OK, I am clearly in a minority both in the way I feel about the process and in terms of the availability of BB!!

I am irritated that I have, at the behest of the County Council, spent far too much of my time in drumming up support for a local village report on the needs of the area, when it is/was patently clear that for the money involved it was a non-starter.

I recognise this isn't about deliberately setting out to disenfranchise rural areas, but the end result is the same.

The lack of initiative in terms of non-fibre approaches in the plan is very frustrating.

Its almost as if Fibre is the only solution anyone has considered.

Be honest now, how many of the contributors to this thread DO NOT have decent BB?

In reply to a post by knighton:

Be honest now, how many of the contributors to this thread DO NOT have decent BB?

Guilty as charged - see my sig.

However, whilst agreeing with the others that your getting stuck for the moment with rubbish broadband is because of the way the system has to work with the money available, I also find it hard to believe there couldn't have been a better approach.

Well I'm in the same position as the OP.
Local BDUK roll out maps show two nearest cabinets not in the roll out - this semi-rural area not far from a city.
So no possibility of SFBB before say 2017 to 2020 - if other funding arrives post the end of the BDUK scheme.
Two local cabinets serve around 200 properties each.
(A third one slightly further away is being enabled for SFBB)
Typical speeds for these two cabinets range from 12Mbps down to 2Mbps. I suspect the lower figures are more related to rubbish internal phone house wiring than BT).

In reality the OP needs to consider that in most people's lives SFBB is not really a priority.
They have far more urgent/important things to worry about.
Locally I have communicated the situation around and frankly no one cares - it really is not an issue.
Now start discussing planning/house building - now that really will get people irate.

I'd agree with the other replies. It is all a matter to producing the best overall result and the hard to get to who would consume more of the money are always going to be left out and done last.

A big part of the problem is that DCMS and others keep called the spending a rural broadband programme, so those who know they are rural get excited and upset when they see what they would consider urban people getting a service.

The real only hope is that projects are cheaper to roll-out and can go further for the money they have.

The NAO/PAC stuff this summer did nothing really to progress things, beyond creating headlines and political point scoring.

Its nice to see gold old BT taking all the flack. Yet no one mentions Virgin when they pick and choose the area's they want to invest in.

Times are hard for everyone. Just how many in the new coverage area's will actually take up the service?

Until less than a week ago I had 1.5Mb down, 0.2Mb up. My opinions haven't changed in the past few days.

I should point out that I wasn't disagreeing with you that it sucks, I was just trying to explain a little of the background. I'm sure the project manager and BT have completely different points of view on the matter.

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Dec-13 23:42:55)

your FTTC is already live?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

your FTTC is already live?

It has been since Thursday 5th.

OK, I am clearly in a minority both in the way I feel about the process and in terms of the availability of BB!!

Unfortunately in your county you are in a minority that covers 3% of people. The money will stretch so far - 97% from a council perspective of coverage is very good considering the government target was 90% as mentioned earlier in the thread. Unfortunately you happen to be in the 3% which is very bad for you but someone has to be in that group or coverage would be 100%.

It is unfortunate but it is economics and statistics that are speaking - statistics only ever care about the majority and profits don't care about the individual either.

I also find it hard to believe there couldn't have been a better approach.

Yes, they could have stuck to the (original ?) goal of the USC and not spend money on superfast upgrades other than those necessary to meet the USC, then done more superfast with any money left over. ADSL2+ from street cabs for example is an approach that would favour adequate speeds with wider coverage over fast speeds for the numerical majority.

By putting the emphasis on Superfast they've not addressed many of the notspots / slow spots and used the money to improve the speeds of many who had adequate speeds already.

Politically it may have been wise - more happy voters and bigger percentages to claim.