Tim Ashford reveals flaw in Telstra's DSL line-fault testing procedures

[PabloEscobar]

If the demand is there, why can telstra not offer an 'end to end' service check?

I have an intermittent fault on my line, that appears to be weather related, But if I log it, it normally gets closed as NFF.

I'd love to get Telstra to check each cable segment, and would be happy to pay up to $1000 if it does turn out to be be NFF (and I can have the results of the tests that show this).

[caspian]

Originally Posted by Linkin

Well maybe they're trying to recuperate some of that cost rather than profit from it. A tech visit costing $80 to the company instead of $200 is a mighty fine improvement, wouldn't you agree?

no, I would not, because they then still have to spend another $200 they can't charge anything for to fix the fault missed the first time.

you way it costs $280 to fix, my way $200. still think that's deliberate cost avoidance?

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

Might sound stupid or wasteful but wouldn't having Telstra checking the lines/exchange after a period of time help prevent less issues and writing a report on what has or might become a future issue (eg. Moisture occurring more often).

did you know the exchange switch runs a basic electrical test on the line after [B]every single phone call?/B] and that there's a robot that automatically raises a fault ticket for a tech to attend if a fault is found?

it comes back to not every fault being detectable by simple DC testing.

Originally Posted by PabloEscobar

If the demand is there, why can telstra not offer an 'end to end' service check?

a couple of reasons -

1 - the demand isn't there.
2 - customers should not have to pay to have a line they pay rental for fixed.
3 - there's no need for it. a current fault triggers an escalation to a level 2 fault manager and tech who does the work anyway. all the customer needs to do is keep rereporting it, from memory 3 reports in a month is the first trigger.

[Auriga]

did you know the exchange switch runs a basic electrical test on the line after every single phone call? and that there's a robot that automatically raises a fault ticket for a tech to attend if a fault is found?

Um? First I've heard of that in six years? Automated fault generation going to the field? There used to be pro-active medical customer testing but havent had one of those faults in a couple of years...

[malbert]

Originally Posted by Auriga

Um? First I've heard of that in six years? Automated fault generation going to the field?

Perhaps the robot account was given a redundancy while its role went offshore.

[FiShy]

Originally Posted by malbert

Perhaps the robot account was given a redundancy while its role went offshore.

01100100011001010111100100100000011101000110111101 10101100100000011011110111010101110010001000000110 10100110010101110010011000100111001100001101000010 10

[Gunna]

While working at AAPT's call centre this was a known issue for some level 2s and part of thetroubleshooting steps i took with customers and often I would overhear the STC(level 2s) mention a high open fault but back then never knew what it ment.

We would lodge the ticket with testra but often once lodged i never followed it up

Often i would ask them to actually make a call and it would get sync, i saw it alot so its certainly not uncommon.

[caspian]

Originally Posted by Auriga

Um? First I've heard of that in six years? Automated fault generation going to the field? There used to be pro-active medical customer testing but havent had one of those faults in a couple of years...

yep, although I think they fall out into a tester queue for dispatch.

I don't think it catches a lot to be honest, because it's just a basic TADA test, so it won't find anything that's not gross earth or battery, or a device in loop condition.

then again, did you know the insulation to earth threshold of the test head in an RCM is about 250K? do you reckon that test result is more worth having than two knobs of goat shit?

[Auriga]

Originally Posted by caspian

Then again, did you know the insulation to earth threshold of the test head in an RCM is about 250K?

I work metro, If I'm working on a RCM I'm having a [b/]really[/b] bad day

[caspian]

several in major metro Melbourne that I can think of.

could be worse, you could score a DCS-20. horrible things.

[techniciantim]

Originally Posted by caspian

I've had ongoing discussions with a number of people all day about it, here, WP and elsewhere - to be honest I'm a bit talked out about it, so here's the TLR version.

this bloke has been pushing this issue for years, at least as far back as 2006.

what's he's describing is definitely possible, but it's far from the epidemic he would have everyone believe it is, and for some fairly simple reason. it's a very, very basic and standard technique for a field tech to look for HR joints with a PET or TDR when simple DC testing doesn't show a fault.

there really only are three scenarios where this sort of fault occurs:

(1) PSTN lines with DSL overlay where the user doesn't have a phone plugged in to provide enough loop continuity for sealing or wetting current to do its job. simple solution - plug a phone in. nobody said you had to use it.

(2) naked DSL/ULL circuits. it's up to the ISP to provide the wetting current from their equipment, Telstra cannot.

(3) SHDSL circuits, which is effectively the same as naked DSL will Telstra-provided signal on it. these do have a wetting current, but no audible tone to monitor for noise.

what makes the argument pretty silly is that what he's complaining about - remote line testing temporarily sealing over a HR, only for the fault to occur again later - isn't possible with scenarios 2 and 3, which are the ones he's complaining about!

finally, in scenario 1, as I said earlier - finding HRs is a simple and standard procedure, that every tech has the equipment and training to do. also, if a remote line test did temporarily seal over a HR, the fault would be regarded as cleared and no tech would be sent out, so no charge would be levied.

why he's got such a bee in his bonnet about something that only he sees as a problem I don't really know, but at the moment he can't be taken seriously on the facts.



the whole point of deploying the NBN using Telstra's pit and pipe infrastructure is to do it more quickly, and with less cost and disruption than boring or trenching new ducting past most of the country.

the NBN is an aggregation network - I can easily feed >3k services off a cable about the size of your thumb. there won't be any "cramming".

also, with the NBN there is longer any differentiation between broadband versus voice services - everything is delivered as data. there's no longer any need to make a differentiation.

Caspian, unfortunately you seem to have the same incorrect view as the Telstra Wholesale Advisors to the Telstra CEO (Mr David Thodey). I have already advised Telstra that I will make my findings public because they have deliberately fobbed me off or ignored the facts for many years. The CEO is only given the view of his advisors and if their interpretation is not correct or complete then it is very difficult to fix any related issues. That is why ‘this bloke’ has been pushing this issue for years’, correct, how did you know that? Also how do you know that it is not ‘the epidemic he would have everyone believe’ you or Telstra can’t even detect or measure it, and have actually denied its existence. The very basic tests with a PET/TDR (Pulse Echo Tester/Time Domain Reflectometer) are the very tests I am repeatedly saying should NOT be used because the Pulse Amplitude exceeds 10Volts and can’t be varied.(Only the Pulse Duration can be varied) An appropriate Pad or Attenuator would need to be fitted. The distance to the fault can be easily measured accurately without using an expensive TDR. Your ‘Simple solution’ for Spectrum Shared Services is not a solution, and the Telephone must be left Off Hook and hold exchange equipment unnecessarily (Then it will eventually go to Line Lockout). There should be NO requirement for Wetting Current on any continuous copper wires in a cable pair. There are no jacking or switching points in the cable, and if Wetting Current is required then the cable is faulty. SHDSL services do NOT require Wetting Current at all, it is an optional facility provided on DSLAM ports that MAY be applied in the event of a fault (HR) connection and an Audible Tone is never required to monitor or measure noise. Out of the faults cleared Nationally by Telstra as Right When Tested, Found O.K, No Fault Found, Etc. I can reliably say that at LEAST one third will have been the type of fault described by me and disappeared during testing. It is a Testing Axiom that test signals and voltages applied must approximate working conditions with the overall aim of NOT disturbing the nature of the circuit under test. The signal levels for ADSL are only a few Volts and are stopped by HR faults, Telstras testing Voltages for Mandatory Tests far exceed these levels and cause the issues we now have. I deliberately ignored Dielectric Insulation Resistance because it has Nothing to do with this issue, you are alluding incorrectly to Permittivity and Dielectric Strength of the Dielectric which requires High Voltage testing, I am talking of High Resistance joints in series (Longitudinally) with the line which must be tested with Low Voltages (Much LESS than 10 Volts) you seem to be thinking of the wrong problem. Incidentally the Insulation Resistance test from a Lines Test Set 2 only applies 2/3 of the Exchange Voltage – How Silly is that? My simple DC loop integrity test on the LTS-2 Kilohms range is all that is required to detect my High Open fault and If Telstra really wished to save a Truck Roll they would do this test on at least the second visit and stop sending many people many times to the same fault as happened to me off Redfern Exchange where the fault was fixed by Telstra changing a cable pair that they insisted was not faulty even after many visits.

[caspian]

sorry, Tim - but my point of view is based on real-world experience and on a wider viewpoint where there are more factors at stake.

the CEO is advised by people who know very well what they are talking about, such as the TRL research staff, and they understand that perfection first time, every time isn't a viable business proposition.

the presence of wetting current is an industry standard in the entire world, because this problem is not unique to Australia, and it's the response of the industry professionals on the entire planet to a real problem in the face of real world restrictions which business has to operate under.

while I grant your points have some justification, you need to understand that the world isn't a laboratory, and that there are other considerations besides the ones you are pushing. that's precisely why your point of view hasn't been seriously considered in the past, and won't be in the future, unless you radically reconsider how you go about making it.

[Gunna]

Surely you guys are mature enough to look past the lack of formatting in the reply and deal with the underlying point.

Put any of your older tradie Uncles, cousins or grand parents who don't use a pc or write aot and i'm sure a reply to a comment would look very simliar to Tims answer.

I know bugger all about the comms network, but if what Tim says is true then i actually think its a massive thing he has done with his efforts to bring it to the public domain.

I only have to ask Tim, why arent more techs coming out saying the same thing as you and why do you seem to be fighting the lonely fight with this topic?

[chip]

Originally Posted by Gunna

I know bugger all about the comms network, but if what Tim says is true then i actually think its a massive thing he has done with his efforts to bring it to the public domain.

It doesn't seem like there's much disagreement on the techincal aspect of the problem (i.e. it exists) but how do we know it's massive? Do we know how many people are people affected, the number of service calls people have been wrongly charged for and so on?

[TRG.dOinK]

GG copper network.

Least the guys doing the right thing trying to help out.

Only issue is he's explaining it to muppets who just say "oh yea, we'll look into it", and have nfi what he's going on about.

They didn't even want to get him to show them.

Tim seems very reasonable and willing to work with the issue, but no one seems to take responsibility, or actually want to, seems all too hard

[Gunna]

Originally Posted by chip

It doesn't seem like there's much disagreement on the techincal aspect of the problem (i.e. it exists) but how do we know it's massive? Do we know how many people are people affected, the number of service calls people have been wrongly charged for and so on?

How may faults do you think are lodged with Telstra annually, i would cop atleast one or 2 phone calls a week when i worked in AAPT's call centre with customers who had an ongoing fault and had paid over 3 tech visits as techs kept claiming no fault.

At the time it was $110 so thats over $660 in incorrect call out fees, so lets say these tests could resolve one of these faults thats $330 per week Telsta wouldnt be able to charge or $17160 per year**, and thats just the calls I dealt with for one ISP, so I would hate to think how much money they are getting from this if they are charging multiple customer for this fault.

** This is on the basis of one customer per week reporting this issue across the whole country..............