Battisford: Village considers legal action against BT

The village of Battisford, near Stowmarket, has been battling BT for months over the issue.

The parish council, along with local MP David Ruffley, organised a meeting with a BT boss in June to air its concerns.

But now the village is taking its complaints a step further by issuing the company with an ultimatum.

Parish chairman Chris Knock said: �Everyone is very hacked off, it�s a general feeling of disquiet, we have not seen anything positive from BT and we would like to see a positive response to the real issues which exist in the village

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/battisford_village_consid...

Would be interesting to find out more about the lack of emergency call coverage from fixed line telephone.

Core voice services is the only think BT is legally obliged to provide and a 28 Kbps functional Internet access.

Apparently the telephone problems have been on going for years http://battisford.onesuffolk.net/assets/Uploads/Batt...

There are many villages in Suffolk with dial-up speed broadband and useless mobile signals, despite all the first Suffolk Fibre cab switch on in Kesgrave this week. Always was left behind.

what, no Altnets ?

dial-up speed broadband ? Is that what unicorns use.

Quite possibly, though the Unicorns of my old village have got fed up with waiting for BT to get off their backside. You will note that 7Mbps is considered 'Super Fast' in that neck of the woods!
http://www.altonbb.net/

Edited by professor973 (Sat 10-Aug-13 11:22:57)

Is that not why the esteemed Government setup the BDUK and USC - so is this a case that the project has avoided these villages or just not delivering to the time scale?

Labour had promised 2 Mbps for all by 2012 in 2010, Con/LibDem changed that to 2015

Haven't a clue, though the outlook there is bleak whatever the timescale. Last time I visited it was one eighth of the promised 2Mb down the copper. That is typical of how most of Suffolk is always left behind. My Market 1 exchange that serves over 2,500 properties is not even being considered for fibre at the moment, let alone on some distant list. Luckily I am happy enough with my speed, though most that fell for the TT LLU patter are not.

Edited by professor973 (Sat 10-Aug-13 12:30:32)

Does anyone believe the time scale for the USC? As you note it has slipped from 2012 to 2015 officially. In practice, all of the BDUK contracts mean imply that the real deadline now is 2017. Even then, without concrete plans for implementing or enforcing the target the USC has to be regarded as an "aspirational goal" rather than something that anyone might rely on.

The problem in Battisford is similar to that in (probably) hundreds or thousands of village where landline services are erratic, BT Openreach or Wholesale takes an age to fix breakdowns (we have an exchange at which all voice services failed and weren't repaired for 5 days), and eventually residents get fed up with the permanent struggle to maintain basic services. By comparison with, say, electricity distribution BT Openreach seems to be uninterested in looking after its core network. Part of the problem may lie in the division of responsibilities between the different entities within the organisation.

Not having the most advanced technology or fastest speeds is only a small part of the story. Most people who live in small villages are realistic about what can be expected if one chooses to live in a thinly populated rural area. These problems are exacerbated by the incapacity of anyone at BT Retail call centres to record and respond to the fact that there are repeated failures on the same lines. So the time wasted in trying to deal with breakdowns becomes extremely wearing. Nonetheless, I doubt whether a threat of legal action will get them anything other than more promises: for example which bit of BT do they sue?

So the projects that talk of completion by 2016 are lying?

Should the focus be changed from superfast to a basic 2 Mbps for all, no matter what the cost?

Hate to point out, but 5 days for fault fixes is common in the cities. 4 days is the aim for residential, but shorter if you take the paid options for higher care levels.

The question we need to find the answer for, is if BT is so consistently bad at keeping phone lines working and rolling out broadband, why do others not bother to make a killing as people would jump at the chance of a better alternative.

As a nation we have become more reliant on Telco infrastructure, but the race to competition and lower prices has removed slack to cope with the period fault problems

Of course some areas will be completed earlier. But a universal service commitment is everyone everywhere, which is what I was addressing. In fact, given slippage in the overall programme it is quite likely that the earlier deadlines will prove to be somewhat flexible.

My other comment concerned a whole exchange - business and residential - not just individual lines. By any standard that is rather more serious.

I don't know whether it is better to concentrate on meeting the USC or increasing access to SFBB. The decision ought to take account of local circumstances. My point is that a one size fits all approach is hard to justify, especially when implemented by a quasi-monopolist that doesn't hesitate to take advantage of its position.

It isn't obvious that BT is so bad at installing and operating services in general, at least given what we are willing to pay. If the prices were double, then we would have reason to demand higher levels of reliability. However, it is inevitable that they are more interested in urban and suburban areas. Some other countries have a mixed bag of large and small operators, typically with rural areas being served by smaller operators - often cooperatives. Look at the decisions made by Verizon to sell their operations in thinly populated or rural US states.

I am not even too worried about the idea that charges might be higher in areas served by rural operators than in big cities. That reflects the reality that it costs more to serve rural areas. By expecting uniform tariffs we transfer the consequences of the underlying difference in costs from charges to quality of service. Some cross-subsidies may be desirable, even politically essential, but it is better when the trade-offs are transparent.

What we have got is bits of the worst of both models. Little or no operational specialisation or links between costs and service, but equally no true pooling with a real commitment to universal service provision.

In reply to a post by gah789:

The problem in Battisford is similar to that in (probably) hundreds or thousands of village where landline services are erratic, BT Openreach or Wholesale takes an age to fix breakdowns (we have an exchange at which all voice services failed and weren't repaired for 5 days), and eventually residents get fed up with the permanent struggle to maintain basic services. By comparison with, say, electricity distribution BT Openreach seems to be uninterested in looking after its core network. Part of the problem may lie in the division of responsibilities between the different entities within the organisation.

One major difference is that the electricity supply comes via overhead lines that go directly cross-country while the phone lines are usually in underground ducts running along roads. The joint chambers on these ducts can get water in and finding the fault can involve checking all the chambers on the cable route.

Almost all of our local phone lines are pole mounted - a higher proportion than for our electricity lines. The consequence, of course, is that they get knocked down by falling tree branches.

Nonetheless, phone lines - and especially when carrying DSL signals - are much more vulnerable to water intrusion. Also, safety equipment, etc tends to mean that an electricity supply is either on or off, whereas there can be huge variations in the signal to noise ratio on apparently functioning phone lines.

The problem in Battisford is similar to that in (probably) hundreds or thousands of village where landline services are erratic, BT Openreach or Wholesale takes an age to fix breakdowns (we have an exchange at which all voice services failed and weren't repaired for 5 days),

Where is your proof of the above statement ? The area I cover is large, there are no areas within that where there en masse erratic voice services We have lines round here going 13k, but voice works ???

The mass outage at the exchange, that would be BT Operates issue.

These problems are exacerbated by the incapacity of anyone at BT Retail call centres to record and respond to the fact that there are repeated failures on the same lines.

This is pure fiction, every task an engineer picks up shows a fault history with dates and clear codes on, even showing previous engineers notes if within a couple of months. Faults that repeat more than 3 times are reviewed and dealt with by the Triage team, and are not cleared off until they are satisfied with the Triage skilled engineers work and test results.

In reply to a post by gah789:

Does anyone believe the time scale for the USC?

Well I have seen BDUK project funded cabinets with my own eyes, so some of it is being delivered right now.

How long until the last bit of the latest project ? don't know, but likely to be 2015 or 2016.

A more interesting question (to me) is "what is the plan for those who will not get 2M from the BDUK projects" - satellite vouchers ?

In reply to a post by gah789:

Of course some areas will be completed earlier. But a universal service commitment is everyone everywhere, which is what I was addressing.

This one isn't "everyone everywhere". Blair might have said that in a speech, and it may have been proposed in the Digital Britain Report (or interim version) but it don't survive the Parliamentary process as absolutely everyone anywhere.

Labour's 2010 manifesto is available on line, talking of 90%.

Or indeed what is the plan for the larger number who currently do get >2Mbps but are still anything but superfast yet are not going to get anymore under BDUK because they are not going to be included in the councils' intervention areas from the various maps we have so far seen.

The esteemed politicians thus created the 95% for 2017 target with £250m from Gov and then talk of higher coverage of superfast in 2018

To quote the manifesto

"We will reach the
long-term vision of superfast
broadband for all through a
public-private partnership
in three stages:
first, giving
virtually every household in the
country a broadband service
of at least two megabytes
per second by 2012;
second,
making possible superfast
broadband for the vast majority
of Britain in partnership
with private operators, with
Government investing over £1
billion in the next seven years;

and lastly reaching the final
ten per cent using satellites and
mobile broadband."

Nice to see their manifesto had a crucial typo in it.

They prefer sound bytes to sound bits

BT should adopt Gigaclear's approach and try and get enough local commitment to make and FTTP solution economically viable. They would probably find it easier than Gigaclear to get enough support.

THat is not normally the case in rural areas. THe lines are normally overhead

Batisford seems strange, If you check the BDUK site it states it is not included in the BDUK program as it has or will be getting FTTC but if you check the BT site it shows no such plan or availability. Possibly the area has slipped through the cracks. Their main problem at present though seems to be with the voice lines

The quality of the BT network in rural Suffolk and Norfolk is generally poor and probably needs replacing

http://www.betterbroadbandsuffolk.com/LineCheck.aspx...

Did you look at the map - dark blue colour indicating late 2013/early 2014.

Where are on the BDUK website (https://www.gov.uk/broadband-delivery-uk) does it have maps down to the village level?

It does not but it has a Post code checker and using IP142LQ and it implies it is a part of the BT commercial rollout but the BT checker thinks otherwise

http://www.betterbroadbandsuffolk.com/LineCheck.aspx...

In which case maybe the problem is what others have said, that the cabinet to premises distance is so long for these properties that commercial FTTC will not deliver superfast.

Therefore they are eligible under the state aid rules. As always a map drawn with solid colour areas there will be devilish details.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

BT should adopt Gigaclear's approach and try and get enough local commitment to make and FTTP solution economically viable. They would probably find it easier than Gigaclear to get enough support.

Trouble is (to play Devil's advocate) that takes time and costs money. It's all part of what erodes the RoI in these areas. Door to door selling, town hall meetings, council meetings, negotiating way leaves with landowners are all painful and annoying. It's far cheaper to go to locations where a cab can be installed and hooked up without all that hassle.

Edited by Andrue (Tue 13-Aug-13 12:28:14)

Yes, its over 2 miles by road from the village to the cabinet (which is already FTTC enabled) so the village would require an alternative option for SFFB

In reply to a post by Ribble:

Yes, its over 2 miles by road from the village to the cabinet (which is already FTTC enabled) so the village would require an alternative option for SFFB

How many properties in the village?

180 according to this . Maybe a few more now

they kinda do that in a low key way on the Openreach when and where site

http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/expression-gen....

They would probably put an axe through the cable, insert a cab and do FTTC. So much cheaper to implement.