«

As i have read the last couple of posts, and noticed, for some unknown
reason that some people love BT!

All that profit they have, and all this charginf for line rental AND all
calls made, you would have thought by the amount of money BT make, it would
be one or the other!

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:12:04 +0000 (UTC), "Stuart Turrell"
<stuartturrell@yahooo!!.co.uk> wrote:

>As i have read the last couple of posts, and noticed, for some unknown
>reason that some people love BT!

Not love BT, but appreciate having a good organisation running the
bulk of UK telecoms. From an engineering perspective BT do well.

--
Hiram Hackenbacker

On 19/10/03 8:12 pm, in article bmunm3$o2g$(E-Mail Removed), "Stuart
Turrell" <stuartturrell@yahooo!!.co.uk> wrote:

> As i have read the last couple of posts, and noticed, for some unknown
> reason that some people love BT!
>
> All that profit they have, and all this charginf for line rental AND all
> calls made, you would have thought by the amount of money BT make, it would
> be one or the other!

No, but it is populated by people who think they can get something for
nothing, want billions invested for non-profitable locations, and expect
everyone else to pay.

I don't like BT, but their decision-making is at least consistent and
soundly based. Unpopular I grant you, but it is realistic.

Unlike the people who expect £250,000 spent on a rural exchange for 100
subscribers....

In article <BBB8A9C4.16179%(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham in Melton
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On 19/10/03 8:12 pm, in article bmunm3$o2g$(E-Mail Removed), "Stuart
>Turrell" <stuartturrell@yahooo!!.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I don't like BT, but their decision-making is at least consistent and
>soundly based. Unpopular I grant you, but it is realistic.
>
>Unlike the people who expect £250,000 spent on a rural exchange for 100
>subscribers....
>
No, Graham, as I tried to point to you in another post, we take these
over-stated points to be self-evident.
But it is not easy, on the basis of these considerations, to see why two
such similar communities (Stone/Falfield & Slimbridge/Cambridge), 5
miles apart in a semi-rural area (not the high Cotswolds), one should be
blessed and the other told it can _never_ make it...

It _may_ be down to the 'distance to the nearest node' (since other
things appear equal) but given that both communities are surrounded on 3
sides ( the fourth being the Severn) by communities getting adsl, the
connectivity must be pretty pathological to produce such a result.
(Moreover both groupings are within sight of a very busy part of the
M5, which is I suspect, also now used as a telecomms route).

But you're right, I don't know...
the cure's easy - BT, show us the sums!
Bob
--
robert w hall

Clearly an ADSL enabled person speaking....you all must have such short
memories.


"Graham in Melton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BBB8A9C4.16179%(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 19/10/03 8:12 pm, in article bmunm3$o2g$(E-Mail Removed), "Stuart
> Turrell" <stuartturrell@yahooo!!.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > As i have read the last couple of posts, and noticed, for some unknown
> > reason that some people love BT!
> >
> > All that profit they have, and all this charginf for line rental AND all
> > calls made, you would have thought by the amount of money BT make, it
would
> > be one or the other!
>
> No, but it is populated by people who think they can get something for
> nothing, want billions invested for non-profitable locations, and expect
> everyone else to pay.
>
> I don't like BT, but their decision-making is at least consistent and
> soundly based. Unpopular I grant you, but it is realistic.
>
> Unlike the people who expect £250,000 spent on a rural exchange for 100
> subscribers....
>

"Decal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:bmv13c$8r8$(E-Mail Removed):

> Clearly an ADSL enabled person speaking....you all must have such
> short memories.
>

LOL... i agree.

I think a lot of these people would be bitching at BT if they were in the
same boat. Anyone thinks it's just rural areas that are getting stuffed.
There's lots of areas in big towns too due to unfit lines and the fact is
BT have got to sort out their network if they want to make this broadband
britain.

On 19/10/03 10:39 pm, in article RAZJ4GAHSwk$(E-Mail Removed),
"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]
>>
> But it is not easy, on the basis of these considerations, to see why two
> such similar communities (Stone/Falfield & Slimbridge/Cambridge), 5
> miles apart in a semi-rural area (not the high Cotswolds), one should be
> blessed and the other told it can _never_ make it...

Quite simple - what are apparently "similar communities" are NOT in
telecomms network terms. One can easily be subtended off an existing fibre
ring directly, the other can be two hops remote from the nearest backhaul
node. Just because there is a big exchange are nearby, does not mean that
location is a backhaul node. Big exchanges are for voice - what matters is
the BT Data Network, which does not (always) appear at the same locations.

Have a look at these locations (I don't know them myself) and estimate their
subscriber base .... I suspect they are quite small, so they cannot be used
for subtended fibre routes onward. Also BT have found that the take-up of
capacity in many of their semi-rural nodes has been so poor, that the
probability of a node being subtended off a poor one does not make good
sense.

> It _may_ be down to the 'distance to the nearest node' (since other
> things appear equal) but given that both communities are surrounded on 3
> sides ( the fourth being the Severn) by communities getting adsl, the
> connectivity must be pretty pathological to produce such a result.

Backhaul is certainly a major factor - old rural routes use copper coax
line drivers or old monomode single fibre CMUX systems which cannot be
"pulled out" of existing ducts as the cable would simply disintegrate and
clog it up. So BT have to pull new fibre into a route which (probably) is
very old ductwork, especially if its rural. This will inevitably result in
large amounts of civil works with fairly huge costs to remake the ductwork.
Ergo cost rises dramatically. Plus the minimum costs for as refit of the
exchange - particularly the wiring frame which will need every solder tag
connection replacing with an IDC connection.

> (Moreover both groupings are within sight of a very busy part of the
> M5, which is I suspect, also now used as a telecomms route).

Doubt it - until early/mid 1990's, the Highways agency would not let any
third party use the roadside ductwork for commercial cables. Most of the BT
cable network runs alongside A roads instead. BT generally don¹t use
motorway road and trunk rail routes as they cannot use their code powers
easily.

> But you're right, I don't know...
> the cure's easy - BT, show us the sums!

They could, but all that would achieve is even more furious rows about what
x and y and z should be by people who really aren't qualified (includes me).

On 19/10/03 10:51 pm, in article bmv13c$8r8$(E-Mail Removed), "Decal"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Clearly an ADSL enabled person speaking....you all must have such short
> memories.
>
I was on ISDN for 2 years, been on DSL for 6 months and will be back to
something else in 4 months or so.

Doesn¹t alter the facts though does it ?

Broadband doesn't pay in everywhere - period.

On 19/10/03 11:20 pm, in article
Xns9419ED703BD4Fnospamkthxbyecouk@195.92.193.157, "wayne" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> LOL... i agree.
>
> I think a lot of these people would be bitching at BT if they were in the
> same boat. Anyone thinks it's just rural areas that are getting stuffed.
> There's lots of areas in big towns too due to unfit lines and the fact is
> BT have got to sort out their network if they want to make this broadband
> britain.

Very untrue. Read my last paragraph re urban blackspots - I agree these need
to be fixed, but once they have enabled as many people as possible.

If you are building a house to live in, you don¹t put carpet down until all
the walls, doors, windows and roof is/are on.

BT will enable all the exchanges they can economically, then fix the cable
blackspots, then maybe do the unviable ones.

BT don't want or particularly need a Broadband Britain - that¹s a government
target unless you missed it. BT need to make money, and that means not
wasting funds today wiring up 100 people in a rural hamlet, if the same sum
could enable a dozen exchanges with 12,000 people on it, or even fixing a
few cables.

That¹s not unreasonable is it ?

Nobody has a bottomless pit of money to do everything at one !

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:51:35 +0100, Graham in Melton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>BT don't want or particularly need a Broadband Britain - that¹s a government
>target unless you missed it.

I agree - the people without broadband should take the matter to Bliar
and his Government.

--
Hiram Hackenbacker