Are too-long lines promoted automatically when the cuttoff line length is changed.

In an exchange collecting registrations:-
1)it's my understanding that if a punter tries to register on a line
which is too long, the line is NOT included towards meeting the trigger
level.
Am I correct?

2) It's my belief that if the maximum line length for registration is
subsequently increased (eg from 5.5km to 6km as happened last October),
previously-failed lines which now satisfy the new maximum line length
are NOT automatically promoted to count.
Is this correct?


--
robert w hall

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:50:06 +0100, robert w hall
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In an exchange collecting registrations:-
>1)it's my understanding that if a punter tries to register on a line
>which is too long, the line is NOT included towards meeting the trigger
>level.
>Am I correct?
>
>2) It's my belief that if the maximum line length for registration is
>subsequently increased (eg from 5.5km to 6km as happened last October),
>previously-failed lines which now satisfy the new maximum line length
>are NOT automatically promoted to count.
>Is this correct?

Right on both. On point 1) most ISP pre-reg forms won't let you
pre-register a line that is too long. Therefore it isn't in the
database so 2) applies as it isn't there to be "promoted".

A line that isn't too long but incompatible for some other reason will
be promoted if the incompatibility is resolved.

Our exchange gained about 40 registrations when the BT database
changed its mind about a whole load of lines, we picked this up and
registered them manually.

Phil

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:50:06 +0100, robert w hall
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Right on both. On point 1) most ISP pre-reg forms won't let you
>pre-register a line that is too long.
(see below)
>Therefore it isn't in the
>database so 2) applies as it isn't there to be "promoted".
>
>A line that isn't too long but incompatible for some other reason will
>be promoted if the incompatibility is resolved.
>
>Our exchange gained about 40 registrations when the BT database
>changed its mind about a whole load of lines, we picked this up and
>registered them manually.
>
>Phil

Hmm, well I'm sure I've _apparently_ 'forced past' the too long line
message via one route or another, even in the recent past.
- And I recall the BT checker _used to_ give you the impression it was
_registering your interest_, despite the 'too-long line' message...

But on the Falfield exchange we found we had to reregister the majority
of those names we had taken in Charfield early last year - which we
thought we'd successfully got on record with BT, even if they didn't
'score' at that time - (most of the village lies between 5.5km and 6km
from the exchange - see www.falfieldbroadband.com)

Bit of a gotcha IMHO
--
robert w hall

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:21:24 +0100, robert w hall
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>When I was campaigning we periodically re-tried all the numbers that
>had failed to go in. It did appear to be a lottery and the
>BT_ADSL_CODE of individual numbers changed from time to time.
>

we were looking for our last 12 (o/o 350) and found 170!

(red faces all round - we could have saved 3 months graft!)

>Phil

--
robert w hall

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:21:24 +0100, robert w hall
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hmm, well I'm sure I've _apparently_ 'forced past' the too long line
>message via one route or another, even in the recent past.

you can go directly to some entry forms (eg BT Broadband) and put your
details in. If you go in through the "front door" and check your
number you don't get to see the form at all.

It is anybodies guess what happens if you bypass the line check and go
straight to the form.

> - And I recall the BT checker _used to_ give you the impression it was
>_registering your interest_, despite the 'too-long line' message...

I see there is an option to "register your interest anyway" under
"Keep in touch" on BT Broadband's checker now - though this is on an
enabled exchange number.

When I was campaigning we periodically re-tried all the numbers that
had failed to go in. It did appear to be a lottery and the
BT_ADSL_CODE of individual numbers changed from time to time.

Phil

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:21:24 +0100, robert w hall
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> - And I recall the BT checker _used to_ give you the impression it was
>_registering your interest_, despite the 'too-long line' message...

TBH this is something I think needs sorting out. I have no idea if I
ever managed to successfully pre-register with BT as the various ISPs
never seemed to state explicitly that that is what their "register an
interest" (or whatever they called it) function actually did.

--
King Queen - Remove .lartsspammers to reply. http://www.kingqueen.org.uk
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket" George Orwell

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:21:24 +0100, robert w hall
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, well I'm sure I've _apparently_ 'forced past' the too long line
>>message via one route or another, even in the recent past.
>
>you can go directly to some entry forms (eg BT Broadband) and put your
>details in. If you go in through the "front door" and check your
>number you don't get to see the form at all.
>
>It is anybodies guess what happens if you bypass the line check and go
>straight to the form.
>
>> - And I recall the BT checker _used to_ give you the impression it was
>>_registering your interest_, despite the 'too-long line' message...
>
>I see there is an option to "register your interest anyway" under
>"Keep in touch" on BT Broadband's checker now - though this is on an
>enabled exchange number.
>
>When I was campaigning we periodically re-tried all the numbers that
>had failed to go in. It did appear to be a lottery and the
>BT_ADSL_CODE of individual numbers changed from time to time.
>
>Phil


If over-long lines remained on file at BT and were promoted
automatically when the line length criteria were changed, I'd expect I'd
see this on many exchanges' registration records.

I've looked back through the registrations for two 'rural' exchanges
I've had some doings with, Berkeley & Falfield, to see if there was any
jump in numbers in the September to November 03 time frame (when the
length criterion was changed), - and there isn't. Both of these
exchanges (but especially Falfield), have significant chunks of
population at some distance from the exchange.

So I reckon BT did just lose the data totally.

It's all irrelevant now of course :-)




--
robert w hall