Print

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

[burakkucat]

Does this mean we actually have a chunky pure copper cable between SDSTRRN and SDWSTCH the size of a Golden Gate suspension cable,

Could it be that there is a fibre optic link between the two? 

I don't know, I'm just musing "in type". 

[mike phillips]

That was the dream, about 18 months ago, but there is no fibre equipment around, no DSLAMs and according to my BTOpenreach 'friend', since the exchange was demolished in '91 there would be no usable/compatible fibre-base equipment left - and no record of it on any of the BT 'asset maps'. It would be good if it were true!

[burakkucat]

Perhaps one of the houses, now built on the site, has an un-investigated trapdoor in the floor of one of the downstairs rooms and an extraordinarily high electricity bill!   

[mike phillips]

In an attempt to find the truth, and due to my concerns over the allocation of funds for broadband based on incorrect exchange data, I post the following for my 'exchange'. Telephone numbers have been removed for data protection purposes, although mine is posted earlier.

Firstly, my connection. Exchange data shows a BT line length of 4149m. Sam and Kitz (based on BT data) show my 'exchange about 500m in a straight line and no more than 800 'by road.'

Line data attached (KitzMe1) as is Kitz 'exchange' location (Exchange) . Graphics quality/file size permitting I also attach an overview of the village (Kitzmap). Where we believe the 'parented' current location for our exchange is is about 2800m off the south of the map (in Storrington, SDSTRRN).
The key is
old exchange location blue
houses red
two of the 7 cabinets green

More of house 3 in the next post.

Another house, just a few mtrs from where the 'old' and incorrect exchange was (no 2 on the map) produces this (KitzNyetimber3)

So, the question is, is the learned opinion here that the BT info is indeed wrong and how do we get it changed?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[mike phillips]

Next comes the puzzle of the high speed connection. This is house 3. Attached (Kitz3) shows the line result. Bizarre! How does nearly 8 mb travel that far - 2892m? I forgot to label the second (nearest Cabinet) to House 3 - green blob at the bottom.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[burakkucat]

Hmm, a puzzle, Mike. 

However, after drawing out my own sketch map and annotating it with the relevant information, I think I understand the situation.

Known Facts.

Site of Cabinet 1. (Not relevant.)
Site of Cabinet 2. (Not relevant.)
Site of now non-existent exchange, SDWSTCH.
Site of exchange, SDSTRRN.
Site of House 1, BRAS profile 3000K, as a result of line length to SDSTRRN. (Measured electronically.)
Site of House 2, No BRAS, fixed rate service, as a result of line length to SDSTRRN.
Site of House 3, BRAS profile 7150K, as a result of line length to SDSTRRN. (Measured electronically.)

Known Follies.

Length of line from House 1 to now non-existent SDWSTCH exchange, 4149m.
Length of line from House 2 to now non-existent SDWSTCH exchange, 2719m.
Length of line from House 3 to now non-existent SDWSTCH exchange, 2892m.

How can one get the BT database corrected? That is a good question.

One sure-fire way would be to involve "BT High Level Complaints". Their involvement is instigated by sending an e-mail message to the CEO of the BT Group, Ian.Livingston@BT.com

Perhaps you would also like to provide the URL to this forum thread in your message. After all, we have nothing to hide and BT might appreciate that, to use the words of the Tesco slogan, "Every Little Helps". 

[mike phillips]

Thanks Burak - email on its way - I will advise if any response.

[mike phillips]

Impressively quick acknowledgement from Mr L and 'I will ask someone to look into this'

Cannot fault that. Let's see.

[burakkucat]

Impressively quick acknowledgement from Mr L and 'I will ask someone to look into this'

Cannot fault that. Let's see.

As I'm sure you appreciate, that response was not from IL himself but from the staff attached to his office tasked to attend to his incoming messages. Any communication sent as from the CEO's office using his name, such as "asking someone to look into" a particular issue, will result in high level scrutiny of that issue until such time as it is resolved.

[mike phillips]

UPDATE: Good response from BT man, agrees on SDWSTCH exchange location. Kitz has confirmed the map will be corrected. As expected SamDoesn't is not acknowledging emails so obviously doesn't care and remains only 20 years out of date. Likewise error over Kijoma wireless coverage ignored (3 times now) and apparently refusing to add Click4Internet as covering the Isle of Wight with HSB - which they do. Hope no-one uses them for anything important?

[burakkucat]

Thanks for that update, Mike. 

[mike phillips]

Here's hoping you all had too much of everything yesterday!

I see no change in the exchange info (Kitz use SamKnows' API and they studiously ignore my observation that their data is at least 21 years out of date!)/ It appears that DSLZoneUK have a more up-to-date database. BT have confirmed DSL to be correct. I attach two screenshots for you to mull over while you finish that turkey.

It is to be hoped that Local Authorities (now rushing to complete their 'Broadband Plans' in a reduced timescale) are using more accurate data!

[attachment deleted by admin]

[kitz]

>> It appears that DSLZoneUK have a more up-to-date database.

DSLZone also use SamKnows as their database.   AFAIK James has updated hardly anything (aside from ADSL24 prices) for several years.

Just wondering if its possible that the following is the case:- 

1) Storrington/WestChiltern originally showed wrong info.
2) In Feb 2008 I wrote to Sam about the West Chiltington/Storrington discrepancy.
3) After several lots of correspondence between us on this particular exchange... Sam made a "quick fix" to the database in March 2008 and it should at that point have been showing correctly.
4) Ive kept up to date with all the upgrades and am using the latest version of the API.

So its entirely possible that one of the upgrades has caused a 'rollback' situation for West Chiltington/Storrington exchange. 

DSLZone doesnt show any info about 20CN/21CN/FTTC..  so at a guess they are actually using one of the old API's which is probably why the info is showing ok for your exchange.

I'll have another go at mailing Sam.

[mike phillips]

Thanks indeed for your efforts and attention - I do actually recall that somewhere along the path the exchange did 'jump' briefly to its correct location! I think your 'theory' has merit.

[kitz]

Fired off another email to Sam, Ive mentioned in this one about it being the possibility of the updated info on 21CN etc having caused some sort of reversion of the exchange info.

Update - Got a reply from Sam who said he will have a look after the hols.