General Discussion
  >> Broadband Not-spots & slow-spots


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


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User brandscill
(committed) Mon 22-Sep-14 12:36:40
Print Post

BDUK won't help my property


[link to this post]
 
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.

Thanks

BT ADSL 4.7Mbps (Actual)
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 22-Sep-14 13:49:31
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
In terms of USC, some councils are promoting use of satellite already for USC needs and this is endorsed by the EU.

It may be for USC spending, that Kijoma was considered as sufficient for the area as part of the Open Market Review.

Without knowing the details of an address and reviewing the various maps from the project over time it is difficult to say if this is all totally correct.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User brandscill
(committed) Mon 22-Sep-14 14:21:21
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
What made the email from them interesting is that it seemed they just googled around and found that wireless could be supplied to my property (Post Code RH12 3PW) and that it would be sufficient without actually checking with the company they were still actively signing up new customers. On the face of it Kijoma still advertises for new business but in the past 2 years I've made several enquires none of which have been answered.

BT ADSL 4.7Mbps (Actual)


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

Standard User kijoma
(committed) Tue 23-Sep-14 13:32:29
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
Hi,

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?

Cheers

In reply to a post by brandscill:
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.

Thanks


Bill Lewis - MD
Kijoma Broadband
Fixed wireless ISP - ISPA/CISAS/RIPE members
http://www.kijoma.net
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1975254274.png
Standard User WWWombat
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 23-Sep-14 14:17:03
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by brandscill:
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).

FTTRN is also a solution aimed at properties far from the (existing) cabinet, but both it & FTTP depend on there being *some* density of properties. If your house is rather lonesome, neither are particularly viable solutions.

Remember too that when a project says there is "no technical solution" they really mean there is "no affordable solution using the current set of technologies" (edit: and some projects aren't yet including FTTRN as a viable technology at all; perhaps it will appear more in the 2nd phase projects)

because ... Kijoma wireless is available to my property they are forbidden from using any of the money to further improve the service to the property.

are they saying this with regard to NGA or basic broadband? I thought wireless service only qualified as an alternative to NGA when there was some kind of commitment to upgrade to fibre in the future.

Otherwise surely they could argue satellite is an acceptable alternative everywhere


In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
In terms of USC, some councils are promoting use of satellite already for USC needs and this is endorsed by the EU.

Satellite is good enough to qualify for USC needs, but it doesn't have the capacity for widespread subscriptions. It can probably service around 1-2% of the country.

That means the dependence on satellite has to be restricted.

Funnily enough, 1% seems to be the limit that the North Yorkshire project has placed on the use of satellite: the phase 1 contract (to BT, of course) requires them to provide USC service to the entire county, except that *some* can be palmed off onto satellite - but an upper limit of 3,800 properties applies. There are around 380,000 properties in the county, of which 195,000 are in the intervention area.

Last I heard, the county was investigating whether they could divert funds from the USC budget into the NGA budget by removing or increasing this cap.

Edit:Add proviso regarding FTTRN

Edited by WWWombat (Tue 23-Sep-14 15:36:56)

Standard User chilting
(newbie) Tue 23-Sep-14 17:03:32
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
My response from WSCC was very similar with regard the universal service commitment and other broadband suppliers in the area, presumably they meant Kijoma.
[You can add another one to your list Bill].
I am 1.8km from my cabinet so my FTTC speed is slow!
Our experience in West Chiltington with BDUK is a job about 90% done. Those of us at the end of lines get little or nothing and Nutbourne has been missed altogether.
There is hope, but not till 2016, that some of the remaining 10% may see some improvement. Regarding Slinfold, it seems that you are not going to fair much better.
They have given two villages that are a long distance from their cabinets [FTTP - Coldwaltham and some sort of FTTRN - Amberley] big budget assistance, but both of these have larger populations.
It should be fairly easy to get fibre broadband to Clemsford. You have a good mix of residential and business lines, plus fibre probably runs along the A29, but you may have to wait or pay for it yourselves.

Edited by chilting (Tue 23-Sep-14 17:12:09)

Standard User mikejp
(regular) Tue 23-Sep-14 18:27:49
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
brandscill - the stories of failed enquiries with Kijoma are legion. WSCC are, I think, talking out of their backsides. Ask them to CONFIRM in writing that Kijoma:-

1) CAN provide YOU with a service (terrain/trees/buildings/etc permitting)
2) That they (Kijoma) WILL accept any order you might choose to place AND that it will provide the 15Mbps MINIMUM BDUK/the EU require from such a wireless service (NGA), or 2Mbps if they are leaving you with the 'minimum'.
3) In accordance with the requirements for use of Wireless Technology under the County scheme, that the connection is scheduled to be upgraded to fibre.
4) That the costs associated with any installation and rental fall within the limits placed on the scheme by BDUK.

Lastly, be advised that the coverage data used by SamKnows for Kijoma is not reliable, hence the need for County to satisfy you on this matter.

If you do not receive satisfactory answers I suggest you write/email Nick Herbert MP on the matter. There is a clear requirement for the BDUK scheme to provide ALL with at least 2Mbps. I understand WSCC do not intend to satisfy this requirement until 2016. There still remain many questions over the BDUK scheme, and in particular in your case, why a property should be forced to pay wireless prices to achieve 2Mbps.
Standard User Fastman2
(member) Tue 23-Sep-14 18:56:18
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
did kjoma respond to original OMR -- comment states did not respond to latest OMR (that would be the SEP one)

if responded to oringial OMR its possible arease could be tagged as 2meg as not market failure
Standard User mikejp
(regular) Tue 23-Sep-14 19:26:52
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: Fastman2] [link to this post]
 
'Tagging' is at postcode level, not a gentle green wash over the whole are!
Standard User lektroluxe
(newbie) Tue 23-Sep-14 20:12:09
Print Post

Re: BDUK won't help my property


[re: brandscill] [link to this post]
 
I wouldn't worry too much, just get wireless!

Half the people on here with FTTC only get 20 megs or so anyway. The whole FTTC thing is blown out of proportion it's not a solution just a stop gap to real fibre but as we know it can't be done in rural areas anyway so wireless will always be the answer.

Satellite can work quite well if it's really all you can get but has pretty bad latency which you will notice using it, and is not a real contest for a terrestrial low latency solution.

Edited by lektroluxe (Tue 23-Sep-14 20:14:57)

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to