Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AndyPPUK]

Computer weekly have picked up on my facebook discussion with Worcester County Council, who recently announced that after spending £700,000 on a WiFi based superfast project with a reported take-up of just 250 customers, they will now be spending more BDUK money in exactly the same area, paying BT to compete with their own superfast scheme, while missing out other places entirely!

They seem hugely reluctant to deal with the fact that this is not just a kick in the teeth to the forgotten 10% who will miss out on superfast entirely, but also apparently against BDUK and EU rules on how the money can be spent.

They are still refusing to say where the forgotten 10% will be, despite having the information months ago, in fact the announcement of an overlap is the only information they have revealed about where our money will go!

Full story here

[burakkucat]

Your link is broken. 

The correct link is here. 

[AndyPPUK]

Thanks, you'd think I would have got the hang of BB code by now, but apparently not! I've fixed it now, and some grammar errors too.

[Black Sheep]

Andy, any chance you could use your powers to get the latest BDUK Cabinet off Worcester Exchange, looked at ?? There's a couple of quality issues need addressing ??
 

[kitz]

you is baaad sheep.  Stop telling porkies...  I thought that was supposed to be my cab?   

Seeing that though makes you wonder how the heck it works..  bet they cant provision dsl over that mess!


.. and ps thanks for highlighting this thread, I somehow missed it..  I know theres some posts I want to make.. but if Im a bit quiet its just that Im working on the boring back end forum/server/admin stuff.

[Black Sheep]

Ha ha ..... bit of light relief from all the 'heavy stuff' never did anyone any harm. 

As mooted by myself on another thread (somewhere), although it looks an absolute eye-sore (Rats nest), there would be no adverse affect on services provided over those wires, so I would say yes, DSL could be provided over that mess. Although 'Pair counting' would have to go out of the window, and 'Tone Generator Sets' would be heavily involved. 

[kitz]

Indeed not..   
Heh.. do you fancy a transfer to some back of beyond area trying to sort out REIN faults there?   
Not sure if theyd treat sheep as well in that country though as they do here in the uk. 

Worcestershire County Council’s plans to roll out superfast broadband as part of the BDUK project have been brought into question after the local authority admitted it would allow BT to overlap its network with existing locally funded services.

What a mess and what a waste of public funds.

Not that I could see how they could stop BT rolling out into that area if it wanted to anyhow.  Surely that would be going against the very same rules that allow the likes of any other SP moving into an area already provided for by BT or Virgin.

Back to the thoughts of one horse race and extreme outlaying areas should look at other technologies such as wifi/satellite with long term funding and/or more help given to community led funding like b4rn.  I mean proper help though, b4rn is lucky in that they not only have community spirit, but also people with proper technical knowledge for that side of things.

[AndyPPUK]

There are a few issues here - if BT went there of their own accord, that would mean they were either telling porkies when they told the council that area wasn't commercially viable, or taking a loss on going there just to stamp out a competitor, which monopolies can't legally do.

The worst part of this is that BT not just going there, they are getting paid by the taxpayers to go there!

I met some people from "Faster Broadband for Worcestershire" yesterday, and pointed out that this was going got be unpopular and possibly illegal, they didn't seem to care about popularity, and fended off the legal issues by saying the wireless solution they spent money on first time round didn't technically meet the EU definition of superfast, so they can get away with spending our money on getting BT to overlap it - which raises the question of why they spent about £3,500 per property that took it up on a solution that fails to meet the required spec!

[waltergmw]

@AndyPPUK,

This Monopoly couldn't care less with the current political acquiescence.

See what they did to Iwade, Erbistock and particularly Ewhurst where they have been allowed to provide an inadequate partial solution called a commercial deployment and leaving us without any possibility of State Aid and an unresolved diabolical mess for the outliers.

Apart from many sub 10 Mbps we have well over 200 sub 24 Mbps including about 69 which "are not commercially viable" after they destroyed our specified full fibre spine specifically to avoid that situation.

Kind regards,
Walter

[kitz]

I'm confused 

However, in an FAQ posted by Worcestershire County Council on Facebook, the authority admitted these rural locations had not been removed from its “intervention area” list for its upcoming roll-out of superfast broadband with BT – part of the department for culture, media and sport’s BDUK project – which is being funded with £8.5m from the council, £3.35m from central government and £8.9m from BT.

[krysia]

Andy, any chance you could use your powers to get the latest BDUK Cabinet off Worcester Exchange, looked at ?? There's a couple of quality issues need addressing ??
 

memoies ...looked a bit like that when I worked there ...long long time ago ,,,, and No , I did not break it !!!