BDUK Intervention Program Framework Agreements

It is now confirmed that the BDUK Framework agreements have a claw back clause in them,.

Provide a link, else it's rubbish.

He's been told that by Andrew. It's certainly meaningless as it stands.

Yep, I've seen.

As we know, once a troll, always a troll.

You got suspended for doing this under a previous login, not providing links and posting what can be seen as random statements.

A link to the source is polite and is how the Internet operates.

Hi Andrew

Is he the same Bob, that used to troll, mainly about filters & customer wiring ?

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

It is now confirmed that the BDUK Framework agreements have a claw back clause in them,.

Fascinating. Should I ever decide to offer my humble services as a solution to rural broadband provision I shall certainly endeavour to remember this nugget of information.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

It is now confirmed that the BDUK Framework agreements have a claw back clause in them,.

Verification? URL? If not it's just another unverified statement in the same way as the vast majority of your other posts.

Please please, do us all a favour, take a break and get the professional help you appear to need.

But *also* remember to check the actual agreement signed by the local council.

The framework is indeed just that - a framework - and the actual contract may, or may not, remove some parts of the framework, alter them, or add to them. Each county, after all, has its own circumstances.

Claw back is a mandatory EU requirement where public subsidies come into play.This requirement cannot be taken out of the contract.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Claw back is a mandatory EU requirement where public subsidies come into play.This requirement cannot be taken out of the contract.

Are you suggesting that your original post was a waste of everyone's time spent reading & responding?

If they're mandatory, and can't be removed, surely there was no need to confirm their presence?

Actually, it appears to be optional under certain circumstances.

So that post of his is incorrect then.

He seems unwilling to provide information that would allow verification of the opening post as well, wrt to the EU provisions being relevant to all BDUK funding.

I think tbb should introduce a new poster classification, e.g. timewaster, a per post fee being applicable to such and taken by Direct Debit ten days after an email notification of the amount soon after the end of each month.

Any suggestions for the FPP? (Fee Per Post, but I expect other meanings could be assigned - I haven't tried).

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

So that post of his is incorrect then.

In a couple of minor ways, it appears.

On clawback itself:
If the "local body" are using the framework, then the clawback stuff is included. As far as I can make out, it is really associated with recovering subsidies where actual cost is lower than predicted, or if the take-up is higher than projections, or if the network is used for non-broadband stuff (presumably voice or leased-lines?). BDUK recommend that the recovered money is spent on getting broadband deeper in the area - which presumably means it gets spent with the same bidder again!

It doesn't appear (from the framework guidance on clawback) to appear to relate to contract penalties.

The guidance is dated July 2012, so I guess this whole topic is a little late, too.

When isn't it mandatory:
First, the "local body" can be applying for BDUK aid, but not following the framework - in which case BDUK merely recommend that the clawback provisions are included. It isn't clear if the "local body" could be something as large as a county council.

Second, it is seen to be an unnecessary administrative burden on small community projects of under £150k.

All-in-all, I'd say that it sounds fair enough as a clawback, and even useful to the counties. It offers an incentive: If they get take-up higher than projected, they can expand the coverage!

(If you ask me, this aspect is *worth* posting about - and singing & dancing about - but was made invisible by the OP's agenda on only posting news that appears to be bad news to BT, and doing so without links)

He seems unwilling to provide information that would allow verification of the opening post as well, wrt to the EU provisions being relevant to all BDUK funding.

Yes - the whole concept of linking to source information seems to be a standard practice, but alien to the OP. I'm not sure why.

I think tbb should introduce a new poster classification, e.g. timewaster, a per post fee being applicable to such and taken by Direct Debit ten days after an email notification of the amount soon after the end of each month.

Any suggestions for the FPP? (Fee Per Post, but I expect other meanings could be assigned - I haven't tried).

It should be like the electricity DNO's: they'll only start to plan it in when the fee has been paid.

More seriously though, other forums have different solutions to applying "karma", "rep", or "likes" to various posts - and a mechanism to hide the posts that don't get a sufficient level of support. Extending this concept so that threads can't be started until you have a good level of "rep" would be useful.