General Discussion
  >> General Broadband Chatter


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User knighton
(regular) Thu 12-Dec-13 14:56:51
Print Post

At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[link to this post]
 
What are peoples views on BDUK monies being used to deliver Fibre to areas that already have blanket Virgin Media coverage.

Staffordshire have flagged Rugeley as their first switch on in April. Problem is, Virgin is already there.

Should we be using Taxpayers money to overbuild a pre-existing 'Fibre' network?
Standard User MCM
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 12-Dec-13 20:37:25
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: knighton] [link to this post]
 
What are peoples views on BDUK monies being used to deliver Fibre to areas that already have blanket Virgin Media coverage.
This isn't permitted under EU or BDUK rules. Are you certain that all premises in Rugely have access to VM cable? It's possible that there are some areas that have no access to VM and this is where FTTC is being provided.
Standard User JohnR
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 12-Dec-13 21:15:30
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: knighton] [link to this post]
 
BT are not allowed to have a monopoly. So why should Virgin.

\_0-0_/ AdsL is Hell \_0-0_/
To Infinity
Wats SUP doc.... You using too much.....


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User MCM
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 12-Dec-13 21:31:07
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: JohnR] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by JohnR:
BT are not allowed to have a monopoly. So why should Virgin.
This has nothing to do with monopolies but rather the use of state funding. BT are free to install FTTC where they wish to do so using their own money and are doing so wherever they see a realistic prospect of a return on their investment.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Fri 13-Dec-13 03:14:23
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: knighton] [link to this post]
 
dont assume VM = great internet.

A oversubbed VM area can easily perform worse than a basic adsl max connection.

BT Infinity 2 Since Dec 2012 - BQM
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Fri 13-Dec-13 09:11:36
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
They aren't worried about throughput though, just link speed. So, if Virgin can deliver a link at over 24Mb then that is good enough (assuming it is within the affordability parameters which it should be).

So, anywhere that has a supplier that can provide greater than 24Mb link speed at a cost within the affordability limit then they should not be able to use BDUK funding to place a second connection (no matter who provides the first).
Standard User Apprentice
(knowledge is power) Fri 13-Dec-13 09:15:50
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: knighton] [link to this post]
 
Some areas are going to be luckier than others for what ever the reasons, someone said to me the other day that it was a bit like the saying "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" i.e. exchanges providing fast connections get faster while the exchanges providing slower speeds don't tongue laugh
Probably plenty of cases where this isn't a reality.

Alastair

plusnet
Standard User ian72
(knowledge is power) Fri 13-Dec-13 09:32:09
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: Apprentice] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Apprentice:
Probably plenty of cases where this isn't a reality.


I think you're right, there are plenty. But, you tend to hear bad experiences rather than good. And economics often suggest it is cheaper to deploy where the service is already good because the distances and infrastructure are already better to support good speeds. But, with FTTC the benefits are more seen on the outskirts of an exchange where you may shorten the line from miles to hundreds of metres - that makes a hell of a difference.

Ideally it needs stats showing the profile distribution of the uplift in speeds across the country - but this may just be too difficult to draw together.
Standard User kitcat
(committed) Fri 13-Dec-13 09:44:51
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: knighton] [link to this post]
 
If Staffordshire have published a map showing which areas you 'should' find that those covered by BDUK do not have VM presence.

However at the edges you may fins a cabinet covers both, some with poor ADSL and No VM some with Virgin, these will normally be in different Postcodes.

The cabinet may be covered by BDUK money, this is the councils decision if they think those without VM coverage justify the spending of the money.

The council sets the postcodes to be covered, BT chooses how to cover and which to do to meet the contractual coverage obligation.
Standard User knighton
(regular) Fri 13-Dec-13 10:44:15
Print Post

Re: At the risk of inflaming everyone again...............


[re: kitcat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by kitcat:
If Staffordshire have published a map showing which areas you 'should' find that those covered by BDUK do not have VM presence.

However at the edges you may fins a cabinet covers both, some with poor ADSL and No VM some with Virgin, these will normally be in different Postcodes.

The cabinet may be covered by BDUK money, this is the councils decision if they think those without VM coverage justify the spending of the money.

The council sets the postcodes to be covered, BT chooses how to cover and which to do to meet the contractual coverage obligation.


If I lived in Rugeley town centre, I could order 120Mbps NOW from Virgin.

The Superfast Staffordshire site says that Rugeley Town Centre is the first of their go live projects by April 2014.

Actually, the project manager said they didn't set the postcodes. BT told them where they could install Fibre within the cost envelope of the money provided.

They also failed to insist that technologies other than Fibre should be considered.

I am waiting for a reply to my email to my County Councillor, but don't expect much more than a rehash of 'we did the best we could with the money' etc.
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to