Q4 Exchanges Actually Delivered

BT again fell well short of target and actually only achived less than 50% of the exchanges that were scheduled for DEC(A small chance a few more may be released before Xmas)

Actual number achieved was a 105 of the 192. BT have consistantly failed to
meet the Quarterly schedules. The actual delivery rate though has been pretty consistant with an average of slightly over 3 exchanges a day so on this basis they Will only deliver about 50% of those on the latest coming soon list

Actual exchanges delivered listed below

SAUID Exchange Name
NSKNC ABERDEEN KINCORTH
NSLNG ABERDEEN LOCHNAGAR
NSNTH ABERDEEN NORTH
NSPRT ABERDEEN PORTLETHEN
NSWES ABERDEEN WEST
LVAIN AINTREE
ESALL ALLOA
ESARB ARBROATH
WSARD ARDROSSAN- SALTCOATS
MRARD ARDWICK
SLARM ARMTHORPE
SSBWD BARNWOOD
LCBAR BARROW-IN-FURNESS
STBSETT BASSETT
NDBEX BEXHILL
NDBHI BIGGIN HILL
CMBIL BILSTON
SDBGNRR BOGNOR REGIS
NEBO BOLDON
LVBOO BOOTLE; MERSEYSIDE
NDBGR BOROUGH GREEN
WWBOSC BOSCASTLE
STBNMTH BOURNEMOUTH
EMBRAUN BRAUNSTONE
CMBYL BRIERLEY HILL
SDKMPTW BRIGHTON KEMPTOWN
EMBULWE BULWELL
EABGY BUNGAY
STBURSN BURSLEDON
WWCAME CAMELFORD
SWCTE CASTLETON, GWENT
LSCHER CHERTSEY
SDCHCHS CHICHESTER
LCCHU CHURCHTOWN
SSCIR CIRENCESTER
SDCSHM COSHAM
EACOS COSTESSEY
SDCWS COWES
MYCSG CROSSGATES
LCDTF DALTON-IN-FURNESS
ESFAI DE- FAIRMUIR DE-
WWDPRT DEVONPORT
MYDEW DEWSBURY
STDORCH DORCHESTER
WSDMS DUMFRIES
ESBAX DUNDEE BAXTER
SDPVNSM EASTBOURNE PEVENSEY MARINA
SSEAV EASTVILLE
MRECC ECCLES
ESABB EDINBURGH ABBEYHILL
ESGRA EDINBURGH GRANTON
ESLEI EDINBURGH LEITH
ESLIB EDINBURGH LIBERTON
ESMOR EDINBURGH MORNINGSIDE
ESNEW EDINBURGH NEWINGTON
ESPOR EDINBURGH PORTOBELLO
ESQUE EDINBURGH SOUTH QUEENSFERRY
ESWHA EDINBURGH WESTER HAILES
LVELL ELLESMERE PORT
SDMSWRT EMSWORTH
LSERI ERITH
WWEXMO EXMOUTH
SDFRHM FAREHAM
SSFGN FARINGDON
STFAWLY FAWLEY
STFERND FERNDOWN
LCFLW FLEETWOOD
SMFK FLITWICK
NDFOL FOLKESTONE
CMFOR FORDHOUSES
NSFRA FRASERBURGH
WSBAR GLASGOW BARRHEAD
WSBEL GLASGOW BELL
WSCAM GLASGOW CAMBUSLANG
WSDOU GLASGOW DOUGLAS
WSIBR GLASGOW IBROX
WSPOL GLASGOW POLLOK
WSSOU GLASGOW SOUTH
WSSPR GLASGOW SPRINGBURN
ESGRB GOREBRIDGE
SDGSPRT GOSPORT
LVGRE GREAT CROSBY
LSGRNH GREENHITHE
WSGRE GREENOCK
WNGRE GRESFORD
SDHVNT HAVANT
SSHEN HENBURY
LCHBK HESKETH BANK
CMHIGW HIGHWAY
LCHIN HINDLEY
CLHOL HOLBORN
THH HOOK
CMHOR HORSELEY FIELDS
MYHLT HUNSLET
EMILKES ILKESTON
MYKEI KEIGHLEY
EMKTTER KETTERING
WSKIL KILMARNOCK
SSKWD KINGSWOOD
ESKIR KIRKCALDY
WWLANR LANREATH
LSLEA LEATHERHEAD
EMCENTL LEICESTER
LCLEI LEIGH; GREATER MANCHESTER
ESLEV LEVEN; FIFE
LCLON LONGRIDGE
CMLYE LYE
STLYMTN LYMINGTON
SLMBY MALTBY
WWMCAN MANACCAN
WWMSMT MAWNAN SMITH
WEWMAY MAYFAIR
SDMDDLT MIDDLETON, WEST SUSSEX
SDMDHRS MIDHURST
WWMITC MITCHELL
EMMONTF MONTFORT
SWMLZ MORRISTON
WSMOT MOTHERWELL
LVMOU MOUNTWOOD
WWMOUS MOUSEHOLE
SSNAH NAILSWORTH
STNEWMN NEW MILTON
SDNWPRT NEWPORT; ISLE OF WHITE
EANCC NORWICH
WWOSTN OTTERHAM
WEWPAD PADDINGTON
NDPWO PADDOCK WOOD
WWPADS PADSTOW
ESPEB PEEBLES
WWPERR PERRANPORTH
SWPN PONTYPRIDD
STPOOLE POOLE
LCPOU POULTON; LANCASHIRE
WWPRAZ PRAZE
NEPH PRUDHOE
MRRAD RADCLIFFE
SWRTH Roath
SDRYD RYDE
NERE RYHOPE
NDSAN SANDWICH
SDSLSY SELSEY
WWSENN SENNEN
EMSLEBY SILEBY
CMSMBK SMALLBROOK
NESS SOUTH SHIELDS
SDSTHWC SOUTHWICK (SOUTH DOWNS)
LCSTA ST ANNE'S
WWSBUR ST BURYAN
WWSMAB ST MABYN
WWSTUD ST TUDY
EMSTBBS ST. BARNABAS
EASFT ST. FAITH
LVSAI ST. HELENS
WWSGEN ST.GENNYS
WWSMER ST.MERRYN
WSIRS STANECASTLE
SDSTYNN STEYNING
NESTO STOKESLEY
NSSVN STONEHAVEN
CMSTB STOURBRIDGE
WSSTN STRATHAVEN
EASUD SUDBURY, SUFFOLK
LSSUN SUNBURY
THTAD TADLEY
WWTEIG TEIGNMOUTH
SSTXY TEWKESBURY
WWTLIZ THE LIZARD
WWTINT TINTAGEL
CMTOL TOLL BAR
SWTDU TONYPANDY
WWTREB TREBETHERICK
WWTREG TREGONY
WWTRES TRESILLIAN
WSTRO TROON
WWWADE WADEBRIDGE
NEW WALLSEND
WWWEEK WEEK ST MARY
WRWKEN WEST KENSINGTON
STWSTBN WESTBOURNE
LCWES WESTHOUGHTON
SSWSM WESTON- SUPER- MARE
WRWHI WHITEHALL
NDWHI WHITSTABLE
SLWHT WHITWELL, DERBYSHIRE
LVWID WIDNES
LCWIG WIGAN
SLWD WOODHOUSE
SLWS WOODSEATS
LCWOR WORKINGTON
WNWX WREXHAM
WNWXN WREXHAM NORTH
WWYEOV YEOVIL

Edited by deleted (Thu 20-Dec-12 10:33:13)

Thank you for posting the info, but may I ask a question?

WSMOT MOTHERWELL

Is my local exchange, and was due to go live December 31st, but the Openreach site now says March next year, it was updated the end of last week I think.

So does your info basically mean that the exchange is ready in itself, but work to activate the FTTC cabinets is not at the required level, hence the slip to March - or could there be loads of other reasons?

THe List just shows the Exchanges BT has completed since the September list. It is basically the difference between the September Live Listing and the DEC LIve listing
.
In practice the dates BT give do not mean much other than they wil work through them in approximate date order. Your exchange seem to be one of the almost 50% that have got pushed out, Generally BT are only completing about 50% of those on the list for a Quarter & that has been happing for a long while.

Bob

You must have some errors in your lists.

Motherwell is NOT shown on the Openreach list as of today at 10.50.

It is not on that list I posted. THe list I posted was the exchanges that went live in Q4
It was on the orginal September listing but was one of the 90 add that got pushed back to March 2013

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

It is not on that list I posted. THe list I posted was the exchanges that went live in Q4

Fortune telling?
Q4 is Jan - Mar.

I don't think that list is correct. My local exchange went live on Tuesday and is missing. It also went from future to live without going though the coming soon stage.

Regards,

Gareth

Yes, and my exchange is on that list but not shown live by Openreach (in fact, it's still listed in the "coming soon" list, latest version).
I get the feeling that the list in the OP is meaningless.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

It is not on that list I posted. THe list I posted was the exchanges that went live in Q4
It was on the orginal September listing but was one of the 90 add that got pushed back to March 2013

WHERE????
do you get the Q4 idea from?

For the umpteenth time we are not yet in Openreach Q4, so if you are comparing exchanges enabled in this quarter with the forecast figure for that then you are talking utter rot!

Q4 is the last quarter of the year. Oct to DEc

It is taken from BT published data.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Q4 is the last quarter of the year. Oct to DEc

Q4 calendar year or financial year? Companies run different financial years. I assume Openreach use a UK tax year and so Q4 FY2012 would be Jan-Mar 2013.

Exactly.

Bob, your list is rubbish. Exmouth is on your list but is still in progress and coming soon. How did you generate this list?

You haven't included any of the exchanges that were scheduled for activation later on but which have been activated early.

For example my exchange, Pagham (SDPGHM), was scheduled for 31st March 2013 but went live in the first few days of Decemeber.

. . . and what about the ones, like Bracknell, that were scheduled for Dec 12, but actually went live in September?

And when was 105 ever less than 50% of 192?

I don't know why you have such a need to keep banging on about this.
You're facts always seem questionable, your maths is worse, and your anti-BT/OR prejudice is shameful.

The thing you seemingly fail to grasp is that the plan is just that. A plan.
You can't accurately plan for collapsed ducts or [censored] minded planners, and nobody expected such prolonged torrential rain.

We, the public, either get the list, which is BT/ORs aspiration, or we get nothing. The only other option would be an excessively pessimistic plan, which would end making it even slower.

There's no conspiracy. No fraud. No incompetence. It's just that stuff happens!

I think you need to be a little more pragmatic, accept the real world for what it is, and be a little patient.
. . . . and practice your maths.

Bob, BT Openreach announcing exchanges as accepting orders,( Actually Delivered )or not will fall into the bowels insignificance very quickly for most connected to some of these exchanges, as some FTTC cabs are enabled some 6-9-12mths after the exchange is announced as AO,& in some circumstances the FTTC cab is removed
So an exchange marked as AO is meaningless , to a hell of a lot of potential customers, It's when is my fttc cab going to be AO that we the customer really need to know, Mind you the majority of info released to the public from BTOR gives off a strong smell of excriment most of the time
But yeah it's not only at exchange level that they are failing to deliver on time, But @FFTC cab level is a lot worse ,which is the point that im trying to make here, wonder how many fftc cabs have been pushed back a further 6-12mths in the past 12mths?

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 20-Dec-12 21:30:32)

Really? Do you have a reference to this publication or is it just as fictional as the lists?

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Q4 is the last quarter of the year. Oct to DEc

You never let a lack of knowledge or facts get in the way of you pretending to know what your are talking about, do you?

In reference to www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Quarterlyresults/Quarterlyresult...:

Fourth quarter and year to 31 March, 2012

So an exchange marked as AO is meaningless , to a hell of a lot of potential customers,

In one sense, tommy45, you'hit the nail on the head here... the number of exchanges "going AO" isn't very meaningful in the big picture. And you get the reason right too - it isn't meaningful for most people individually.

The *only* way it is useful is that it acts as a marker in a marketing sense - it is one of the few ways that the average Joe Public can relate to the telecoms infrastructure (ie the exchange name).

It doesn't help us understand how the project is doing in the grand scheme of things - which is about what number of lines could now choose to order SFBB if they wanted to. For this we want a single number (the number of properties passed) or, at a pinch, the number of cabinets converted.

However, you make the same mistake as Bob_s2 except, where Bob uses the number of exchanges in AO as his indicator, you use the number of delayed cabinets to pick fault with.

Unfortunately, the number of cabinets that have been delayed tells us nothing about the number that have been converted - For example, 10% being delayed looks bad alone, but if 20% extra were converted early then things look better.

Even worse, we are only going by anecdotal evidence on here - how many people have complained. We're too small a dataset to have any meaningful statistical significance.

The only number we've got with any reliability is the number of homes passed, compared with the target numbers. Here's what I can find for those numbers:

2010: July: 1.5 million premises passed, 100,000 per week
2010: October: 3 million premises passed

2011: April: 4 million homes passed, 10,000 cabinets, 400 exchanges
2011: May: Target is 6 million by end 2011
2011: May: Target is now 16 million by end 2015, to complete commercial rollout
2011: June: 5 million premises passed (11 million to go)
2011: June: Passing 80,000 properties per week
2011: October: 6 million homes passed (10 million to go)
2011: October: Target is 10 million by end 2012
2011: October: Target is 16 million, now by end 2014, to complete commercial rollout.

2012: February: 7 million passed (9 million to go)
2012: May: 10 million passed (6 million to go)
2012: September: 11 million passed (5 million to go)
2012: October: 12 million passed (4 million to go)
2012: October: Passing more than 1 million per quarter.
2012: October: Target is 16 million by spring 2014, to complete commercial rollout.
2012: October: Target is 19 million after the current BDUK contract wins, no date.
2012: November: Press releases now refer to 19 million as the "two-thirds" target.

Over the 12 months to October 2012, they went from 6 million lines to 12 million.

In the eighteen months to Spring 2014, if they replicate that rate of progress, they could reach 21 million lines - enough to cope with the commercial rollout (16m) and all the BDUK contracts so far (now more than 19m presumably). Another year, another 6m, would take us well over the BDUK target, and there'd still be a year left after that.

It does seem that they can easily maintain 1 million every quarter. At that rate, they'd be able to reach 25 million by the end of 2015.

One thing of note in the stats above was how things slowed in the Oct-Feb period, and how they accelerated in the Feb-May period. Does that suggest weather hold-ups?

I'm not convinced they can quite keep up the 6m/yr rate - we're getting into the harder rural areas after all. But I don't think that the evidence suggests that we should worry unduly - and that wild speculation about penalty clauses (latching onto one semi-plausible factor) is, right now, just that - wild.

Please guys (not picking on you especially panda)...

In reply to a post by panda:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Q4 is the last quarter of the year. Oct to DEc

You never let a lack of knowledge or facts get in the way of you pretending to know what your are talking about, do you?

In reference to www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Quarterlyresults/Quarterlyresult...:

Fourth quarter and year to 31 March, 2012

Yes, BT refers to Q4 as meaning the end of their financial year - at least when they're talking to financial analysts.

But most people use quarters within the calendar year. And Q4 would indeed be Oct-Dec.

When I used to do planning work within a (big) telco supplier, we'd write plans with months & quarters related to the calendar. Never the financial year - and I couldn't tell you when the financial year ended.

It really doesn't matter if Bob uses Q4 to mean Oct-Dec himself, so long as he isn't confusing the times when BT themselves use Q4 - and they don't tend to do that unless they're talking financials & quarterly results. I happen to think he isn't confusing the dates.

BT always uses their financial year quarters. It would be confusing and even ludicrous if different parts of the business used different terminology for different things.

So when the BT information shows exchanges planned for Q4, they are mean Jan - Mar.
If Bob is translating this as Oct - Dec, it will never be accurate.

I have found that non-UK owned companies tend to use Jan - Mar as Q1 (which matches their financial year) and UK companies use Apr - Jun as Q1.

e.g. Cisco (being a US company) uses Jan - Mar as Q1.

WE dont really know what is going onm at cabinet level as BY stay very quite about that. Exchanges can go live with very few cabinets enabled and there is not even any real information available as to which ones they are even planning to enable,

I dont think you grasp how projects plans work in the real world. THere they are meaningful and they are expected to deliver to plan of face penalty clauses

Q4 is the last Quarter of a year ie Oct to Dec

Rubbish. UK companies at least for non financial planning purposes use the Calander year quarters

Well, at least 4 of the exchanges listed were planned for "Mar-2013" - so they are well in advance of schedule.
(Assuming they are actually released, since they are still listed as coming soon and planned for Mar-2013 - you still haven't provided a reference for your sources: mine are from www.openreach.co.uk).

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I dont think you grasp how projects plans work in the real world. THere they are meaningful and they are expected to deliver to plan of face penalty clauses

I don't think you grasp that this wasn't a project plan. It was just public information. 'Aspirational' as sandacol wrote. You're the one missing the point, banging on about something most people know was never meant to be taken as gospel. Haranguing BTor because you fail to grasp that they never promised us anything.

It's people like you who can't tell the difference between a 'project plan' and a 'public relations marketing release' who cause companies to tone down their PR releases and decline to tell anyone anything.

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

Yes, and my exchange is on that list but not shown live by Openreach (in fact, it's still listed in the "coming soon" list, latest version).
I get the feeling that the list in the OP is meaningless.

In one sense it always was. Certainly in the way Bob is determined to use it. The accuracy is fairly moot. Exchanges will be enabled as/when BT gets around to it. Cabinets will go live at some unknown point after that. No-one has been promised anything so the list is pretty useless either way.

List Updated in Line with Latest BT information . Now a 104 Exchanges

Exchange Name FTTC/P County or Unitary Authority
ABERDEEN KINCORTH FTTC Aberdeen City
ABERDEEN LOCHNAGAR FTTC Aberdeen City
ALLOA FTTC Clackmannanshire
ARDROSSAN- SALTCOATS FTTC North Ayrshire
ARDWICK FTTC Manchester District (B)
ARMTHORPE FTTC/P Doncaster District (B)
BEXHILL FTTC Rother District
BILSTON FTTC City of Wolverhampton District (B)
BOGNOR REGIS FTTC Arun District (B)
BOROUGH GREEN FTTC Tonbridge and Malling District (B)
BOURNE FTTC South Kesteven District
BOURNEMOUTH FTTC/P Bournemouth (B)
BRAUNSTONE FTTC Blaby District
BRIERLEY HILL FTTC Dudley District (B)
BRIGHTON KEMPTOWN FTTC/P The City of Brighton and Hove (B)
BUNGAY FTTC Waveney District
BURSLEDON FTTC Eastleigh District (B)
CASTLETON, GWENT FTTC Casnewydd - Newport
CHERTSEY FTTC Runnymede District (B)
CHICHESTER FTTC Chichester District (B)
CHURCHTOWN FTTC Sefton District (B)
CIRENCESTER FTTC Cotswold District
COSTESSEY FTTC South Norfolk District
COWES FTTC Isle of Wight
CROSSGATES FTTC Leeds District (B)
DEVONPORT FTTC City of Plymouth (B)
DEWSBURY FTTC Kirklees District (B)
DORCHESTER FTTC West Dorset District
DUNSTABLE FTTC South Bedfordshire District
ECCLES FTTC Salford District (B)
ESHER FTTC Elmbridge District (B)
FAREHAM FTTC Fareham District (B)
FLEETWOOD FTTC Wyre District (B)
FLITWICK FTTC Mid Bedfordshire District
FOLKESTONE FTTC/P Shepway District
FORDHOUSES FTTC City of Wolverhampton District (B)
GREAT CROSBY FTTC Sefton District (B)
GREAT YARMOUTH TOWN FTTC Great Yarmouth District (B)
GREENHITHE FTTC Dartford District (B)
GRESFORD FTTC Wrecsam - Wrexham
HAVANT FTTC Havant District (B)
HIGHWAY FTTC Coventry District (B)
HINDLEY FTTC Wigan District (B)
HUNSLET FTTC Leeds District (B)
ILKESTON FTTC Erewash District (B)
KEIGHLEY FTTC Bradford District (B)
KETTERING FTTC Kettering District (B)
KILMARNOCK FTTC East Ayrshire
KINGSWOOD FTTC South Gloucestershire
LANCING FTTC Adur District
LEATHERHEAD FTTC Mole Valley District
LEICESTER FTTC City of Leicester (B)
LEIGH; GREATER MANCHESTER FTTC Wigan District (B)
LOW MOOR FTTC Bradford District (B)
LYMINGTON FTTC New Forest District
MALTBY FTTC/P Rotherham District (B)
MANACCAN FTTC/P Kerrier District
MIDDLETON, WEST SUSSEX FTTC Arun District (B)
MIDHURST FTTC Chichester District (B)
MONTFORT FTTC City of Leicester (B)
MOUNTWOOD FTTC/P Wirral District (B)
MOUSEHOLE FTTC/P Penwith District
NAILSWORTH FTTC Stroud District
NEWPORT; ISLE OF WHITE FTTC Isle of Wight
NORWICH FTTC/P Norwich District (B)
PADDINGTON FTTC City of Westminster London Boro
PADDOCK WOOD FTTC Tunbridge Wells District (B)
PEEBLES FTTC Scottish Borders
PERTH FTTC Perth and Kinross
PONTYPRIDD FTTC Rhondda, Cynon, Taf - Rhondda, Cynon, Taff
POOLE FTTC Poole (B)
PRUDHOE FTTC/P Tynedale District
RADCLIFFE FTTC Bury District (B)
RYHOPE FTTC Sunderland District (B)
SEAHAM FTTC Easington District
SHOREHAM FTTC Adur District
SMALLBROOK FTTC Birmingham District (B)
SOUTH SHIELDS FTTC South Tyneside District (B)
SOUTHWICK (SOUTH DOWNS) FTTC Adur District
ST TUDY FTTC/P North Cornwall District
STOURBRIDGE FTTC Dudley District (B)
STRATHAVEN FTTC South Lanarkshire
SUDBURY, SUFFOLK FTTC Babergh District
SUNBURY FTTC Spelthorne District (B)
TEIGNMOUTH FTTC Teignbridge District
TEWKESBURY FTTC Tewkesbury District (B)
THE LIZARD FTTC/P Kerrier District
TRILLICK FTTC Northern Ireland
WADEBRIDGE FTTC/P North Cornwall District
WALLSEND FTTC North Tyneside District (B)
WEST KENSINGTON FTTC Hammersmith and Fulham London Boro
WESTBOURNE FTTC/P Bournemouth (B)
WESTON- SUPER- MARE FTTC North Somerset
WHITSTABLE FTTC Canterbury District (B)
WHITWELL, DERBYSHIRE FTTC Bolsover District
WIDNES FTTC Halton (B)
WIGAN FTTC Wigan District (B)
WINKFIELD ROW FTTC Bracknell Forest (B)
WOBURN SANDS FTTC/P Milton Keynes (B)
WOODHOUSE FTTC Sheffield District (B)
WORTHING CENTRAL FTTC Worthing District (B)
WREXHAM FTTC Wrecsam - Wrexham
YAXLEY FTTC Huntingdonshire District
YEOVIL FTTC South Somerset District

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

List Updated in Line with Latest BT information .

Can you post a link to the source please?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

List Updated in Line with Latest BT information .

Can you post a link to the source please?

It will be easer to find a picture of pigs flying in formation!

It may be easier to report the post...

actually I think its rural areas that were first.

early rollout was the likes of cornwall, sheringham, rothley and various other village and small town areas.

Now its hitting areas like leics,. derby, nottingham, manchester and outlying suburbs.

This rollout has followed unusual patterns where a big chunk of early enabled areas were not inner cities.

The first 4 exchange areas in leics were villages done 2 years before the first urban exchange in leics.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The *only* way it is useful is that it acts as a marker in a marketing sense - it is one of the few ways that the average Joe Public can relate to the telecoms infrastructure (ie the exchange name).

It doesn't help us understand how the project is doing in the grand scheme of things - which is about what number of lines could now choose to order SFBB if they wanted to. For this we want a single number (the number of properties passed) or, at a pinch, the number of cabinets converted.

However, you make the same mistake as Bob_s2 except, where Bob uses the number of exchanges in AO as his indicator, you use the number of delayed cabinets to pick fault with.

But i feel that the number of cabs on each exchange that is listed as AO should be highlighted within the public domain ,not only exchange level,

You see it as me finding fault with, Where as i see it as it would show a more accurate account of what they are actually achieving Instead of this charade every 3mths of which exchanges are AO That IMO can serve to distort what is really doing on It would be interesting to have data of how many cabs on each exchange are still not AO 3-6mths after the exchanges where AO, Maybe if they did that i wouldn't have an issue with it

tommy I think that would serve no real purpose.

I would agree with you if order checkers gave misleading answers eg. they said exchange is enabled but on order may be rejected if cabinet not. But checkers do check on the cabinet level meaning people can know fairly easily if they enabled or not.

Whether a exchange has 5% or 100% enabled doesnt really serve any useful purpose as available information to the average consumer.

The target for rollout is not a % of exchanges or % of cabinets its % of homes.

Thats a pretty daft comment. THe only thing that is really usefull to the consumer is if they can get FTTC and if not an estimate of when they can get it. The number of home past may be of general interest but thats all.

At present it is pretty much a black art for consumers to find out that information and many checkers are incaurate as well

It really needs one central source of information where a consumer can look up the information

Interestigle the government is trying to get the energy companies to simplify their information but that is knowhere near the mess that FTTC information is

whats inaccurate?

how often does someone get a cabinet checker state they can get FTTC and they cant or vice versa?

How would a % of cabinets passed on a exchange checker help this?

Was no black art for me, the BTw checker combined with the nga email address gave me the info I needed.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 22-Dec-12 15:34:24)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

tommy I think that would serve no real purpose.

I would agree with you if order checkers gave misleading answers eg. they said exchange is enabled but on order may be rejected if cabinet not. But checkers do check on the cabinet level meaning people can know fairly easily if they enabled or not.

Whether a exchange has 5% or 100% enabled doesnt really serve any useful purpose as available information to the average consumer.

The target for rollout is not a % of exchanges or % of cabinets its % of homes.

Well one of the checkers frequenlty seems to display inacurate or no real info @ Cab level this one, For several cabs served by the same exchange it gives generic info, which is inaccurate in part, Also the BT adsl checker gives or has given some questionable results ,so is far from perfect ,

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Can you post a link to the source please?

I think asking for that is the best way of not getting a reply from him,

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Can you post a link to the source please?

I think asking for that is the best way of not getting a reply from him,

That would indicate these lists are false.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Rubbish. UK companies at least for non financial planning purposes use the Calander year quarters

This is from the Openreach "FTTC/FTTP Trialist Working Group. 29th September 2010 ¡V Livemeeting (10.00 to 13:00)" presentation (slide 10) :

FTTC Q3 and Q4 Indicative Exchangerelease plan
�XFurther cabinets will be released on the exchanges already declared RFS but partially complete
�XAn additional 163 exchanges are indicatively planned for delivery in Q3 (by 31stDec 2010) ¡V
�X8 x Q2 rollover, 17 x Phase 4a, 13 x Phase 4b, 106 x Phase 5a, 19 x brought forward from Phase 5b
�XA further 89 exchanges have been loaded into MLC for Q4 (RFS 31STMarch 2011)

Note the bolded Q3 and Q4 dates. Looks very much to me like Openreach use the financial Q's as far as non-financial planning goes.

Just google for "FTTC/FTTP Trialist Working Group" and you will find the document.

Batboy

He doesn't have a link, he has now done the same as I have and taken a copy of the Openreach spreadsheet. Trouble is he is rubbish at comparing the two and cannot even read the info he has posted. See post 4 from me about Motherwell in the OP and his reply that it wasn't in his first list but is still there along with many other errors!! ( just eye ball it and the existing excel file.)

His latest list appears correct according to mine but I haven't compared every exchange.

Mine was a copy on 27th Sep 2012, compared with a copy on 19th Dec 2012. There are 1309 exchanges in total.

I am going to take another copy between Christmas and New Year if there are any additional changes to mark the start of Jan-Mar ( Q4 12/13 year.)

As of 19th Dec the coming soon list has nothing now left in 2012.
158 showing as March 2013 and 75 at June 2013.

IIRC you recently also in effect confirmed his figure of 194 scheduled for the quarter just ending? Which he incorrectly calls Q4, but in any OR documentation will be Q3.

My worries with his 194 for a while have been he always called it Q4, which led me to wonder if he was looking at a doc for OR Q4 and comparing that with the actuals. Seeing as you elsewhere gave that figure for Q3 I reckon we can rest easy that it's just him.

Maybe we don't need to hang or draw him, just quarter him.

thats not a cabinet checker, use the BTw checker or any of the isp checkers.

Roberto

You may like to take a quarter end dated copy of the 'Accepting orders' and 'coming soon' and host them off your useful site as a historical record of what was planned for Jan -Mar (Q4). I don't have anywhere to post my historical files for other to see/use.

That's an idea. I haven't really got the site up to date regarding a number of factors though. Concentration levels are low.

Bib for the final time we are not in yet in Q4 from aon openreach / BT Group perspectve (works to a financial year perspective not a calender persperctivew as do most corporates

Financial Year 12/13

Q1 in April - June 2012
Q2 is July - September 2012
Q3 is October - December 2012
Q4 is January - March 2013

It's all that Rain getting you down, a few sunny days would improve everything!!

Well, rain is water, and water does dilute concentrations, so that follows .

Well, we'll see how many get done by the end of Q4, which is 31/3/2013.

Oh god not more trolling... I'll be so glad when they finished 18 months ahead of schedule just so we don't have to endure any more of your posts (lies) on the subject

How stupid you must feel now when you are bashing BT and actually have your quarters mixed up.

Q4 to BT and Openreach is Jan - March, always is


See p16 for example

http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/indust...

DOH!!!!!!!!

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

Bib for the final time we are not in yet in Q4 from aon openreach / BT Group perspectve (works to a financial year perspective not a calender persperctivew as do most corporates

Financial Year 12/13

Q1 in April - June 2012
Q2 is July - September 2012
Q3 is October - December 2012
Q4 is January - March 2013

As can be seen from BT's Press release of 1 November 12 reporting their 2nd quarter and half year results.

Yet another fail for bob. What a surprise!

Ummm .

"Lie" implies deliberate deceit. I don't think he's guilty of that. Just a complete lack of understanding of the subject, so posting things that many people would take as fact.

The quarter number problem he has is just a further confusing issue. I did try to correct the Subject earlier on. Trying again with this one.

The actual exchange list he gives is fairly accurate according to kitcat, who I expect is right. It's just the irrelevance of that to the progress against percentage of lines, (or possibly population), able to get FTTx that seems to leave him drowning in ignorance.

To continue the metaphor, his bluster is like a drowning man waving his arms and shouting, so going under and swallowing water. Instead of trying to float and grab the hand that is trying to help him.

Am starting to like Bob. he is making me look intelligent . and am not the brightest spark in the fire

As you seem to have great difficulty with this I will spell it out in simple terms. WE are not talinging about the BT financial year but the planning year which ends in December and is Q4.

The 2nd list is accurate. The Original list on the first post was full of inaccuracies with a significant number of Exchanges quoted that are not yet accepting orders. (I gave up checking after the first 8 or 9 incorrect ones).

Clearly you do not understand how companies work. WE are not talking about the financial year.

I am not miixed up but you are. The Financial year end is not the same as the planning year end

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

As you seem to have great difficulty with this I will spell it out in simple terms. WE are not talinging about the BT financial year but the planning year which ends in December and is Q4.

Everyone is except you. And the Openreach planning year ends in March. Re the "WE", you are not the Queen. You are not Royal.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Clearly you do not understand how companies work. WE are not talking about the financial year.

Openreach are. Who are "WE"?

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I am not miixed up but you are. The Financial year end is not the same as the planning year end

Openreach's is.

What I linked to is a planning document albeit from a different year

So you are saying previously they did plan using financial years but just not this year. Honestly Bob, grow some and admit you are wrong, everyone knows it, everyone is laughing

Edited by deleted (Sat 22-Dec-12 22:54:50)

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I am not miixed up but you are. The Financial year end is not the same as the planning year end

It would be very odd, not to say "disastrous", for a company to have a different planning year from its financial year. The whole purpose of business planning is to try to make sure the financial targets in the budget for the financial year are achieved.

Having worked for them for 44 years.
The planing year is April to March, as are all their other yearly things.

It is not a black art to find if your cabinet is live or not.
But does depend on if someone uses an out of date database as cabinet go live can change overnight, as evidenced by the cabinet i am connected to.

Was originally scheduled for 30th Sep 2012, then got changed to 31 Dec 2012, as of Wednesday had slipped to Mar 31st 2013, but on checking tonight shows as being live.

This shows that dates for Cabinets or exchanges slipping for an AO status doesn't mean that it will take another 3 months to do, all it means is that when they do the quarter shift, that cabinet or exchange was not ready that day and would have it's date slip by 3 months on the checkers, even if it would be ready the next day.

Therefore your assertion that very few exchanges will get done between now and end of Dec is really just an assumption based on no idea of what is actually happening re making Exchanges ready.

I will say one thing for Bob. He is consistent in his stupidity.

I do wish my name wasn't Bob .
LOL

What's worse, is he can't see that he's digging a hole that he'll never get out off.

Oneday, he might even come up with a gem, that's 100% correct, but by then, no one will listen to him.

It's not, it's just the abbreviation/nickname that is

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

actually I think its rural areas that were first.

I suspect that the first were more "suburban" than the truly rural. Dense enough to work in, without relying on MDU.

Didn't Mr Saffron post something to the effect that only 10% of the UK counts as rural - or about equivalent to the population served as "market 1".

It just throws me when people use it when criticising him . I have to double-check they do mean him.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Clearly you do not understand how companies work. WE are not talking about the financial year.

You haven't a clue about this as is evidenced by your repeated inaccurate posts in this and other threads. My advice would be to stop posting as your posts are causing more harm than good as they mislead newcomers to this forum who don't know how little you know and have to contribute.

Personally I'd welcome those running this forum removing those posts containing clear innaccuracies so as to prevent newcomers becoming confused. The majority of such posts would undoubtedly be yours, few, if any, of which contain links to verifiable proof of their contents.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

But i feel that the number of cabs on each exchange that is listed as AO should be highlighted within the public domain ,not only exchange level,

Actually, I agree with you. I specifically agree when you want/need to understand *local* progress (and most of Joe Public want to understand only this).

But to understand national progress (which is why Bob started this thread) a summary of cabinets & premises is sufficient. It is certainly sufficient to reach a prognosis for whether the entire project is likely to stand or fail.

i see it as it would show a more accurate account of what they are actually achieving Instead of this charade every 3mths of which exchanges are AO That IMO can serve to distort what is really doing on It would be interesting to have data of how many cabs on each exchange are still not AO 3-6mths after the exchanges where AO, Maybe if they did that i wouldn't have an issue with it

BT don't issue the stats you want, but do issue other stats:
- Exchanges that go AO
- Individual cabinet plans that are obvious when being delayed by 3 months
- National number of properties passed.
- National number of properties being passed per week
- Occasionally, National number of upgraded cabinets

When BT fail to issue the stats you would prefer, you (and Bob) choose to take one of the first two stats - which are both meaningless and easily distortable - and pin your individual complaints on them.

I *agree* with you that both sets of stats are no good. But rather than continue to use them, it is better to look elsewhere...

it would show a more accurate account of what they are actually achieving

What I am saying is that there *are* stats that *do* make sense to show actual national progress. You just need to pay attention to the right things.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Thats a pretty daft comment. THe only thing that is really usefull to the consumer is if they can get FTTC and if not an estimate of when they can get it. The number of home past may be of general interest but thats all.

That's a thoroughly disingenuous thing to say on a thread where you are "reporting" the national progress, and trying to make disparaging comments on the project.

The number of homes passed is an absolutely vital statistic in a discussion on national progress, and when commenting on whether the the project stands a chance of coping with the influx of BDUK exchanges, along with their apparent "penalty clauses".

Funnily enough, whenever someone proves that your "facts" are specious, you try to turn the conversation around. Or ignore it (which I expect is how you will treat this post).

Psst: disingenuous = false, insincere, devious.

bob2 makes me seem clever so let him carry on reporting his [censored]

What a fantastic welcome to the Fibre section of the forum this thread is.

I have to congratulate Bob_s2 on reeling so many into his tri-monthly troll fest yet again.

EDIT: PS half this thread appears to be arguing whether Q4 is referring to calendar or financial year.

Really?!?

Edited by deleted (Sun 23-Dec-12 02:00:02)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

EDIT: PS half this thread appears to be arguing whether Q4 is referring to calendar or financial year.

Well seeing as he continues to criticise the rollout for the current quarter against a list he claims is from Q4, it did seem rather important to clarify which list he actually meant.

That turns out to be the one for Q3, which he continues to argue is really Q4. If he had been in reality comparing the actuals to date with a list for Q4 the thread would be 100% nonsense rather than 85%.

Your post and its necessitated reply do of course add two to the count that worries you .

Better information is available freqently and non-controversially from kitcat in posts such as this one.

I'm pleased to inform you that this list is significantly incorrect. You have numerous exchanges listed here that aren't due until March next year. In a few cases they aren't due until June.

Fear not. You know that we would never mean you

In reply to a post by cartwright33:

I'm pleased to inform you that this list is significantly incorrect.

I'm sure he knows that. But he won't let fact get in the way of a good troll.

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

In reply to a post by cartwright33:

I'm pleased to inform you that this list is significantly incorrect.

I'm sure he knows that. But he won't let fact get in the way of a good troll.

I think the fact that you only cite exchanges is somewhat misleading as to the overall delivery program. Its far worse than it appears.

What they are doing is enabling maybe only 50% of the cabinets in any given exchange. So they essentially take credit i.e. get a tick in the box for an "enabled exchange" .... but as they havent upgraded all the cabinets only 50% of the people will actually benefit.

It looks like they are doing this to hit KPI's and basically following up with another phase where they capture the other 50% at a later date.

Clearly the KPI is flawed and more worryingly they are "way off" their schedule.

Havent they been given a fortune by the goverment i.e. you and I to get all this sorted?

Commercial deployment has a target of only 66% of the UK, which is 66% of UK households, not 66% of exchanges.

The BDUK stuff is only just starting with first cab just before Christmas. The fortune from .gov.uk is a total of £530m if they get all the contracts, and similar amount from county councils, with requirement BT add similar funding.

The two thirds rollout will have spent around £2.5 billion when finished.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Commercial deployment has a target of only 66% of the UK, which is 66% of UK households, not 66% of exchanges.

The BDUK stuff is only just starting with first cab just before Christmas. The fortune from .gov.uk is a total of £530m if they get all the contracts, and similar amount from county councils, with requirement BT add similar funding.

The two thirds rollout will have spent around £2.5 billion when finished.

Just read some earlier posts .... looks rather heated ..... cant tell who is and isnt a good guy there. People trying to act or sound clever .... usually both are short.

Anyway if its 66% of households as opposed to exchanges? ...... good lord they are on a slippery slope then.

And yes it is a fortune. They will garner far more through their re-sale/licenses and ongoing maintenance contracts.

Edited by deleted (Thu 03-Jan-13 13:25:40)

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

I think the fact that you only cite exchanges is somewhat misleading as to the overall delivery program. Its far worse than it appears.

Your first statement is fully accurate. Your second is conjecture, and you are fully welcome on here to express your own opinions.

As you note elsewhere, this discussion has gotten heated - mostly because of previous discussions that have become equally heated. Bob_s2 is of the opinion that BT's project is going badly, and throws the number of exchanges up as evidence (usually only as a number or list, but no link to show where he got the numbers). The source of his/her grievance seems to be that many individual cabinets don't hit their initial targetted dates.

The heat usually comes when other posters show different statistics, and their sources... and I'm part of this second bunch. As someone else points out, we're only feeding the troll - but the only other option is to let the unjustified statistics (often provably wrong) and the consequent unjustified conclusion stand unchallenged.

What they are doing is enabling maybe only 50% of the cabinets in any given exchange.

The figure has been actually more like 80-90% of lines, but what this equates to in percentage of cabinets isn't clear. Some lines on each exchange have no cabinet, and (as yet) have no access to FTTC, which makes a direct comparison hard.

This 80-90% figure tends to match the experience of the exchange areas I've seen installation work take place.

So they essentially take credit i.e. get a tick in the box for an "enabled exchange" .... but as they havent upgraded all the cabinets only 50% of the people will actually benefit.

When the marketing department first announce that an exchange is enabled, there will be very few cabinets ready. BT themselves said that that the exchange will go live when 10 cabinets are ready, but some posters on here say it has happened with fewer.

However it is certain that BT continue to install and activate cabinets in an area well after the initial activation date for the exchange. Some of the cabinets just happen to be later in the same phase, while some are delayed for months - power installation, duct blockages, and roadwork notification delays all play their part in adding delays to any one cabinet, but the global programme carries on unabated while the problems are dealt with. Some cabinets are "in-filled" in later project phases - presumably they were unviable at first, but then become viable.

Anyway, we agree that the announcement of an active exchange is indeed only a marketing-based "tick box" and publicity-generation exercise.

And we definitely agree that it bears no resemblance to the actual progress of the national rollout.

My opinion is that these press releases are the ones that appeal to Joe Public most - because he only cares about *his* broadband connection, and only really knows the town he resides in - probably not always knowing the exchange name, and almost certainly not knowing the cabinet number. An exchange is the most "relatable" bit of information.

It looks like they are doing this to hit KPI's and basically following up with another phase where they capture the other 50% at a later date.

If you think that an announcement of the activation of the exchange is a KPI, or even the key KPI, then you are right.

However, BT also have a tendency to make two other types of press release that show the progress - but these are of interest to telco professionals & politicians more than the man in the street.

These announcements are for the number of premises passed, and for the expected end-date of the rollout.

I tend to follow these numbers...

Clearly the KPI is flawed and more worryingly they are "way off" their schedule.

We know the UK has around 28 million lines, and 26 million premises, of which 2 million are business premises. Very roughly.

BT say they have 80,000 cabinets. So we also have a very rough figure of number of lines, or number of properties, per cabinet.

We know they are targetting somewhere between 16 million and 19 million properties in the rollout so far (16 million commercial, 3 million in BDUK projects won so far, but the latest press releases seem to confuse these numbers a little).

So when BT announce that they have passed 12 million properties, we have an idea about how the rollout is going nationally. When we see them sustain 1 million properties per quarter, and peak higher, we can estimate how they are doing against their end-date. We can see the average number of lines per cabinet, and get a feel for the number of cabinets being converted.

When BT announce that their end-date is a year earlier then planned (end-2014 instead of end-2015), we get a feel that the rollout is indeed "way off chedule", but actually in a good way. When they later announce that the end-date is another 6-9 months earlier (Spring 2014), we get a feel that things are progressing well.

So which KPI gives us the best feel for whether the project is going well or badly?

Havent they been given a fortune by the goverment i.e. you and I to get all this sorted?

In this part of the rollout (ie the commercial rollout to 66% of the population), the money is all from BT - about £2.5 billion. None from the government.

Hidden alongside this rollout is the fact that Northern Ireland and Cornwall have their own projects in place that already make use of public funding - but it is mostly European Union money that has been added there. These have higher coverage targets.

In the next part of the rollout, BDUK funding is meant to take the rest of the UK (on a county-by-county basis) from 66% to 90%, targeting non-commercially-viable areas that are still "reasonably" densely populated (Norfolk, for example, are targetting areas where the density is at least 100 people per square kilometre).

The UK central government funding is over £500 million, and the local councils are meant to add a similar level of funding, then BT (or whoever wins the bid for each county) is meant to top this up too. Some counties are attracting further EU funding too. Presumably this all goes together to create a project of £1.5 billion or so.

The BDUK projects haven't gone too far yet - with North Yorkshire being the only place to have felt the effect, with many exchanges being added to the plans for 2013 and 2014, and 1 new cabinet being unveiled with a fanfare in December. The current targets are for this work (across the UK) to be done by 2015, but there are many counties still to sort out their procurement plans.

There is further money for the "super-connected cities" and there seems to be another £300 million of government funds for future projects that isn't quite announced yet, but the various players talk about it as though it were fact.

The final part of bob_s2's worry (or paranoia) is that the BDUK projects come with penalty clauses, and that this will cause BT to naturally delay the commercial rollout for fear of those penalties. Not that anyone has *seen* a penalty clause yet, nor debated its nature...

If he/she worked for Microsoft, I'd just label it as FUD.

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

Anyway if its 66% of households as opposed to exchanges? ...... good lord they are on a slippery slope then.

Its is indeed 66%, but "of what" is a little unclear. It is usually taken to be "66% of premises" rather than "lines", but isn't always clear whether the premises are restricted to households, or include the business premises too. It could be "66% of population" too.

In the commercial rollout, BT have tended to avoid cabinets in business areas. That is either because they really don't fit the "viability" model, or they are scared that it will disrupt the (highly-priced) leased-line business.

So for me, it all seems to point at being a residential target. i.e. 66% of households.

Of the 66% target (16 million premises), they were at 12 million back in October, and had passed 6 million in the 12 months to that date. Does that imply a slippery slope?

It isn't yet clear how things will go in the BDUK projects. The early counties, the most rural ones, have included some "European Regional Development Fund" (ERDF) money in their project - and this is *meant* to be used specifically *for* small & medium business generation. That must result in the counties requiring SFBB coverage of business premises more than BT have done in the commercial rollout so far.

And yes it is a fortune. They will garner far more through their re-sale/licenses and ongoing maintenance contracts.

The BDUK funding comes with some clawback requirements too. If the funded cabinets attract more business than expected, some of the funding can be clawed back from those areas, and used to fund further expansion instead.

I'm expecting Andrew to ask you if he can pirate most of that as a news article!

A great post .

News? Not really, but perhaps a good summary of old news.

They are though accurate unlike most of your and others who dont lioke it being highlighterd that BT are missing there own targets It may be embarrsing to you and BT but it is as accurate as the BT data is. THey completed a 105 exchanges against a schedule of 192 for the quartewr. What bit of that do you have difficulty with.

Do you not unnderstand that a 105 is far less than a 192?

Not really only accountants tend to work to tax years. Most others work to calander years. A few companies confue things by have a finacial year from Jan to Dec when the tax year is april to march

It is a black art. Relying on out of date data which will be inaccurate and do you seriously expect the average punter to know that.

THe average person trying to extablish whether they can get BT Infinity faces a barrage of confusing and disjointed and inconsistant information

You are confused a cabinet is not an exchange.

Don't think any stat there was a surprise to me (but did speed read it).

At the end of the day, all that matters to an individual is their personal situation, hence why some in the final 10% are deciding to go the DIY route, as they have no faith in any decent solution appearing.

Thoroughly agree.

Here's hoping that the information coming out of the councils about the progress of their BDUK projects is better for both the man in the street (who cares about 1 connection) and the commentators (who care about whole communities).

So do you have any evidence for your rambling? Something which you can post a link to?
Thought so. You are the only one who keep claiming to have the absolute truth, and ignore any evidence people have been posting.
I know I'm feeding the troll, but need to point out to people who may not realise that all thesew posts are just pulled out of a hat, and not a very good hat at that.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

THe average person trying to extablish whether they can get BT Infinity faces a barrage of confusing and disjointed and inconsistant information

Particularly if they come to these forums and have the misfortune to read any of your posts.

You continue to completely and irrationally ignore the fact that the rate of homes passed far exceeds the original schedule, and the date for completion of the original target has come forward substantially at least twice.

The number of exchanges at any given point in time is irrelevant. As is the number of cabinets. The number of premises with access available is what Openreach target. Exchange and cabinet estimates are a mere guide culled from ongoing schedules drawn from a complex plan with multiple contingency paths.

That complexity is clearly far beyond your intellectual capacity to comprehend.

Acrostic from your nick:-

Bluster
Overrides
Brightness
_underlining
S2pidity

But Robertos, the thread did make me LOL !

therefore it has SOME value...... (but no value in trying to determine how well BT are doing.. haha)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Acrostic from your nick:-

Bluster
Overrides
Brightness
_underlining
S2pidity

Roberto I'm astonished at you. Surely you don't need to use this form of argument.
Apologise to "S2pidity" at once!

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

Roberto I'm astonished at you.

I do apologise - for having to use American pronunciation on the last line of the acrostic. As in S2 = Stwo giving Stoo.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

I think the fact that you only cite exchanges is somewhat misleading as to the overall delivery program. Its far worse than it appears.

Your first statement is fully accurate. Your second is conjecture, and you are fully welcome on here to express your own opinions.

As you note elsewhere, this discussion has gotten heated - mostly because of previous discussions that have become equally heated. Bob_s2 is of the opinion that BT's project is going badly, and throws the number of exchanges up as evidence (usually only as a number or list, but no link to show where he got the numbers). The source of his/her grievance seems to be that many individual cabinets don't hit their initial targetted dates.

The heat usually comes when other posters show different statistics, and their sources... and I'm part of this second bunch. As someone else points out, we're only feeding the troll - but the only other option is to let the unjustified statistics (often provably wrong) and the consequent unjustified conclusion stand unchallenged.

What they are doing is enabling maybe only 50% of the cabinets in any given exchange.

The figure has been actually more like 80-90% of lines, but what this equates to in percentage of cabinets isn't clear. Some lines on each exchange have no cabinet, and (as yet) have no access to FTTC, which makes a direct comparison hard.

This 80-90% figure tends to match the experience of the exchange areas I've seen installation work take place.

So they essentially take credit i.e. get a tick in the box for an "enabled exchange" .... but as they havent upgraded all the cabinets only 50% of the people will actually benefit.

When the marketing department first announce that an exchange is enabled, there will be very few cabinets ready. BT themselves said that that the exchange will go live when 10 cabinets are ready, but some posters on here say it has happened with fewer.

However it is certain that BT continue to install and activate cabinets in an area well after the initial activation date for the exchange. Some of the cabinets just happen to be later in the same phase, while some are delayed for months - power installation, duct blockages, and roadwork notification delays all play their part in adding delays to any one cabinet, but the global programme carries on unabated while the problems are dealt with. Some cabinets are "in-filled" in later project phases - presumably they were unviable at first, but then become viable.

Anyway, we agree that the announcement of an active exchange is indeed only a marketing-based "tick box" and publicity-generation exercise.

And we definitely agree that it bears no resemblance to the actual progress of the national rollout.

My opinion is that these press releases are the ones that appeal to Joe Public most - because he only cares about *his* broadband connection, and only really knows the town he resides in - probably not always knowing the exchange name, and almost certainly not knowing the cabinet number. An exchange is the most "relatable" bit of information.

It looks like they are doing this to hit KPI's and basically following up with another phase where they capture the other 50% at a later date.

If you think that an announcement of the activation of the exchange is a KPI, or even the key KPI, then you are right.

However, BT also have a tendency to make two other types of press release that show the progress - but these are of interest to telco professionals & politicians more than the man in the street.

These announcements are for the number of premises passed, and for the expected end-date of the rollout.

I tend to follow these numbers...

Clearly the KPI is flawed and more worryingly they are "way off" their schedule.

We know the UK has around 28 million lines, and 26 million premises, of which 2 million are business premises. Very roughly.

BT say they have 80,000 cabinets. So we also have a very rough figure of number of lines, or number of properties, per cabinet.

We know they are targetting somewhere between 16 million and 19 million properties in the rollout so far (16 million commercial, 3 million in BDUK projects won so far, but the latest press releases seem to confuse these numbers a little).

So when BT announce that they have passed 12 million properties, we have an idea about how the rollout is going nationally. When we see them sustain 1 million properties per quarter, and peak higher, we can estimate how they are doing against their end-date. We can see the average number of lines per cabinet, and get a feel for the number of cabinets being converted.

When BT announce that their end-date is a year earlier then planned (end-2014 instead of end-2015), we get a feel that the rollout is indeed "way off chedule", but actually in a good way. When they later announce that the end-date is another 6-9 months earlier (Spring 2014), we get a feel that things are progressing well.

So which KPI gives us the best feel for whether the project is going well or badly?

Havent they been given a fortune by the goverment i.e. you and I to get all this sorted?

In this part of the rollout (ie the commercial rollout to 66% of the population), the money is all from BT - about £2.5 billion. None from the government.

Hidden alongside this rollout is the fact that Northern Ireland and Cornwall have their own projects in place that already make use of public funding - but it is mostly European Union money that has been added there. These have higher coverage targets.

In the next part of the rollout, BDUK funding is meant to take the rest of the UK (on a county-by-county basis) from 66% to 90%, targeting non-commercially-viable areas that are still "reasonably" densely populated (Norfolk, for example, are targetting areas where the density is at least 100 people per square kilometre).

The UK central government funding is over £500 million, and the local councils are meant to add a similar level of funding, then BT (or whoever wins the bid for each county) is meant to top this up too. Some counties are attracting further EU funding too. Presumably this all goes together to create a project of £1.5 billion or so.

The BDUK projects haven't gone too far yet - with North Yorkshire being the only place to have felt the effect, with many exchanges being added to the plans for 2013 and 2014, and 1 new cabinet being unveiled with a fanfare in December. The current targets are for this work (across the UK) to be done by 2015, but there are many counties still to sort out their procurement plans.

There is further money for the "super-connected cities" and there seems to be another £300 million of government funds for future projects that isn't quite announced yet, but the various players talk about it as though it were fact.

The final part of bob_s2's worry (or paranoia) is that the BDUK projects come with penalty clauses, and that this will cause BT to naturally delay the commercial rollout for fear of those penalties. Not that anyone has *seen* a penalty clause yet, nor debated its nature...

If he/she worked for Microsoft, I'd just label it as FUD.

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

Anyway if its 66% of households as opposed to exchanges? ...... good lord they are on a slippery slope then.

Its is indeed 66%, but "of what" is a little unclear. It is usually taken to be "66% of premises" rather than "lines", but isn't always clear whether the premises are restricted to households, or include the business premises too. It could be "66% of population" too.

In the commercial rollout, BT have tended to avoid cabinets in business areas. That is either because they really don't fit the "viability" model, or they are scared that it will disrupt the (highly-priced) leased-line business.

So for me, it all seems to point at being a residential target. i.e. 66% of households.

Of the 66% target (16 million premises), they were at 12 million back in October, and had passed 6 million in the 12 months to that date. Does that imply a slippery slope?

It isn't yet clear how things will go in the BDUK projects. The early counties, the most rural ones, have included some "European Regional Development Fund" (ERDF) money in their project - and this is *meant* to be used specifically *for* small & medium business generation. That must result in the counties requiring SFBB coverage of business premises more than BT have done in the commercial rollout so far.

And yes it is a fortune. They will garner far more through their re-sale/licenses and ongoing maintenance contracts.

The BDUK funding comes with some clawback requirements too. If the funded cabinets attract more business than expected, some of the funding can be clawed back from those areas, and used to fund further expansion instead.

Clearly you have been doing your homework on the topic. Might I ask if you are in an enabled exchange and your cabinet has been upgraded?

I suppose I should have broadened my statement on the "fortune" but you clearly have an appreciation of what I would have covered anyway. Yes BT will be investing alot but there is a reason for the investment and BT will make "alot" of money from a pot investment which is not 100% BT's.

I do find the reporting of % complete highly misleading and imho a deliberate smoke and mirrors approach. I have asked BT Outreach to provide me with the % enabled purely on my exchange. I doubt they will give me a clear and honest answer but I will come back with their resonse .... assuming I get one.

Please advise how you determined the 80-90% figure. Certainly from my experience there isnt a single person I know in the area that can get FTTS. Of course I dont know "everyone" but I am reasonably well networked in the community and have also tried various postcodes and addresses through infinity line checker etc

P.S. I am sure you all use this but just incase you havent here is the link for the echange updates.

http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/super-...

Was there any need whatsoever to quote the whole of WWWombat's post, in fact any of it?

Please delete the whole of the quote. We have all read the original, you are not replying to specific points, and it is absolutely clear from the layout of these forums and the post headers to which post you are replying.

Pain! Pain! Pain!

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Was there any need whatsoever to quote the whole of WWWombat's post, in fact any of it?

Please delete the whole of the quote. We have all read the original, you are not replying to specific points, and it is absolutely clear from the layout of these forums and the post headers to which post you are replying.

Pain! Pain! Pain!

Good lord is there any need to spout off like a spoilt child either. There are ways of asking/instructing/guiding.

Just registered and getting into an interesting discussion and then the post police arrive.

I will remove it but be warned your welcome post and conduct is a very poor reflection on this website.

Grow a pair !

Edited by deleted (Thu 03-Jan-13 20:14:49)

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

the post police arrive.

Not really fair to RobertoS who posted what a lot of people would have said.

Unlike many other forum sites, this one has Reply and Quote as separate buttons, and is threaded so you can reply to an individual and not just replying to the thread. Its very like Usenet of old (NNTP) and very unlike any other internet web forum.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

the post police arrive.

Not really fair to RobertoS who posted what a lot of people would have said.

Unlike many other forum sites, this one has Reply and Quote as separate buttons, and is threaded so you can reply to an individual and not just replying to the thread. Its very like Usenet of old (NNTP) and very unlike any other internet web forum.

I would like to think "alot of people" would have taken a far more civil approach albeit the more I read this thread the more I think "gang of bullies".

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

Yes BT will be investing alot but there is a reason for the investment and BT will make "alot" of money from a pot investment which is not 100% BT's.

I do find the reporting of % complete highly misleading and imho a deliberate smoke and mirrors approach. I have asked BT Outreach to provide me with the % enabled purely on my exchange. I doubt they will give me a clear and honest answer but I will come back with their resonse .... assuming I get one.

Please advise how you determined the 80-90% figure. Certainly from my experience there isnt a single person I know in the area that can get FTTS. Of course I dont know "everyone" but I am reasonably well networked in the community and have also tried various postcodes and addresses through infinity line checker etc

Ultimately, BT Group are a business who are entitled to make commercial investments. Without the money invested in the commercial roll-out by BT Group and their City investors, there would be almost no FTTx availability. We would be limited to Virgin Media's cable service for those properties passed by their network, plus the very small amount of availability from niche operators and the very limited (to date) BT roll-out involving public money (especially in Cornwall).


I doubt you'll get a response to your query about your exchange area, as such a figure is volatile and commercially sensitive. BT are not a public body who are required to respond to Freedom of Information requests, and any attempt to get this information from public sector partners using FoI legislation is likely to be rebuffed under the commercial confidentiality exemption.

It is well known that an exchange 'accepting orders' does not necessarily mean FTTx service is available. The intended end-user must be served from a PCP with a live FTTC twin, or be within the active FTTP footprint. Indeed, just because an exchange is live for an ADSL service doesn't mean that it's possible to provide that service on your line - the line may be too long or of too poor quality to work reliably.


I suggest that the average member of the public has no idea about the topology of the BT Openreach network, but will understand the idea of being connected to a particular exchange. They will understand that there's no chance of service unless their exchange is 'accepting orders', and that if they are on an 'accepting orders' exchange, their line must undergo an availability check first.


Once an exchange is 'accepting orders', the underpinnings are in place for subsequent in-fill. There are issues still to be overcome with the BT Openreach system, especially what to do with exchange only lines, and how to maximise the existing FTTC investment via the likely deployment of vectoring and profile 30a. However, there will always be lines where FTTC service cannot be provided, as the distance to the FTTC cabinet is just too long or the metallic path is of too poor quality, and where FTTP is uneconomic to provide even with public subsidy.

I can't see the government imposing a 100% universal service obligation on BT Openreach for FTTx in the foreseeable future. Such an obligation looks impossible until the time when the network is becoming fibre-only. On products where there is a universal service obligation, BT are entitled to pass on a sizeable proportion of construction costs involved.

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Was there any need whatsoever to quote the whole of WWWombat's post, in fact any of it?

Please delete the whole of the quote. We have all read the original, you are not replying to specific points, and it is absolutely clear from the layout of these forums and the post headers to which post you are replying.

Pain! Pain! Pain!

Good lord is there any need to spout off like a spoilt child either. There are ways of asking/instructing/guiding.

Just registered and getting into an interesting discussion and then the post police arrive.

I will remove it but be warned your welcome post and conduct is a very poor reflection on this website.

Grow a pair !

Good lord I didn't expect you to agree to remove that huge unnecessary quote. I look forward to seeing it accomplished .

I doubt I will get a response either like I said before ..... certainly not an accurate one.

Your probably right just the same as they would not be able to do what they are doing without the various additional fundings etc and council/goverement backing. I am sure both are writing down alot of the costs to local authorities where there are significant infrastructre adjustments required.

Yes I am aware of the AO not being a garuntee that you will be getting it but they should make that clearer and in my experience for my area I dont know of anybody that has got it. If they feel it suitable to announce that the exchange is now live then I think they should also announce just how many people in the exchange footprint can and have upgraded,

Like was said before there is alot of anecdotes and conjectures floating around but coming into this this as relatively a green hat I personally only see BT Failure in my circumstances and I am sure there will be more to come.

They may attempt to follow the smoke and mirrors approach but I think and hope joe blogs will become savy and start seeing it for what it is.

Anyway I dont think its worthwhile continuing this discussion. There are clearly some strong opinions (some quite valid I must add) on the topic and I doubt that anything I or any other newly registered user will be able to contribute to this thread without being brow beaten.

Seriously the worst welcome and engagement I have ever had from an online forum. Place needs a personality overhaul.

Thanks to those of you that attempted to inform rather than ridicule. It must take some restraint not to fully follow the pack.

Anyway I wont be back.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

THe average person trying to extablish whether they can get BT Infinity faces a barrage of confusing and disjointed and inconsistant information

Particularly if they come to these forums and have the misfortune to read any of your posts.

The completely daft thing is that on this particular point - one person discovering the time at which they can order FTTC on their line, with reasonable accuracy - I fully agree with Bob.

If your cabinet doesn't go live with the AO date for the full exchange, and you don't know that the checker throws out placeholder dates with abandon (and subsequently abandons them with abandon), you are completely in the dark.

If Bob used this thread to complain about that aspect, I'd agree entirely.

Unfortunately, he uses the problems that happen at an individual line, cabinet & exchange level and tries to extrapolate to a national level... and it just doesn't work.

Awww. Can't you do what you said you would? Delete that stuff earlier?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Awww. Can't you do what you said you would? Delete that stuff earlier?

Your a credit to ...... none!

Leaving the post to remind you of your p1ss poor attitude.

It will very soon sink into deserved obscurity. And in geological time so will we all, with all our deeds, thoughts and words.

In reply to a post by WrathOfKain:

Clearly you have been doing your homework on the topic. Might I ask if you are in an enabled exchange and your cabinet has been upgraded?

I've been through my share of hassles... which is how I learnt half of what I know.

When I first followed the fibre rollout, my exchange wasn't in the plan. It was added fairly early, and was due to be live in October 2010. The cabinets were all in place in September.

The exchange went live in November, and people could order in mid December for an end-December installation date... except for my cabinet. I went through a 2 week period where my predicted date changed 7 times to different placeholders spread everywhere over the coming year. That's on top of the standard rollover of placeholder dates at the end of each quarter.Eventually, after 2 different roadworks that appeared to be related to power supply, the cabinet went live in March (2 days after the placeholder rolled over to say June), and I ordered straight away. Then I endured a set of BT system problems, so installation only happened in June anyway.

It taught me patience, and gave me a feel for how things go wrong - but that it doesn't apply to everyone. The national plan rolls on, even if some cabinets suffer problems, or some subscribers suffer problems.

From the way that line behaved, I learnt about how DLM affects the line because of crosstalk. I learnt about how regrades affect DLM. I learnt about the effect of the 17a profile on lines that sync'ed just below 40Mbps.

Then we moved, which taught me something else. We went to North Yorkshire, and so chose to live in the area of the one exchange that had been converted at the time.

Also at this time, BT inadvertently made a postcode file available, which showed all the covered postcodes at the time. Using data from this, and the "batchgeo.com" website, I learnt how to plot maps that showed how an exchange area was covered. I then wrote a script to suck the speed predictions for each postcode from the BTw DSL checker... and added that information to the maps.

The place we're now living in has an 80/20 sync, but with the speed gradually dropping due to crosstalk effects. That happened largely because I knew how to check.

I've learnt about the likely impact of vectoring to counter the effects of crosstalk. I've unlocked the modem, and learnt what is going on with the statistics. I'm trying to learn how they change on problem lines, in order to help people on here.

So you can take my input as a little of an "I'm alright Jack" style, or as a "Been there, got the T-shirt" deal.

I suppose I should have broadened my statement on the "fortune" but you clearly have an appreciation of what I would have covered anyway. Yes BT will be investing alot but there is a reason for the investment and BT will make "alot" of money from a pot investment which is not 100% BT's.

The viability check that BT applies ensures that they get a return on their investment in "a low double-digit number of years" (their quote), but I've seen this as meaning 12 years somewhere.

I suspect that the way they make use of BDUK funding is to apply just enough extra money (on top of their own) until the cabinet can make a similar rate of return. Or ought to, if the take-up rate is as predicted.

In other words, BT spend the same amount as viable cabinets, and make the same level of profit as viable cabinets.

I do find the reporting of % complete highly misleading and imho a deliberate smoke and mirrors approach. I have asked BT Outreach to provide me with the % enabled purely on my exchange. I doubt they will give me a clear and honest answer but I will come back with their resonse .... assuming I get one.

I doubt you will get a response either, but what "reporting of %" are you talking about? I don't think I've seen BT report in this way, save as the 66% target.

Please advise how you determined the 80-90% figure. Certainly from my experience there isnt a single person I know in the area that can get FTTS. Of course I dont know "everyone" but I am reasonably well networked in the community and have also tried various postcodes and addresses through infinity line checker etc

It is a number that is often reported on here by people who know more than I do.

However, the postcode & cabinet files released by BT (as I mentioned above) help show the coverage (or not) of postcodes, and so help give a feel. They can't tell you density... so you have to apply personal knowledge of a place on top of the raw data.

They feel like reasonable estimates to me. Closer to 80% in some places in Yorkshire, and more likely to be over 90% in places in Surrey, but well over 50% in all the places I tried looking... except not very good coverage in the centre of town (mostly business, I guess).

On top of this, I've seen "local" press releases from BT where they focus on a region or county when exchanges go live, or get added to the plan. In those press releases, the number of properties mentioned are usually of the order of 80% of the total known to be covered by the exchanges (using data from SamKnows).

But remember that the 80-90% isn't a day 1 number. It might take 6-9-12 months to get there.

In reply to a post by David_W:

Ultimately, BT Group are a business who are entitled to make commercial investments. Without the money invested in the commercial roll-out by BT Group and their City investors, there would be almost no FTTx availability.

This is an important factor...

BT's ability to rollout FTTx depends on being able to secure funding from investors, which depends on their confidence to extract a return.

BT extended the original rollout (40% by 2012) to the 66% by 2015 was not just an engineering statement, but one that shows financial confidence too.

That BT were able to cut the rollout time twice doesn't just show that they have the engineering workforce for the job, but also shows that they have been able to pull in the investment funds in a quicker time too.

Some rich people believe in the business plan...

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Its very like Usenet of old (NNTP) and very unlike any other internet web forum.

Actually, this is incorrect.
Usenet of old was completely unthreaded. Threaded newsreader were introduced about 20 years ago.

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Its very like Usenet of old (NNTP) and very unlike any other internet web forum.

Actually, this is incorrect.
Usenet of old was completely unthreaded. Threaded newsreader were introduced about 20 years ago.

That is interesting. I only discovered usenet around 19 years ago with Forte Agent which was always threaded, I never looked into it when using PINE at uni

Well, don't take the "20 years" as an exact number but certainly when "the" newsreader was "rn" there wasn't even any sorting - articles were shown in the order they arrived at the server, which was often the wrong order, i.e. replies arrived before whatever it was being replied to .

Do try to read my post and not try to read Roberts and others BT spin. I have made bno such claim with regard to cabinetts as BT keeps that information largely to them selves. Roberts and others try to divert attention away from BT sailing to met its published schedule by try to deflect it by goiung on aboubt cabinets and homes passsed

I am refereing only to Exachanges. In fact orginally and I have this from BT if they published an Exchange as accepting orders it was there intention that all planned cabinets would also be live by the xcheduled date. Note this did not mean all cabinets would be live by thactual date but by the end of the scheduled date. BT have never as far as I am aware done this though

BT published a list of exchanges for Dec which amounted to a 192. They actually completre a 104.. How many cabinets they enbled I have not a clue. All swe really no is it has to be at least 1. Typically it seems to be around the 50% to 60% of the cabinets included tn the commercial rollout


Now standvy for Robort and othesr BT spin on this failure to meet the date

we all know BT are missing lots of target date's but where this debate has come up is the inaccurate data been posted.

Can I suggest people take a break and consider reading what they are saying to others before pressing the Post button.

Debate is OK, but attacks on each other is not.