BT Slackers

My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband! What is BT`s problem??
You would think they would be pleased for the extra income? Even if it was a
few users! Surly their xxx £££££££ per seconds can cope with the upgrade od
the exchanges?

When we want something we have to wait?! When they want the bill paid they
dont!


Well thats my thoughts?

Would be nice to have it! Roll on SWEB`s connection!!

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:48:38 +0100, "Gwoolie" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband!

Mind you I bet yo have advantages where you live - a much better
quality of life than us city dwellers (who have ADSL).

--
Hiram Hackenbacker

On 19/10/03 5:48 pm, in article bmuf7m$9o7$(E-Mail Removed), "Gwoolie"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband! What is BT`s problem??
> You would think they would be pleased for the extra income? Even if it was a
> few users! Surly their xxx £££££££ per seconds can cope with the upgrade od
> the exchanges?
>
Spot the inflammatory troll..... And for once I'm not going to bite.

What part of that delightful Dorset is being abused ?

Probably one with more sheep than people .....

In article <bmuf7m$9o7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gwoolie
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband! What is BT`s problem??
>You would think they would be pleased for the extra income? Even if it was a
>few users! Surly their xxx £££££££ per seconds can cope with the upgrade od
>the exchanges?

I've read in the last few days (Guardian?, Observer? The Register?) that
BT are pulling up the drawbridge on some of the exchanges with no
targets yet set, saying that these do not have enough subscribers to
make a viable target reachable - the article suggested that this might
be BT fishing for a subsidy.

Certainly their behaviour seems a little wayward - for example, near us,
on the A38 between Bristol & Gloucester, there are several close
villages, grouped into exchanges.
Cambridge, Glos (comprising Cambridge and Slimbridge of WWF fame) has
just made its target of 150, and will get BB this year;
down the road, a similar-size grouping, on Falfield exchange (comprising
Falfield in South Glos., and Stone/Woodford in Glos. proper) has been
recently told it'll never make it - despite the fact that there are
nearly 100 pre-registrations even without a target being set.

I have long suspected that BT do not have a straightforward agenda over
targets & pre-registration...

Bob

--
robert w hall

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:18:50 UTC, Graham in Melton <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> On 19/10/03 5:48 pm, in article bmuf7m$9o7$(E-Mail Removed), "Gwoolie"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband! What is BT`s problem??
> > You would think they would be pleased for the extra income? Even if it was a
> > few users! Surly their xxx œœœœœœœ per seconds can cope with the upgrade od
> > the exchanges?
> >
> Spot the inflammatory troll..... And for once I'm not going to bite.
>
> What part of that delightful Dorset is being abused ?
>
> Probably one with more sheep than people .....

In the OP's case, it's probably the sheep that are being abused!

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...

"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:08PAXDAd2sk$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <bmuf7m$9o7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Gwoolie
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband! What is BT`s
problem??
> >You would think they would be pleased for the extra income? Even if it
was a
> >few users! Surly their xxx £££££££ per seconds can cope with the upgrade
od
> >the exchanges?
>
> I've read in the last few days (Guardian?, Observer? The Register?) that
> BT are pulling up the drawbridge on some of the exchanges with no
> targets yet set, saying that these do not have enough subscribers to
> make a viable target reachable - the article suggested that this might
> be BT fishing for a subsidy.
>
> Certainly their behaviour seems a little wayward - for example, near us,
> on the A38 between Bristol & Gloucester, there are several close
> villages, grouped into exchanges.
> Cambridge, Glos (comprising Cambridge and Slimbridge of WWF fame) has
> just made its target of 150, and will get BB this year;
> down the road, a similar-size grouping, on Falfield exchange (comprising
> Falfield in South Glos., and Stone/Woodford in Glos. proper) has been
> recently told it'll never make it - despite the fact that there are
> nearly 100 pre-registrations even without a target being set.
>
> I have long suspected that BT do not have a straightforward agenda over
> targets & pre-registration...
>
> Bob
>
> --
> robert w hall

On 19/10/03 6:45 pm, in article 08PAXDAd2sk$(E-Mail Removed),
"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have long suspected that BT do not have a straightforward agenda over
> targets & pre-registration...

With the greatest of respect, you and many others really are in no position
to know.

Do you think there is a possibility that people will ever mentally get over
the hurdle, that in life, there are some things that just don¹t pay in ?

I must admit to being sick to death of people who think that just because
there are 100+ subscribers wanting service, that that¹s all that matters.

It isn't.

Would you spend £100,000 to update an exchange when the revenues will amount
to a whole £1,500 per month (which is all BT get) ?

That¹s 60 months of payback if the job were 100% profit, or 600 months if it
were at 10% profit, or 1200 months at 5%. That¹s the payback JUST FOR THE
CAPITAL !

No company is going to spend that sort of money for that sort of return, so
even if you have 400 subscribers, that¹s close to 300 months payback -
minimum !

So if you're on a small exchange on a long bit of old copper from the
nearest node, just think about the reality of your situation.

Those who are near urban exchanges, but cannot get service have every right
to be upset. Those who are rural, really do not.

In article <BBB89347.16160%(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham in Melton
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On 19/10/03 6:45 pm, in article 08PAXDAd2sk$(E-Mail Removed),
>"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I have long suspected that BT do not have a straightforward agenda over
>> targets & pre-registration...
>
>With the greatest of respect, you and many others really are in no position
>to know.

That's OK Graham - we read your last lecture to us all on basic
economics

Not knowing, but suspecting, is the lot of us simple country folk... :-)
We call it as (we think) we see it.
Bob

--
robert w hall

On 19/10/03 7:56 pm, in article 6tvTTHAc5tk$(E-Mail Removed),
"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That's OK Graham - we read your last lecture to us all on basic
> economics
>
> Not knowing, but suspecting, is the lot of us simple country folk... :-)
> We call it as (we think) we see it.

That¹s okay - how many people have signed up to your exchange activation - a
friend of mine helped West Haddon exchange (www.westhaddon.net) to get
enabled via a shared commercial grade satellite connection and we worked on
the business case together.

I am moving more rural than my current home (Melton) well away from BB, and
I already have plans to do a WiFi network in my local area - f**k BT as some
would have it.

In my case, I respect their decision, but will sort myself out ... And
others

"Gwoolie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bmuf7m$9o7$(E-Mail Removed)...
> My area in deepest Dorset STILL cant get broadband! What is BT`s problem??
> You would think they would be pleased for the extra income? Even if it was
a
> few users! Surly their xxx £££££££ per seconds can cope with the upgrade
od
> the exchanges?
>
> When we want something we have to wait?! When they want the bill paid they
> dont!

Firebomb them in to submission ;-)