Another pub

If you have followed me on mastodon you will know what is happening.

Some of you may know I purchased a former pub for my home in Wales nearly 4 years ago. Not a pub now. Settling down in Wales, as are many of my children, and grandchildren (half of which are Welsh!).

But now, two of my friends have decided they would like to actually run a pub!

There is a saying: "How to make a small fortune running a pub? Start with a large fortune and work at it until it is a small fortune".

But that does not mean it is impossible, and it seems sometimes that the whole industry is run on the edge of solvency somehow. I may be wrong, and obviously there are pub+hotel and other combinations that work well, but the way some pubs are run is, err, interesting.

I have got myself involved in helping them in a lot of ways now. It started as just "we'll sort internet", but doing more and more. I'm spending most days there helping out right now.

It will be very interesting to see if they can make it work. They are organised, and experienced in related businesses. They are hard working. They take customer service seriously. I think this can work.

Lots of little things, like a defibrillator on the pub - I'm sponsoring that (well A&A are) - one of my staff died suddenly and that scares the shit out of me, more places having these will definitely save lives. And if it saves one life it is worth every penny.

And, of course, the WiFi has IPv6.

They are going for pub + cafe, with decent coffee, and choice of milk and so on, like many other "coffee shops", but also with early opening for coffee and breakfast. Do the coffee right and it could make as much as the alcohol, who knows?

But making sure they are starting it out well from a tech side is my project. They are sorting refurbishing and redecorating, and some serious cleaning. I am sorting decent WiFi/internet, and CCTV and a few other things. Even to the extent of properly registered with ICO and proper published privacy policy. I hope I can provide input on the way some of us would like a pub run. But it is their pub, not mine.

But for now - grand opening end of next week before Abergavenny food festival (only drinks for now), and then finish the refurbishment and start food as well.

I am, however, damn impressed with the WiFi we have put in. It does not just cover the front, but the whole of the Brewery Yard car park and even out the to A40. Some opportunities for take away coffee to the market traders maybe, with the working WiFi connected credit card machine... We'll see how it goes.

I'll post more on opening dates, and so on...

OTS correlation ID

It is complicated to report this as some details would be covered by ramp up rules, where I cannot provide details, but now we are in live on One Touch Switching I think I can report. Even so I will not name CPs for now. This is more about the process, and specification and the fiasco.

To be very fair the main author of the specifications is someone that I feel a lot of sympathy for, under pressure, and then under a change freeze he would not have agreed. He did his best and none of this is a dig at him or his employer. Much more a dig at the process.

Weirdly correlationIDs have turned out to be a big issue, and continue to be so.

What is a correlationID?

Basically one of the message fields in One Touch Switching is called a correlationID

The big issue is the vague specification. It is a field the sender of a message sets so they can correlate the response.

Hindsight

To be clear, in hindsight, and what I have said, is correlationIDs should be per message unique and a UUID. Simple. If the spec had said that a lot of pain and hassle would have been avoided.

Problems?

The problems are various...

• It is not a defined format
• It is not a defined maximum length
• It is not well defined when and how it is unique, or not

TOTSCO 66

So the issue is that some CPs assumed it would be per CP per message unique, and so used it to identify (and ignore duplicates). Indeed a notice from TOTSCO suggested it is used to de-duplicate messages.

A real issue is "why duplicates" which is another issue - they have to be failing to respond in 3 seconds for that, and maybe that is what they should have fixed.

There are also a lot of cases where a duplicate is not an issue, if done right.

But TOTSCO 66 said you can de-duplicate based on per CP correlationIDs being unique per message.

TOSTCO 67

The next notice back peddled a lot, and I was instrumental in raising this I think. All because the specification was so vague. The new recommendation was two fold (a) don't de-duplicate on correlationID, and (b) don't send duplicate correlationIDs. A pragmatic approach without direct blame either side.

Indeed one idea was, if you use correlationID as a more "overall message flow" ID, append or prepend something to each message so they ends up unique.

So CPs are, indeed, doing both, yay! We have all seen a lot of work making this happen, and well done to all the CPs doing this.

To clarify we went through something like three iterations to get this sensible on our systems.

Length

Oh, did the specification say how long a correlationID could be? No. It did not. Why would you say that?

Well, maybe it did, sort of, TOTSCO link to some schema thing (swagger?!) which was updated after the frozen spec and the latest version of that says 256 characters. That is mental long, and I have no clue if 256 characters or 256 bytes (they are different in the UTF8 world of JSON). Just to say, A&A can handle any length up to mega bytes, if needed.

Turns out TOTSCO had limits on what they would handle, as this is a message envelope thing. They were ignoring, and not apparently reject cleanly, if too long. I have not tested with 256 x big unicode characters, yet!

But we have a big CP that would not handle more than 64 characters, but sorted that before 12th, well done, I won't say who. It was a very reasonable choice for them, and I understand it. But well done moving to 256 characters, or bytes, in time.

We now have another big CP that would not handle more than 50 characters. Not yet sorted, but will be soon.

Why such long correlationIDs? Well BECAUSE of TOTSCO 67 notice, CPs using a 36 character UUID and adding a timestamp. That just pushes over 50. And to be honest 50 was also a reasonable design choice.

So 256 characters, is that OK? Guess what, the tinytext type in mariadb is 255 characters, FFS! If I had to make a silly long limit I would have said 255 not 256, really.

Ping pong

One of the mistakes we made at the very start, for a day or so, was assuming correlationIDs were ping ponged over the switch process (match, order, update, trigger). I had fields in the database to do this and code to do it (they were tinytext).

Why did I assume this? Well the specification did not say, but the test cases did, they had correlationIDs on an OrderRequest following on from the MatchRequest. They looked a lot like they should ping pong over the process.

Well I worked it out, but did every small CP that is live today?

The answer is no, they have not, and at least one small CP (I feel sorry for them) very carefully followed the spec, and the examples in the test schedule, and did this, like we did.

They will not work with almost any of the other CPs now live. They have to make major changes, now, when live. Really sorry for them.

Helping?

Seriously, we all need to work together. We have a test system that can help these new small CPs, and I am happy to help. https://notsco.co.uk/

One Touch Switching now Live

Today is the day!

There are now 166 providers on One Touch Switching. Congratulations to all of those CPs that have put in the work to make this happen.

These are retail provides of residential, fixed location, IAS (Internet Access Service) and NBICS (Number Based Interpersonal Communications Services, aka telephone service).

If you are trying to switch from a residential, fixed location, service and your retail provider is not on the list, please do let OFCOM know. I don't see Starlink, so that is the first complaint to OFCOM today.

I suspect OFCOM will take this pretty softly, given all of the challenges, so I expect more CPs to come on line soon.

Technically, I have seen no problems yet today, but I have reported one ramp up issue which was before OTS started, 21:24 last night. Even so, it looks serious, so it will be interesting to see how quickly it is fixed. I cannot provide any details because of the ramp up rules.

Stuff not happening yet...

Some of the faster switching of broadband service (next day even) is not happening yet - OFCOM have extended the 14 day (actually 10 working day) lead time on migrating services. However, I don't think there is a reason not to switch quickly if changing to a new provider - expect that the new provide probably has to put physical infrastructure in place.

The faster switching of telephone services is not happening yet - it seems this is not something that One Touch Switching does right away (yes, that fooled me too). A new process is underway way to do this, and gradually, over time, the new zero day process will come along. For now it is still 4 or 9 working days depending on the switch type. This also means it is still possible for a number port to fail, but using One Touch Switching should reduce that risk (as it checks postcode).

Switching 07 mobile numbers are not changing, that still uses a PAC (Porting Authorisation Code).

Business services are not covered - but it looks like many CPs are allowing switching of business services if you can match the details correctly as a residential match - we are. There are, of course, a lot of business only providers that are not on the One Touch Switching system at all, as they do not need to be.

Things break

None of us are perfect, though in all frankness I believe A&A are more ready than a lot of CPs, and we have been for some time. Again, I am not allowed to go in to any detail on this due to ramp up rules.

If you have any problems switching to us, please let the sales team know right away - we are monitoring the process closely and have means to raise issues with the other provider, if necessary.

If you have any problems switching away from us, you should normally contact the new provider, but you are welcome to contact us and we will be happy to look in to it. As I say, none of us are perfect.

Do remember our telephone services are not fixed location services (they are not a landline replacement) so are not covered by One Touch Switching. The non OTS porting process, as used for business services, will need to be used to switch number away from us.

Good luck to everyone involved. It may be a fun few days!