How many subscribers on an exchange?

I'm interested in finding out how many bt subscribers there are on one
of my local exchanges to compare with the adsl target that's been set.
Anyone know how to find that out?
(BT operators said phone engineering who said phone sales who said -
'dunno')
Bob

From memory, the exchange in question covers about 4000 adults (aka
voters) and so I reckon there's probably roughly 2000 subscribers.
They've been set a target of 350, which I think is a little onerous (its
equivalent to twice the present country-wide takeup rate?), especially
since 20 or 30% of them may be too far from the exchange.
--
robert w hall

"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JehP8DAWuw4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm interested in finding out how many bt subscribers there are on one
> of my local exchanges to compare with the adsl target that's been set.
> Anyone know how to find that out?

Try asking BT Wholesale - they are the only people who will have accurate
numbers

I have some email addresses somewhere..

> From memory, the exchange in question covers about 4000 adults (aka
> voters) and so I reckon there's probably roughly 2000 subscribers.
> They've been set a target of 350, which I think is a little onerous (its
> equivalent to twice the present country-wide takeup rate?), especially
> since 20 or 30% of them may be too far from the exchange.

350/2000 = 17.5%. If 30% were out of range its 25%

It is more than twice the current national take up rate but 25% is the
average of the latest round of 2300 trigger levels that BT have issued -
hence perfectly "normal" and since lots of other exchanges manage that level
I doubt they would consider it onerous.

Regards
Sunil

In article <brv75g$829oa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:JehP8DAWuw4$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I'm interested in finding out how many bt subscribers there are on one
>> of my local exchanges to compare with the adsl target that's been set.
>> Anyone know how to find that out?
>
>Try asking BT Wholesale - they are the only people who will have accurate
>numbers
>
>I have some email addresses somewhere..

yes please!
>
<snip figures>

>It is more than twice the current national take up rate but 25% is the
>average of the latest round of 2300 trigger levels that BT have issued

which are acknowledged to be quite onerous for many exchanges IIRC
> -
>hence perfectly "normal"
for this latest tranche, perhaps,

but this exchange (Berkeley, Glos) has had its target for some time
so the underlying economics should have moved significantly by now
>and since lots of other exchanges manage that level
>I doubt they would consider it onerous.
>
>Regards
>Sunil
>
>
Hmm, noted (but not completely convinced :-))

But many thanks for your informative post (as usual), Sunil
Bob
--
robert w hall

"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Ftn8QGANjz4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <brv75g$829oa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >
> >"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:JehP8DAWuw4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> I'm interested in finding out how many bt subscribers there are on one
> >> of my local exchanges to compare with the adsl target that's been set.
> >> Anyone know how to find that out?
> >
> >Try asking BT Wholesale - they are the only people who will have accurate
> >numbers
> >
> >I have some email addresses somewhere..
>
> yes please!

Check your email

Regards
Sunil

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:43:41 +0000, robert w hall wrote:

> In article <brv75g$829oa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood

[SNIP]

>
>>It is more than twice the current national take up rate but 25% is the
>>average of the latest round of 2300 trigger levels that BT have issued
>
> which are acknowledged to be quite onerous for many exchanges IIRC

That depends how you look at it. If you consider my neck of the
woods, Tynedale then if you have had a target for some time
consider yourself lucky to begin with. Till th 17th of November
only three exchanges had targets set to begin with. All reached
I might add.

If Stocksfield can manage to get 380 signed up and badger BT
into setting a target (which was 350 in the end) and Wylam can
manage to get the 500 that BT condescended to allocate with
the other 2300 exchanges then you are indeed winging.

The catchment areas of these exchanges are similar in size to
yours. In particular I suspect the Stocksfield exchange is
possibly smaller. Wylam is probably a bit bigger, but with much
of the catchment area to far from the exchange to get broadband.

Interesting question what happens if lots of people who are
down as too far from the exchange register? Will BT throw this
back or do the targets they set allow for this (which might
well be why Wylam seems to high).

Still in Tynedale Riding Mill has 113 registrations and hit
it's target of 100 I might add. Even if *every* number was
allocated there would only be 1000 lines on the exchange. I
doubt the exchange is anywhere near fully allocated on numbers.
So if you estimate 2000 lines then you are below Ridding Mill
even if you work on the presumption that the exchange at Ridding
Mill is maximally occupied.

All the failure to reach the target would indicate to me is that
the economic demographics of the area simply don't support broadband
as of yet. I note that the registration target has been lowered once
already.

Note if you want to find out how many households there are in your
area go to the library and start going through the electoral
register. The number of houses is a pretty good indicator for
your potential pool of registrants.

All that said looking at Streetmap.co.uk, the place looks positively
tiny, and 350 registrations unlikely, unless the exchange covers
a wide surrounding area.

Looking a Tynedale a well run campaign can make a huge difference
in a short space of time


JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jonathan
Buzzard <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:43:41 +0000, robert w hall wrote:
>
>> In article <brv75g$829oa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>
>>>It is more than twice the current national take up rate but 25% is the
>>>average of the latest round of 2300 trigger levels that BT have issued
>>
>> which are acknowledged to be quite onerous for many exchanges IIRC
>
>That depends how you look at it. If you consider my neck of the
>woods, Tynedale then if you have had a target for some time
>consider yourself lucky to begin with. Till th 17th of November
>only three exchanges had targets set to begin with. All reached
>I might add.

snip
I think it's time to wrap this one up - there are obvious dangers in
commenting on each other's areas at a distance of 250 miles. (It's not
going to be obvious from a street-map that an exchange-area contains,
besides a well-known castle and a lot of green fields, a major nuclear-
power labs, and England's most inland commercial dock :-))
Knowing the area fairly well (I've been here or hereabouts for 30 years,
and done time as a local councillor) I still feel that the area target
is rather stiff compared to those that were set _at the same time_ for
other exchanges about (ie 350 looks 50 to 100 too high too me) - and so
would like to unpick/better understand BT's thinking -

That said, next door in the BT list for the South West is Lavington,
with a similar target, and the two exchanges seem to have made similar
progress these last eighteen months.
I guess some of it is just the frustration of 'watching the pot'
(Yeah, I know - 'go find more wood'!)
Bob
--
robert w hall

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:21:05 +0000, robert w hall wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jonathan
> Buzzard <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:43:41 +0000, robert w hall wrote:
>>
>>> In article <brv75g$829oa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>>
>>>>It is more than twice the current national take up rate but 25% is the
>>>>average of the latest round of 2300 trigger levels that BT have issued
>>>
>>> which are acknowledged to be quite onerous for many exchanges IIRC
>>
>>That depends how you look at it. If you consider my neck of the
>>woods, Tynedale then if you have had a target for some time
>>consider yourself lucky to begin with. Till th 17th of November
>>only three exchanges had targets set to begin with. All reached
>>I might add.
>
> snip
> I think it's time to wrap this one up - there are obvious dangers in
> commenting on each other's areas at a distance of 250 miles. (It's not
> going to be obvious from a street-map that an exchange-area contains,
> besides a well-known castle and a lot of green fields, a major nuclear-
> power labs, and England's most inland commercial dock :-))

No, but your estimate of the exchange size, and my local knowledge
allows me to match it up with other fairly rural exchanges in my
neck of the woods that have similar targets. This demonstrates to
me that the target is *not* unreasonable.

> Knowing the area fairly well (I've been here or hereabouts for 30 years,
> and done time as a local councillor) I still feel that the area target
> is rather stiff compared to those that were set _at the same time_ for
> other exchanges about (ie 350 looks 50 to 100 too high too me) - and so
> would like to unpick/better understand BT's thinking -

You estimate a population of 4000. Like I said Stocksfield is similar
sized, yet when the target for Berkeley was set, BT where refusing to
even set a target for Stocksfield. It has a target of 350 which is the
same as Stocksfield had. Yet Stocksfield already had 383 at the time
the target was finally set. Like I said further evidence that the target
is not unreasonable.

The target will be directly related to how much it is going to
cost to do the upgrade. The big variable cost is the getting
bandwidth to the BT network. If new cable is going to have
to be laid for this then the target will be high, if existing
cable can be used it will be low. Other factors can include
whether there is room in the exchange for

So Riding Mill, similar again in size to Berkeley with a target of
100 must be able to use existing cable, but Corbridge, again
similar sized has a target of 450 must need new cable. These two
exchanges are right next to one another, have similar economic
demographics (read very well to do commuter towns for Newcastle),
and similar sizes.

> I guess some of it is just the frustration of 'watching the pot'
> (Yeah, I know - 'go find more wood'!)

Not to put to fine a point on it, if you ask me that is all it is
down to.


JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On 20/12/03 11:21 am, in article BTd98HAhCD5$(E-Mail Removed),
"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jonathan
> Buzzard <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:43:41 +0000, robert w hall wrote:
>>
>>> In article <brv75g$829oa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Sunil Sood
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>>>
>>>> It is more than twice the current national take up rate but 25% is the
>>>> average of the latest round of 2300 trigger levels that BT have issued
>>>
>>> which are acknowledged to be quite onerous for many exchanges IIRC
>>
>> That depends how you look at it. If you consider my neck of the
>> woods, Tynedale then if you have had a target for some time
>> consider yourself lucky to begin with. Till th 17th of November
>> only three exchanges had targets set to begin with. All reached
>> I might add.
>
> snip
> I think it's time to wrap this one up - there are obvious dangers in
> commenting on each other's areas at a distance of 250 miles. (It's not
> going to be obvious from a street-map that an exchange-area contains,
> besides a well-known castle and a lot of green fields, a major nuclear-
> power labs, and England's most inland commercial dock :-))
> Knowing the area fairly well (I've been here or hereabouts for 30 years,
> and done time as a local councillor) I still feel that the area target
> is rather stiff compared to those that were set _at the same time_ for
> other exchanges about (ie 350 looks 50 to 100 too high too me) - and so
> would like to unpick/better understand BT's thinking -
>
> That said, next door in the BT list for the South West is Lavington,
> with a similar target, and the two exchanges seem to have made similar
> progress these last eighteen months.
> I guess some of it is just the frustration of 'watching the pot'

Just goes to prove that the major factor on smaller "exchanges" is not
subscriber count, but the interconnect costs. Networks are at their most
efficient when near the core, and it just gets harder, the further out you
are .... Sadly.