Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.telecom > #39615 > unrolled thread

Have BT been making unannounced changes?

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom

Contents

  Have BT been making unannounced changes? Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-04 12:38 +0100
    Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-04 12:56 +0100
      Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-04 20:34 +0100
        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-04 20:49 +0100
          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-05 11:27 +0100
        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-04 21:44 +0100
          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-05 11:26 +0100
            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-05 12:28 +0100
          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-07-05 18:54 +0100
            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) - 2026-07-05 19:18 +0100
              Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-05 20:42 +0100
                Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-05 21:27 +0100
                Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) - 2026-07-06 14:25 +0100
            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-05 19:22 +0100
        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-05 12:12 +0100
          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-05 13:33 +0100
            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-05 14:03 +0100
              Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-05 14:20 +0100
                Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-05 14:33 +0100
                  Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-07-06 09:43 +0100
                    Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-07-06 10:51 +0100
                      Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-06 13:52 +0100
                        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-07-06 15:42 +0100
                          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-06 18:26 +0100
                            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-07-06 19:13 +0100
                        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-06 22:34 +0100
                          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-06 22:49 +0100
                            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-07-06 23:35 +0100
                Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-07-05 18:49 +0100
                  Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-05 19:03 +0100
                    Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-05 19:10 +0100
                      Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-07-05 19:27 +0100
                        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-05 20:13 +0100
                    Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-07-05 19:20 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#39641

Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> writes:

> On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 14:33:21 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>David Wade wrote:
>>
>>> The ZEN product is provisioned via the SIP support in the Fritz!Box
>>> router, so if its "BT Digital Voice" being resold does that mean BT
>>> is using standard protocols?  >>Maybe Zen have at various times
>>> resold DV, and other times their own >>VoIP, I do remember customers
>>> talking about it being DV
>>
>>I imagine everyone uses standard protocols, why wouldn't they?
>
> I attended meetings at BT in about 2000. At one time BT had submitted
> 1000 change requests to SIP and related protocols as they planned for
> what is now DV.

They use their own protocols to hide what they are doing and lock you
into their hardware. Let's call it the Amazon model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39643

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 14:33:21 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>David Wade wrote:
> >>
> >>> The ZEN product is provisioned via the SIP support in the Fritz!Box
> >>> router, so if its "BT Digital Voice" being resold does that mean BT
> >>> is using standard protocols?  >>Maybe Zen have at various times
> >>> resold DV, and other times their own >>VoIP, I do remember customers
> >>> talking about it being DV
> >>
> >>I imagine everyone uses standard protocols, why wouldn't they?
> >
> > I attended meetings at BT in about 2000. At one time BT had submitted
> > 1000 change requests to SIP and related protocols as they planned for
> > what is now DV.
> 
> They use their own protocols to hide what they are doing and lock you
> into their hardware. Let's call it the Amazon model.

Nobody has shown any evidence of BT using their own protocols.  AFAICS
they're using standards like SIP, PPPoE, VLANs, TR-069, maybe TR-104.  For
one thing, their own protocols would require their own software loaded on
routers, which would have to be commissioned from the router manufacturers.
While routers often have a bit of UI personalisation, they're typically
pretty standard underneath.

However increasingly ISPs consider the CPE to be part of their network -
they manage it, they provide security updates, they send you a new one if it
breaks.  Given how poorly managed some third party routers are (lack of
security updates from the vendor, insecure settings, sometimes included
malware), there's an argument that this is the way of least harm to both
their network and their customers.

Now you or I might balk at this transfer of power to the ISP, but I think
it's the right thing for 90+% of people.  And it's not like we don't have
options if we want to do our own thing.  (As soon as they start blocking our
options, then is the time for the pitchforks)

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39645

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Nobody has shown any evidence of BT using their own protocols.

How do you know that nobody has?

> AFAICS

How far can you see? What is in the realm beyond that which you can see?

> they're using standards like SIP, PPPoE, VLANs, TR-069, maybe TR-104.

Maybe, but they then conceal it and call it BT DV or whatever.

Can you use any equipment with BT? or do you have to use their
equipment?

>
> However increasingly ISPs consider the CPE to be part of their network -
> they manage it, they provide security updates, they send you a new one if it
> breaks.  Given how poorly managed some third party routers are (lack of
> security updates from the vendor, insecure settings, sometimes included
> malware), there's an argument that this is the way of least harm to both
> their network and their customers.

I was really impressed by the way AAISP handles security updates to the
router. What I thought might be a daunting task, and might leave me with
a brick, actually happened without me even noticing.

We may see much more need for security updates to routers with people
pointing AI at them.

(I snipped things to avoid clutter, not for any other reason).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39646

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > Nobody has shown any evidence of BT using their own protocols.
> 
> How do you know that nobody has?

Has anyone offered any evidence of it?

> > AFAICS
> 
> How far can you see? What is in the realm beyond that which you can see?

All I can see is what people on various forums have posted about digging
into the system.  I confess I haven't conducted an in-depth study, I have
just skimmed various threads.

I have also reverse engineered Sky's implementation (which is standard SIP
with TR-104); I have never had a BT connection to try their version.

With Sky, I could extract the server details out of one of their routers
that I bought on ebay and talk to the TR-069 server without being their
customer.  Because I'd not want to be a BT customer except under duress I
was not motivated to do the same for BT.

How much reverse engineering have you done?

> > they're using standards like SIP, PPPoE, VLANs, TR-069, maybe TR-104.
> 
> Maybe, but they then conceal it and call it BT DV or whatever.
> 
> Can you use any equipment with BT? or do you have to use their
> equipment?

That's a different point to using proprietary standards.  I can offer an
email service use bog standard IMAP but if you don't have the password you
can't use it.  BT are just not giving customers the information needed to
use their service, because they have decided not to.

> I was really impressed by the way AAISP handles security updates to the
> router. What I thought might be a daunting task, and might leave me with
> a brick, actually happened without me even noticing.
> 
> We may see much more need for security updates to routers with people
> pointing AI at them.
> 
> (I snipped things to avoid clutter, not for any other reason).

I think for most people the position is best where the ISP is in charge of
updating their CPE.  They know exactly what equipment they have deployed and
they can push out firmware updates, or automatically send you a new box if
your current one is life expired.

If you leave it to the customers, some proportional of them will go buy
something dubious from Aliexpress that either gets no updates or is a
malware honeypot.  Even leading brands like Netgear only give a few years of
updates, and generally speaking you're unlikely to notice your router
firmware is out of date (it can't pop something on screen to say 'update
available now!').

For FTTC, I found that the speed was very dependent on the match between the
Huawei cabinet and the modem firmware.  I used to run the HH5a with OpenWRT
and there were a lot of different modem firmware versions to choose from -
some were faster and more stable than others, with seemingly no correlation
between version number and speed or stability.  I gave up playing
whack-a-mole and just used the Vodafone router, which seemed to give both
speed and stability; seemingly the Broadcom modem in that was better talking
to the Broadcom cabinet than the Lantiq modem in the HH5a.  I expect if you
used the HH5a with the original BT firmware then they had carefully chosen
the modem firmware to be the most stable for their network.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39647

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I have also reverse engineered Sky's implementation (which is standard SIP
> with TR-104); I have never had a BT connection to try their version.

If you had to reverse enginner it to find out what it was, doesn't that
mean they have hidden an open protocol behind closed doors?

> How much reverse engineering have you done?

None, but that doesn't mean I am wrong necessarily.

> That's a different point to using proprietary standards.  I can offer an
> email service use bog standard IMAP but if you don't have the password you
> can't use it.  BT are just not giving customers the information needed to
> use their service, because they have decided not to.

The original question which I was trying to answer was why would BT not
use the open standards? (Andy Burns). My answer is to tie people into
hardware. If they use open standards behind closed doors then that
amounts to the same thing, I think.

> I think for most people the position is best where the ISP is in charge of
> updating their CPE.

I agree. So many people struggle even to use their smartphones. They
won't even be thinking about this sort of thing. It is a utility. It
should just work. Unfortunately ISPs do silly things like having WPS and
Universal Plug and Play switched on because they don't want the support
calls when it doesn't work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39648

On 2026/7/6 13:52:41, Theo wrote:
[]
> Nobody has shown any evidence of BT using their own protocols.  AFAICS
> they're using standards like SIP, PPPoE, VLANs, TR-069, maybe TR-104.  For
> one thing, their own protocols would require their own software loaded on
> routers, which would have to be commissioned from the router manufacturers.
> While routers often have a bit of UI personalisation, they're typically
> pretty standard underneath.

I suppose disabling could be described as "personalisation"; PlusNet
supply (so I'm told) a standard BT "router", but with the ATA that's
already in it disabled. which seems very dog-in-the-manger.
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39649

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/7/6 13:52:41, Theo wrote:
> []
> > Nobody has shown any evidence of BT using their own protocols.  AFAICS
> > they're using standards like SIP, PPPoE, VLANs, TR-069, maybe TR-104.  For
> > one thing, their own protocols would require their own software loaded on
> > routers, which would have to be commissioned from the router manufacturers.
> > While routers often have a bit of UI personalisation, they're typically
> > pretty standard underneath.
> 
> I suppose disabling could be described as "personalisation"; PlusNet
> supply (so I'm told) a standard BT "router", but with the ATA that's
> already in it disabled. which seems very dog-in-the-manger.
> []

Many routers are based on OpenWRT with a proprietary UI skin over the top. 
When they order them from the manufacturer, part of the specifying process
is that the ISP gets to select from a menu of different features they want
to offer.  These then get turned into a board configuration that says which
feature flags are enabled in the OS build.  Run the build process and out
pops a firmware image with only the requested features enabled.  The
manufacturer typically provides their own web UI (replacing OpenWRT's Luci)
and then there are customisations that can be applied, eg logos, text etc.

So changing from provisioning the ATA to not provisioning it is just a flip
of a config switch.  They could also save a bit of hardware cost by not
provisioning the analogue phone components, but that's not a massive saving
and perhaps outweighed by just producing the same board in greater volumes. 
Then flash it with the appropriate firmware image and stick it in a BT or EE
or PN branded plastic case to match.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39650

On 06/07/2026 22:49, Theo wrote:
> 
> So changing from provisioning the ATA to not provisioning it is just a flip
> of a config switch.  They could also save a bit of hardware cost by not
> provisioning the analogue phone components, but that's not a massive saving
> and perhaps outweighed by just producing the same board in greater volumes.
> Then flash it with the appropriate firmware image and stick it in a BT or EE
> or PN branded plastic case to match.

  My daughter#s Plusnet FTTP install came with an EE Smart Hub 6 with the 
blue '8' logo on the front and SSID of EE...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39629

On 05/07/2026 14:20, David Wade wrote:
> does that mean BT is using standard protocols?

BT are using SIP, but over a different VPN, for the PPP over Ethernet, 
from that used for any broadband, on the same line.  They also don't 
provide you with credentials necessary to bypass their hub.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39631

David Woolley wrote:

> BT are using SIP, but over a different VPN, for the PPP over Ethernet, 
> from that used for any broadband, on the same line.  They also don't 
> provide you with credentials necessary to bypass their hub.

A different VPN, or on a different VLAN?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39632

Andy Burns wrote:

> on a different VLAN?

Apparently not ...

<https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/4664092-bt-fttp-with-digital-voice-alternative-to-smart-hub-2.html?fpart=2#Post4666538>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39636

On 05/07/2026 19:10, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> on a different VLAN?
> 
> Apparently not ...
> 
> <https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/4664092-bt-fttp-with-digital- 
> voice-alternative-to-smart-hub-2.html?fpart=2#Post4666538>

Broadband is on tagged VLAN 101, on FTTC, and some sources say that 
Digital Voice is untagged.  The situation is a bit more confusing for 
FTTP, which I don't  have, but is probably done but hidden in the ONT.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39637

David Woolley wrote:

> Broadband is on tagged VLAN 101, on FTTC

Yes, that much I do know from when I re-flashed a HH5A with openWRT

> and some sources say that 
> Digital Voice is untagged.  

I don't have DV, so can't test, I know from SINet documents they can 
provision extra VLANs (maybe for VoD?)

> The situation is a bit more confusing for 
> FTTP, which I don't  have

Me neither, but it seems to be getting closer (I can find houses a few 
hundred metres away where it's available).

> but is probably done but hidden in the ONT.

I could look for 801.1q or 802.1ad (QinQ) packets once I do get FTTP, 
but would assume they'd be non-existent unless provisioned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39634

On 05/07/2026 19:03, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
> A different VPN, or on a different VLAN?

My slip up.  A different VLAN.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom

csiph-web