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.