I concur with the above. It seems to me that just like road infrastructures, House Builders do not plan ahead for what should be included in their plans and the Council should formulate the "essentials" as part of any future due diligence when Builders seek approval for planning permission. It seems that house builders are "throwing" up estates without due concerns for those who buy the houses and the effect it has house owners as to what is needed regarding surrounding infrastructure. And as for BT, I have had numerous calls over a period of 3 years about Superfast broadband and because I am a sole trader and not big business, like most big corporates in this country, they could not care less as to how getting superfast broadband effects SMEs, as long as they keep making huge amount of profits! I just hope that this petition does the job and Alan Campbell is more successful than me at getting BT and the Council to ensure that superfast broadband becomes the norm and not the exception to the rule, based on what BT considers it can or cannot afford!
D
Dave Oldcorn
11 years ago
Continuing from my comment on signing.
My guess, such as it is, is that BT carried out a survey while the estates served by 36, 21 and 34 were only partially completed and we didn't meet their criteria. But now, all three of those boxes are more heavily utilised than 33...?
Installing at 21 would cost relatively little; there's a mains duct about six feet away and fibre passes on the main road. Their refusal smells horribly to me of a deliberate attempt to get the government (i.e. us!) to fund parts of their rollout. Every time I've contacted them it's been BDUK this, BDUK that. Well, that fund's supposed to be for supplying hard-to-reach, geographically dispersed rural areas, NOT to fill in boxes serving nearly 200 homes where there's power and fibre within 20 metres. If 21 and 36 aren't commercially viable, I really struggle to understand what else is. (33 surely isn't in that case. It even has a tiny cabinet, rather than a full-sized one!).
Of course, they won't explain to me why 33 is viable but 21 isn't. Commercially valuable information, they claim. I've encouraged Alan Campbell to ask that they releast this information anyway to disprove the idea that they're just scrounging for funds; personally, if they can't or won't do that I find it very hard to support the idea of BDUK funding.
(And do you know what? That box _mocks_ me every time I drive past it).
D
Dave Oldcorn
11 years ago
By the way, you're _really_ going to struggle to put 1000 signatures together here.
My estimate is that there's about 650 homes served by the four missing boxes (21, 34, 36 and 41). Even assuming you get 50% hits, that's not even half way.
I concur with the above. It seems to me that just like road infrastructures, House Builders do not plan ahead for what should be included in their plans and the Council should formulate the "essentials" as part of any future due diligence when Builders seek approval for planning permission. It seems that house builders are "throwing" up estates without due concerns for those who buy the houses and the effect it has house owners as to what is needed regarding surrounding infrastructure. And as for BT, I have had numerous calls over a period of 3 years about Superfast broadband and because I am a sole trader and not big business, like most big corporates in this country, they could not care less as to how getting superfast broadband effects SMEs, as long as they keep making huge amount of profits! I just hope that this petition does the job and Alan Campbell is more successful than me at getting BT and the Council to ensure that superfast broadband becomes the norm and not the exception to the rule, based on what BT considers it can or cannot afford!
Continuing from my comment on signing. My guess, such as it is, is that BT carried out a survey while the estates served by 36, 21 and 34 were only partially completed and we didn't meet their criteria. But now, all three of those boxes are more heavily utilised than 33...? Installing at 21 would cost relatively little; there's a mains duct about six feet away and fibre passes on the main road. Their refusal smells horribly to me of a deliberate attempt to get the government (i.e. us!) to fund parts of their rollout. Every time I've contacted them it's been BDUK this, BDUK that. Well, that fund's supposed to be for supplying hard-to-reach, geographically dispersed rural areas, NOT to fill in boxes serving nearly 200 homes where there's power and fibre within 20 metres. If 21 and 36 aren't commercially viable, I really struggle to understand what else is. (33 surely isn't in that case. It even has a tiny cabinet, rather than a full-sized one!). Of course, they won't explain to me why 33 is viable but 21 isn't. Commercially valuable information, they claim. I've encouraged Alan Campbell to ask that they releast this information anyway to disprove the idea that they're just scrounging for funds; personally, if they can't or won't do that I find it very hard to support the idea of BDUK funding. (And do you know what? That box _mocks_ me every time I drive past it).
By the way, you're _really_ going to struggle to put 1000 signatures together here. My estimate is that there's about 650 homes served by the four missing boxes (21, 34, 36 and 41). Even assuming you get 50% hits, that's not even half way.