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 Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-07-07 09:13 +0100
                    Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) - 2026-07-07 10:45 +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? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-07 08:50 +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? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-07 22:23 +0100
                                Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-07 23:03 +0100
                                  Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-07 23:35 +0100
                                    Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-07-11 16:52 +0100
                        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-07 08:46 +0100
                          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-07-07 09:01 +0100
                          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-07 11:05 +0100
                            Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-07 13:41 +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
        Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-11 09:48 +0100
          Re: Have BT been making unannounced changes? Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-07-11 11:14 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#39615 — Have BT been making unannounced changes?

Unlike many we still have a BT landline phone - Panasonic DECT.

Ever since we have had it, if a call with number withheld called, then 
it just showed 'Withheld' on the CLI.

This last week we have had two calls:-
one said "Private?" and there was no number attached;
the second said "Nuisance?" but there was a number - apparently Barnsley 
but looks to be issued by a VoIP provider in Belgium. A further check 
showed it was indeed a nuisance/scam call.

Has anyone else encountered this change in operation or been advised by 
that BT are/were doing it?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#39616

Woody wrote:

> Unlike many we still have a BT landline phone - Panasonic DECT.
> 
> Ever since we have had it, if a call with number withheld called, then 
> it just showed 'Withheld' on the CLI.
> 
> This last week we have had two calls:-
> one said "Private?" and there was no number attached;
> the second said "Nuisance?" but there was a number - apparently Barnsley 
> but looks to be issued by a VoIP provider in Belgium. A further check 
> showed it was indeed a nuisance/scam call.
> 
> Has anyone else encountered this change in operation or been advised by 
> that BT are/were doing it?

Do you use "BT Call Protect", apparently that can display "nuisance?"

<https://www.bt.com/help/landline/digital-voice-calling-features-/bt-call-protect-for-digital-voice>

That page is in relation to Digital Voice, but it wouldn't surprise me 
if they push analogue calls through the same system ...

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

#39618

On Sat 04/07/2026 12:56, Andy Burns wrote:
> Woody wrote:
> 
>> Unlike many we still have a BT landline phone - Panasonic DECT.
>>
>> Ever since we have had it, if a call with number withheld called, then 
>> it just showed 'Withheld' on the CLI.
>>
>> This last week we have had two calls:-
>> one said "Private?" and there was no number attached;
>> the second said "Nuisance?" but there was a number - apparently 
>> Barnsley but looks to be issued by a VoIP provider in Belgium. A 
>> further check showed it was indeed a nuisance/scam call.
>>
>> Has anyone else encountered this change in operation or been advised 
>> by that BT are/were doing it?
> 
> Do you use "BT Call Protect", apparently that can display "nuisance?"
> 
> <https://www.bt.com/help/landline/digital-voice-calling-features-/bt- 
> call-protect-for-digital-voice>
> 
> That page is in relation to Digital Voice, but it wouldn't surprise me 
> if they push analogue calls through the same system ...
> 

Ah, well, you see, there may be something in that, except that we are 
not on DV AFAIK.

Having said that a month or two ago we had to start dialling the full 
area code as well as number even for local calls. When I asked why I was 
told that because I don't have B/B from BT but am over pension age they 
are interfacing me to (what I assume is) VoIP (DV) at the exchange. I 
suspect that this is about BT not being able to meet the HMG digital 
targets so they are sidestepping some customers like me so they can 
change us to digital ops in their own time (how many years?) after the 
end of January 2027 and otherwise meet the HMG target. In other words a 
fiddle. So much for the 'need' to change everyone to fibre and remove 
all of the copper/aluminium cabling!

For the record my B/B provider is VM which includes a phone service but 
is so expensive for daily needs that it is only used if I need to ring 
them for faults or support, calls to which are free, plus it is cabled 
so still works if the mains fails.

PoI: I do note that since the changeover that now requires me to dial 
the area code, call set-up is in many cases significantly slower. If I 
ring a friend at the other end of the country I get ringtone almost the 
instant I finish dialling; if I ring a local number even on the same 
physical exchange as me it can be 6-8 seconds sometimes more before I 
get ringtone. The worst is if I ring a DDI number at the local hospital 
who use VM, the call will divert to voicemail after about 15 secs of 
ring no answer but the first I hear is the answer message - no ringing. 
If however I call the same number from my mobile (on GiffGaff) I get 
ringtone within a second of finishing dialling. How stupid is that?!

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

#39619

Woody wrote:

> we are not on DV AFAIK

Sounds like you may secretly be on a disguised form of Digital Voice?
What do you get if you dial 17070

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

#39622

On Sat 04/07/2026 20:49, Andy Burns wrote:
> Woody wrote:
> 
>> we are not on DV AFAIK
> 
> Sounds like you may secretly be on a disguised form of Digital Voice?
> What do you get if you dial 17070

Exactly what I would expect to get. My number followed by six options.

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

#39620

On 04/07/2026 20:34, Woody wrote:
> On Sat 04/07/2026 12:56, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Woody wrote:
>>
>>> Unlike many we still have a BT landline phone - Panasonic DECT.
>>>
>>> Ever since we have had it, if a call with number withheld called, 
>>> then it just showed 'Withheld' on the CLI.
>>>
>>> This last week we have had two calls:-
>>> one said "Private?" and there was no number attached;
>>> the second said "Nuisance?" but there was a number - apparently 
>>> Barnsley but looks to be issued by a VoIP provider in Belgium. A 
>>> further check showed it was indeed a nuisance/scam call.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else encountered this change in operation or been advised 
>>> by that BT are/were doing it?
>>
>> Do you use "BT Call Protect", apparently that can display "nuisance?"
>>
>> <https://www.bt.com/help/landline/digital-voice-calling-features-/bt- 
>> call-protect-for-digital-voice>
>>
>> That page is in relation to Digital Voice, but it wouldn't surprise me 
>> if they push analogue calls through the same system ...
>>
> 
> Ah, well, you see, there may be something in that, except that we are 
> not on DV AFAIK.
> 
> Having said that a month or two ago we had to start dialling the full 
> area code as well as number even for local calls. When I asked why I was 
> told that because I don't have B/B from BT but am over pension age they 
> are interfacing me to (what I assume is) VoIP (DV) at the exchange. I 
> suspect that this is about BT not being able to meet the HMG digital 
> targets so they are sidestepping some customers like me so they can 
> change us to digital ops in their own time (how many years?) after the 
> end of January 2027 and otherwise meet the HMG target. In other words a 
> fiddle. So much for the 'need' to change everyone to fibre and remove 
> all of the copper/aluminium cabling!


I don't believe there are any HMG targets. BT have targets because the 
exchanges are leased and the leases end in 2030 and they want to close 
the exchanges.

To enable this there are two migrations in progress. One is the move to 
fibre, and the other is the removal of the old Public Switched Telephone 
Network, or PSTN and converting all users to VOIP allowing the old 
analogue exchanges to be de-commissioned

So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product which as 
you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. It allows the 
analogue exchange kit to be removed without putting fibre into your 
house. It is intended to be a "transitional" service, so at some point 
before 2030 you will be switched to fibre.
> For the record my B/B provider is VM which includes a phone service but 
> is so expensive for daily needs that it is only used if I need to ring 
> them for faults or support, calls to which are free, plus it is cabled 
> so still works if the mains fails.
> 

Are you sure it works in a power cut?

> PoI: I do note that since the changeover that now requires me to dial 
> the area code, call set-up is in many cases significantly slower. If I 
> ring a friend at the other end of the country I get ringtone almost the 
> instant I finish dialling; if I ring a local number even on the same 
> physical exchange as me it can be 6-8 seconds sometimes more before I 
> get ringtone. 

You are not connected to a physical exchange as such, which I suspect 
may be why "local" calls are slow, as if there are any real lines left 
the system has to figure out if it needs to route the call out to the 
old exchange equipment. I would expect this will improve when all lines 
in your exchange are removed. Should be 31st Jan 2027.


The worst is if I ring a DDI number at the local hospital
> who use VM, the call will divert to voicemail after about 15 secs of 
> ring no answer but the first I hear is the answer message - no ringing. 
> If however I call the same number from my mobile (on GiffGaff) I get 
> ringtone within a second of finishing dialling. How stupid is that?!
> 

A bit strange, but I wonder if the hospital is still connected to the 
old exchange kit. Why calls from giffgaff are slow I don't know...


Dave

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

#39621

On Sat 04/07/2026 21:44, David Wade wrote:
> On 04/07/2026 20:34, Woody wrote:
>> On Sat 04/07/2026 12:56, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Woody wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unlike many we still have a BT landline phone - Panasonic DECT.
>>>>
>>>> Ever since we have had it, if a call with number withheld called, 
>>>> then it just showed 'Withheld' on the CLI.
>>>>
>>>> This last week we have had two calls:-
>>>> one said "Private?" and there was no number attached;
>>>> the second said "Nuisance?" but there was a number - apparently 
>>>> Barnsley but looks to be issued by a VoIP provider in Belgium. A 
>>>> further check showed it was indeed a nuisance/scam call.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone else encountered this change in operation or been advised 
>>>> by that BT are/were doing it?
>>>
>>> Do you use "BT Call Protect", apparently that can display "nuisance?"
>>>
>>> <https://www.bt.com/help/landline/digital-voice-calling-features-/bt- 
>>> call-protect-for-digital-voice>
>>>
>>> That page is in relation to Digital Voice, but it wouldn't surprise 
>>> me if they push analogue calls through the same system ...
>>>
>>
>> Ah, well, you see, there may be something in that, except that we are 
>> not on DV AFAIK.
>>
>> Having said that a month or two ago we had to start dialling the full 
>> area code as well as number even for local calls. When I asked why I 
>> was told that because I don't have B/B from BT but am over pension age 
>> they are interfacing me to (what I assume is) VoIP (DV) at the 
>> exchange. I suspect that this is about BT not being able to meet the 
>> HMG digital targets so they are sidestepping some customers like me so 
>> they can change us to digital ops in their own time (how many years?) 
>> after the end of January 2027 and otherwise meet the HMG target. In 
>> other words a fiddle. So much for the 'need' to change everyone to 
>> fibre and remove all of the copper/aluminium cabling!
> 
> 
> I don't believe there are any HMG targets. BT have targets because the 
> exchanges are leased and the leases end in 2030 and they want to close 
> the exchanges.
> 
> To enable this there are two migrations in progress. One is the move to 
> fibre, and the other is the removal of the old Public Switched Telephone 
> Network, or PSTN and converting all users to VOIP allowing the old 
> analogue exchanges to be de-commissioned
> 
> So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product which as 
> you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. It allows the 
> analogue exchange kit to be removed without putting fibre into your 
> house. It is intended to be a "transitional" service, so at some point 
> before 2030 you will be switched to fibre.
>> For the record my B/B provider is VM which includes a phone service 
>> but is so expensive for daily needs that it is only used if I need to 
>> ring them for faults or support, calls to which are free, plus it is 
>> cabled so still works if the mains fails.
>>
> 
> Are you sure it works in a power cut?
> 
>> PoI: I do note that since the changeover that now requires me to dial 
>> the area code, call set-up is in many cases significantly slower. If I 
>> ring a friend at the other end of the country I get ringtone almost 
>> the instant I finish dialling; if I ring a local number even on the 
>> same physical exchange as me it can be 6-8 seconds sometimes more 
>> before I get ringtone. 
> 
> You are not connected to a physical exchange as such, which I suspect 
> may be why "local" calls are slow, as if there are any real lines left 
> the system has to figure out if it needs to route the call out to the 
> old exchange equipment. I would expect this will improve when all lines 
> in your exchange are removed. Should be 31st Jan 2027.
> 
> 
> The worst is if I ring a DDI number at the local hospital
>> who use VM, the call will divert to voicemail after about 15 secs of 
>> ring no answer but the first I hear is the answer message - no 
>> ringing. If however I call the same number from my mobile (on 
>> GiffGaff) I get ringtone within a second of finishing dialling. How 
>> stupid is that?!
>>
> 
> A bit strange, but I wonder if the hospital is still connected to the 
> old exchange kit. Why calls from giffgaff are slow I don't know...
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
Read again. Calls to local number via GG are almost instant.The 
concentrator has a gas powered generator on site as it handles all local 
B/B as well. Having said that the power failed a couple of weeks ago and 
it seems the genny didn't start which meant B/B was down for about 2 
hours until Northern Power got their act together. It affected about ¼ 
of the town.

VM phone is twisted pair to the local concentrator AFAIK as the original 
install in this area was done by Bell Cablemedia who had a reputation 
for reliability and quality workmanship.

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

#39624

On 05/07/2026 11:26, Woody wrote:
> On Sat 04/07/2026 21:44, David Wade wrote:
>> On 04/07/2026 20:34, Woody wrote:
>>> On Sat 04/07/2026 12:56, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Woody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unlike many we still have a BT landline phone - Panasonic DECT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever since we have had it, if a call with number withheld called, 
>>>>> then it just showed 'Withheld' on the CLI.
>>>>>
>>>>> This last week we have had two calls:-
>>>>> one said "Private?" and there was no number attached;
>>>>> the second said "Nuisance?" but there was a number - apparently 
>>>>> Barnsley but looks to be issued by a VoIP provider in Belgium. A 
>>>>> further check showed it was indeed a nuisance/scam call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone else encountered this change in operation or been 
>>>>> advised by that BT are/were doing it?
>>>>
>>>> Do you use "BT Call Protect", apparently that can display "nuisance?"
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bt.com/help/landline/digital-voice-calling-features-/bt- call-protect-for-digital-voice>
>>>>
>>>> That page is in relation to Digital Voice, but it wouldn't surprise 
>>>> me if they push analogue calls through the same system ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, well, you see, there may be something in that, except that we are 
>>> not on DV AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Having said that a month or two ago we had to start dialling the full 
>>> area code as well as number even for local calls. When I asked why I 
>>> was told that because I don't have B/B from BT but am over pension 
>>> age they are interfacing me to (what I assume is) VoIP (DV) at the 
>>> exchange. I suspect that this is about BT not being able to meet the 
>>> HMG digital targets so they are sidestepping some customers like me 
>>> so they can change us to digital ops in their own time (how many 
>>> years?) after the end of January 2027 and otherwise meet the HMG 
>>> target. In other words a fiddle. So much for the 'need' to change 
>>> everyone to fibre and remove all of the copper/aluminium cabling!
>>
>>
>> I don't believe there are any HMG targets. BT have targets because the 
>> exchanges are leased and the leases end in 2030 and they want to close 
>> the exchanges.
>>
>> To enable this there are two migrations in progress. One is the move 
>> to fibre, and the other is the removal of the old Public Switched 
>> Telephone Network, or PSTN and converting all users to VOIP allowing 
>> the old analogue exchanges to be de-commissioned
>>
>> So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product which as 
>> you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. It allows the 
>> analogue exchange kit to be removed without putting fibre into your 
>> house. It is intended to be a "transitional" service, so at some point 
>> before 2030 you will be switched to fibre.
>>> For the record my B/B provider is VM which includes a phone service 
>>> but is so expensive for daily needs that it is only used if I need to 
>>> ring them for faults or support, calls to which are free, plus it is 
>>> cabled so still works if the mains fails.
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure it works in a power cut?
>>
>>> PoI: I do note that since the changeover that now requires me to dial 
>>> the area code, call set-up is in many cases significantly slower. If 
>>> I ring a friend at the other end of the country I get ringtone almost 
>>> the instant I finish dialling; if I ring a local number even on the 
>>> same physical exchange as me it can be 6-8 seconds sometimes more 
>>> before I get ringtone. 
>>
>> You are not connected to a physical exchange as such, which I suspect 
>> may be why "local" calls are slow, as if there are any real lines left 
>> the system has to figure out if it needs to route the call out to the 
>> old exchange equipment. I would expect this will improve when all 
>> lines in your exchange are removed. Should be 31st Jan 2027.
>>
>>
>> The worst is if I ring a DDI number at the local hospital
>>> who use VM, the call will divert to voicemail after about 15 secs of 
>>> ring no answer but the first I hear is the answer message - no 
>>> ringing. If however I call the same number from my mobile (on 
>>> GiffGaff) I get ringtone within a second of finishing dialling. How 
>>> stupid is that?!
>>>
>>
>> A bit strange, but I wonder if the hospital is still connected to the 
>> old exchange kit. Why calls from giffgaff are slow I don't know...
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
> Read again. Calls to local number via GG are almost instant.The 
> concentrator has a gas powered generator on site as it handles all local 
> B/B as well. Having said that the power failed a couple of weeks ago and 
> it seems the genny didn't start which meant B/B was down for about 2 
> hours until Northern Power got their act together. It affected about ¼ 
> of the town.
> 
> VM phone is twisted pair to the local concentrator AFAIK as the original 
> install in this area was done by Bell Cablemedia who had a reputation 
> for reliability and quality workmanship.

Yes, the standard of Virgin Media's network does vary. I am in an 
ex-NYNEX area where they do not have a good reputation.

I asked about the phone as my brother who is in the Northeast where the 
original network was apparently CableTel then NTL had has service 
migrated to FTTP and VOIP. Not ordered by him, done proactively.  I 
assumed Virgin was doing this everywhere but I see that is not 
necessarily the case. They plan to have xPON available everywhere by 
next year, but the plan to migrate customers to it runs until 2040.

Dave

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

#39630

On 04/07/2026 21:44, David Wade wrote:
> So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product which as 
> you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. It allows the 
> analogue exchange kit to be removed without putting fibre into your 
> house. It is intended to be a "transitional" service, so at some point 
> before 2030 you will be switched to fibre.

I think the conversion is done in the cabinet. I think the HMG 
involvement is with regard to avoiding confusing users who depend on the 
landline for emergencies and won't understand concepts like UPS's, or 
the need to provide power for a hub, and find space for it.  It is a 
service for over 70's and vulnerable users.

Just beware if you get broadband via Openreach, but not from a BT owned 
ISP.  Their propaganda didn't mention that they were going to cease my 
broadband when they switched me over.

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

#39633

> > So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product 
> > which as you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. 
>
> I think the conversion is done in the cabinet. 

Pre-Digital Phone Line (PDPL) Media Gateway equipment is being installed at
most telephone exchanges, not cabinets, to provide an emulation of the PSTN
service using BT Wholesale VoIP. 

It it totally separate to all existing services, but will cease within a few
years and the exchange buildings close. 

PDPL costs Ł53/month per line.  

Angus
 

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

#39638

On 2026/7/5 19:18:0, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
>>> So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product 
>>> which as you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. 
>>
>> I think the conversion is done in the cabinet. 
> 
> Pre-Digital Phone Line (PDPL) Media Gateway equipment is being installed at
> most telephone exchanges, not cabinets, to provide an emulation of the PSTN
> service using BT Wholesale VoIP. 
> 
> It it totally separate to all existing services, but will cease within a few
> years and the exchange buildings close. 
> 
> PDPL costs Ł53/month per line.  
> 
> Angus
>  
_Who_ does it cost that much? (And why so much?)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the
plays were not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the
same name. - Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

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

#39639

On 05/07/2026 20:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/7/5 19:18:0, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
>>>> So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product
>>>> which as you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange.
>>>
>>> I think the conversion is done in the cabinet.
>>
>> Pre-Digital Phone Line (PDPL) Media Gateway equipment is being installed at
>> most telephone exchanges, not cabinets, to provide an emulation of the PSTN
>> service using BT Wholesale VoIP.
>>
>> It it totally separate to all existing services, but will cease within a few
>> years and the exchange buildings close.
>>
>> PDPL costs Ł53/month per line.
>>
>> Angus
>>   
> _Who_ does it cost that much? (And why so much?)

no idea "who", but the idea is to get you to move to voip.

Dave

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

#39644

>> PDPL costs Ł53/month per line.  
>>  
> _Who_ does it cost that much? (And why so much?)

PDPL is a business line, designed for strange locations like lift emergency
phones, currently business line rental is Ł48/month (plus VAT) so PDPL is only
a little more.  No connection fee.  

But it requires BT to buy and install up to 4,000 new media gateways with a
short life, so not cheap to provide.  

Angus

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

#39654

On 06/07/2026 14:25, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
> PDPL is a business line, designed for strange locations like lift emergency
> phones, currently business line rental is Ł48/month (plus VAT) so PDPL is only
> a little more.  No connection fee.

PDPL is an Openreach product, so always a B2B sale.  It is also used by 
retailers, like BT retail, for the over 70's etc.  BT retail do not sell 
it to new domestic customers, so they don't need to give the product a 
name, in fact part of the intention is to make it look as close as 
possible to the the existing product.

<https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-faq.pdf> 
specifically mentions telecare, which is things like alarm pendants for 
the elderly.  Rather than determine exactly who is actually using these, 
they seem to have classed all over 70s as vulnerable (there may also 
have been pressure from the government to widen the scope).  Note that 
this document is targetted at retailers, not at end users, so ultimately 
it is up to the retailer to decide for whom to use it.

It wouldn't make sense for Openreach to offer two products with a very 
similar characteristics of the ability to "emulate (as close as 
possible) a traditional phone line".

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

#39655

> PDPL is an Openreach product, so always a B2B sale. 

Pre-Digital Phone Line is also the name used by BT Retail, with details in the
standard BT Price List, for all eligible customers.  

https://www.bt.com/pricing/current/Exch_Lines_boo/FrameworkImpl2133479.htm#Frame
workImpl2133479

It is also available at wholesale prices for other operators to resell.  

Angus

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

#39635

On 05/07/2026 18:54, David Woolley wrote:
> On 04/07/2026 21:44, David Wade wrote:
>> So you have been put on the "pre digital phone line" product which as 
>> you suspect puts the voip conversion in the exchange. It allows the 
>> analogue exchange kit to be removed without putting fibre into your 
>> house. It is intended to be a "transitional" service, so at some point 
>> before 2030 you will be switched to fibre.
> 
> I think the conversion is done in the cabinet. 

I believe that was the original plan, but every thing I have read says 
its now done in the Exchange. This makes sense as there might be no FTTC 
cab they can use, it solves power cut issues, and they do want to remove 
the FTTC cabs.


I think the HMG
> involvement is with regard to avoiding confusing users who depend on the 
> landline for emergencies and won't understand concepts like UPS's, or 
> the need to provide power for a hub, and find space for it.  It is a 
> service for over 70's and vulnerable users.
> 
> Just beware if you get broadband via Openreach, but not from a BT owned 
> ISP.  Their propaganda didn't mention that they were going to cease my 
> broadband when they switched me over.

Yes, that can happen....

Dave

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

#39623

Woody wrote:

> we are not on DV AFAIK.

You could try to use one of the features that is _NOT_ available on DV 
(alarm call, ringback etc) n.b. they will be chargeable if they do 
somehow work

There's a list of what is/isn't supported in the FAQ

<https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-faq.pdf>

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

#39625

On 2026/7/5 12:12:52, Andy Burns wrote:
> Woody wrote:
> 
>> we are not on DV AFAIK.
> 
> You could try to use one of the features that is _NOT_ available on DV 
> (alarm call, ringback etc) n.b. they will be chargeable if they do 
> somehow work
> 
> There's a list of what is/isn't supported in the FAQ
> 
> <https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-faq.pdf>
> 
> 
Is that list supplier-independent? I know on POTS/PSTN some things do vary.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Alcohol is way ahead of cocaine as the world's deadliest drug,
hastening around three million people per year into their graves
(cocaine and heroin and crystal meth account for around half a million
annually). - Revd Richard Coles, RT 2021/7/3-9

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

#39626

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> There's a list of what is/isn't supported in the FAQ
>> <https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-faq.pdf>
>
> Is that list supplier-independent? I know on POTS/PSTN some things do vary.

I would say it applies to any supplier who re-sells Digital Voice (e.g 
BT, EE, Zen) but not relevant for other VoIP suppliers (A&A, voipfone etc).

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

#39627

On 05/07/2026 14:03, Andy Burns wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> There's a list of what is/isn't supported in the FAQ
>>> <https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-faq.pdf>
>>
>> Is that list supplier-independent? I know on POTS/PSTN some things do 
>> vary.
> 
> I would say it applies to any supplier who re-sells Digital Voice (e.g 
> BT, EE, Zen) but not relevant for other VoIP suppliers (A&A, voipfone etc).
> 
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?

Dave

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom

csiph-web