by March 2005...

BT and the One NorthEast regional Development Agency have announced that
100% of BT telephone exchanges will be enabled by March 2005.

The relevant press releases are at:

http://www.btplc.com/Mediacentre/Arc...004/nr0408.htm
http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/n.../index.cfm#668

Regards
Sunil

I totally agree with you. I have only just started a campaign for
Longframlington, decent sized village, pop of 2,000+, trigger of 150, upto
53 already, but we've now been bundled into PHASE 5, with even larger
villages such as Rothbury! Yet a village only 2 miles away, that has a thri
of he population of us, is due to get turned on in June this year as they
are PHASE 2!!!! This is a joke from BT! You would have thought they would
activate the bigger ones first, but nooooooo, not BT, and One North East.

Cairnsy (dismounting from his soapbox!!).

"Sunil Sood" <news@soods.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buru48$l5bhq$1@ID-20959.news.uni-berlin.de...
For completeness this is the current rollout schedule under this scheme:

Exchanges to be enabled 19th March 2004 (Phase One)

Brotton
Dudley
Easington
Loftus
Saltburn

Exchanges to be enabled 26th March 2004 (Phase One)

Allendale
Alnmouth
Belsay
Burnopfield
Greatham
Haltwhistle
Haydon Bridge
Humshaugh
Staindrop

Exchanges to be enabled by end of June 2004 (Phase Two)
Allenheads
Barnard Castle
Capheaton
Croft
Dipton
Edmundbyers
Felton
Hartburn
Hylton
ICI Wilton
Longhorsley
Longhoughton
Powburn
Riding Mill
Rushyford
Sacriston
Slaley
Whorlton
Willington

Exchanges to be enabled by end of September 2004 (Phase Three)
Blaydon
Bowes
Castleton
Cockfield
Coldstream
Corbridge
Cotherstone
Great Whittington
Red Row
Skelton
Stannington
Ulgham
West Auckland
Wylam

Exchanges to be enabled by end of December 2004 (Phase Four)
Charlton Mires
Crookham
Gainford
Kirkwhelpinton
Middleton in Tees
Mindrum
Newbrough
Norton
Otterburn
Sherburn Hill
Tom Law
Wellfield

Exchanges to be enabled by end of February 2005 (Phase Five)
Alston
Ancroft
Bamburgh
Bardon Mill
Barningham
Beal
Belford
Bellingham
Birgham
Blanchland
Chathill
Chatton
Dinsdale
Eastgate
Embleton
Forest in Teesdale
Frosterley
Gilsland
Great Smeaton
Greenhaugh
Hallbankgate
Harbottle
Hartburn (TY)
Haverton Hill
HeppleHoly
Island
Hutton udby
Kielder
Longframlinton
Lowick
Milfield
Netherton
Norham
Paxton
Piercebridge
Rothbury
Scots Gap
Seahouses
Seal Sands
Shilbottle
Stillington
Wark
Wearhead
West Woodburn
Whalton
Whitfield
Whittingham
Witton Le Wear
Wolviston
Wooler
Wooperton

Regards
Sunil

"cairnsy" <dav.cairns@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bus4uq$2kg$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I don't know the North East but I guess this os one of the reasons why
Regional/European aid can be used for this area.

Hmm - if the RFS dates for these exchanges have been set, as per the method
normally used, the delay could be to do with the amount of work needed to
upgrade the exchange and install the necessary backhaul.

The One NorthEast news release does make a reference to "miles of fibre
optic cable will be laid to connect some of the exchanges back to the core
internet network"

Phase 5 does say "by end of February 2005 " - that could be any time between
now and then...

Regards
Sunil

Most of the exchanges where up graded a few years back, the larger villages
especially, fibre optics, etc... Proberly due to the quick increases in the
sizes of the places, new estates, etc...

Quite possibley, but until RFS dates are given, think I'll just keep going
with the campaign, you never know!

cairnsy

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:08:30 +0000, Sunil Sood wrote:

Someone is really taking the piss here. A number of these exchanges have
already made their targets, yet are being give RFS dates way in the future
of exchanges that have not even got close to their target.

For example Haydon Bridge and Allendale which never met it's target have
a RFS of 26th March, but Wylam which put a lot of hard work in to reach
a difficult target of 500, gets no date, just phase 3 by the end of
September.

This makes a total and utter mockery of the demand registration scheme.
Those exchanges that met their target should have a degree of priority in
the interests of fairness.

JAB.

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

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:50:19 +0000, cairnsy wrote:

Worse than that exchanges that met their targets last year, so by
rights should have a RFS are low down in the list with projected RFS
dates way in the future when other exchanges which never met any
target get done my the end of March.

JAB.

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

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:06:30 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

the price to pay for getting a 100% covereage deal planned for optimum
economics rather than chasing a demand led hare, perhaps ?

Phil

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:29:21 +0000, Phil Thompson wrote:

Except those exchanges that have *already* met their targets do not need
including in a 100% coverage deal. They are going to be done anyway
regardless.

The are people who played by the rules put a great deal of time effort and
money into raising awareness in their exchange area, and got the asked for
registrations.

They have now been effectively kicked in the teeth, and are facing
a RFS date that is months later than they could otherwise have expected.
I cannot see how anyone could possible describe this as a fair and
equatable outcome.


JAB.

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

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:24:54 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

they don't "need" to be included but if you were negotiating what
would you do - enable exchanges here there and eveywhere or plan an
optimum implementation.

Always a PITA when someone changes the rules midstream. If the RDAs
etc were worth a flying f*ck they would have talked to campaigners and
knitted their interests into the big plan.

Phil

"Jonathan Buzzard" <jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.24.14.24.47.291249@uk.me.buzzard. ..
Maybe, maybe not..

There are quite a few other exchanges which have recently trigged in the
"normal" manner but have been given very long lead times to being enabled -
i.e. approx 1 year - triggered in Nov/Dec 2003.. to be enabled in Dec 2004
for instance.

In fact, as these dates are over 150 days in the future BT Wholesale are not
even bothering to put them on the pre registration site as they are so
long...

The reason for theses exchanges to take so long appears to be due to the
fact that these are exchanges were in the last round of BT triggers - when
they were just allocated an average 25% (approx) pre registration target

All the earlier triggers/exchanges had been individually surveyed so BT had
a fair idea of the amount of work needed for those but not these ones...

Regards
Sunil

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:01:30 +0000, Sunil Sood wrote:

I know all this, but it is still not relevant if you ask me, because I
have been keeping a close eye on adslguide which carries all the RFS
dates including

Yeah, there was more thought than that. It is my own back yard so I
have more than a passing knowledge of the area and there is more variation
than it being 25% approx.

Perhaps, but the point is that quite clearly if you look at the exchanges,
and have some knowledge of the area that the order of enabling has taken
absolutely *no* account of the demand registration scheme.

Further more why does an exchange that has gather less than 50
registrations get enabled before an exchange that has gathered
500 and met it's target? The latter exchange still does not even
have a RFS date yet despite meeting its target over four weeks ago.

On a side note if it only costs £10 million to enable *all* the exchanges
in the north east what the hell are BT playing at with the demand
registration scheme in the first place.

For the expense of faffing around with the scheme they might as well
asses demand levels now and just work out a rolling program of upgrades
for the next two years based on a combination of demand and cost
effectiveness (enabling two exchanges near by at the same time might
well prove to save money).

JAB.

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

Thats the bit that peeves me off, Longhorlsey 2 miles south, and Powburn 8
miles north, Phase 2, us - Phase 5. WHAT? Those two exchanges proberly get
ativated on the same day, a BT engineer has to drive through our village
and past the exchange to go from one to another! Sorry people if this seems
a little personal, just got a axe that needs grinding!

cairnsy

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:59:11 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

when they installed the first ADSL exchanges on the "build and they
will come" basis the result was that "they did not come" and hence the
economics didn't work out.

BT should only invest money where it gets an economic return, the
demand registration scheme helps achieve that by pointing out where
the demand is and hence where the better return is.

Of the £9.3m half is coming from BT. The 1NE tender expected the cost
to be £16m with £8m provided by the succesful bidder. There was in the
tender a clawback clause where exchanges that met a certan level of
demand would trigger a refund of the public money. So the scheme is
mainly a risk reduction arrangement for BT (or the other company that
tendered, and lost).

Phil

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:17:42 +0000, Phil Thompson wrote:

However that was entirely predictable based on the demographics of the
exchanges they enabled. Even the demand registration scheme suffered
from this flaw. For example Blaydon got a target from day one of the
scheme. It has still to reach the target despite it begin reduced once.
On the other hand Wylam just a few miles down the road only got a target
in November last year and before the end of the year it had gathered
the necessary 500 registrations.

Basically Wylam and the villages connected to the exchange are a much
more well to do place than Blaydon. So despite being much smaller
than Blaydon in terms of population they can make the target easily
because they sufficient people with computers accessing the internet.

The initial exchanges enabled in the North East included places like
Benwell and Meadowell. These are some of the most deprived areas in
the North East and it was of course entirelly predictable even to
an idiot that few people connected to these exchanges would have been
able to afford the £40 a month for ADSL when it was first introduced.

Yes and no. I would take a large bet that you could predict the
level of demand registration scheme to a high level accuracy using a
combination of the demographics of the exchange area and looking at how
many telephone lines connected to a give exchange are being used to access
the internet and how frequently. In fact the latter statistic is probably
all you need.

Further more at this stage with most exchanges having a target they
now beyond a shadow of a doubt have a measure of the demand at all
the exchanges. The exchanges are also triggering at a rate faster than
BT can provide RFS dates. BT could use predictions of tigger dates
from the demand registration, combined with the other evidence and
some notion of what might be cheaper if enabling adjacent exchanges
at the same time is more cost effective and work out a rolling program
of upgrades for the next 18 months to two years, and drop the increasing
farce that is the demand registration scheme.

Yeah, so why are some of the exchanges that met the demand *before* the
contract was signed so delayed in being enabled?

JAB.

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

"Jonathan Buzzard" <jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote in message
newsan.2004.01.25.10.01.19.449247@uk.me.buzzard. ..
It might suprise you to know that this is precisily what BT Wholesale did
with the oriignal 1000 odd exchanges it enabled before it launched the
"registration" scheme.

Unfortunately, they found that just because their own analysis showed that
those exchanges had the highest internet traffic (and 1/2 other factors) it
did not mean that ADSL was taken up in those areas.

Obviously pricing was also an issue (before the price cuts) but the main
reason why they launched the registration scheme was that they simply found
that ADSL was not being taken up in the numbers/areas that their research
indicated that it should.

The tender details were originally issued at the end of August and the
contract signed (I think) in October/early November - hence BT has had
plenty of time of start looking at RFS dates for these exchanges - much more
than the other exchnage you quote which met its trigger level 4 weeks ago
and is still waiting for a date (+ you can effectively write off 2 of those
for xmas/ the New Year)

The fact that they have only just announced the deal is a different issue -
One NorthEast probably asked them to hold off announcing the deal so it
would concide with the Tony Blair's visit to see his local exchange being
enabled so that they could both benefit from the maximum PR value.

This often happens with RDA "deals" so they appear to have a shorter delay
to being enabled.

Regards
Sunil

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:01:27 +0000, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

least cost implementation perhaps ?

Phil

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:01:20 -0000, "Sunil Sood"
<news@soods.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

their EU notification says the contract was awarded just before
christmas, so they sat on it for a month.

Phil

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:01:20 +0000, Sunil Sood wrote:

I am sorry but I do not believe for one second that Benwell has higher
internet usage than Wylam. Further more if they *had* taken into account
the demographics of the areas then there is *ABSOLUTELY* no way that
Benwell would have been enabled in front of say Wylam again.


There analysis was obviously flawed from the second they announced the
initial exchanges. Until I see the real analysis I can *never* accept
that a *proper* analysis showed that Benwell or some of the other
exchanges on the most deprived council estates in the North East where
going gather significant numbers of ADSL accounts at £40ppm. Only a
deluded idiot could believe that.

Neither can I accept that the same exchanges had significant numbers of
HomeHighway lines, another indicator of people likely

What might be possible is that the analysis did not take into account the
number of lines at the exchange, and the number of lines making heavy
usage of the internet. So you upgrade and exchange with 1000 people
using the internet for 2 hours a week, over an exchange with 50 people
using the internet 20 hours a week. Clearly you are going to have a
hard time persuading people using the internet for 2 hours a week to
upgrade to ADSL at £40ppm.

Whatever they did, the analysis was flawed and it was obviously flawed
to any knowledgeable person as they announced the initial exchanges.


If you search the archives of this *very* newsgroup you will find posts
from myself at the time the initial exchanges where announced saying that
it was madness and they would not get many installs at some of the
exchanges they activated. Common sense should have told them the plan
was wrong, and there where plenty of people who where indeed saying
exactly that.


That perhaps explains it. Does not mean the people of Wylam have not been
treated badly.


JAB.

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