The situation with West Chiltington , or at least the part we currently do not cover, is a complex one.
Kijoma had looked at extending service and had mentioned this to those who enquired in the area. From this we stated we would need more demand to make the additional infrastructure expense viable.
The village had put a strong 300 ? or so response into the race to infinity so we knew a lot more than 5 or 6 people needed service. We also noted how much the local politicians all pushed/backed this process.
We tried to engage with the community and were invited to join the community forum by its admin, this we did. However as soon as we joined and posted about the proposal the forum administrator took to making baseless derogatory remarks about Kijoma.
I responded by asking why we had been asked to join the forum only to receive abuse, the net result was all the posts were removed and our account closed by the admin.
A total of 2 posts..
From this as a viewing guest we saw the push for a wireless solution via another provider on the Isle of Wight. This was accompanied by a post by the site admin that stated wrongly that Kijoma had refused to cover the area because it was not viable. 5 enquiries was not viable true, but 20 or more and it would of been.
As there were no more than 5 enquiries for our service we did no pursue expansion into the related area.
As it turned out the IoW solution failed to materialise and most recently FTTC has rolled out out of the public purse , this has left we suspect a lot of properties out of range of this provision. Fortunatrly most of them are already Kijoma customers and have been for many years.
The difficulty here is that if the properties that remain without are only a few and some are also not within our current coverage then adding more coverage is not going to be a viable commercial option.
Kijoma receives no external funding. Investments we make come out of our customers pockets and as such it is our duty to ensure it is spent wisely and ultimately productively.
With reference to "overbuilding" , that seems to be an excuse we have heard many people given recently when it comes to not investing BDUK funds into FTTx in some areas of the county.
Kijoma are often named as active in the area and people are told they cannot overbuild our network.
Perhaps it maybe an idea to ask WSCC why are they spending a inordinate amount of money running FTTP to the exchange areas of Sutton and East Marden when these areas have over 95% take up and 99% coverage from Kijoma and have had since 2005 ?
Perhaps also ask them why they use the excuse above when they have told us in writing that as far as they are concerned Kijoma's service is only "basic" i.e. 2 Mbps and is not considered super fast.
This automatically gives them clearance to finance overbuild, as they have done so already in quite a few areas of the county. If you look at their BDUK spending maps and our coverage map you will see an unsurprising correlation.
No sane and seasoned ISP is going to place long term investment into new service areas in the current climate of BDUK fuelled uncertainty.
Your 3.5 Mbps meets the government objective of 2 Mbps minimum so that box has been ticked.
You made it clear to me back in April 2011 that your service wasn't available to me in West Chiltington. Since then I have been upgraded to FTTC but as I am 2km from the cabinet my speed is only 3.5Mpbs. WSCC tell me that I have two providers to my postcode and they are unable to guarantee any future funding to improve my broadband because it would be considered by the EU to be overbuilding. They don't name you as the other supplier but I can only assume that they must be referring to you. Could you please confirm if you are still unable to supply broadband to West Chiltington. My postcode is RH20 2JX.