There is a difference between fabricated and unforeseen circumstances mean a small percentage shift further away.

I know why so many firms say nothing about things, and also why the council projects are often very tight lipped with roll-out plans.

Obviously having to push a cabinet back down the roll-out list is not good, but with limited resources and fixed budgets and penalties from council projects the remaining commercial cabinets are often going to be the ones slipping.

I agree there is a difference. My issue is not that there has been a delay: any large project will inevitably incur some and this often cannot be laid at the feet of the project team.

However, there is a difference between a project over running and one where the dates seem to be arbitrary. My cabinet has had an estimated end date of December 2014 for several months now. Given that we are only two or three weeks from that completion date, it seems rather shocking that something has happened to cause the date to be put back by one and a half years at this late stage. I would have assumed that the final weeks before going live would be given to testing and quality control, not major works, so it's inconceivable that they would have found something at this stage that would entail the project being put back by such a large span of time. That would more likely have happened earlier in the project cycle. This suggests that it's not an operational issue which has caused the delay, but more a planning one, and that perhaps the original dates were not realistic. I strongly suspect that my cabinet was never truly envisaged as going live this year, except only in a broadest of planning timetables. So this becomes an issue of communication, rather than project deliverables.

Why couldn't BT have been honest about the expected timeframes in the first place, instead of raising expectations to an impossible degree? And if the delay was truly caused by a large minute operational catastrophe, then why not have some means of communicating that? The way it has been done is the issue as far as I'm concerned, as it suggests quite strongly that the dates are guesses at best. And as already mentioned, if some of the dates are simply for show or PR, then it means that none of the dates given can be taken even as an estimate, which in turns raises the question as to why dates are published in the first place. It means that BT loses all credibility with their published data, as everything has to be taken with a large dose of salt. I don't see the point, quite frankly. What do they gain from this? They would have been far better off not promising an imminent delivery at all.

I appreciate that. I was simply responding to the question as to whether I had managed projects before.

Contractual obligations are not the issue here. Communication is. I can think of no conceivable circumstance beyond a natural disaster that would entail a cabinet's go live date being put back by 18 months just before it was due to be switched on. And if I'm wrong in that, then why can't BT publish this? And if I'm right, then I stand by my comments that it shows a cavalier attitude to the impact such a program may have on people. And it puts a question mark against any dates they publish at all.

and you are showing a lack of understanding of my posts, although I can't tell whether it's because you haven't bothered to read them properly or you are simply desperate to make a point.

At no point have I said that BT should keep the public informed about every little event in the project. I really don't know where you get that from. But if you can't see the difference between a minor delay of some weeks or months and effectively shelving the go live for a particular cabinet for more than a year just before the promised delivery date, then I'd say that it's you that's showing a level of immaturity in your understanding and it's a little rich for you to start throwing around allegations of infantile behaviour in your posts.

To try and make it simple enough for even you to understand, if the go live had been put back by, say, three months, I would have found it frustrating but I would also have understood that sometimes things happen. Alternatively, if the go live had never been promised to take place so soon in the first place, then my expectations would not have been raised and I would have been resigned to waiting my turn. However, putting the dates back by such an enormous amount IMO warrants an explanation of some kind. The way I see it, there are only two possibilities: either something fairly catastrophic has happened to the cabinet or linked areas, in which case BT has my sympathy, or the published dates are simply an alternative to leaving the field empty, in which case BT doesn't and my earlier comments stand.

But in both cases the lack of any feedback for such a hefty change has compounded the issue. If the former, then I don't think it too much to ask that BT let people know why they've had to have let them down and I wouldn't think any worse of them for being the victim of circumstance. If the latter, then it's basically an admission that the website is not fit for purpose and the question remains why is it there in the first place?

Get it now?

OK so here is an example.
Ducts found to be blocked - simply job - supposedly

Unfortunately ducts were put in 1950's on unregistered land
Since then boundaries have moved and the ducts now appear to be under a boundary hedge put in by a house owner.
Current owner knows nothing about BT ducts on his property nor did he put the hedge in, nor was he responsible for determining the boundaries....... but is not going to let BT under any circumstances dig up his pristine cut hedge for get at them.

Well that is going to be good for a year of lawyers arguing over it in itself.
and the lawyers will be watching carefully for BT to make even the slightest allegation that the problem is the householder - so BT will say nothing whatsoever.

...and yes I do know of a hedge recently planted directly on top of a BT duct line on private property despite me telling them what they were doing.

either something fairly catastrophic has happened to the cabinet or linked areas,

This often happens. The main culprits being power supply where costs can spiral out of control if the power company claims the need to install a new transformer or blocked ducts where waits often well in excess of three months can be involved due to the necessary notice for road closures or the like.

Just be grateful that you should in due course get faster broadband. For many, both rural and urban, faster broadband is a distant pipe dream.

I CAN understand your frustration. BT were perhaps in error in making any advance notification and instead should perhaps instead hold back any notice until just a few weeks before the go live date. However just think how frustrating it would be to not know what was intended. Judging how much information to give and at what point requires a delicate balance and would no doubt cost more than the present system where a few estimates turn out to be wildly adrift. Personally I think they've got the balance about right but it does require, patience, tolerance and understanding from their potential customers.

Council can put a hold on non emergency roadworks so you can enjoy a new road surface. Have seen this add many months for some cabinets

Or power people have said £15k to connect power now or wait until we do some other work next year and it will be just £4k

Or out of the 58,000 cabs that are live you are in the 2% were original planning got it wrong

Have chased over 100 cabs like this and reasons are varied

More resources from the BT side might help but that makes budgets even harder. The shoestring nature was clear when lots of places slated for FTTP saw the plans dropped

shure

so assumiing your exchange is Hackleton (this is a 742 premise exchange so lucky to be being done at all at that size) and will be a child of a main exchange (proably northampton or somewhere like that)-- i assume it being covered under Northants BDUK -- there are any number of reasons for delay -- my main concern would be how much coverage will actually be deploiyed - so the exchange coud be enabled but your cab not-- suggest you look at your local authority to see if you will even get anyt benefit ? as they are responsblle -- your exchange is probably imiles away from the spine and probably will require extensive civils to ger the the exchange (in KM's), including road work, TMA requiremens , blocks ducts , Civil works blockanes by LA in December, (spine probably got to come from northampton or somewhere line that) - the post suggests you have no understanding of the comliexixty of the programme have not even spoken to the LA who are responsbile for the project -- if i was in that exchange i would be concerned would be how much coverage will actually be deploiyed - so the exchange coud be enabled but your cab not so you could find out you actualy dont get any benefit at all

Edited by deleted (Sat 13-Dec-14 19:53:15)

My contact in Bedford Borough Council has had an email fired at him today asking what this means.

roadworks.org says that BT are doing duct unblocking work in Wilstead on 16th-18th December, I have been told that a duct blockage is the last hold up for Wilstead exchange so this could be the work needed to sort it out.

I take this as a very bad behaviour from BT after the ASA ruling, but I am entirely unsurprised. As BDUK has put cash into getting Wilstead enabled then anything about it should be public knowledge and BT should have a large rocket put up them if they try to hide it.