There should be clarity soon. Most Councils now have detailed mapping of the Intevention areas

The probability is that few if any that have beendeclared as non commercial will be moved to commercial as it would considerably complicat things at this stage. If any do fall into that they would probably be enabld under the BDUK program and any BDUK funding refunded. after it is enabled.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

THey may be still in the Public Consoltation phase but they would have done the gap anaylisis. The poster was specificaly referring to Leeds and they have definatly carried it out and the link the postter gave identifies the totall number of premises not in the BT commercial rollout

I see you didn't read the cover page which notes that those numbers are based on currently available information and subject to change.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

They would have that information but they will not make it public as it is confidential information and not for disclosure

Actually no they don't. These are indeed confidential - to the point where BT don't share them either.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

There should be clarity soon. Most Councils now have detailed mapping of the Intevention areas

The probability is that few if any that have beendeclared as non commercial will be moved to commercial as it would considerably complicat things at this stage. If any do fall into that they would probably be enabld under the BDUK program and any BDUK funding refunded. after it is enabled.

Based on what Bob?

You've made a few authoritative statements here - what is the source for these statements?

Speaking as authoritatively as you have I would assume that you have extensive access to BDUK documentation, perhaps the confidential parts of procurement contracts?

BT do share this information with BDUK. THeyhave to but it is on a NDObasis

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

BT do share this information with BDUK. THeyhave to but it is on a NDObasis

How odd, then, that internal DCMS documents quote model costs rather than actual ones.

I'll share this knowledge with a couple of local authorities, they'll be pleasantly surprised to hear that they should've gotten this as they weren't expecting it and indeed those who've handed over the cash and had the invoices don't have information at this level of detail.

Let's try this again - why the assurance that BDUK/DCMS have this information? If it's on an NDA basis how come you know about its existence given the leaked spreadsheet has nothing besides model and extrapolated costs?

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Rope dangling is always worth a go if you might benefit

There is a potential upside and no downside.

There's endless downside - if the rope catches someone who doesn't like to be seen dangling, and is capable of causing grief behind the scenes. The creation of a (very personal) enemy might undo any good you can do for the cause

The best style of negotiation is sometimes to create win-win, not to belittle or browbeat into submission, isn't it?

If I'm completely wrong and shown to be an idiot it's fine, you get used to it after a while

I know you want to do good for your area (and I'd be doing the same if I hadn't selected a SFBB area to move into). However, I sometimes read your arguments and think that you have indeed shown that.

I really hope that, when dealing with the council, BDUK, and Openreach, that you come over a little different to the way I read your posts.

Post deleted by Ignitionnet

Edited by deleted (Wed 21-Nov-12 10:09:09)

Totally agree the best solution is win-win but for clarification earlier in the thread you posted "I'm pushing them to demand that Openreach re-do their viability checks" which suggests they have a position regarding the cost to do your cabinet and you are seeking to get them to change that based evidence of likely demand.

And in the blog referenced in the thread there is the statement "The biggest case of all is that for all the pestering and persistence over this no case against it has been presented beyond that it doesn't cover enough premises to be viable."

So if Openreach's position it that there are not enough premises to make the benefits outweigh the costs then short of building and connecting more premises the win-win is to ensure that the area does get included in any BDUK bid area.

In reply to a post by Gadget:

Totally agree the best solution is win-win but for clarification earlier in the thread you posted "I'm pushing them to demand that Openreach re-do their viability checks" which suggests they have a position regarding the cost to do your cabinet and you are seeking to get them to change that based evidence of likely demand.

And in the blog referenced in the thread there is the statement "The biggest case of all is that for all the pestering and persistence over this no case against it has been presented beyond that it doesn't cover enough premises to be viable."

So if Openreach's position it that there are not enough premises to make the benefits outweigh the costs then short of building and connecting more premises the win-win is to ensure that the area does get included in any BDUK bid area.

I've removed the blog from public view as a few things are going on.

There has been extensive building since the initial surveying of the situation, back in 2008/9, was done.

The main cabinet has gone from ~155 premises passed to having over 330 active lines as of 3 months ago, with more coming online on a weekly basis. It will pass over 500 premises before the BDUK procurement for the area is complete.

Beyond that I can't really comment too much further but I entirely appreciate what you're saying and would agree if it were really that simple but it's not. Even the way BT assess the number of premises passed for viability is a mess though that's more Ofcom's fault than BT.