any hope of general targets review (& reduction)

One or two of the exchanges in my area were set targets for adsl about
18 months or so and are making slow but steady progress.

The recent publication of targets for 2000-odd new exchanges (many of
which had been written off previously as unviable) was accompanied with
the statement (IIRC) that BT could now give targets to these exchanges
because they had changed their funding model and because of falling
equipment costs.

Given this, is it worth pressing BT to review targets of the 'older'
group?
Bob
--
robert w hall

"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:IAOPIDAFKQz$(E-Mail Removed)...
> One or two of the exchanges in my area were set targets for adsl about
> 18 months or so and are making slow but steady progress.
>
> The recent publication of targets for 2000-odd new exchanges (many of
> which had been written off previously as unviable) was accompanied with
> the statement (IIRC) that BT could now give targets to these exchanges
> because they had changed their funding model and because of falling
> equipment costs.
>
> Given this, is it worth pressing BT to review targets of the 'older'
> group?

I don't think you would have much luck.

In June
(http://www.btplc.co.uk/Mediacentre/A...03/nr0324.htm), BT
cut all the "old" exchange triggers by 50 to reflect the falling equipment
costs etc, so in their view its probably already been "done"

Regards
Sunil

In article <bqjeq7$236ji1$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> Given this, is it worth pressing BT to review targets of the 'older'
>> group?
>
>I don't think you would have much luck.
>
>In June
>(http://www.btplc.co.uk/Mediacentre/A...03/nr0324.htm), BT
>cut all the "old" exchange triggers by 50 to reflect the falling equipment
>costs etc, so in their view its probably already been "done"
>
>Regards
>Sunil
>
>
but BT actually rejected some of these exchanges they've now given
targets to as unviable as recently as October.

So
either Section A in BT doesn't know what criteria section B is using,
or
the economics is changing rapidly (best hope :-)
or
the whole exercise is 'a putup job on our noble incredulity'

(I do sometimes cynically suspect the latter - if the 'backhaul' is a
dominant contribution, as some maintain, there should be a greater
spread of the ratio between targets and size of the exchange - as it is
the targets seem to be chosen to be _just_ within grasp...)
Bob

--
robert w hall

"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:YyErkFAtbiz$(E-Mail Removed)...

> but BT actually rejected some of these exchanges they've now given
> targets to as unviable as recently as October.

BT "released" the list of unviable exchanges in October but appear to have
decided which they were in May/June and just sat on the list internally for
a couple of months.

> So
> either Section A in BT doesn't know what criteria section B is using,
> or
> the economics is changing rapidly (best hope :-)
> or
> the whole exercise is 'a putup job on our noble incredulity'
>
> (I do sometimes cynically suspect the latter - if the 'backhaul' is a
> dominant contribution, as some maintain, there should be a greater
> spread of the ratio between targets and size of the exchange - as it is
> the targets seem to be chosen to be _just_ within grasp...)

lol - I think its d

d. i) All the exchanges we worked out before the recent announcement had the
"correct" trigger levels (i.e. ranging from 100/150 upto 700) to reflect the
"true" costs.

ii) To reduce political pressure and complaints about universial coverage we
will just give every exchange apart from the smallest a "average" trigger
and just call it 25% of lines served at the exchange (min 100, max 500)
rounded up/down to a nice figure.

BT thinking that some exchanges will have higher/lower triggers than if we
had done it "properly" but it gives everyone a target and puts the ball in
their court, even if we lose money on some of the exchanges "its worth it"

All of these triggers must be "achieveable" - whether 25% or whatever the
figure is under the old scheme as otherwise they woudn't have been issued -
its "expressing interest not ordering" and "other exchanges have done it"

Regards
Sunil

In article <bqlgjh$22db73$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>
>d. i) All the exchanges we worked out before the recent announcement had the
>"correct" trigger levels (i.e. ranging from 100/150 upto 700) to reflect the
>"true" costs.
>
>ii) To reduce political pressure and complaints about universial coverage we
>will just give every exchange apart from the smallest a "average" trigger
>and just call it 25% of lines served at the exchange (min 100, max 500)
>rounded up/down to a nice figure.

I think we're saying nearly the same thing - ('Either I'm right or
you're right - but whoever's right, the scheme's ropey' Martin Ryle FRS
to unfortunate thicko reseach student, circa 1970)
--
robert w hall