Print

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

[Black Sheep]

[licquorice]

[licquorice]

[Black Sheep]

[licquorice]

We've always done it this way so it must be right!! 

You won't convince me, I won't convince you.

[Black Sheep]

We've always done it this way so it must be right!! 

You won't convince me, I won't convince you.

The first thing you've said that I agree with, sir. Well, the last 4 words that is. 

[licquorice]

He he, have a good evening and keep saving all that money to pay my pension! 

[waltergmw]

[Black Sheep]

lol ....... will do .... and you enjoy that full 'Final salary' pension, whilst the rest of us current employees have to now put up with the 'Average earnings' tat, our Union managed to bring in.  ........... 

[guest]

knowing the price of copper is through the roof

I really do have to pull you up on this as its total nonsense

Copper costs 40% of what it did 5 years ago and is more or less the same price as it was in 2006, just prior to a massive increase in usage by the Chinese in 2007/2008. Australian mining companies can't give the damn stuff away these days.

http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/copper_historical_large.html#5years

The rest of your argument may well hold true but this part is well off the mark & has been for a long time.

I haven't got time to go looking for the price of copper then and now, nor the wherewithal to be honest.

Then its probably best not to use phrases like "through the roof" unless you actually know the cost?

I appreciate you feel "under attack" a lot of the time. You are not Openreach so stop defending every stupid decision mmm? You are starting to sound distinctly "jobsworth" & I know you're not that.

Putting the (usually <25m) cables in at the same time is common sense and is a trivial amount when labour/civils costs are taken into account. When you're awash with taxpayer cash/BDUK contracts & don't have the cabling for it all? That sounds more like what happened to me.

[Black Sheep]

'I appreciate you feel "under attack" a lot of the time. You are not Openreach so stop defending every stupid decision mmm? You are starting to sound distinctly "jobsworth" & I know you're not that.'

A good attempt at 'Baiting' or 'Trolling', Rizla. I can only assume your unemployed/retired and with nothing better to do than stir the sh1t-pot

I am an Openreach engineer and see, and read, and hear a lot of what is going on. That's by talking face-to-face with people who ACTUALLY do the job, not a web-page chaser with time on his hands.

The 'stupid decision' you allude to I'm guessing is the proposal to pit in 2x100pr cables at initial build ?? I've gone over the reasons why that is not acceptable (IMHO) at a business level.

Now here's a thing, the upper-echelon of my company also think the same thing !! How weird that leaders from a FTSE100 company, and their advisors (such as accountants, way-leave lawyers etc), have decided to run with the usual 1x100pr cable, when they've got somebody like you they could have turned to for better advice !! It's pure madness.
I'll be sure to drop Joe Garner and Kim Mears an e-mail tomorrow informing them how badly wrong they've got it, because some geezer who's ok at referencing web-sites said so.

I'm not expecting a terrific response, I've got to tell you.

Now please ...... if you've got an issue with me, block my posts, ignore me or PM me ........... don't turn threads into your own personal play thing.   

[Chrysalis]

[Black Sheep]

[burakkucat]

b*cat is feeling a little sad with the way this thread is deteriorating.   

I appreciate that there can be a number of different views on a subject. And a forum is a place for discussion.

But as Kitz would say: "Please play nicely".

[Chrysalis]

we will agree to disagree BS.

To me over provisioning is common sense as its inevitable at some point it will be likely needed, whether its 1 month or 10 years in the future.

As to BT exec's knowing what they doing, they have made dozens of gaff's in the past decade in terms of "under" estimating user take up of services.  As I said their interest is only in the "current" balance sheet, for that 100pr is cheaper than 200pr so 100pr wins.  Ultimately its cheaper in the long term to over provision than it is to under provision, if the under provisioning prevents new business.