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

[treborgb]

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.

[gg30340]

Try using Fast.com

[Manatarms84]

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

[treborgb]

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.

[licquorice]

It just means the speed tester isn't working.

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

[Quesada]

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.

[Peter_W]

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

[Quesada]

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 

[Peter_W]

@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

[Quesada]

@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