This topic

A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

treborgb — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 17:44:14 GMT

Just wondering what this error is, every time I have done a speed check, there has always been an error. Now I am getting the message’A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session’ but still get it after restarting the hub.

I have fibre 900mb with a smart hub 2.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

gg30340 — Wed, 01 Oct 2025 18:30:41 GMT

Try using Fast.com

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Manatarms84 — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 09:00:27 GMT

If you turn of your hub and leave it off for over 2 minutes before turning back on it should clear

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

treborgb — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 13:24:02 GMT

Tried that a couple times yesterday and numerous times previously. Also tried turnong off the Openreach Box, unplugging it, and then back on again (the other day).

What is does this error mean? My BT broadband has been poor ever since upgrading to Fibre, and a new Fiber to premises hasn’t made much difference but probably made WiFi worse due to engineer only installing the equipment near the front door.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

licquorice — Thu, 02 Oct 2025 14:12:16 GMT

It just means the speed tester isn't working.

If you had no PPPoE session you would have no internet.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Quesada — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 12:33:05 GMT

I have had the same issue for 30 months and have been told that it occurs when the incoming light signal to the ONT is interrupted. Because neither BT nor Openreach's remote measuring mechanisms, appear capable of detecting the outage, it remains unresolved. In the meantime, because both BT and Openreach continue to claim that the incoming signal is infallible, the customer is initially told that their issue must be internal. Ironically and presumably as more and more customers are affected, the stock response is now to “hard reset” both the ONT and Hub. However, this does not actually resolve the root cause of the issue. In my case, I suspect that I have been carrying out this specific procedure, on almost a daily basis since the “Stale PPP Session Fault” was first identified in November 2023. Incidentally, this issue also began when I upgraded to FF900 and at that time, I was advised to add Halo 3. Needless to say, that the fault continued and BT would not allow me to walk away, unless I paid an extortionate exit fee. They also refused to revert my package, to its former copper status, despite being instructed to do so, by the Communications Ombudsman. In July 2025 and specifically to satisfy my own curiosity, I downgraded to FF150. Needless to say, that the intermittent drop in connection has continued but I was intrigued to discover, that there has been no significant loss in service. Going forward, I suspect that the only way to seek redress, will be via court action. Watch this space.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Peter_W — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 14:34:06 GMT

Hi again @Quesada.

In many cases it's not possible outright for you to be moved back to copper following an upgrade to full fibre, as this network is in the process of being discontinued.

I appreciate your concerns if you feel the Ombudsman's ruling hasn't been acknowledged though, and if you had any further concerns around this the normal process would be to raise this with them directly.

Once a complaint case has reached this point, our complaints teams would not be able to make any further interventions regarding that particular case, as it all needs to go via the Ombudsman.

Peter

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Quesada — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:08:14 GMT

Hi @Peter_W

It’s a moot point, as I would have happily agreed to downgrade my package from FF900+Halo 3 to FF150 in November 2023, as I suspect that I would not be in this position today.

For the record, it is specifically because my complaint was disingenuously placed in “deadlock”, in September 2023, that I was left with no option, other than to involve the "Communications Ombudsman".

The fact is that BT then chose to ignore my formal and legally binding "FoI" and "DSA" requests for 3 months, until after the allegedly “impartial” investigation had been completed.

More to the point, it was only after a formal investigation via the “Information Commissioners Office”, that I discovered that BT had deliberately chosen to withhold evidence of the 18 recorded faults with my service, from the “Communications Ombudsman’s” enquiry.

Having belatedly made the Ombudsman aware of my predicament, they chose not to take any further action and have accepted BT’s word over mine, that their instruction to “revert my package to its former status”, has been complied with.

Equally, it transpires that although BT are known serial offenders, when it comes to failing to comply with government regulations reference "FoI" and "DSA" requests, the “ICO” have chosen to take no action against them. Incidentally, I am patiently awaiting the outcome of the latest enquiry via the “ICO”, reference Allison Kirkby’s failure to comply with formal "FoI" and "DSA" requests, dated 25th February 2025.

Going forward, I would be intrigued to learn from your own perspective as a moderator, what you would do, if you found yourself in my predicament

Regards

John

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Peter_W — Fri, 14 Nov 2025 16:11:01 GMT

@Quesada I can appreciate the concerns you've raised here, but I wouldn't be able to comment on the specific details of your case.

As I mentioned in my last post, if you have any concerns around the ruling of the Ombudsman or ICO, you would need to address this with them directly.

Peter

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Quesada — Sat, 15 Nov 2025 10:28:00 GMT

@Peter_W

Sorry Peter, I thought I had my position clear.

Both the “Communications Ombudsman” and the “Information Commissioners Office” have washed their hands of this issue.
This is despite both being made aware, that their premeditated breach of “ICO” regulations, has allowed BT to deliberately conceal incriminating evidence, from the “Communications Ombudsman’s” investigation.
Equally, because BT have falsely claimed, that the instruction to: “revert my package to its former status” had been complied with in December 2023, the “Communications Ombudsman” believes that no further action is required.
Meanwhile BT’s transgressions persist, as my most recent “FoI” and “DSA” requests to the new BT CEO, Allison Kirkby, dated 25th February 2025, continue to be ignored.
BT appear to be of the opinion, that because my complaint has been placed in “deadlock”, it negates their legal obligation to comply with “FoI” and “DSA” regulations.
As such, I have now been waiting patiently for 7 months, for the “Information Commissioners Office” to initiate a new enquiry.
In the meantime, I would reiterate that I remain in an untenable position, simply because BT are refusing to communicate with me, whilst my original complaint remains in “deadlock”.
For my part, as I suspect this issue will not get resolved without court action, I am continuing to compile evidence in support of my claims.

Therefore, I was hoping that you might address my specific concern, reference the remote testing mechanisms currently being utilised by both BT and Openreach, as they appear unable to detect an intermittent “Stale PPP Session Fault”.

As a result, this specific issue is being continually misdiagnosed, in effect because this equipment cannot identify, a temporary loss in the incoming light signal to the clients “ONT”.

Instead of admitting the existence of this known fault, both BT and Openreach continue to assert, that as the incoming signal to the clients “ONT is infallible, the issue must be internal, which is simply untrue.

Personally, I suspect that because these specific tests are run, every time one of BT’s millions of clients report an issue with their service, there is a valid argument to suggest that this equipment, is “unfit for purpose”.

I would appreciate your thoughts

Regards

John

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

gg30340 — Sat, 15 Nov 2025 10:46:03 GMT

@Quesada

As you have been through the BT complaints procedure and complained to various other organisations and not got the result you want what on Earth do you think that this customer forum and the moderators will do to get you the result you want.

I would suggest that this is not the place to continue your complaint and I would certainly not expect the moderators to give their views or add anything to your complaint in any way whatsoever and that it is entirely unreasonable that you would expect them to..

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Quesada — Sat, 15 Nov 2025 11:32:43 GMT

@gg30340

With respect, I'm merely trying to find a resolution for the “Stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol Session” error, which in my case has been ongoing for 30 months.

Isn’t that what this forum is supposedly for?

The fact is that as more and more customers are being affected, I have merely highlighted my own unfortunate experience.

The bottom line is that until both BT and Openreach, finally admit that the issue is external, it will never get resolved.

In the meantime, anyone who has anything negative to say about BT upon this forum, is immediately castigated by moderators and so-called distinguished sages like yourself, who hide behind anonymity.

Personally, it causes me to question your own motives, as if you cannot provide a positive solution to an issue, why become involved.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

gg30340 — Sat, 15 Nov 2025 13:26:07 GMT

As you are no doubt aware this is a public forum and there is nothing in any of the T&C's or Forum rules that state you must declare a "motive" before posting on a thread or that you can not post on a thread " if you cannot provide a positive solution to an issue" before you "become involved"

I have no motive and unless you can point where I have, I do not "castigate" anybody for complaining about BT and in fact have often complained about BT on this forum and assisted forum members how to go about making a complaint.

As for " distinguished sages like yourself, who hide behind anonymity" , I am no more anonymous than you. The moderators have my full name and contact details. Do they have yours!

What I do not understand is why you have to repeatedly state your "own unfortunate experience." or expect people on this forum to be able to do anything to resolve your "problem" and in particular when as you have repeatedly stated, that you have already complained to BT to the extend that the issue has been deadlocked and as such you took your complaint to the Ombudsman etc.

The forum members have no way to resolve your problem and the moderators who are the only BT employees on the forum stated that they can not deal with any complaint after it has gone through the complaints procedure and is now deadlocked yet you again re posted a resume of your complaint and again asked for the moderators "thoughts" on the matter.

If you have had this "problem" for 30 months it begs the question why are you still using BT as your ISP.

That is a rhetorical question!

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Quesada — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 17:04:57 GMT

@gg30340 @licquorice @pippincp @Peter_W

With respect, I would draw your attention to the following mandate:

“The BT community Forum serves as a platform for BT customers to seek help and advice from other customers who may may have experienced similar issues. It aims to provide a space where customers can share their expertise and experience, offering support and solutions to a wide range of BT products and services. The forum is designed to be a peer-to-peer community, allowing customers to interact and learn more from one another, without the need to contact BT directly. This approach not only helps in resolving issues but also fosters a sense of community among like-minded customers.”

My own issues are well documented and at the risk of repeating myself, I am simply trying to identify the root cause, of the stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol session error.

In aiding and abetting this attack upon my character, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that every day, more and more of BT’s Full Fibre customers, are being adversely affected by this specific known fault.

The fact is that every time a connection issue is reported, both BT and Openreach's immediate recourse, is to carry out routine checks via their remote monitoring mechanisms.

These tests consistently assert that: “The line to your home appears to be performing well, so next we need to refresh the connection to your hub”.

This implies that an external issue has been ruled out and therefore, the onus is immediately placed upon the customer, to carry out internal checks, which more often than not, involve hard resets of their equipment.

However, both BT and Openreach are guilty of being disingenuous, as it has been proven that their remote monitoring equipment, is incapable of detecting this specific fault, which is due to a temporary disruption, of the incoming light signal to the customers ONT.

This would suggest to me, that since the introduction of Full Fibre, this equipment has become obsolete and therefore, “unfit for purpose”. Meanwhile and whilst the “Stale PPP Session Fault” continues to be knowingly misdiagnosed, customers consumer rights are being deliberately infringed.

Personally and unlike yourselves, I believe that I have made my own motives clear, in attempting to expose this obvious indiscretion.

Equally, I have evidence in support of my claims, that BT deliberately ignored their legal obligation, to comply with “ICO” regulations, reference my original “DSA” request. In withholding this information from me, beyond the statutory timeframe, it allowed BT to conceal incriminating evidence, from the “Communications Ombudsman’s” investigation.

Although it is fair to say that the CEO’s of BT, Openreach, the Communications Ombudsman and the ICO, are all currently ignoring my attempts, to expose this blatant abuse of my consumer rights, I am a little surprised, that you should choose to openly defend their actions.

Not least because in this age of accountability, you have also chosen to deliberately ignore the BT Community mandate and instead, have continued to make use of this platform, to publicly assassinate my character.

Food for thought.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

licquorice — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 17:23:54 GMT

You are entirely missing the point. NOBODY on this forum can provide direct resolution of any problems, all they can do is make suggestions as to the cause of the problem and point posters in the right direction to seek resolution.

In your case, this has been done and your case has been taken up by the highest authority in BT, why you think that anybody on this forum can therefore assist any further is beyond me.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

gg30340 — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:14:13 GMT

@Quesada

Nobody has "attacked" or "assassinated" your character, we don't need to because you are doing a good enough job of that your self by attacking the integrity of myself and others without a shred of evidence not just on this thread but other threads you have posted on just because we had the temerity to post on the thread without in your words stating a "motive" and not "provide a positive solution to an issue" before we "become involved" in the thread or agreed with your assessment of your problem.

As regards your comment "you have also chosen to deliberately ignore the BT Community mandate and instead, have continued to make use of this platform, to publicly assassinate my character." I have to say that is one of the most ridiculous comments and there have been many, you have made in all your posts.

I would also point out that I have neither defended or blamed "CEO’s of BT, Openreach, the Communications Ombudsman and the ICO " because I don't have to or have I missed that in the Forum Mandate that I must!

You have as has already been stated, reached the end of the road as regards complaints to BT and the Ombudsman and as there is NOTHING that any of the forum members can do to to resolve your "problem" or give you the answers that you are want no matter how many time you post about it.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Quesada — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:03:24 GMT

@licquorice @gg30340 @pippincp @imjolly

With respect, your responses neatly highlights my predicament.

Rather than address the known issue of the “Stale PPP Session Fault”, you have chosen to continue to publicly assassinate my character, which it is clear, is being actively encouraged by your peers.

In the meantime, as all of your personal input upon this platform, which goes back several years, is readily available for scrutiny, it is obvious that I am not alone, in suffering this online abuse.

The fact is that there is a clear history of evidence , which indicates that anyone whose viewpoint you disagree with, has then been subjected to what is in effect, cyber bullying.

It once again begs the question of motive.

Personally, as I have far bigger fish to fry, I would appreciate it if you would simply adhere to the "T’s & C’s" , of the Community Forum Mandate.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

iniltous — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:14:05 GMT

As a result, this specific issue is being continually misdiagnosed, in effect because this equipment cannot identify, a temporary loss in the incoming light signal to the clients “ONT”.

You ever seen the ONT LOS light illuminated ?

Your stale or inactive PPPOE may or may not be responsible for whatever problems you claim to be having but it can’t interrupt the light from the OLT to the ONT .

You obviously are entitled to your own opinion, most though would think your claim that the equipment is not fit for service is risible, there are millions of users, yet very few claims of what you state to be widespread, or even universal given your hyperbole.

TBH , I’m at a loss to what you expect, released from your contractual obligation and free to obtain service from a different network ?
I would have thought that a reasonable way to proceed , if they also had a guarantee that you will not return via a different ISP on Openreach, personally I would have thought that an ideal solution for both you and your provider, in effect your ISP says , sorry your unrealistic expectations of a domestic grade service can’t be met , so goodbye , hopefully whatever replacement network you do use will be satisfactory and meet your needs, that seems the most appropriate way to proceed, have you suggested it to the high level representative you are conversing with ….posting here is pointless if your ‘complaint’ is st ‘executive’ level , nothing the Mods can do , and certainly not anything other BT customers can do …..if your reason to post is to get validation, as your experience is somewhat different to most , that validation isn’t likely to be provided , you seem to tag onto any type of complaint as confirmation of widespread issue

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

gg30340 — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:28:16 GMT

@Quesada

Your statement "you have chosen to continue to publicly assassinate my character" is not worthy of comment other than to re-iterate what I have already posted.

As you appear to be incapable of understanding what has been posted, because I have neither agreed or disagreed with your conclusion to your "problem" I will happily leave this thread and your distorted posts.

Re: A stale or inactive Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) session - Error

Peter_W — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:49:43 GMT

I've fed back the issues raised in this thread, and it's not something we've seen a huge amount of discussion around, but we'll keep an eye out for further reports should they arise.

For now though, when it comes to the specific case discussed recently, it's been made clear by both myself and a couple of other members that due to the escalation level this has reached, it's not possible for us to pass any further comment on the overall outcome.

I'm going to lock this thread from here as the discussion has veered away from being constructive, and as this is primarily a customer to customer forum we want to ensure things remain civil 😊

Peter