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!