Telecom Broadband Projects: Coping with Professional Complaints Under MPS Order No.176 When Networking Is Completed Without Logging

For telecom carriers, broadband projects normally enter the final delivery phase once network deployment is finished and internet access works properly. However, many legacy projects only complete cabling, device commissioning and broadband activation, without deploying supporting real-name authentication and internet log retention capabilities. Once targeted by professional complainants or included in cybersecurity supervisory inspections, these fully operational broadband services will expose obvious compliance gaps.

MPS Order No.176, Measures for Cyberspace Security Supervisory Inspection by Public Security Organs, took effect on October 1, 2026, tightening regulatory requirements for network operators. For carrier projects with finished networking but incomplete user authentication and log archiving, full network reconstruction is unnecessary. The priority is to add missing functions based on existing hardware and network architecture, so as to minimise rework and service outages.

I. Why Fully Activated Broadband Services Get Reported for Log Deficiencies

1. Pure network delivery creates compliance loopholes

Traditional broadband project acceptance focuses mainly on connectivity, device stability and consistent internet access. Network availability does not equal complete user identity management and log retention.

For example, after carriers roll out broadband for factories, industrial parks or staff dormitories, only optical modems and basic routers are deployed on-site, with no Portal real-name authentication or log recording enabled. The risk stays hidden in daily operation; but when inspectors need to trace user identities and connection timestamps, project owners will find no audit data available.

2. Fragmented accountability leads to long-standing loopholes

Many older broadband projects are handed over across multiple teams: construction teams focus on service activation, delivery teams check device uptime, while no team is assigned to maintain authentication functions, log storage and periodic compliance audits.

Such issues cannot be fixed simply by replacing a single device. Carriers must first audit existing network functions, identify reusable hardware and missing capabilities before designing rectification plans.

3. Historical log gaps cannot be fixed by post-hoc data fabrication

After receiving a complaint, operators shall preserve existing configurations, operation records and maintenance documents, and formulate rectification plans truthfully. New systems can only capture logs generated after go-live; they cannot recover missing historical data.

Rectification must cover two parts: fixing current functional gaps and clarifying long-term management responsibilities, so as to avoid repeated log failures after network upgrading.

II. AINOPOL’s Solution: Add Authentication & Logging Without Full Network Rebuild

For carrier broadband projects with live networks but incomplete authentication and log audit, AINOPOL delivers Cloud Portal real-name authentication and cloud-based log retention solutions with seamless integration to existing equipment, offering flexible upgrade paths for different scenarios.

First, Cloud Portal supports customisable authentication workflows and can be docked with compatible on-site devices. For factories, enterprise campuses and dormitory broadband access, we design tailored access policies to eliminate over-reliance on basic network hardware without identity management.

Second, the cloud log platform centrally stores and queries access authentication and connection records, providing traceable data for daily audits and official investigations. The scope of logged fields, user-IP binding rules and retention periods are configured strictly according to hardware capacity, business needs and regulatory clauses. No platform can automatically restore missing historical logs.

For live networks, AINOPOL first conducts a full on-site assessment to confirm reusable legacy hardware, additional required modules and platform docking methods, then develops phased implementation plans. Pre-assessment helps carriers control project scope, cost and service disruption during rectification.

III. Two Cooperation Models Between AINOPOL and Carriers: Turn One-off Rectification into Long-term Business

Following the enforcement of MPS Order No.176, carriers face large numbers of broadband projects requiring compliance audits and upgrades. AINOPOL offers two scalable cooperation models based on project scale and organisational structure.

1. Single-project cooperation: Rectify individual client networks

This model applies to factory and campus broadband projects with confirmed authentication and log deficiencies.

• Carrier’s responsibilities: Client communication, broadband resource coordination and current network status verification.
• AINOPOL’s responsibilities: On-site technical survey, Cloud Portal & cloud log audit solution design, product supply, device docking, deployment and commissioning verification.

Both parties clarify the upgrade scope, division of labour and acceptance criteria before construction, and sign off on long-term O&M responsibilities after delivery.

This model targets well-defined compliance issues with low upfront investment. Carriers leverage existing client resources to launch urgent rectification without undertaking full solution design and engineering work; AINOPOL delivers customised technical support and converts individual complaint cases into paid projects.

2. Provincial & municipal branch cooperation: Standardised rollout covering all legacy projects

When compliance gaps spread across cities, counties and numerous government & enterprise broadband projects, fragmented localised rectification will lead to inconsistent technical standards, repeated evaluation and delayed progress.

In this case, carriers can launch centralised cooperation with municipal or provincial branches. Carriers organise internal resources, sort out project inventories and coordinate local subsidiaries; AINOPOL provides unified technical frameworks, product packages, deployment specifications and professional training. We first run pilot projects to verify device compatibility, implementation workflows and O&M mechanisms, then scale the solution nationwide.

Compared with ad-hoc single-project deals, branch-level cooperation focuses on standardised long-term delivery. Unified checklists, adaptation procedures and acceptance specifications cut redundant engineering costs. Carriers can also embed real-name authentication and log retention as mandatory acceptance items for all new broadband projects, preventing compliance loopholes from the outset.

The lack of authentication and logging after broadband networking reflects a disconnect between project delivery and post-launch operation. When facing professional complaints, carriers should first audit live network capabilities and preserve evidence, then roll out targeted upgrades instead of blindly rebuilding the network or fabricating historical audit data.

AINOPOL’s Cloud Portal and cloud log audit solutions help carriers bring legacy projects into full compliance. We support both one-off project rectification and province-wide standardised promotion. By turning authentication and log retention from a post-delivery afterthought into a mandatory acceptance requirement for all broadband services, carriers can mitigate regulatory risks while expanding value-added cybersecurity business.

FAQ

Q: Which three violations are most frequently reported by professional complainants against carrier broadband projects?
A: Public warning cases focus on three items: (1) No web login Portal deployed; (2) No SMS verification for real-name access; (3) Network log retention shorter than six months. The first two relate to real-name authentication entry, while the third concerns log persistence and retrievability. Missing logs are the easiest violation to prove: Portal pages can be temporarily enabled and written policies can be retroactively drafted, but system-generated log records and traceable mobile phone number audit trails cannot be falsified.

Q: What is the first step after receiving a professional complaint?
A: Verify the actual log capability instead of negotiating private settlements. Complete three checks:

1. Retrieve a full online behaviour timeline directly by mobile phone number without cross-system timestamp matching;
2. Pull raw daily log details within the retention window, not just aggregated statistics;
3. Confirm that authentication records and online behaviour logs are bound at the session level.
   If all three conditions are met, the core accusation of “missing retrievable logs” is invalid. If not, complete technical rectification first before cooperating with official inspections, which is more sustainable than informal settlements.

Q: How to handle settlement demands from professional complainants?
A: Private settlements only feed the grey reporting industry and never fix root causes. Without proper log functions, the same site will face repeated complaints. The practical approach is:

1. Conduct an immediate self-inspection on log storage and retrievability; launch rectification immediately if loopholes exist;
2. Cooperate fully with official regulatory inspections with factual system operation data instead of signing out-of-court settlement agreements.
   MPS Order No.176 empowers public security authorities to conduct remote online inspections. Regulators judge compliance based on whether the system can output complete audit trails, not private settlement documents.