettos wrote:
> Klunk  wrote:
>> It is not unknown for the ring voltage to either (1) temporarily
>> clear the noise (2) make the noise worse. What is for sure is that
>> the fault won't fix itself.
>
> I realise that :)  It's just makes tracing it a bit of a pain (will
> have to tell 151 not to try to ring the number when testing it).

The problem you'll have is in convincing the test desk that your line is 
indeed faulty because their test equipment puts out such voltages/currents 
as to pass through the high resistance fault. Chances are that they'll test 
it, it'll test OK, and then they'll say that they'll send an engineer out 
but you may be charged for it.

Only way to be sure of finding these faults is for the engineer to use the 
old "tone and amp" method (cue Kraftee to come along and say that that 
doesn't work - but in my 17 years experience as a faultsman jointer, five of 
them as SFIO, I know it does  :o)) and spend some quality time on the job.

>> In passing, the old insulator that you referred to; Engineers used to
>> join the drop wire and tuck them underneath, (or take the top of and
>> do it 'properly'). This tends to be a failure area but I would not
>> suggest that you get a ladder out and look!
>
> In fact I was confused.  Next door have a whacking great insulator
> but we don't.  There's a screw eye in the soffit, with a piece of
> plastic coated wire (the sort used for supporting plants on walls)
> which is twisted with the dropwire to tension it.  It's a continous
> run from the pole to the boxcon inside our front door.
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Theo

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:41:35 +0100, John passed an empty day by writing:

> spend some quality time on the job.
Now that is exactly what it needs. I tip my hat to you.

John wrote:
> Theo Markettos wrote:
>> Klunk  wrote:
>>> It is not unknown for the ring voltage to either (1) temporarily
>>> clear the noise (2) make the noise worse. What is for sure is that
>>> the fault won't fix itself.
>>
>> I realise that :)  It's just makes tracing it a bit of a pain (will
>> have to tell 151 not to try to ring the number when testing it).
>
> The problem you'll have is in convincing the test desk that your
> line is indeed faulty because their test equipment puts out such
> voltages/currents as to pass through the high resistance fault.
> Chances are that they'll test it, it'll test OK, and then they'll
> say that they'll send an engineer out but you may be charged for it.
>
> Only way to be sure of finding these faults is for the engineer to
> use the old "tone and amp" method (cue Kraftee to come along and
> say that that doesn't work - but in my 17 years experience as a
> faultsman jointer, five of them as SFIO, I know it does  :o)) and
> spend some quality time on the job.

Now why would I say that if I do use it myself????

I would have climbed to the soffit, tapped on & given it a good shake as 
well. often brings on such noises where trees are involved.  But never mind 
I'll leave you & klunk to witter about how it's not like the good old days 
over your half pints in the corner..

>>> In passing, the old insulator that you referred to; Engineers
>>> used to join the drop wire and tuck them underneath, (or take the
>>> top of and do it 'properly'). This tends to be a failure area but
>>> I would not suggest that you get a ladder out and look!

>> In fact I was confused.  Next door have a whacking great insulator
>> but we don't.  There's a screw eye in the soffit, with a piece of
>> plastic coated wire (the sort used for supporting plants on walls)
>> which is twisted with the dropwire to tension it.  It's a continous
>> run from the pole to the boxcon inside our front door.
>>
>> Thanks for your help!
>> Theo

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:31:41 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:


> I would have climbed to the soffit, tapped on & given it a good shake as
> well. often brings on such noises where trees are involved.  But never
> mind I'll leave you & klunk to witter about how it's not like the good
> old days over your half pints in the corner..

It's always sad when someone shown up for a lack of knowledge resorts to 
insults. I appreciate that your feelings are hurt Kraftee, but you're 
just being anal about it.

kraftee <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
> I would have climbed to the soffit, tapped on & given it a good shake as 
> well. often brings on such noises where trees are involved.  But never mind 
> I'll leave you & klunk to witter about how it's not like the good old days 
> over your half pints in the corner..

Well I did lean out the window and give the dropwire a sway with a broom
handle - not too thoroughly because I didn't want to break anything but
about the same as the wind would do.  Caused no difference in the crackles.

Do OpenReach people have access to a TDR or something that might
spot leaks across pairs in a rather more scientific way that just listen for
the crackles?

Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by 151.  It didn't start well as it did
an automatic test on my line and pronounced it well, and then tried to fob
me off by sending me to the website.  Eventually I persevered until I got an
option to speak to a human in the UK, who took the problem seriously (and
could hear it on the line).  She accepted my short-circuiting of the
standard spiel when I told her the things I've recounted here (and wrote
them on the job ticket), and an OpenReach technician is booked for tomorrow
afternoon.  We'll see what happens.

Theo

Theo Markettos wrote:
> kraftee <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>> I would have climbed to the soffit, tapped on & given it a good
>> shake as well. often brings on such noises where trees are
>> involved.  But never mind I'll leave you & klunk to witter about
>> how it's not like the good old days over your half pints in the
>> corner..
>
> Well I did lean out the window and give the dropwire a sway with a
> broom handle - not too thoroughly because I didn't want to break
> anything but about the same as the wind would do.  Caused no
> difference in the crackles.

A bit different when you're at the top of a ladder putting your weight 
behind it ;-)
>
> Do OpenReach people have access to a TDR or something that might
> spot leaks across pairs in a rather more scientific way that just
> listen for the crackles?

Certainly do & there is one theory where by tapping on across the pairs & 
then ringing the number that it will show you approximately how far away the 
problem is.  Unfortunately it does appear to a little hit & miss (they are 
in the process of removeing the basic TDR & going with a catch all solution 
which doesn't work so well in this situation) but what it can & does show is 
how good the pair is.
>
> Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by 151.  It didn't start well as
> it did an automatic test on my line and pronounced it well, and
> then tried to fob me off by sending me to the website.  Eventually
> I persevered until I got an option to speak to a human in the UK,
> who took the problem seriously (and could hear it on the line).
> She accepted my short-circuiting of the standard spiel when I told
> her the things I've recounted here (and wrote them on the job
> ticket), and an OpenReach technician is booked for tomorrow
> afternoon.  We'll see what happens.

Problem with HR problems, as yours appears to be, is that the test heads 
will not see it as the test voltages will just jump the HR (they can be far 
less accurate than what they should be as well also varying from one 
exchange to another).

What you could do is pray for rain, if it's HR, something has made it so. 
If it rains then there is a possibility that there will be an earth 
connection at around the same place, caused by the very same thing, plus the 
water.

Theo Markettos wrote:
> kraftee <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>> I would have climbed to the soffit, tapped on & given it a good
>> shake as well. often brings on such noises where trees are involved.
>> But never mind I'll leave you & klunk to witter about how it's not
>> like the good old days over your half pints in the corner..
>
> Well I did lean out the window and give the dropwire a sway with a
> broom handle - not too thoroughly because I didn't want to break
> anything but about the same as the wind would do.  Caused no
> difference in the crackles.
>
> Do OpenReach people have access to a TDR or something that might
> spot leaks across pairs in a rather more scientific way that just
> listen for the crackles?

Yes they do, but time domain reflectometry equipment can suffer the same 
shortcomings as the test desk equipment when dealing with high resistance 
faults, hence my earlier post referencing the old "tone and amp" method of 
finding these faults.

In my experience (and I'm sure there will be those who decry this method, 
but it's always worked for me) the way to go about this is to put a tone 
(that's a signal generator, more properly called an Oscillator 87F, that 
puts out (IIRC) a 1KHz tone) across your pair of wires at the exchange MDF 
(Main Distribution Frame).

From there, my first port of call would be the PCP (that's the Primary 
Cross-connection Point, or the green jointing cabinet that you see in the 
streets). Using the amplifier to hear the tone, the engineer can pick out 
exactly which pair of wires is yours and break down the pair there to see if 
the tone can be short-circuited. If the tone cuts out, that proves that the 
pair between the MDF and the cabinet is OK.

Assuming that it's OK to there, next would be to do the same test at the DP 
(Distribution Point), which in your case, is the block at the top of the 
pole, or perhaps go to the NTE in the customers' premises. The reasoning 
behind all this is that the 1KHz tone, unlike the test desk or TDR methods, 
will pass through the high resistance point but *will not short out* once 
you've gone *beyond* the HR problem. Once you've gone *past* the fault, you 
start working your way back towards it to find it.

It can be quite frustrating and time-consuming which is why a lot of bosses 
won't want their engineers tied up doing it, but as Klunk said, it doesn't 
fix itself.

> Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by 151.  It didn't start well as
> it did an automatic test on my line and pronounced it well, and then
> tried to fob me off by sending me to the website.  Eventually I
> persevered until I got an option to speak to a human in the UK, who
> took the problem seriously (and could hear it on the line).  She
> accepted my short-circuiting of the standard spiel when I told her
> the things I've recounted here (and wrote them on the job ticket),
> and an OpenReach technician is booked for tomorrow afternoon.  We'll
> see what happens.
>
> Theo

John <replyingroup@notemail> wrote:
> Yes they do, but time domain reflectometry equipment can suffer the same 
> shortcomings as the test desk equipment when dealing with high resistance 
> faults, hence my earlier post referencing the old "tone and amp" method of 
> finding these faults.
[snip most interesting explanation]
> It can be quite frustrating and time-consuming which is why a lot of bosses 
> won't want their engineers tied up doing it, but as Klunk said, it doesn't 
> fix itself.

Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story, someone came
today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.  Took about an hour to fix
the fault, which turned out to be a bad pair going back to the exchange. 
He's switched us onto a different pair and it's now OK.

He also replaced the LJ2/1A with a new (datecode 49/05) LJU2.  I was rather
surprised it wasn't with an NTE5 - we still don't have any means of
disconnecting our extensions from BT's network short of unscrewing the
boxcon, but at least there's that (messy) option.  Perhaps the NTE5 needs a
larger backplate and he couldn't be bothered to change it?

Thanks for all the help here - I've learnt quite a bit :)

Theo

In article <yRd*HZafs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo Markettos
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribeth thus
>John <replyingroup@notemail> wrote:
>> Yes they do, but time domain reflectometry equipment can suffer the same 
>> shortcomings as the test desk equipment when dealing with high resistance 
>> faults, hence my earlier post referencing the old "tone and amp" method of 
>> finding these faults.
>[snip most interesting explanation]
>> It can be quite frustrating and time-consuming which is why a lot of bosses 
>> won't want their engineers tied up doing it, but as Klunk said, it doesn't 
>> fix itself.
>
>Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story, someone came
>today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.  Took about an hour to fix
>the fault, which turned out to be a bad pair going back to the exchange. 
>He's switched us onto a different pair and it's now OK.

Wonder who's got the noisy pair;?...
>
>He also replaced the LJ2/1A with a new (datecode 49/05) LJU2.  I was rather
>surprised it wasn't with an NTE5 - we still don't have any means of
>disconnecting our extensions from BT's network short of unscrewing the
>boxcon, but at least there's that (messy) option.  Perhaps the NTE5 needs a
>larger backplate and he couldn't be bothered to change it?
>
>Thanks for all the help here - I've learnt quite a bit :)
>
>Theo

-- 
Tony Sayer

Theo Markettos wrote:
> John <replyingroup@notemail> wrote:
>> Yes they do, but time domain reflectometry equipment can suffer the
>> same shortcomings as the test desk equipment when dealing with high
>> resistance faults, hence my earlier post referencing the old "tone
>> and amp" method of finding these faults.
> [snip most interesting explanation]
>> It can be quite frustrating and time-consuming which is why a lot of
>> bosses won't want their engineers tied up doing it, but as Klunk
>> said, it doesn't fix itself.
>
> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story, someone
> came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.  Took about an
> hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad pair going back
> to the exchange. He's switched us onto a different pair and it's now
> OK.
>
> He also replaced the LJ2/1A with a new (datecode 49/05) LJU2.  I was
> rather surprised it wasn't with an NTE5 - we still don't have any
> means of disconnecting our extensions from BT's network short of
> unscrewing the boxcon, but at least there's that (messy) option.
> Perhaps the NTE5 needs a larger backplate and he couldn't be bothered
> to change it?
>
> Thanks for all the help here - I've learnt quite a bit :)
>
> Theo

You're very welcome. Just glad it's all sorted for you.

John

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:20 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an empty day by
writing:

> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story, someone
> came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.  Took about an
> hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad pair going back to
> the exchange. He's switched us onto a different pair and it's now OK.
> 

Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out and 
run. Ummmm.

Klunk wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:20 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an empty
> day by writing:
>
>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad
>> pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a different
>> pair and it's now OK.
>>
>
> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out
> and run. Ummmm.

As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides they swap. 
Now second stage is another matter.

Just to cover all scenarios if it's a direct DP, Customer facing should fix 
back to the airblock & then it's over to second stage once again...

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:56 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:

> Klunk wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:20 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an empty day
>> by writing:
>>
>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story, someone
>>> came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'. Took about an
>>> hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad pair going back to
>>> the exchange. He's switched us onto a different pair and it's now OK.
>>>
>>>
>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out and
>> run. Ummmm.
> 
> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides they
> swap. Now second stage is another matter.
> 
> Just to cover all scenarios if it's a direct DP, Customer facing should
> fix back to the airblock & then it's over to second stage once again...

There you go again assuming things. You appear to have decided that this 
is an E Side or EO (the latter you would fix in any case). In reality 
every pair goes back to the exchange, and to the EU telling them 'I've 
changed the pair back to the exchange' can just as easily be a case of 
swapping it end to end with a neigbour, or for a TOS. Both of which are 
common but wrong. A monkey can swap something, but it takes skill to 
fault it.

Klunk wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:56 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
> writing:
>
>> Klunk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:20 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an
>>> empty day by writing:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a
>>>> bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>> different pair and it's now OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it
>>> out and run. Ummmm.
>>
>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>
>> Just to cover all scenarios if it's a direct DP, Customer facing
>> should fix back to the airblock & then it's over to second stage
>> once again...
>
> There you go again assuming things. You appear to have decided that
> this is an E Side or EO (the latter you would fix in any case). In
> reality every pair goes back to the exchange, and to the EU telling
> them 'I've changed the pair back to the exchange' can just as
> easily be a case of swapping it end to end with a neigbour, or for
> a TOS. Both of which are common but wrong. A monkey can swap
> something, but it takes skill to fault it.

Not assuming anything, unlike yourself, I have only pointed out what happens 
in the field (& what has been decreed what will happen).  As the OP stated 
that the pair had been swapped to the exchange any of my 3 scenarious can be 
applicable..

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:40:01 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:

> Klunk wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:56 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
>> writing:
>>
>>> Klunk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:20 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an empty
>>>> day by writing:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'. Took
>>>>> about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad pair
>>>>> going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a different pair
>>>>> and it's now OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out
>>>> and run. Ummmm.
>>>
>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides they
>>> swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>>
>>> Just to cover all scenarios if it's a direct DP, Customer facing
>>> should fix back to the airblock & then it's over to second stage once
>>> again...
>>
>> There you go again assuming things. You appear to have decided that
>> this is an E Side or EO (the latter you would fix in any case). In
>> reality every pair goes back to the exchange, and to the EU telling
>> them 'I've changed the pair back to the exchange' can just as easily be
>> a case of swapping it end to end with a neigbour, or for a TOS. Both of
>> which are common but wrong. A monkey can swap something, but it takes
>> skill to fault it.
> 
> Not assuming anything, unlike yourself, I have only pointed out what
> happens in the field (& what has been decreed what will happen).  As the
> OP stated that the pair had been swapped to the exchange any of my 3
> scenarious can be applicable..

Of the scenarios (spelling corrected) you have stated only ONE of those 
would be resolved with a pair swap. The EO should be repaired properly. 
What SSR do is irrelevant as they are neither customer facing and they 
tend to swap whole cables - and therefore pairs - as part of their job)


The clincher for me is this:
>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides they
>>> swap. 
Which means you once more go 'anal' and make the assumption this is an E 
Side fault in response to my dig about lazy, pair swapping BT f**kwits. 

What *You* may have forgotten is that a line always goes to the exchange, 
be it from cab, EO DP, or - funny enough - *even the customers premises*. 
The phrase 'I've swapped the line back to the exchange' does not specifiy 
or even imply just where or how much of the line has been swapped out. 
You should full well know that an 'old school' engineer is most likely to 
swap a pair a bolt.

This is basic stuff Kraftee, kind of 'this way up' in its nature.

Klunk wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:40:01 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
> writing:
>
>> Klunk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:56 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
>>> writing:
>>>
>>>> Klunk wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:20 +0100, Theo Markettos passed an
>>>>> empty day by writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a
>>>>>> bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it
>>>>> out and run. Ummmm.
>>>>
>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>>>
>>>> Just to cover all scenarios if it's a direct DP, Customer facing
>>>> should fix back to the airblock & then it's over to second stage
>>>> once again...
>>>
>>> There you go again assuming things. You appear to have decided
>>> that this is an E Side or EO (the latter you would fix in any
>>> case). In reality every pair goes back to the exchange, and to
>>> the EU telling them 'I've changed the pair back to the exchange'
>>> can just as easily be a case of swapping it end to end with a
>>> neigbour, or for a TOS. Both of which are common but wrong. A
>>> monkey can swap something, but it takes skill to fault it.
>>
>> Not assuming anything, unlike yourself, I have only pointed out
>> what happens in the field (& what has been decreed what will
>> happen).  As the OP stated that the pair had been swapped to the
>> exchange any of my 3 scenarious can be applicable..
>
> Of the scenarios (spelling corrected) you have stated only ONE of
> those would be resolved with a pair swap. The EO should be repaired
> properly. What SSR do is irrelevant as they are neither customer
> facing and they tend to swap whole cables - and therefore pairs -
> as part of their job)

Wish they did around here, all that happens is that they tap pairs out which 
immeddiately go faulty the next time there is a batch of bad weather.  Even 
with a PTO to help them they still don't find the correct cable or joints.
>
>
> The clincher for me is this:
>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>> they swap.
> Which means you once more go 'anal' and make the assumption this is
> an E Side fault in response to my dig about lazy, pair swapping BT
> f**kwits.
>
> What *You* may have forgotten is that a line always goes to the
> exchange, be it from cab, EO DP, or - funny enough - *even the
> customers premises*. The phrase 'I've swapped the line back to the
> exchange' does not specifiy or even imply just where or how much of
> the line has been swapped out. You should full well know that an
> 'old school' engineer is most likely to swap a pair a bolt.
>
> This is basic stuff Kraftee, kind of 'this way up' in its nature.

Which of course was where you jumped in with your sze10 toetectors, please 
read before attempting to dis. what is posted ,as I did post what you are 
saying that I didn't, I did post that there was only 2 (please remember that 
the Openreach engineer will not work back after an airblock so you are 
incorrect in your rabid postings there) so why the knee jerk anti 
BT/Openreach out pourings again.

Your rabid attacks on BT/Openreach work standards does make it very 
confusing as your pension depends on that company actually continuing to 
look after the end users in a quality & profitable way.  If it doesn't do 
you think that your pension is safe?

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:11:39 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:

> Which of course was where you jumped in with your sze10 toetectors,
> please read before attempting to dis. what is posted ,as I did post what
> you are saying that I didn't, I did post that there was only 2 (please
> remember that the Openreach engineer will not work back after an
> airblock so you are incorrect in your rabid postings there) so why the
> knee jerk anti BT/Openreach out pourings again.
> 
> Your rabid attacks on BT/Openreach work standards does make it very
> confusing as your pension depends on that company actually continuing to
> look after the end users in a quality & profitable way.  If it doesn't
> do you think that your pension is safe?

If you insist on being anal and making yourself look a tit, then let's go 
through it. You can forget all the smoke and mirrors and crappy use of 
garbled English about airblocks and go right back to this:

In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with anything you 
had said):

>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a
>>>>>> bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.

I said:
>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out
>>>>>> and run. Ummmm.

You then jumped in and said:
>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.

No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it was an e-
side on your part. Go back and re-read it, then re-read it again. Yes or 
no? What you actually said please, not what you think you said or wanted 
to say.

(BTW I don't have size ten feet - please stop making assumptions)

Klunk wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:11:39 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
> writing:
>
>> Which of course was where you jumped in with your sze10 toetectors,
>> please read before attempting to dis. what is posted ,as I did
>> post what you are saying that I didn't, I did post that there was
>> only 2 (please remember that the Openreach engineer will not work
>> back after an airblock so you are incorrect in your rabid postings
>> there) so why the knee jerk anti BT/Openreach out pourings again.
>>
>> Your rabid attacks on BT/Openreach work standards does make it very
>> confusing as your pension depends on that company actually
>> continuing to look after the end users in a quality & profitable
>> way.  If it doesn't do you think that your pension is safe?
>
> If you insist on being anal and making yourself look a tit, then
> let's go through it. You can forget all the smoke and mirrors and
> crappy use of garbled English about airblocks and go right back to
> this:
>
> In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with anything
> you had said):
>
>>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a
>>>>>>> bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.
>
> I said:
>>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap
>>>>>>> it out and run. Ummmm.
>
> You then jumped in and said:
>>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>
> No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it was
> an e- side on your part. Go back and re-read it, then re-read it
> again. Yes or no? What you actually said please, not what you think
> you said or wanted to say.
>
> (BTW I don't have size ten feet - please stop making assumptions)

Now who's being extremely anal I gave the 3 possibly scenarios which have 
any relavence & you, in your own impecable way immediately started to 
attack, making unfounded accusations completely ignoring the agreed 
procedures which have been in place for many years.

You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would make you feel far 
happier.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:46:35 +0100, kraftee wrote:

> You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would make you feel
> far happier.

As you have descended into insults once more, it is fair to say you 
realise you have got it wrong and you have no other defence left.

A J Hawke wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:46:35 +0100, kraftee wrote:
>
>> You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would make
>> you feel far happier.
>
> As you have descended into insults once more, it is fair to say you
> realise you have got it wrong and you have no other defence left.

You definitely haven't been keeping up have.

I won't even try to point out the error you are in but caste your eyes 
around various threads & perhaps you may understand, but then again maybe 
you're a morph so who really cares...

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:30:54 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:

> A J Hawke wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:46:35 +0100, kraftee wrote:
>>
>>> You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would make you
>>> feel far happier.
>>
>> As you have descended into insults once more, it is fair to say you
>> realise you have got it wrong and you have no other defence left.
> 
> You definitely haven't been keeping up have.
> 
> I won't even try to point out the error you are in but caste your eyes
> around various threads & perhaps you may understand, but then again
> maybe you're a morph so who really cares...

Like I have said in other posts, I often make the mistake of not 
switching socks. I am man enough to admit I make mistakes.

Going back to the point then, as you wish to reserect it and still have 
not answered it:

In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with anything you 
had said):

>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a
>>>>>> bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.

I said:
>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out
>>>>>> and run. Ummmm.

You then jumped in and said:
>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.

No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it was an e-
side on your part. Go back and re-read it, then re-read it again. Yes or 
no? What you actually said please, not what you think you said or wanted 
to say.

Do you need any help with any of this? I've got all the time in the 
world. Do try and not sink into insults - it is the handrail of the 
crippled mind.

Klunk wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:30:54 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
> writing:
>
>> A J Hawke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:46:35 +0100, kraftee wrote:
>>>
>>>> You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would make
>>>> you feel far happier.
>>>
>>> As you have descended into insults once more, it is fair to say
>>> you realise you have got it wrong and you have no other defence
>>> left.
>>
>> You definitely haven't been keeping up have.
>>
>> I won't even try to point out the error you are in but caste your
>> eyes around various threads & perhaps you may understand, but then
>> again maybe you're a morph so who really cares...
>
> Like I have said in other posts, I often make the mistake of not
> switching socks. I am man enough to admit I make mistakes.
>
> Going back to the point then, as you wish to reserect it and still
> have not answered it:
>
> In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with anything
> you had said):
>
>>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a
>>>>>>> bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.
>
> I said:
>>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap
>>>>>>> it out and run. Ummmm.
>
> You then jumped in and said:
>>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>
> No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it was
> an e- side on your part. Go back and re-read it, then re-read it
> again. Yes or no? What you actually said please, not what you think
> you said or wanted to say.
>
> Do you need any help with any of this? I've got all the time in the
> world. Do try and not sink into insults - it is the handrail of the
> crippled mind.

Are you Jimmy Winsoar back to haunt us?

Selective editing will not get you anyway, after stating Openreach 
CAL/LN/DSL/Data engineers do not repair esides I also went onto to say that 
in the case of a direct DP then the engineer should work to the airblock.

So never mind I know what was posted in that thread, you chose to 
selectively edit, which is not my problem.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:52 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:

> Klunk wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:30:54 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
>> writing:
>>
>>> A J Hawke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:46:35 +0100, kraftee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would make you
>>>>> feel far happier.
>>>>
>>>> As you have descended into insults once more, it is fair to say you
>>>> realise you have got it wrong and you have no other defence left.
>>>
>>> You definitely haven't been keeping up have.
>>>
>>> I won't even try to point out the error you are in but caste your eyes
>>> around various threads & perhaps you may understand, but then again
>>> maybe you're a morph so who really cares...
>>
>> Like I have said in other posts, I often make the mistake of not
>> switching socks. I am man enough to admit I make mistakes.
>>
>> Going back to the point then, as you wish to reserect it and still have
>> not answered it:
>>
>> In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with anything you
>> had said):
>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad
>>>>>>>> pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.
>>
>> I said:
>>>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it
>>>>>>>> out and run. Ummmm.
>>
>> You then jumped in and said:
>>>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>
>> No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it was an
>> e- side on your part. Go back and re-read it, then re-read it again.
>> Yes or no? What you actually said please, not what you think you said
>> or wanted to say.
>>
>> Do you need any help with any of this? I've got all the time in the
>> world. Do try and not sink into insults - it is the handrail of the
>> crippled mind.
> 
> Are you Jimmy Winsoar back to haunt us?
> 
> Selective editing will not get you anyway, after stating Openreach
> CAL/LN/DSL/Data engineers do not repair esides I also went onto to say
> that in the case of a direct DP then the engineer should work to the
> airblock.
> 
> So never mind I know what was posted in that thread, you chose to
> selectively edit, which is not my problem.

Stop changing the subject - you got it wrong by assuming as usual:

Here is the post, there is no selective editing going on:

>> In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with anything you
>> had said):
>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the story,
>>>>>>>> someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old school'.
>>>>>>>> Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a bad
>>>>>>>> pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a
>>>>>>>> different pair and it's now OK.
>>
>> I said:
>>>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it
>>>>>>>> out and run. Ummmm.
>>
>> You then jumped in and said:
>>>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides
>>>>>> they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>
>> No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it was an
>> e- side on your part.

Let us break this down further as you are having difficulty. Which part 
are you not understanding?

Klunk wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:52 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
> writing:
>
>> Klunk wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:30:54 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
>>> writing:
>>>
>>>> A J Hawke wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:46:35 +0100, kraftee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You really aught to remember to take your prozac, it would
>>>>>> make you feel far happier.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you have descended into insults once more, it is fair to say
>>>>> you realise you have got it wrong and you have no other defence
>>>>> left.
>>>>
>>>> You definitely haven't been keeping up have.
>>>>
>>>> I won't even try to point out the error you are in but caste
>>>> your eyes around various threads & perhaps you may understand,
>>>> but then again maybe you're a morph so who really cares...
>>>
>>> Like I have said in other posts, I often make the mistake of not
>>> switching socks. I am man enough to admit I make mistakes.
>>>
>>> Going back to the point then, as you wish to reserect it and
>>> still have not answered it:
>>>
>>> In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with
>>> anything you had said):
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the
>>>>>>>>> story, someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old
>>>>>>>>> school'. Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned
>>>>>>>>> out to be a bad pair going back to the exchange. He's
>>>>>>>>> switched us onto a different pair and it's now OK.
>>>
>>> I said:
>>>>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap
>>>>>>>>> it out and run. Ummmm.
>>>
>>> You then jumped in and said:
>>>>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair
>>>>>>> esides they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>>
>>> No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it
>>> was an e- side on your part. Go back and re-read it, then re-read
>>> it again. Yes or no? What you actually said please, not what you
>>> think you said or wanted to say.
>>>
>>> Do you need any help with any of this? I've got all the time in
>>> the world. Do try and not sink into insults - it is the handrail
>>> of the crippled mind.
>>
>> Are you Jimmy Winsoar back to haunt us?
>>
>> Selective editing will not get you anyway, after stating Openreach
>> CAL/LN/DSL/Data engineers do not repair esides I also went onto to
>> say that in the case of a direct DP then the engineer should work
>> to the airblock.
>>
>> So never mind I know what was posted in that thread, you chose to
>> selectively edit, which is not my problem.
>
> Stop changing the subject - you got it wrong by assuming as usual:
>
> Here is the post, there is no selective editing going on:
>
>>> In response to this (not posted by you, nothing to do with
>>> anything you had said):
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, you learn something new every day.  To end the
>>>>>>>>> story, someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old
>>>>>>>>> school'. Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned
>>>>>>>>> out to be a bad pair going back to the exchange. He's
>>>>>>>>> switched us onto a different pair and it's now OK.
>>>
>>> I said:
>>>>>>>>> Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap
>>>>>>>>> it out and run. Ummmm.
>>>
>>> You then jumped in and said:
>>>>>>> As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair
>>>>>>> esides they swap. Now second stage is another matter.
>>>
>>> No mention of air-blocks, just an immediate assumption that it
>>> was an e- side on your part.
>
> Let us break this down further as you are having difficulty. Which
> part are you not understanding?

Yet another fine example of selective editing...

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:20:23 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:
> Yet another fine example of selective editing...

There is no selective editing going on - let's go through it again - we 
can keep doing this until you get it: 

The OP said:
"To end the story, someone came today.  He seemed to be one of the 'old 
school'. Took about an hour to fix the fault, which turned out to be a 
bad pair going back to the exchange. He's switched us onto a different 
pair and it's now OK."

To which I replied to the OP (not you):
"Old School indeed. You can fix it properly, or you can swap it out and 
run. Ummmm."

At which point you jumped in and your opening sentence was:
"As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides they 
swap."

Clearly you had assumed this to be an e-side fault as it is your opening 
line. You then went on to add: 

"Now second stage is another matter."

Which is irrelevant as they are not customer facing and they would not 
have any involvement with the OP.

Finally you added:

"Just to cover all scenarios if it's a direct DP, Customer facing should 
fix back to the airblock"

In which case swapping it would be wrong, so you agree with what I say.

You have listed two scenarios, the first is an assumption that the e-side 
was at fault, the second 'to cover' an E.O. pair where you agree that it 
should be fixed (not swapped) back to the air block.

At no point have you raised the scenario that the pair could have been 
changed anywhere back to the exchange as all pairs ultimately go back to 
the exchange. That could include swapping with a spare pair (end to end), 
a TOS or even a neighbours line.

Please explain, in clear English - not abuse or jibberish, where you are 
having a comprehension problem. I've got as long as it takes, I don't get 
wound up and I am keen to help you. As you are struggling with it, let's 
do it a bit at a time. Save any questions to the end:

First of all then:

The very first sentence that you posted attacking my response to the OP 
where you assumed, at the outset, the engineer had swapped out an e-side. 
Do you agree that the very first thing you said in response to MY post 
was:
"As you well know, Customer facing engineers do not repair esides they 
swap."
Yes or no?

Klunk  wrote:
> There is no selective editing going on - let's go through it again - we 
> can keep doing this until you get it: 

I don't really understand these exchanges, but in case it's of interest an
OpenReach van turned up today and the technician spent about an hour in the
manhole at the bottom of our pole.  Couldn't see what he was doing
particularly.

I have no idea whether this is of relevance to your argument, but I hope it
helps :)

Theo

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:16:10 +0100, Theo Markettos wrote:

> Klunk  wrote:
>> There is no selective editing going on - let's go through it again - we
>> can keep doing this until you get it:
> 
> I don't really understand these exchanges, but in case it's of interest
> an OpenReach van turned up today and the technician spent about an hour
> in the manhole at the bottom of our pole.  Couldn't see what he was
> doing particularly.
> 
> I have no idea whether this is of relevance to your argument, but I hope
> it helps :)
> 
> Theo

Internal politics Theo, just ignore it.

I wonder what the odds are of the Openreach engineer being there to deal 
with a new fault that has sprung up on a neighbours line? Noisy? Ummmm. 
Swap-a-doodle-doo . . . Or was he there for you?

In article <ARd*+7Afs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo
Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Klunk  wrote:

> > There is no selective editing going on - let's go
> > through it again - we can keep doing this until you
> > get it: 

> I don't really understand these exchanges, 

I am glad that I am not the only one then!

The last half dozen or so postings on this thread remind me
rather of the way some threads tend to develop on another NG
that both Theo and I susbscribe to...

:-(

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:17:43 +0100, Russell Hafter News wrote:

> I am glad that I am not the only one then!
> 
> The last half dozen or so postings on this thread remind me rather of
> the way some threads tend to develop on another NG that both Theo and I
> susbscribe to...
> 
> :-(

Then just ignore them ;-)

In article <48578167$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, A J
Hawke  wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:17:43 +0100, Russell Hafter News
> wrote:

> > I am glad that I am not the only one then!

> > The last half dozen or so postings on this thread
> > remind me rather of the way some threads tend to
> > develop on another NG that both Theo and I susbscribe
> > to...

> > :-(

> Then just ignore them ;-)

Difficult - they have all been binned.
:-))

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Alsace, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Czech Republic

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:14:15 +0100, Russell Hafter News passed an empty
day by writing:

> In article <48578167$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, A J Hawke
>  wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:17:43 +0100, Russell Hafter News wrote:
> 
>> > I am glad that I am not the only one then!
> 
>> > The last half dozen or so postings on this thread remind me rather of
>> > the way some threads tend to develop on another NG that both Theo and
>> > I susbscribe to...
> 
>> > :-(
> 
>> Then just ignore them ;-)
> 
> Difficult - they have all been binned. :-))

*plonk*

A J Hawke wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:17:43 +0100, Russell Hafter News wrote:
>
>> I am glad that I am not the only one then!
>>
>> The last half dozen or so postings on this thread remind me rather
>> of the way some threads tend to develop on another NG that both
>> Theo and I susbscribe to...
>>
>> :-(
>
> Then just ignore them ;-)

I am ;-)

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:41:39 +0100, kraftee passed an empty day by
writing:

> A J Hawke wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:17:43 +0100, Russell Hafter News wrote:
>>
>>> I am glad that I am not the only one then!
>>>
>>> The last half dozen or so postings on this thread remind me rather of
>>> the way some threads tend to develop on another NG that both Theo and
>>> I susbscribe to...
>>>
>>> :-(
>>
>> Then just ignore them ;-)
> 
> I am ;-)

I know, it is what you do when you get it wrong. Better luck next time.