BT Business Hub - Firmware Flash policy and legality question.

[TimDurham75]

I have the BT branded 2Wire 2700HGV business hub which was provided with my BT Business Broadband connection. I have been using this configuration for 4 years. Last week, without any prior notification or request on my part, BT applied a firmware update to this device, remotely, impacting its functionality and the web app configuration layer of the device.  This has, of course, occurred before, periodically during the lifetime of the hub.

In general, most updates are a good thing - there are many reasons why such may be required or desirable: improvements to the system, addressing any bugs or security issues and so on and I do not disapprove of this aspect, as such, in any way. However, this specific update is very different in one very significant way; which I wish to highlight; and I seriously question the legality of what has been done and I am looking for any comment on this and also to warn any other users of this device because I am horrified at BTs behaviour.

This hardware is (or rather was) a dual SSID device - it supports two separate wireless connections: a primary WiFi network and also a second WiFi network, on a completely separate IP subnet and SSID. This secondary network was intended to support Smartphone connections. Notionally this is for "Fusion" phone usage but this is not its sole capability and a Fusion phone or Fusion service is not required to use this feature of the device - indeed device documentation refers to any compatible Smartphone technology. In my case it supported the usage of a Blackberry Smartphone over WiFi, separate and independent from PC network. BT, of course, no longer offers a Fusion service.

My anger and concern is that this latest update, 6.3.9.63-plus.tm has removed this dual SSID capability from the device. The second network now no longer exists - the web configuration application of the hub has been updated to remove all aspects of this feature so it can no longer be accessed or utilised. So, this device no longer matches its own attached markings or its documentation or features. It is no longer a dual SSID device as the capability has been disabled and "removed" by the "update".

My first indication that there was a problem was when the Blackberry device failed to connect to WiFi. Given recent well publicised failure of the Blackberry network I did not initially associate the connection failure with anything to do with the hub - it was only when the problem persisted that I tracked down the actual cause. Reconfiguration of the Blackberry to use the remaining primary connection SSID, is trivial but of course no longer has network or IP subnet isolation - devices now must use the same scope as the PC network.

I had contacted BT support on Live Chat but without obtaining any satisfactory answer - the agent expressed the expected "apology" and "sympathetic understanding" for my concern and said they would log my complaint, but the best that could be offered was to apply a "downgrade" to my device but, of course, that is not really a solution: it would leave me "in the dark" and isolated, for any future upgrades or changes, and so is not acceptable in the long term. In real terms it was effectively claimed that nothing could be done, and that, as my actual broadband connection was unaffected, there is not really any issue to be addressed?  [This is not strictly true – the Blackberry cannot connect in the manner it did previously but it can with some reconfiguration.]

Does anyone have a view on this, especially if you have legal experience? I am appalled at this attitude and find it completely unacceptable and intrusive.  I do not believe it can possibly be legal and would like someone to explain under what Terms it possibly could be something that I agreed to, or permit to occur, under my BT provision – that they can unilaterally and arbitrarily remove features from the router like this, at any time?  Consider that the removal of this feature does not have anything to do with my actual broadband connection service provision, which is what I believe I contract them to provide.  The internal operation of the hub within my infrastructure should not be their concern providing it does not interfere with the BT infrastructure in any way.  This kind of fundamental change to the device cannot possibly be regarded as an “upgrade” in the normal sense – it removes features.

Let us change the scenario for another “well loved” analogy - your car undergoes maintenance by the dealer. During this event the mechanic arbitrarily removes interior features of the car; perhaps from the dashboard display; or any similar arbitrary thing. When you notice and complain the dealer explains that this does not actually impact your ability to drive the car so there is nothing to be addressed or that you can do. Would you find this acceptable? I believe not - I cannot find anything in the Terms and Conditions which would remotely suggest that BT has any right to fundamentally remove features from the Hub hardware, in this manner, especially when it is not to its own original specification, now. Whilst they certainly can choose to change their service offering; including the withdrawal of a Fusion service; I do not believe this should give them any rights over the operation of the hub or its features. The two are not directly related as the "Fusion" compatibility of the hub is not exclusive to that service - as explained.

Anyone?  Do you think this behaviour is acceptable?  Am I alone in finding this objectionable?

[TimDurham75]

I don't really care if every other client on BT's infrastructure had some kind of issue with this:

1) I did not have any issue and it was not confusing to me.  I know what I was doing and had no issue with the security settings.  I would not use WEP - that mechanism is considered "broken" from a "hacking" perspective.  I would not expect the default operation of the two SSIDs to allow communication, at least without further configuration, as fundamentally they are different subnets therefore would not see each other - this is clear to me and is actually what I wanted: isolation of the phones from the pc network.  Being for smartphone use it also did not matter if the bandwidth was slightly lower on that connection.

2) The removal of the functionality was unsolicited and undesirable to me.  From other postings to this forum and other sites it is clear that I was not alone in making use of functionality of *my* device that BT have arbitrarily removed.

3) The device *is* now less functional than before and does *not* match its own technical specification.  As far as I am concerned BT have broken it and are not prepared to resolve the issue: thus breaching their own terms and conditions.  They cannot justify this in any way - the device did not belong to them to make this kind of change.

4) Assuming this was as a result of "customer feedback" then at a minimum I would expect BT to check with the customer; me; about wanting them to make this change to *my* system before they did so.   This was not *my* feedback and I doubt many people would have agreed - if others want the functionality removed then they can have it removed from *their* system, not mine.

5) Removal of functionality is never an "upgrade".

6) Removal of functionality cannot be regarded as a "minor" change.

7) I had no issue with this setup for 4 years so it is not like I suddenly decided to do something different.  How dare BT presume to know what is appropriate for my systems - that is not their remit and not what I pay them for.

At the end of the day this is a Business connection, not a "home user" connection - I do not require someone to "nanny" the system for me - I am an "expert user", being an IT Consultant by trade, so this is a gross intrusion by BT that is without any merit and that makes me very angry.

It is also clear to me that, at the same time, BT have made operational changes to their infrastructure that has impacted the performance of the network - it is slower and more unstable than before.  None of this impresses me in the slightest and the only reason they currently remain is because of the virtual monopoly held.  Epic FAIL in my view.