The problem with SFBB and presenting, is that until someone orders a service even if its Openreach there will be unknowns in terms of which premises can and cannot get it.
Very much so. There are mistakes in the database, so it does have an impact.
But how much?
As far as BDUK projects go, the only time the speed-estimates matter are when they are wrong in a way that moves people across the 24Mbps threshold (or the 30Mbps one). So, even if there is 10% of the database wrong (IMO an over-estimate), it likely only matters to the 10-15% of premises around the threshold - so around 1-1.5% of the intervention area premises.
For me given the much lower visibility of what the wireless providers are doing, much harder to do that right, i.e. Lincolnshire and Norfolk simple mast plots will be pretty right, but the topography of Devon and Somerset is highly variable.
Both physical topography and network topography make it harder to predict the wireless behaviour.
I get this frustration thrown at me sometimes, when I give explanations that are not black and white, i.e. while your data science may have no flaws, the real world always throws in the unexpected.
The trick here is trying to figure out the bounds of the inaccuracy.
The polls in the American election had this problem, where 538 tried to explain dealing with the uncertainty
Obviously 20,000 premises if it actually is that is an issue, but council seems to be ensuring that the result from Openreach and BT Group as a whole will turn into a slow ponderous citation of contract rules and only doing what they are obliged to do. Or putting it another way, suspect Devon and Somerset may not be at the forefront of any G.fast or wider FTTP roll-out.
The enmity comes over in the verbal reports in the council meetings. It's an interesting question whether they end up "punished" for it (like Chelsea, was it?)
In reporting about the phase 2 tendering process (about which they can say almost nothing, for fear of wrecking the process), there is an air of "gloating" about how free and open the information will be this time. There is an expectation that they will know *for sure* the status of every individual property at day 1.
Of note is the verbal report about the status of the the clawback money. CDS report that they will spend it under the terms of the phase 1 contract, but only after phase 2 has been sorted out - so they will know what the remaining white areas are.
Now that would be nothing to worry about if it was known that a significant of FTTP was coming as part of phase II via a known entity.
Absolutely. CDS are aiming at trying to have the work done by the end of 2017 as much as possible (and "by 2019" certainly), so that raises a question about what can be achieved in less than 12 months.
They say they'll know in December.
One thought that come to me, based on what other projects have said, their reports from BT Group are every quarter, so it may be that last quarter was down somewhat and next quarter will just scrap in. A lot depends on what the council is doing in terms of checking what BT Group is reporting.
All the previous reports to the council gave comfortably-above-target numbers for THP and SF; no mention of any issues. The last quarter (to Sept 2016) was no difference, but it was indeed slowing somewhat.
The first, and only, indication of the 20,000 came in the verbal report in mid-November. Even the written report that fed into the meeting made no mention.
More surprisingly, none of the council members asked any questions about it. We have no idea whether this is a late shift in reporting from BT, or a last-minute ambush by CDS over numbers they've known about internally for a while.
The verbal report is clear on the direction: It is "We are requiring...", not "BT are reporting..."
No one from either side has come chasing me on any opinions for various areas in CDS area yet.
A little hunkering-down going on?