Sorry to hear your enquiries have not as yet been replied to, we receive a lot of enquiries daily therefore they are priority filtered depending on various factors including level of enquiries per area, probability of existing coverage and available network capacity at that location.
If you could point us to what to look for in your enquiry then we will check it manually to ascertain the position there. If you have a written statement from WSCC that they are not going to spend BDUK money then this would help too.
Your comment on what WSCC stated is interesting.It is true they are spending a lot of tax payers cash on FTTP in some areas.
This is shown in areas such as Sutton in West Sussex, whereby there are ~5 businesses and ~100 properties spread over a large area and ~96% of the properties are Kijoma customers and have been for ~9 years.
Yet they are going to dig up miles of road (including closing one for many weeks) and clear miles of rural ducts to run FTTP to this village and the other hamlets/villages the exchange feeds..
This may be seen as a misappropriation of funds that could otherwise be spent on a Business rich area like Slinfold?
Other areas of west sussex with much larger populations are clearly on the shelf , oddly enough these areas are mainly ones outside our coverage footprint. make of that what you will.
Taking a look at the better connected map on their site will reveal this in conjunction with our coverage map.
This is the second time recently we have heard Kijoma being used as an excuse by WSCC, the previous one they made claims to somebody that we had told them we were going to put coverage into their area when WSCC have not spoken to us about that area at all and we have published nothing to the effect.
I agree that from what you say WSCC are wrongly using Kijoma as a deflector to your enquiry. Especially if you are not even in a "basic broadband" classified area.
They have their previous Open Market Review data that clearly states Kijoma are only "basic" 2 Mbps providers in the county. We do not meet their impossible criteria for "super fast".
We also refused to respond to the latest OMR as it was of no benefit to our business at all and from the last Market review it is clear it became a means of targeting competition with the BDUK fund, not serving those most in need and gaining value for money.
I realise I/we gain some flack for not installing everybody who asks us for a service , but then you name me a sustainable business with a high demand service that can serve everybody who wants to be a customer without delay? ... *cough* BT ? ..
In my view it is not a failing that we manage client count versus capacity in areas in order to ensure customers receive a good service. Neither is it one for us spending a lot more time/money in 2014 upgrading our infrastructure for the benefit of our existing customers first as opposed to trying to "stack em high" at the expense of service quality as many do.
We would rather take flack for not meeting the demands of potential customers than have a customer complaint level adequate enough to warrant a dedicated forum on TB.
The BDUK process has distorted the market place, it has made genuine non Openreach reliant providers think carefully about where to invest / expand as only a fool would blindly generate a long term return on investment in an area where £M are to be given to a competitor to provide.
There are in my view just three Fixed Wireless providers with healthy finances and a sustainable business model out there. Kijoma is one of them and the only one operating in 5 counties and without state funding/support.
We must be doing something right?
I contacted West Sussex Better Connected a week ago to ask for more details about potential improvements to broadband service in my post code area
I was told that though they were planning to upgrade the Slinfold Exchange my property is to far from the cabinet to benefit. They also said there are no technical solutions for this (despite using FTTP elsewhere in the county). They went onto say that because (according to SamKnows) Kijoma wireless is available to my property they are forbidden from using any of the money to further improve the service to the property.
They class my property as unable to receive basic broadband as BT rate the line for 1mbps.
I'm a little confused as to why they said there was no technical solution and I wasn't aware that presence of a wireless provider (though Kijoma aren't very active in singing up new customers) was an acceptable alternative. Otherwise surely they could argue satellite is an acceptable alternative everywhere surely?
Any insight would be appreciated.