Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on July 07, 2018, 10:54:24 AM
-
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/07/community-conflict-after-removal-of-openreach-broadband-cabinet.html (https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/07/community-conflict-after-removal-of-openreach-broadband-cabinet.html)
Residents of the Coleham district in the town of Shrewsbury (Shropshire, UK) have moaned after a new “fibre broadband” (FTTC / VDSL2) street cabinet was removed by Openreach following complaints from the local Christian Science Society, which objected to the fact that it blocked the view of their sign.
Over the years we’ve reported on various situations where residents in a community have complained about the size, position or aesthetics of a new FTTC cabinet. On many of those occasions the gripes can be overblown and will tend to ignore the benefits to locals of being able to access superfast broadband speeds of potentially up to 80Mbps (Megabits per second).
The interesting thing about the situation in Coleham isn’t just the fairly small issue at the heart of the problem, but also the fact that other residents have been unhappy to see the cabinet removed because they now have no access to the new superfast broadband service (i.e. one of the few patches in the whole area that hasn’t yet been upgraded).
A Spokesperson for Openreach gave a canned statement:
“Finding a suitable location for this new cabinet in Coleham has been extremely difficult. We completely understand that people living there are keen to see improvements to the local network. But equally, we have to balance that with our responsibility to carry out any work, including where we put new infrastructure, with the views of local residents and community groups.
We’ll be taking another look at this in the future, and people should monitor openreach.co.uk for the latest updates. It might also be worth them checking with their local council around any plans they might have for funding broadband improvements in the future.”
-
It's hard to see the exact location as gmaps doesnt go right down the end of the street and there's an Openreach van in the way, but you can see the PCP from this view here (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.7041234,-2.7484971,3a,37.8y,347.51h,78.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svz0fo0U_VbAYiLR_2-RjIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I was wondering if there was anywhere else either the FTTC cab or sign could go. Judging from available space before the bridge and the article in the Shropshire Star (https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/shrewsbury/2018/07/05/row-over-broadband-in-town/), I'm unsure if there is.
I notice that a cab around the corner is an ECI (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x487a9e5b43b9015f:0x29e762b56f6f3094!2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/christian%2Bscience%2Bsociety%2Bcoleham/@52.7041452,-2.7482432,3a,75y,330.27h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211swZ9pbBbZUcQdwgEsVoOISw*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x487a9e5b43b9015f:0x29e762b56f6f3094!5schristian+science+society+coleham+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2swZ9pbBbZUcQdwgEsVoOISw&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5u5_a4YzcAhUsDsAKHe2fCjQQpx8IZzAK), which don't take up that much room.
(https://www.shropshirestar.com/resizer/4JJ_pC7KjNtWJXtXc67VEcqbZsw=/1000x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-shropshirestar-mna.s3.amazonaws.com/public/XC53MEUVK5HQ7IODHZTQBXXCAY.jpg).
Surely the cab could be shifted a bit to the right and then move the sign a bit or the right... or vice-versa. The flower box would have to go. :flower:
-
Surely OR could have obtained permission to put the sign on the pavement tight against the wall next to the entrance and the cabinet next to it, there looks plenty of room. Also whoever surveyed the location really should have spoken to the Society as it would obviously be a problem.
The other obvious place if the society cared about the community would be to site the cabinet behind the sign against the building wall, they'd just need to sort a wayleave etc. Access wouldn't be a problem.
-
Indeed!! Seems a particularly unChristian attitude to take in my opinion.
-
Indeed!! Seems a particularly unChristian attitude to take in my opinion.
if you look up who this "society" actually are and what their beliefs are then i'm not sure logic or something they can comprehend.
their primary belief being that "sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone"
-
hmmm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science). I see what you mean :(
-
I can't quite work out where science comes into it ??? ??? I'm not a believer, as far as I'm concerned it's all baloney, although religion does have its uses as in community, groups somewhere to belong etc. but most of them need to get into the 21st century in my opinion.
-
Snowflake alert - lots of swearing from the outset - but very funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
-
I'm guessing they thought OR would be obliged to scuttle around, redigging up roads and pavements?
I heard 'the church' has over £6 billion in assets so I'm sure they'll be able to find a few quid for OR to reattend so the kids of this community don't miss out.
-
I think when its for the public good, and its not actually blocking access, then they should be made to have it.
I don't see how they have got the cabinet removed.
Cabinets are usually against walls. Why should their wall be any different?
My cabinet is right next to an end terrace house wall.
-
It's public highway... nobody in this country has a right to a nice view :no:
-
Snowflake alert - lots of swearing from the outset - but very funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
LOL that's so funny and so true ;D
-
Are we sure this isn’t just a case of a local rag playing into the hands of publicity stunt for the religious group?
OR did seemingly move the cabinet, but it might have been for valid technical reasons. The Church’s PR team might then have siezed the initiative, saying OR moved it in answer to their complaints, or even in answer to their prayers, who knows.
Just seems odd that OR would move a cabinet “a few days” after a complaint, no matter how valid the complaint. Unless of course, it was just co-incidence. ::)
-
I seem to remember reading the OR press release.
They ain't never getting that cabinet back unless someone else pays for it, IMHO.
Think about it. Whole country is blaming you for not rolling out FTTC fast enough, there simply isn't time to donkey around redoing work you've already done and that's without the extra costs associated with it.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that perhaps someone could have moved the sign instead? Then again, the whole church thing is a can of worms that refuses to close, perhaps?
PR nightmare to be seen arguing with God, I suppose.
-
It reminds me of that mysterious appearance of furniture in Ringwood, that was discussed a few years back.
That was never solved IIRC, but it got me thinking, probably up the wrong tree. ;)
The ADSL checker says FTTC is available at full speed, but it can't be. From the map attached the proximity of the exchange can be seen, so I hazzard the line is EO.
I looked up roadworks.org, where I saw two entries not far in a southerly direction from the CS site, but attached to another PCP. I'll leave you to view the roadworks entry. At that location there is work to expand FTTC capacity.
I'm wondering, if BTOR could have opted to either utilise the fibre cab where more beneficial, or to cause the CS Reading Room and its neighbours to obtain fibre by the box in the road works.
is that too improbable!?
-
So it got removed not just moved to another nearby spot?
The whole situation seems so silly and overblown, the sign is a movable sign, they simply had to move the sign.
-
I think for simplicity Openreach could have just offered to pay to move the sign. I they’re probably actually in the right but it would have resolved the situation quickly.
-
No I don't believe it got moved to another nearby spot. Directly behind the PCP is a footbridge over the river so nothing can come that from that way.
There's a few other cabs in the area, the nearest is an ECI. It could be like here, where there is about 7 PCPs all within a few hundred meters.
I looked it up on Magenta last week and the cab is showing as N/A for FTTC, from memory it was PCP 35 or 36 and definitely not EO as you can see the PCP in the earlier photo. The fact the guy in the report says it is quite close to the exchange, which could also be another reason why there is a lot of cabs in that area - like here then they then branch out in different directions away from the exchange.
I can't understand why the sign couldnt have been moved slightly to the right or left. You would think Openreach would have at least offered to move it, but that then depends upon the Church's agreement. In the past Openreach have tried to be accommodating when residents get stroppy about the FTTC cabs. They have sprayed them different colours to try blend in and didn't they even once have one cab painted to look like brickwork. How much does it cost to move a sign compared to re-digging up a cab? The Church wont comment. When I looked last week there was an unsubstantiated report of a few thousand complaints, which I found a bit odd and made me wonder how many of those belonged to members of the 'church'.
-
Kitz, had you got as far as this one?
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/shrewsbury/2018/07/11/ongoing-row-over-broadband-cabinet/
Sorry over raising the EO misdirection. :-[
-
Ah, no thanks. I'd not looked since last week when they said there had been no comment from the Church.
Still seems rather strange that Openreach would dig up the FTTC cab without exploring other options
Even if the sign couldn't be moved, surely there are signs which can be opened from the back
"However, putting the box in front of our notice board was apparently a quick decision made when it wouldn't fit in the intended location.
It was impossible for us to reach the board safely to change the contents.
I wonder if Openreach would consider this option, and what the legal implications could be.
"We offered a piece of our land rent free and without restrictions for the re-siting of the box, but this offer was not taken up."
-
I don't think the offer would have been refused outright without reason.
"Without restrictions" seems ideal, but may it be so only superficially? Does "without restrictions" apply to both parties, so that the church could rescind their decision sometime in the future?
I'm thinking BT would want a wayleave agreement for legal safety. Could the church have been unwilling to comply?
Thinking, there's a bit of economy with the actualite.
OT (slightly) I get impression form CodeLook mappings of PCP to Postcode, there's a lot of overlap and muddle.
OT (less slightly) Can a fibre box ever serve 2 PCPs?
-
OT (less slightly) Can a fibre box ever serve 2 PCPs?
No reason why not, after all its just a tie cable to and from the Fibre cabinet to the PCP to access the DSLAMs that is involved, the D sides of the cabinets aren't changed.
-
Thanks! I was thinking on those lines, when I posted a map of the route from exchange to cab 35 to cab 23, and taking the muddle of PCPs that side of the river made me question the possibility even more.