Fighting BT Openreach

Dear All,

We are in the midst of what I can only describe as a ongoing problem with BT Openreach to rollout fibre to our area.

We are a group of longterm 1,500 who would like fibre. We have 8 cabinets, one which was planned and is due to go live at the end of this quarter, 4 more which since BT changed the financial rules will go live but not planned and 3 which we may have to fund.

At the minute BT Openreach refuse to move as they say BDUK money should pay for this however the council say that BT should do this.

We already have a local MP involved and everyone is getting as frustrated as I am,

Any thoughts in how to push this along as we seem to be caught in the controversy of politics.

The BDUK money is meant to fund areas that are otherwise "uneconomic". Assuming you're referring to the three cabinets not on Openreach's list (?), these seem to fit squarely into the BDUK category so should be included in the county council's broadband plan.

So I suggest you push the county on this, get your MP to do so too. If they wont include the area then get them to explain why not, after all they work for you, not the other way round.

The cabinets are uneconomical to turn on due to the % of uptake. The problem we have is the Council have told us already that due to the data BT provided it said we would be getting it however BT have updated the details and said this is not the case. Thankfully our Mp and councillors for the area have been rather vocal in telling BT how next to useless they are at the moment. Just wondered if anyone else is stuck in this trap.

It would appear we may be the first area that is staging a fight due to certain comments from BT though I just wonder if they are stirring the pot!

As just as a sub note there isn't enough money in the pot to do all of our area We live in yorkshire so its a shared bid therefore they admit they will miss 2% of the area who will get 2mb or less!

Hi -

We had the same issue - our cab not on rollout at all.

With little effort and the help of our MP, had the cab listed for upgrade in 3 months and installed 6 months later. The rest of the estate that was scheduled for FTTC is still waiting.

Really was not that hard at all - read about it here:

http://www.coton-park-broadband.co.uk/home/latest-ne...

PS We now have an 80/20 PlusNet connection with 5mS Ping and 75/18Mb actual speed.

PPS - We only have 110 properties on our cabinet...

Edited by TechGuyUK (Wed 18-Jul-12 16:15:26)

Why should BT undertake a project that is uneconomic?

They have on obligation to the shareholders to ensure that any investment (of the shareholders money) is undertaken in such a way there is a return on investment within a reasonable time.

As horrible as it sounds i know that Bt should not invest in an uneconomical cabinet thats why we want to start generating demand and getting money off people its just they won't give us the figures with this back and forth between the two groups!

Techguy thats brilliant I'll pass this onto our MP and round the list once I've read into it more a bit later tonight.

As a reference you can read what we are struggling with here!

http://www.fibreformiddleton.org.uk/

A friend of mine lives in LS10 4TG and suffers badly with poor speeds (~1Mb if lucky), I just pointed him towards your website.

UnfortUnately a cab would probably get stolen in Middleton lol.
I'm in rothwell and I've got 80/20

coton park was slightly different as it was reassesed due to proposed eventual new build increasing the commerciallity of cab and therefore met commercial criterai based on that information and was deployed

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

coton park was slightly different as it was reassesed due to proposed eventual new build increasing the commerciallity of cab and therefore met commercial criterai based on that information and was deployed

That's interesting as Openreach claimed in their conversations with us that they don't consider potential new build.

I suspect having Vtesse present was more of a criteria - where did you hear discussion of potential new build as being a part of the criteria? If it's anything like the approach they've been taking in these estates they throw up new PCPs constantly rather than using old ones so new build is potentially not an issue.

In reply to a post by cammyuk81:

Thankfully our Mp and councillors for the area have been rather vocal in telling BT how next to useless they are at the moment.

I hope that isn't the case as OR is now digging their heels in where officals are being obstructive (such as Kensigton adn Chelsea) and being a lot more coperative where councils want to work with them (such as Cromer).

You need to fins someone who can help fight your corner I.e. the demand needed and what it will bring to the area that should help considerably

In reply to a post by cammyuk81:

As horrible as it sounds i know that Bt should not invest in an uneconomical cabinet thats why we want to start generating demand and getting money off people its just they won't give us the figures with this back and forth between the two groups!

Techguy thats brilliant I'll pass this onto our MP and round the list once I've read into it more a bit later tonight.

As a reference you can read what we are struggling with here!

http://www.fibreformiddleton.org.uk/

please click on my current speed test, Im in an area that is to be done but my cab has missed 3 install dates so far.

im not being funny we are a group of 16,000, only a small % will take fibre

Edited by deleted (Tue 21-Aug-12 00:57:10)

In reply to a post by New_Londoner:

The BDUK money is meant to fund areas that are otherwise "uneconomic". Assuming you're referring to the three cabinets not on Openreach's list (?), these seem to fit squarely into the BDUK category so should be included in the county council's broadband plan.

So I suggest you push the county on this, get your MP to do so too. If they wont include the area then get them to explain why not, after all they work for you, not the other way round.

The BDUK money is meant to fund mostly rural cabinets that are not able to become economic regardless of how much demand is generated, not urban cabinets that can become economic once a certain threshold of committed uptake is reached.

Urban cabinets are supposed to become viable through a combination of increased uptake and incremental cost reduction through upgrade of surrounding cabinets and fibre network though there will, of course, be some exceptions.

Those aren't my words, they're the words of a senior BDUK representative.

As far as pushing the county goes I am. I'm pushing them to demand that Openreach re-do their viability checks based on genuine commercial considerations rather than on the assumption that the tax payer will plug the gaps in their urban coverage.

BDUK and other state aid is supposed to be present in cases of genuine market failure, not to offer an incentive for the market to intentionally fail as it knows it can get the tax payer to fund its CapEx.

What private company would turn down an open chequebook, especially when the bill the present at the end has zero granularity and they don't have to present their cost base?

Edited by deleted (Sun 18-Nov-12 12:23:31)

Those may be words of a senior BDUK representative but are wrong

The project target is to go from 66% coverage to 90% coverage, the final 10% getting 2 Mbps or superfast via the smaller RCBF projects.

Now if you look at how much of the UK is rural, you find that only 13% to 20% (Depending on your definition) is rural, so clearly a good number of cabinets that are in non-rural areas are going to be enabled via the scheme.

Not saying it is the right way, just pointing out that is what is happening. We have had ministers talking of USO before, so words from people in projects is not always correct.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Those may be words of a senior BDUK representative but are wrong

The project target is to go from 66% coverage to 90% coverage, the final 10% getting 2 Mbps or superfast via the smaller RCBF projects.

Now if you look at how much of the UK is rural, you find that only 13% to 20% (Depending on your definition) is rural, so clearly a good number of cabinets that are in non-rural areas are going to be enabled via the scheme.

Not saying it is the right way, just pointing out that is what is happening. We have had ministers talking of USO before, so words from people in projects is not always correct.

Andrew, are you saying that the BDUK programme violates state aid rules?

Since when did state aid rules you to target only rural areas? (Birmingham got very fast approval for its in middle of city fibre deployment)

The market has said commercial projects will stop at 66% so the other 34% are market failure, BDUK is aiming at covering 24% of this, some councils are planning to exceed this.

Each local authority has to identify the areas in their area where the market will and wont go. Hence the open market reviews and then consultation

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Since when did state aid rules you to target only rural areas? (Birmingham got very fast approval for its in middle of city fibre deployment)

The market has said commercial projects will stop at 66% so the other 34% are market failure, BDUK is aiming at covering 24% of this, some councils are planning to exceed this.

Each local authority has to identify the areas in their area where the market will and wont go. Hence the open market reviews and then consultation

I didn't say anything about upgrading rural cabinets.

Are Openreach aware they're stopping at the initial phase and 66%?

You must understand that this decision was not taken lightly, however, we have made a commitment to our customers, shareholders and the government to roll-out fibre broadband to 66% of the UK by November 2014. This is a complex and long term project with finite timescales and funding, we have to work within this confinement which ultimately means some areas are deferred. However, we do intend to revisit areas not included in the initial rollout, such as SD/HYWRD, for possible deployment at a later date.
Regards
Tony Franklin
Network Investment Customer Engagement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=LLngsilF0MaD8AdiYb...

Seems not.

You are aware of the 'balancing' tests for state aid that are considered, right?

� Is there a market failure that needs to be corrected?
� Is state aid the appropriate instrument to remedy the problem?
� Does it induce a change of behaviour in the aid recipient?
� Is it proportionate?

It's not really surprising looking at those that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had to go to Brussels to try and bend ears to get the state aid approved.

As far as local authorities identifying where the market will and won't go given BT refuse to provide accurate, granular costings either before or after procurement or their methodology for viability it's largely dependent on their largely unverifiable say-so leaving huge vulnerability to a change in behaviour by the recipient to ensure increased levels of aid and/or profit from such aid.

It's no wonder this project is struggling to get state aid approval.

The joy of trying to fasttrack a scheme that is assuming market failure when if the market were left to its own devices this may all be covered in ten years time. In fact I reckon if Openreach were left to its own devices then by 2017-2018 then would be near to 90% coverage anyway.

EU has the same problems arising for many broadband projects underway and not just in the UK. The broadband market and the fibre one in particular is so new, and costs are coming down every few weeks for kit and hardware, refining deployment methods reducing labour costs. That a project that is non-commercial now may very will be in three years

As for you not talking about rural correct, it was someone elses quote, but I like to remind people that the BDUK project is not just rural.

Seems openreach know all about the stopping at a certain line "finite timescales and funding" so those missed now, might still be on their to-do list to do eventually with their own money.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The joy of trying to fasttrack a scheme that is assuming market failure when if the market were left to its own devices this may all be covered in ten years time. In fact I reckon if Openreach were left to its own devices then by 2017-2018 then would be near to 90% coverage anyway.

EU has the same problems arising for many broadband projects underway and not just in the UK. The broadband market and the fibre one in particular is so new, and costs are coming down every few weeks for kit and hardware, refining deployment methods reducing labour costs. That a project that is non-commercial now may very will be in three years

As for you not talking about rural correct, it was someone elses quote, but I like to remind people that the BDUK project is not just rural.

Seems openreach know all about the stopping at a certain line "finite timescales and funding" so those missed now, might still be on their to-do list to do eventually with their own money.

From my first post, albeit an edit when I realised I wasn't entirely accurate:

The BDUK money is meant to fund mostly rural cabinets that are not able to become economic regardless of how much demand is generated, not urban cabinets that can become economic once a certain threshold of committed uptake is reached.

Urban cabinets are supposed to become viable through a combination of increased uptake and incremental cost reduction through upgrade of surrounding cabinets and fibre network though there will, of course, be some exceptions.

Those aren't my words, they're the words of a senior BDUK representative.

So based on this discussion you're happy to agree that the BDUK programme violates state aid rules as it fails the tests of addressing market failure and changing the behaviour of the recipient?

Pleased you clarified the earlier point that:

The market has said commercial projects will stop at 66% so the other 34% are market failure

What you've said above indicates state aid both addressing a market failure that it isn't evident either exists or needs to be corrected, failing the first of the 'balance' criteria, and you've suggested a change in behaviour being induced by the recipient, failing the third of the criteria.

If you want some more evidence of changing behaviour try this - not my email:

Due to the location of 62 I think we can safely assume due to the previous costings this will be forced to go through BDUK bidding though we are still getting indication from private funding that they are happy to contribute towards the £16,000 that was originally requested by BT for the upgrade,

This now seems to turn into a house lottery not even a postcode lottery. There fore would it be viable to arrange another meeting to discuss how we can move this forward at the moment there is such an air of confusion that I think it would be best to meet face to face to resolve this.

Response from Openreach:

Moving forward the five West Yorkshire councils are running a BDUK procurement process that is due to start in November and will include New Forest Village. We do expect to respond to their tender when they issue them. Because of this, we cannot enter into any negotiations outside of this procurement process and as such your request for a meeting is declined.

Enthusiastically agreed to by the partnership director for the area.

The prospect of state aid ensuring that a private company don't want private funding. I'd say that's a pretty big case of altered behaviour, not least because such discussions have been refused as far back as July, well before any procurement process was scheduled to start.

EDIT: I'm waiting on DCMS to confirm whether or not BDUK does preclude discussion on private bids. I've heard nothing indicating that it precludes discussion of private funding prior to the procurement being made, that would be absurd.

Edited by deleted (Sun 18-Nov-12 13:29:28)

"you're happy to agree that the BDUK programme violates state aid rules"

No not happy to be quoted as saying that.

What I am saying is that we are in the position that NO WHERE in the EU has demonstrated market failure for superfast broadband yet, as it has existed for so few years that we do not know exactly where the market will and won't go.

Therefore even the CEF broadband funding is likely to be see same issues as you are now, to the extent that the UK parties are seeing this as a way to fund the final 10%.

If we want to prove beyond any doubt that an area is suffering market failure you need to have finished all commercial roll-outs and have waited a few years. Anything less is fast tracking and runs the risk of the very issues you are talking about.

So you're happy to agree that BDUK violates state aid rules, albeit potentially being given a free pass?

How about the change of behaviour?

I've correspondence from before the local council received notification it would receive BDUK funding and after. Before the partnership director was moderately interested in discussing private funding while afterwards he immediately stopped and requested any further dealings go through the council.

As far as I'm aware 'everyone else is doing it' isn't a legitimate defence of anything.

Without spending a week with a state aid rule lawyer not happy to say that as need to review lots of previous cases to see if they have given approval in similar cases in other areas, in which case there may be no issue.

On the change of behaviour - if BT had announced 75% coverage in 2009 and now scaled it back to 66% yes I would support you, but over a handful of cabinets then don't see the point beyond perhaps bad news creates visitors approach.

I can see the frustrations, but when anything is limited hard choices end up being made and this all too often look arbitrary from the outside, and in a world ruled by a formula in a spreadsheet even more so.

As for the defence thing, see a few projects complaining about state aid delays, and in some cases have heard the commercial bidder has actually started work. Of course the way around this is to only give out small grants which is what Kent County Council and Welsh Assembly have done for a while.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Without spending a week with a state aid rule lawyer not happy to say that as need to review lots of previous cases to see if they have given approval in similar cases in other areas, in which case there may be no issue.

Well it's a very political answer but I'm pleased you took on board the earlier posts and am happy it's not so clear cut.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

On the change of behaviour - if BT had announced 75% coverage in 2009 and now scaled it back to 66% yes I would support you, but over a handful of cabinets then don't see the point beyond perhaps bad news creates visitors approach.

It seems a group-wide policy given both Trevor Higgins and Tony Franklin have said it thus far. As soon as BDUK comes on board Openreach cease their programme of commercial review and refuse to discuss private funding. The actual amount of cabinets it affects will be a bit of a mystery.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I can see the frustrations, but when anything is limited hard choices end up being made and this all too often look arbitrary from the outside, and in a world ruled by a formula in a spreadsheet even more so.

I'm looking forward to seeing how that formula holds up. A spreadsheet is only as good as the data going into it.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

As for the defence thing, see a few projects complaining about state aid delays, and in some cases have heard the commercial bidder has actually started work. Of course the way around this is to only give out small grants which is what Kent County Council and Welsh Assembly have done for a while.

I've some FOIs in place to try and find out what's behind this.

If this ends up being the case:

The main focus for BT was to get BDUK funding for MK which for some reason they thought would be a huge amount. However, the funding is very very small so they appear to have just opted to get on with it. The BDUK funding will cover NGA for some small Exchanges which arn't as urgent because 99% on those exchange must get more than 2-3 Meg anyway.

That's a big no-no.

What are you trying to found out via FOI? That's a bit unnecessary!

You just have to ask?


Regards,

Gareth

In reply to a post by garethr:

What are you trying to found out via FOI? That's a bit unnecessary!

You just have to ask?

Regards,

Gareth

With all due respect if you don't know what I'm trying to find out it seems a bit presumptuous to suggest an FOI is unnecessary.

Do you have anywhere I can see the mapping data for the cabs? Is the Exchange 21CN/NGA enabled?

Have you actually engaged with exec's in BT? Does your council have regular meetings with BT?

We've had an on going problems with them saying things are not viable then (after a lot of [censored] around) suddenly they'll go ok and announce deployment.

We gave up trying to engage directly with them once we knew all the major areas had dates.

Since then they have started to deploy to areas we've been advised over and over were not viable.

But, we are further into the commercial cycle than other areas. So it will look different to whats going in other parts of the country.

Regards,


Gareth

For the avoidance of doubt the BT commercilal rollout will be complete by spring 2014 - it is outside any BDUK monies and no BDUK monies are spent on commercal deployment cabinets -- decisioing on exchanges and then on individual cabs in deployed exchanges are based on a range fo criteria of which prem count is but one -these are appllied consistently

so to suggest that the busiess was waiting for BDUK money rather than deploy is both factually incorrrect as all exchanages and Cabintes are subject to commercial ctieria and even if the exchnage is enabled all cabs in those deployed exchanges are also subject to futher commercial cirterita. (some will pass and be deployed and some may fail and Will not be commercially deployed regardless of premsies on them. Those that fail witll be identied as White under an OMR amd then it is up to the local authority to determine whether those white areas in enabled exchnages will from part of their intervention area which they will procure on. They can only spend money on White arease but it is their decision to determine how much of that white area they choose to spend money on (this may not be the wholse size of the white area)

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

For the avoidance of doubt the BT commercilal rollout will be complete by spring 2014 - it is outside any BDUK monies and no BDUK monies are spent on commercal deployment cabinets -- decisioing on exchanges and then on individual cabs in deployed exchanges are based on a range fo criteria of which prem count is but one -these are appllied consistently

so to suggest that the busiess was waiting for BDUK money rather than deploy is both factually incorrrect as all exchanages and Cabintes are subject to commercial ctieria and even if the exchnage is enabled all cabs in those deployed exchanges are also subject to futher commercial cirterita. (some will pass and be deployed and some may fail and Will not be commercially deployed regardless of premsies on them. Those that fail witll be identied as White under an OMR amd then it is up to the local authority to determine whether those white areas in enabled exchnages will from part of their intervention area which they will procure on. They can only spend money on White arease but it is their decision to determine how much of that white area they choose to spend money on (this may not be the wholse size of the white area)

Totally agree with that. However, some of what I'm talking about predates BDUK.

Things got pretty confusing. There was a lot of left had and right hand disconnect going on.

The lack of transparency from BT has been the main problem all along.

Regards,

Gareth

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

<snip>

You'll forgive me if I don't take this as gospel without knowing who you are and how you can speak with that level of authority on these matters not least because some of your comments are contrary to various statements from Openreach and BT group.

Stating that something is factually incorrect without offering any kind of explanation why it's factually incorrect beyond stating well known information doesn't do anything to make it factually incorrect, sorry.

All that said if you do have all the answers I suspect many of the 24% not considered commercial would love to know how Woburn Sands, complete with at least one cabinet that doesn't even appear to pass 3 figures premises and which required extensive civil engineering work as there was simply no fibre spine available was viable when their own cabinets in some cases a couple of minutes walk from pre-existing fibre going back to already enabled exchanges are not.

Per BDUK Openreach budget based on 20% penetration, meaning even if they covered every premises on the entire Woburn Sands exchange they would be budgeting on 800 subscribers.

Cost base of £694 per customer gives £555,200 - £55,520 per cabinet to spend on the cabinets, power supplies, civil engineering work, complete fibre spine build, exchange build, etc, etc, etc.

Just FYI Openreach are failing cabinets that are 400m of duct from existing fibre builds, on already enabled exchanges, with over 330 lines on them.

So with that in mind I would dearly love to see how an entirely new build with new backhaul fibre from cabinet to exchange and exchange to handover point is cheaper.

Please feel free to frame this in the context ofOpenreach's excess construction charges.

To me Woburn Sands seems like the classic case for BDUK. If you could kindly show me just how exchanges like that and cabinets like the one highlighted hit these 'consistently applied' commercial criteria which presumably don't change if BDUK funding isn't available as you mentioned the business wasn't waiting for it that'd be great.

Thanks!

I think the key is to understand that the 66% coverage figure was never guaranteed to be the 66% most commercially viable cabinets.

Now the normal explanation people like to give, is an Openreach manager or MP goes via the cabinet, some groups have campaigned successfully in the past, which prior to the supplying of data to BDUK/local council might have been easier to do.

I think its less conspiracy, more Openreach is sometimes picking an odd cabinet due to some reason we are not aware of, or it is getting a little understanding of deploying different size cabinets/techniques. Or heaven forbid the person who guards the spreadsheet made a mistake, but once ball was rolling did not stop it.

What we do not know is if openreach set itself regional coverage goals, as am sure if it was been a pure cold and calculating commercial operator, it would have targetted a complete blanket coverage of london, birmingham and manchester first, rather than spread it self out around the counties. Or putting it another way, it may be £x per exchange area, and thus some see more cabs than others, and the situation where two similar cabs only seen one enabled, as one lost the coin toss.

By this stage a cabint is either Commercially viable or within the BDUK sheme. Who ever is running the BDUK scheme should be able to tell you if you are in the assited scheme or not. THey usually go by house number and post ode rather than by cabinet

In reply to a post by garethr:

Do you have anywhere I can see the mapping data for the cabs? Is the Exchange 21CN/NGA enabled?

Have you actually engaged with exec's in BT? Does your council have regular meetings with BT?

We've had an on going problems with them saying things are not viable then (after a lot of [censored] around) suddenly they'll go ok and announce deployment.

Since then they have started to deploy to areas we've been advised over and over were not viable.

But, we are further into the commercial cycle than other areas. So it will look different to whats going in other parts of the country.

Nah none of the above, those are matters for BT.

Just to point out though your comment about the commercial cycle completely undermines the post you were agreeing totally with where he comments on commercial criteria remaining the same throughout and BDUK not being an issue.

Remember saying this, Gareth?

In reply to a post by garethr:

But, there is no other competition in Milton Keynes so the business case is far simpler. The main focus for BT was to get BDUK funding for MK which for some reason they thought would be a huge amount. However, the funding is very very small so they appear to have just opted to get on with it. The BDUK funding will cover NGA for some small Exchanges which arn't as urgent because 99% on those exchange must get more than 2-3 Meg anyway.

Doesn't really go along with agreeing 'totally' with

decisioing on exchanges and then on individual cabs in deployed exchanges are based on a range fo criteria of which prem count is but one -these are appllied consistently

so to suggest that the busiess was waiting for BDUK money rather than deploy is both factually incorrrect as all exchanages and Cabintes are subject to commercial ctieria and even if the exchnage is enabled all cabs in those deployed exchanges are also subject to futher commercial cirterita.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

<Snip>

A far more pragmatic point of view, Andrew, than the post I was responding to and the repeated comments received from Openreach on this matter.

Agreed for the most part too, doesn't mean I'm not going to dangle some rope though.

So I have got this correct - you are wondering why, whilst in a procurement bid, one of the bidders does not want to discuss their prices with you, a third party?

I'm not sure why you need to resort to FOI and to whom? If the area served by this cabinet is included in the Market Review as white then it is up for grabs as part of the procurement. Once any contract is signed then I could understand a FOI request to see the contract.

In reply to a post by Gadget:

So I have got this correct - you are wondering why, whilst in a procurement bid, one of the bidders does not want to discuss their prices with you, a third party?

Procurement hasn't started yet, and we received a price for a cabinet in question months ago which was then withdrawn when BDUK rolled around.

In reply to a post by Gadget:

I'm not sure why you need to resort to FOI and to whom? If the area served by this cabinet is included in the Market Review as white then it is up for grabs as part of the procurement. Once any contract is signed then I could understand a FOI request to see the contract.

Fortunately I neither seek nor require your understanding, however it was to another authority asking if an exchange whose enabling makes no sense received outside subsidy that they were aware of.

EDIT: Just as an aside it isn't like Openreach / BT will be providing per-cabinet pricing to the LA handling the procurement anyway, will they?

Edited by deleted (Sun 18-Nov-12 17:20:28)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Remember saying this, Gareth?

In reply to a post by garethr:

But, there is no other competition in Milton Keynes so the business case is far simpler. The main focus for BT was to get BDUK funding for MK which for some reason they thought would be a huge amount. However, the funding is very very small so they appear to have just opted to get on with it. The BDUK funding will cover NGA for some small Exchanges which arn't as urgent because 99% on those exchange must get more than 2-3 Meg anyway.

Doesn't really go along with agreeing 'totally' with

decisioing on exchanges and then on individual cabs in deployed exchanges are based on a range fo criteria of which prem count is but one -these are appllied consistently

so to suggest that the busiess was waiting for BDUK money rather than deploy is both factually incorrrect as all exchanages and Cabintes are subject to commercial ctieria and even if the exchnage is enabled all cabs in those deployed exchanges are also subject to futher commercial cirterita.

Yeah. I have the attention span of a goldfish and can't remember what we're arguing about now. The order of events are important and the whole situation isn't as simple as people seem to think. BT's position on this has changed significantly.

I'll keep quiet about the area of 5 cabs that went from being commercial un-viable 'it needs BDUK funding blah blah' to the current situation where they are installing FTTP.

Whatever!


Regards,

Gareth

The position with regard to BDUK seems to be they have taken a particular date as to determine whether and exchange or cabinet is commercially viable or not.

My understanding there is provision for BDUK funding clawback when exchanges become commercially viable or cabinets become commercially viable as many will at some time in the future.

In reply to a post by garethr:

Yeah. I have the attention span of a goldfish and can't remember what we're arguing about now. The order of events are important and the whole situation isn't as simple as people seem to think. BT's position on this has changed significantly.

I'll keep quiet about the area of 5 cabs that went from being commercial un-viable 'it needs BDUK funding blah blah' to the current situation where they are installing FTTP.

Whatever!


Regards,

Gareth

You guys have done well in the BT lottery, enjoy!

So bob ALL the local authorities have completed open market review and public consultation phases?

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

The position with regard to BDUK seems to be they have taken a particular date as to determine whether and exchange or cabinet is commercially viable or not.

My understanding there is provision for BDUK funding clawback when exchanges become commercially viable or cabinets become commercially viable as many will at some time in the future.

How exactly Bob do you plan on BDUK clawing funding back from Openreach when they don't know how much a cabinet / exchange cost to enable in the first place nor the algorithms Openreach use to calculate viability?

Rope dangling is always worth a go if you might benefit

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

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

By this stage a cabint is either Commercially viable or within the BDUK sheme. Who ever is running the BDUK scheme should be able to tell you if you are in the assited scheme or not. THey usually go by house number and post ode rather than by cabinet

Nope.

Covering this area speciically is this.

Do read the note on the cover about things being subject to change. It's not in or out until the procurement is complete.

As far as I know yes as if they have not they would be to late for BDUK funding as that information is need to obtain the funding otherwise they are signing a blank cheque

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5555-warwickshire...

So how come Warwickshire and others are still in the Public Consultation Phase which comes after the market review?

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

He would be wasting his time with FOI this would be commercislly confidential information and would not be disclosed even if he made an FOI application as it is excempt

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

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.

I do not have access tothe confidentialinformation. That is betwwen the local BDUK office/County Council & BT. as a part of obtaing public assistance for the non commercial they needto meet EU rules.So you have to demonstrate that the non commercial areas are indeed non commercial. Note these use a set date for this as you cannot keep chasing a moving target. Any that do become commercial will be subject to claw back of the BDUK funding

How many passed 2 years ago?



Regards,

Gareth

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I do not have access tothe confidentialinformation. That is betwwen the local BDUK office/County Council & BT. as a part of obtaing public assistance for the non commercial they needto meet EU rules.So you have to demonstrate that the non commercial areas are indeed non commercial. Note these use a set date for this as you cannot keep chasing a moving target. Any that do become commercial will be subject to claw back of the BDUK funding

Incorrect. You need to demonstrate that the private sector has no plans to enable them. There is no requirement to demonstrate that they are not 'commercially viable' but only that the market won't supply.

I will repeat that BDUK do not and will not have actual specfic costings from BT, nor will any council. They receive a regional statement of costs in total and calculate excess profit based on the BDUK costing model which is, again, not based on specific figures but extrapolation from earlier projects and BT's own commercial rollout.

In reply to a post by garethr:

How many passed 2 years ago?



Regards,

Gareth

No idea for sure. Guesstimate around 200.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I do not have access tothe confidentialinformation. That is betwwen the local BDUK office/County Council & BT. as a part of obtaing public assistance for the non commercial they needto meet EU rules.So you have to demonstrate that the non commercial areas are indeed non commercial. Note these use a set date for this as you cannot keep chasing a moving target. Any that do become commercial will be subject to claw back of the BDUK funding

Hey Bob: Openreach have added the 330 premises cabinet, actually 393, I was discussing earlier on this thread to the commercial roll out.

With all the stuff you've said about how things are set in stone now, etc, how exactly does that work?