Trigger level set on exchange

Hi,

Does anyone know the lowest number of registrations on an exchange in
the past before a trigger level has been officially set?

Tia
Andrew.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Andrew Hodgson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know the lowest number of registrations on an exchange in
> the past before a trigger level has been officially set?

Yes, the number is zero. Mostly because large numbers of trigger
levels where set before registrations opened. Even then lots of
exchanges where given trigger levels shortly afterwards when
registration levels where still low.


JAB.

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

CB wrote:

> "Andrew Hodgson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>> Does anyone know the lowest number of registrations on an exchange in
>> the past before a trigger level has been officially set?

> Depends on the location. Have a look at
> http://www.adslguide.org.uk/availability/btprereg.asp

Yes, that's what the "powers-that-be" will have you believe.

Looking at adslguide, how come Looe needs 500 but East Barton needs 150! I
mean, you send a van with equipment to East Barton exchange and provide 150
ADSL lines and that makes economic sense so why not 150 trigger level for
all?

My conspiracy theories: (a) helps manufacturers by generating a long, steady
stream of orders for exchange equipment (b) which means customers don't nag
BT when their exchange gets 150 pre-orders.

While I'm ranting. I watched our exchange on ADSLguide (Yatton). After
/extremely/ steady growth from the start in September 2002 it made a huge
jump from 338 to "400" (trigger level) in one week. The jump was so big I
thought some git had made tons of false registrations and BT would kick it
out. Not the case - we got converted 30th July. So, my theory for that is
that some b****d ISP was slow passing their customers on to BT - if they'd
done it more promptly we'd have reached 400 yonks ago. I was not aware of
any ADSL campaign in the last week.

http://www.adslguide.org.uk/availabi...ory.asp?id=351

I'd like a BT insider to spill the beans and tell me which ISP held back
their customer list!

--
Paul

On 24/8/03 11:09 am, in article (E-Mail Removed), "Paul"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My conspiracy theories: (a) helps manufacturers by generating a long, steady
> stream of orders for exchange equipment (b) which means customers don't nag
> BT when their exchange gets 150 pre-orders.


Rubbish - this subject comes up every month or so from someone so here's the
quick form reply. Don't feel embarrassed as you're not the first !

Its more to do with the cost of network infrastructure upgrades to connect
the exchange to the nearest large node with a big fat data pipe, than the
DSLAM costs, which are quite small. DSLAMS are not unitary bodies, they come
by the rackful, which sets a minimum level of investment if everything else
is there. This number seems to be debatable, but its a lot more than 32 as
BT are trying a reduced size system out which has 32 subs. IMO, its probably
closer to 300 for the full rack alone.

Then there's the power upgrade, the fibre to connect to the backhaul, the
aircon, yadda yadda yadda. Been discussed hundreds of times over but I guess
you probably missed those discussions.

The MAJOR cost and delay is road digging for connection - most exchanges
which have no threshold set or have high trigger levels are those which are
copper connected and a long way from the nearest data node. That means a
big fibre upgrade to support the hamlet of Chipping Upper Soddington or
whatever, which ends up with an exchange of 150 telephony subscribers on the
end of a fibre dig costing £250,000 That¹s why you feel unloved and
unwanted. Its nothing to do with the suppliers - its your nice rural
location !

Graham in Melton wrote:

> That¹s why you feel unloved and
> unwanted. Its nothing to do with the suppliers - its your nice rural
> location !

OK, but I like conspiracy theories
--
Paul

On 24/8/03 12:50 pm, in article (E-Mail Removed), "Paul"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Graham in Melton wrote:
>
>> That¹s why you feel unloved and
>> unwanted. Its nothing to do with the suppliers - its your nice rural
>> location !
>
> OK, but I like conspiracy theories


Don't we all !

And remember, that just because you're not paranoid, doesn't actually mean
they aren't out to get you !

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Andrew Hodgson
wrote:
> Does anyone know the lowest number of registrations on an exchange in
> the past before a trigger level has been officially set?

I think they just invent a number out of thin air, possibly depending
on the estimated cost of providing the service to a particular area. Or
possibly not. My exchange, for example, had a target figure of 400 for
many months, and an availability website showed the figure gradually
creeping up over the weeks from about 120/400 to about 290/400, when it
suddenly changed to 349/350 where it has stayed for about a month,
shortly followed by an actual service date.

It's all a bit of a nonsense anyway. I wonder how long a commercial
company with honest competition would survive trying to sell something
to the public, advertising it, and then requiring that their
prospective customers should campaign for it and wait in a queue?

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> You're probably right, but isn't BT supposed to be a public service,
not a
> commercial company? The same kind of public service that charges the
same
> amount to post a letter, for instance, anywhere in mainland Britain?
>
> Public services provide whatever they provide equally to everybody,
with
> the cost averaged over the the whole nation. The cost of provision to
> "difficult" areas is effectively subsidised by those who live in
> commercially lucrative ones, but for something as fundamental as
> communicatons, it can be argued that this is a worthwhile cost as the
value
> of the service is increased for everyone by virtue of it being
universally
> available. What would be the value of a communication system if you
could
> only use it to communicate with a limited number of people?

Yes, but the public service part of BT only applies to voice
calls/telephones and (now) providing data speeds of up to 28.8K

BT's Public Service obligations are as defined by Universial Service
Obligation (USO) which is available at
http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications...03/uso0703.pdf - it
was only updated last month (to increase the minimum acceptable data
speed to 28.8K from 2.4K)

> Why aren't they gradually replacing all the copper to our homes with
fibre
> as a matter of routine?

BT offered to "fibre up the whole of the UK" in the late 1980's, at the
then cost of £15 billion +, if they were given permission to sell new
services over their network (VoD, TV etc)

The government at the time said no - they wanted to give cable companies
an (unfair?) advantage...

Regards
Sunil

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roderick Stewart
said......

> In article <BB6E70C9.12F9C%(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham in Melton wrote:
> > > It's all a bit of a nonsense anyway. I wonder how long a commercial
> > > company with honest competition would survive trying to sell something
> > > to the public, advertising it, and then requiring that their
> > > prospective customers should campaign for it and wait in a queue?
> >
> > A very long time if you're BT.
> >
> > And any commercial company wouldn't do any more than BT imo.
> >
> > They'd say "f**k the rural people, there's not enough money in it" - that
> > happens VERY frequently !
>
> You're probably right, but isn't BT supposed to be a public service, not a
> commercial company? The same kind of public service that charges the same
> amount to post a letter, for instance, anywhere in mainland Britain?
>
<snip>

Bt only have a duty to provide voice telephony at a standard cost to all
and sundry regardless of the actual costs in providing it (within
limits).

ADSL is a different matter, but there is nothing in theory (apart from
cost), stopping another telecom company getting the local loops
unbundled and providing the service. But if BT don't see it as a viable
proposition then no other company will.

--
Mugwump

Andrew Hodgson in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

> Hi,
>
>Does anyone know the lowest number of registrations on an exchange in
>the past before a trigger level has been officially set?

Thanks to all who replied. I have seen Bromyard's numbers climb
steadily over the past months, its now standing at 111 pre-orders, I
was just though wondering when the trigger was set.

As for the rural debait, many businesses have moved out of Bromyard, I
spoke to one person who ran a business and they were saying one of the
reasons they left was due to limited connection options. Some people
on new estates on the outskirts get HH but others with older wiring
don't even get that, and quite a lot are Daxed. Not sure what type of
Exchange is used/how old it is etc.

I want to also buy new kit for my system, but until I know whether
ADSL will come, or if another initiative such as the rural wireless
initiatives that are happening in Leominster etc happen in Bromyard, I
feel quite stuck atm.

Andrew.