[TCUG] Re: Problems with BT Circuits
- From: "Peter Jones" <peter.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:24:05 +0100
Martin,
Yes, BT in Sefton will also fit the LTU in the controller and I agree
that this is the best location apart from having to get an engineer to
meet BT should they ever require access. However, it appears that in
different areas, BT have different standards; some areas allow a
jointing post, some insist on a pit joint and others insist on
terminating within the equipment housing...controller.
With regard to the LTU's, the units installed in controllers - like
Warrington - have a high reliability rate. It would be nice to get a
common standard from BT though.
Regards
Peter
Peter Jones
Project Leader - Traffic Control Systems
Phone: +44 (0) 151 934 4254
Fax: +44 (0) 151 922 4514
Mobile: 07788 100 584
Peter.Jones (AT) technical.sefton.gov.uk
Sefton MBC - UTC
7th Floor
Balliol House
Balliol Road
Bootle
L20 3NJ
>>> mmccannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 22/10/03 08:06:12 >>>
Jag,
reading with interest your comments on BT LTUs which we have on all of
our
circuits in Warrington, though I am a bit surprised that you are
putting
them in their own enclosure. We are actually transfering, over a period
of
time, our LTUs into the controller and are finding that failure rates
are
greatly improved as the controller cabinet stays relatively warm and
dry.
I was wondering if locally BT were refusing to allow the LTU to be
mounted
in the controller as in the past we have met with similar resistance.
Martin McCannon
UTMC Manager
Warrington Borough Council
Tel: 01925 443253
Mob: 07730 075854
Fax: 01925 443255
-----Original Message-----
From: Jag Morar [mailto:jagmorar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 October 2003 15:52
To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [TCUG] Re: Problems with BT Circuits
I am so pleased to see someone finally taking up this issue. It
seriously
needs to be escalated to the highest level possible.
In February 2003, TfL senior management took it up with BT's director
of
government accounts , John Anderson. Sadly, in my opinion while that
got the
various parties at BT together to come and have a technical meeting to
discuss all the problems that we were having, it did not resolve the
main
issue of the robustness of the line and maintenance. I have itemised
this
and a number of other problems that we have encountered during the UTC
trials of the Microsense TCAM OTU.
1. Many will know that TCAM is (cheap and nearly UTMC compliant) I/P
based,
outstation that can work at speeds of at least 16 times that of the
fastest
OTU that is currently used in the UK. This of course means that for it
to
work flawlessly, with near to no UTC errors, requires an EPS25 (or
better
if they had one) leased lines from BT. Now this specification is only
guaranteed if you have an LTU or NTU at both ends and so far we have
installed the LTU inside the controller at 4 sites. However, at the
other
trials sites, to enable BT to get unhindered access to their equipment
we
identified certain cabinets that the LTU could be mounted in. Last week
BT
wrote back to me and stated "We can agree to a trial of LTU
termination's
within the Haldo Pillar if TFL agree to meet the cost of any LTU
replacement
associated with equipment faults which have been caused by the
environmental
conditions within the pillar."
Now firstly, I do not think this is acceptable because we pay for a
particular specification of line which BT know can only be maintained
with
and LTU. Also, I do not think it is wise to agree to such arrangement
as it
would set a precedent that they may later impose on other authorities.
Therefore, I wrote back to BT asking them to provide details of any
such
agreements that they may have with other authorities in the country. I
also
sent them examples of photos of different types of existing
installations
including that which London Buses use on bus-stops with Countdown. I
am
still awaiting an answer from BT.
To this extent can someone please advise if they already have an
agreement
with BT to pay for the failure of the LTU/NTU due the environment that
it is
mounted in?
It should also be noted that an LTU is a passive device that is only
activated when BT need to carry out the line test remotely, using
their
RATES system. So it does not help deliver the line quality in normal
use.
2. During the lining-up phase of the delivery, BT require access to
their
equipment, which if it is mounted inside the controller also requires
attendance by our engineers at the same time. We recently had LTUs
installed
at four TCAM OTU sites and of this four, the last one that was lined-up
on 1
August 2003, failed to worked properly for a period longer than 2 days
or
so. We reported the fault 3 times in 30 days and after over two months
it is
still outstanding to be cleared. When I read the details of the kind
of
things that BT logged on their database about the faults on this line
(from
leg disconnected, cable breakdown, wires not soldered, transformer not
strapped correctly and to cap it all - failure of the RATEs system) it
makes
me wonder how BT keep their Network running! In my opinion BT's leased
line
system in London is hideously fragile and could be the same in other
major
cities.
3. Since last Monday (20/10/03) four of the ten TCAM sites have
experienced
huge numbers of UTC errors. We immediately tested the line at one site
which
had an LTU fitted for EPS25 delivery using the Auto Tims III line
tester
that we are currently evaluating and found that while the line
frequency/loss characteristics are OK the equipment detected
unacceptable
level of impulse hits (noise in layman's terms). Now, in my opinion
most BT
engineers are good at picking up obvious faults such as line
disconnected,
high loss etc., but not so good at dealing with certain obscure faults
that
normal users also are not able to understand or measure unless they
have the
right test equipment and also know how to use it. Such faults can
wreak
havoc on high speed communications over lease line - as we have seen on
TCAM
trials!
Also, one of the classic responses that we get back from BT is 'Right
When
Tested'. (sounds like a NFF from our signals maintenance engineers).
How
does the normal user challenge this?
With regard to this last problem - we understand that it is centred
around
an exchange (whether true or not it seems that they have had some
local
flooding problem).
I sincerely hope that these issues can be resolved with BT.
Jag Morar
Product Development
Transport for London - SM/NetworkTechnology
Tel. 020 7343 5354
Email: jagmorar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Purdie, Hamilton [mailto:Hamilton.Purdie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 October 2003 11:57
To: TCUG (E-mail)
Subject: [TCUG] Problems with BT Circuits
Following our recent TCUG Meeting last week I agreed to formulate a
respons=
e to DfT with respect to BT's poor performance with regard to
Communication=
s Circuits for UTC. They will then assist to escalate this nationally
based=
on our joint experiences.
Could you please supply any feedback on your BT Analogue Circuits
(mainly t=
he Multipoint Service) particularly in the following areas:
1) Difficulty in procuring additional Multipoint Circuits- either
through l=
ack of branching panel equipment at exchanges or lack of expertise in
the c=
onfiguration of the Multipoint Analogue service;
2) Inability to maintain a correct level of service due to the use of
non "=
ruggedised" Line Terminating Units (LTU's) within unheated cabinets
supplie=
d by BT;
3) Inability to provide the Multipoint Service within BT Specification
poss=
ibly due to lack of training/ experience on Multipoint, or problems
with el=
derly Branching Panel equipment at BT Exchanges.
I look forward to receiving your responses.
Regards,
Hamilton Purdie
Assistant Principal Engineer
CITRAC/ NADICS
Land Services
Glasgow City Council
Tel 0141-287-9307
Fax 0141-287-9288
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for use of the addressee. If this
message
was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this
message.
Glasgow City Council cannot accept responsibility for viruses, so
please
scan attachments. Views expressed in this message do not necessarily
reflect
those of the Council who will not necessarily be bound by its
contents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
*************************************************************************
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential
and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are
addressed. Transport for London Street Management hereby excludes any
warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the
contents of
this e-mail and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the
intended
recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
that
any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail
is
strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify
postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
the
presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
**********************************************************************
The contents of this e-mail are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of the Council.
If you are not the intended recipient (nor the person responsible for
delivering to that recipient) be advised that you have received this
e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Council's
IT Customer Service Centre by telephone on +44 (0)1925 442200,
or by e-mail to postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This footnote confirms that the contents of this e-mail message have
been scanned for the presence of computer viruses by
MIMEsweeper/McAfee
**********************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
