Why has BT Fusion disappeared from my wireless options?

[yogi1474]

Yesterday my business broadband router went kaput so I dragged out my spare and connected everything to it. One item I connected to the BT Fusion WPA connection and everything worked fine. This morning BT Fusion has disappeared completely from my wireless options. Why did it disappear and how do I get it back?

[gugaguga]

It could be possible that it was disabled accidentally. Have you tried to double check on it?

[OldWolf]

Hi,

There were massive arguments about this subject a while back, so here's a summary:

1. BT provided a second SSID specifically for BT Fusion.

2. Some people were advised (incorrectly) that they could use this, and others just used it anyway even through they shouldn't have.

3. BT cancelled BT Fusion.

4. BT removed the second SSID with a firmware update.

I don't give a stuff what people have said about BT doing something wrong in this situation.  As far as I'm concerned the second SSID was provided for a specific service and not for general use, and removing it when the service was cancelled is quite reasonable.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

Dave A

[TimDurham75]

Old news -

http://business.forums.bt.com/t5/Broadband-and-internet/BT-Business-Hub-Firmware-Flash-policy-and-le...

This is what OldWolf is referring, and other posts.

I suspect he does not care because he made no use of the feature therefore it is of no impact or concern for him.

Those who did, for different reasons and sometimes advice given, may be angry.   Actually, if the advice came from BT personnel, even if erroneous, then as official representatives of the company it still puts the responsibility on them so he is in shaky territory with categorisation statements of "shouldn't have" in such cases.

The reason it matters is that BT did not own the hardware to make such a change - provision of the service and provision of a service compatible hardware are completely different things.  From recollection, I don't think BT Fusion still existed as a subscribeable service even when I first got my router from BT many years ago - at that point, already, I think the Fusion service may just have still existed but was certainly closed; not open to new subscribers; so they could have provided a device without a dual SSID from the start for the argument with regard to "Service Provision" to hold, but they did not.   Removing the capability many years later under this excuse just does not hold together as reasonable or legal.

The Openzone SSID introduced latterly is not the same thing at all.

The hardware was not provided for the business of providing a Fusion service - that was never a feature of the contract.  It is not for BT to dictate how hardware is used providing it is legal purpose and does not interfere with their service infrastructure.  Given that the immediate impact is entirely local to the interior network; it did not seem to go to some alternative public output or IP on the device; I don't even think the service provision aspect holds technical merit - there never was a Fusion service at the other end so they were always clearly distinct elements.

The hardware does not match it own physical markings and supplied documentation so it is not "fit for purpose" irrespective of whether the Fusion service actually exists at the other end of the line.

BT is within their rights to remove the service provision but not to retrospectively change the functionality/capability of a legacy device without proper authorisation.   This was never given.

I am in no doubt that they were wrong:

If a mobile phone provider decided that SMS messaging was no longer a service they provided and decided to flash all mobile handsets on their network removing all SMS capability and features from the phones would this be acceptable or correct action?  If the handset was provided as an ongoing service contract provision, thus owned by the provider then, perhaps, but what about all subscribers who own their own handsets?   This would clearly be wrong and outside their remit - they could stop accepting SMS messages from phones but they cannot argue that a phone being capable of making SMS messages is somehow a provision of their network.   This scenario is no different and it is what BT did.  OldWolf, you are wrong. 

There was and is nothing in  BT Terms and Conditions to permit this and it certainly can be argued that the action is in breach of existing contract terms as it is to the detriment of the subscriber and there are clauses in there which are supposed to provide an obligation upon BT to rectify such cases.   They have not done this so they are in breach.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.   I would not have the means to challenge this properly to the end and frankly, it is not worth it, other than for the satisfaction element.

[OldWolf]

Hi Tim,

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In my opinion the fact that your car can do 100 mph plus doesn't make it legal.  People do all manner of things that they shouldn't with stuff, and complaining that the non-compliant service is removed is just sour grapes to me.

Don't get me wrong I'd be fecked right off if I was using something in a way that was never intended and it got stopped (Class action law suit against Sony for the PS dual boot situation anyone?), but to start trying to sue on that basis?  Oh please.

So.  You have the polar opinions.

Me - You shouldn't have been using it in the first place, so don't complain when it gets taken away.

Tim - It was available and we were using it, so the supplier should make recompense.

In the end it's up to you which one you go for.

Cheers.

Dave A

[TimDurham75]

OldWolf - re your car: you are right mate, but that would not give your garage the right to fit a speed limiter when you put in for a service simply because you should not be doing more than 70mph - you would not be impressed would you?   In our case we are not talking about breaking any legal or contractural position eiither...

There are always at least 2 sides to everything but we did not ask BT to "help us out" in this regard so this "upgrade" was nothing of the kind: I don't ask for a "nanny" for this aspect when contracting them as provider.

People feel obliged to act that way because of the principle of holding the more powerful party to account when no other means is available to them - if, in this case, BT, sticks metaphorical fingers in ears singing "La, La, La - I can't hear you" when you try to challenge them about behaviour then it may be the only resort because of the abuse of position.

Your principle argument for sitting on the other side of this is because of the "Fusion" in the name - if they called the SSID something else then the whole argument disappears as it would show that the two elements are not actually directly related, as I claim.   They could just have easily provided the firmware upgrade to do precisely that, instead, simply renaming the SSID - this would satisfy the criteria for "no Fusion" without altering the actual functionality and compatibility of the device?   It would still leave the issue of the tagging and documentation but from the recipient's perspective it would be the fairer option, no?

The fact that third-parties may find novel or alternative uses for any feature might be inconvenient to the OEM but when the particular "solution" to this requires an abuse of position on their part then that is not acceptable behaviour.   Some solutions might be acceptable, others may not, but if the stronger party is taking advantage of the weaker party then I feel it is right and proper that there should be some means to arbitrate on this and compel stronger parties to act "properly" if they are unable to decide this for themselves.   Actually I think it is a sad that this might be necessary - I would hope that a stronger party would display the superior ethic, because of their position, but we live in the real world so life is not like that!

We disagree on "shouldn't have" because it implies some kind of wrong doing legally, morally, technically or otherwise in the usage and I disagree this is the case - the only element disputed here is the "Fusion" label for the feature and I dispute at the moment, from a technical perspective, that this can be given the meaning you require because I maintain it was not tied exclusively to that service in the manner required to justify BT's behaviour - I think it "Cosmetic Branding".  If someone can show otherwise then my argument does indeed disappear and I might have to accept that. 

But, in any case, useless or not, you don't remove old analogue TV sets because we now have digital or all B&W sets when Colour came along.  Say I use the set for some internal purpose and not for receiving TV signal, providing I own a TV license (because of the capability thing in our archaic system) then that is no business of anyone else to decide how I choose to utiliise it or to determine that I "should not be able to" so another party, other than the Government, perhaps, has no authority to mandate my actions by force.

But we can agree to disagree, as you say....

Peace, Friend! 🙂