Skip Navigation


Fastershire release details of postcodes due to get FTTH
Monday 24 August 2015 16:23:32 by Andrew Ferguson

It will not happen overnight, but by the end of 2017 some 6,500 premises in the Cotswolds should be enjoying Gigabit broadband from Gigaclear. The FTTH operator won a contract back in June 2015 to deliver ultrafast broadband to some of the most isolated premises in the Fastershire project area.

Fastershire has today released an spreadsheet of the addresses that should benefit and we have rolled this into our availability checker so it is easy to tell if you should be expecting to see Gigaclear in the next eighteen months, it also means that once the area has gone live we can these premises include in our coverage data.

Comments

Posted by zyborg47 about 1 year ago
They are still pigging around trying to get fibre a a mates Village, come up with something about blocked channels. this have been going on now for almost a year
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
Is this saying the solution mix BT delivered in Cornwall is not available to local authorities even though there is an abundance of subsidy to do so?
Posted by herdwick about 1 year ago
@VFM Gigaclear won the Phase 2 bid, presumably BT bid and didn't ?
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@herdwick - give underspends on Phase 1 could be used to extend into the intervention area, then one wonders.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
Did Cornwall have the same premise cap that BDUK projects impose?
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@wwwombat what premise cap do you that to be? And what is BT's capital invetsment per premise passed?
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
NGA -- this a s specicic lot not part of the main fastershire project using a different operator !!!! also you wil stil have to pay circa £200 to connect or DIY the fibre across your premsie, there no equiavalence management platform so who know what your choice of service prvidue will be and you get your lovely costwold village dug up in the process !!!

dont expect underspand on phase 1 to be spend in another lot as its totally differerent conteract - not evening under the framework
Posted by cooperfarncombe about 1 year ago
At least it will only be dug up once! Not like the FTTC re-excavations going on in Surrey and I assume, eventually the whole of the country. This is just one example

http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2015/03/23/campaigner-says-superfast-broadband-upgrade-in-rural-areas-is-causing-unnecessary-mayhem/
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@fastman Gigaclear will be joining what will be a emp light platform run by a group who will make themselves clear in due course.

Since when does a county sign a £35m subsidy agreement with promises of £20m from BT, in the midst of excess modelled costs, underspends and clawback and is then forced to contract for 6,500 premises? It is most peculiar. The intervention area was larger than that contracted, so the clawback could be used to go further.
The areas under the Framework could be extended if there is sufficient trust.
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman - why would H&G neeed to contract with a start up if of the £35m subsidy they had only installed c450 cabs costing no more than £12m of the subsidy, this includes a little FTTP.
The Cartesian report for ofcom on Cost allocations confirms how little was spent on NGA. The PG cost groups can be unpicked, including GEA Spine and GEA Distibution costs.
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman - OR on all these contracts needs to dump BT Group. OR must establish independence over BT Group on this matter. The £129m may not be enough to prevent an investigation, it should be but may not be.
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
VFM or should I call you MK !!!! asi I assume that who you are --





Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
the gigaclear contract is not under the framework !!!!

VFM wonders what you have against BT group or the business in general
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
cooper farncome -- that's funny -- or would be if it was not so ironic -- !!!!!

see Mr Wilcox has been out with his camera again !!!!










Posted by steamingdave about 1 year ago
Faster shire???? What a joke. Here in northwest Herefordshire I have just been told by BT that they have " improved my local exchange and the service available to me" . So I checked- download up from 2.4 to 2.9, upload still at around 0.35. The Openreach boys have been installing fibre within 50 yards of my house for the past 18 months, but this isthe best they can offer me. Obviously the " Cotswolds" has more clout than us poor peasants.
(to add insult to injury, BT have tried to scam me for an extra £5 a month for BT Sports, which I have already told them I don't want)
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman very pro-BT generally, very anti anybody abusing monopoly position or mis-leading Gov on costs or investments where £1.7bn state aid is available for once in a generation upgrades.Use MK if you want, these are just friendly warnings until these matters are resolved, other investigations to come to build on NAO work.
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman The £129m re-jig is very welcome and necessary correction. The progress on c15,000 cabinets also needs applauding, however given the monies available much more is needed to ensure a 'a fair bet' for the taxpaer.
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
steaming dave what has to do with openreach please
Posted by JacktheMac about 1 year ago
Fastman - don't think you know the facts.

Gigaclear charge £100 to connect to their 'pot'. Unlike the clowns at BT/OpenReach, they are laying a completely new fibre infrastructure, which means they aren't hamstrung by BT's archaic copper network. They will be able to lay cable to the whole village in a few days.

As we're getting up to 1000Mbps download and upload, in an area that BT deemed 'uneconomic' to upgrade from its current <2Mbps, there are a lot of very happy people in this 'lovely Cotswold village' which we are hoping will be BT-free by the end of 2017...
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
VFM I have no involvement in bDUK but having been a bid manager you can only bid on what you can bid on -- you cant bid based on winning more that one at a time -- there are specific governance rules around sich things. the business has invested massively in superfast broadband - and continues to do so

think now some other operators have not to deliver against tax payer money will be interesting to see how they fare -- considering most of those are virtually monopolies s with no choice of anything at all
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
also seeing an enormous amount of misinformation from "So called telecoms Consultants / experts who are badly misinforming communiuties !!!,

think the worse thing ever is a misinformed community
Posted by JacktheMac about 1 year ago
Fast man
Why I'm antiBT:
-- Abuse of monopoly position, bully-boy tactics
-- Abuse of govt. subsidies
-- Reliance on crap FTTC tech - will demand more govt. money to 'upgrade' to FTTP by 2020
-- Expanding business into areas they have no remit - sports
-- Overpaid execs, underpaid staff
-- Should never have been privatised in first place
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman - on communities I think BT's confidentiality agreements are totally mis-used.

As a simple bid manager, then your hands are tied. In the context of BDUK the hands have been a little lossened by £129m but much more loosening.

Be specific on the consultants, I defend the cabinet as having great utility as long as its limitations are costs are clearly stated.
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman If the costs of the cab are transparent then this does not act as barrier onward investment in the D-side.

At present the myth on costs is certainly is a factor. I should imagine it has impacted quite painfully on those doing bid work for BDUK, but they have families to feed.
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
VFM I was referred to self style telecoms expers misinforming communitues around options
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
jack

interesting well its £200 everyelse
and they have major problems in Northamptonshire due to access / poor highways work -- so don't belvie all the hype

Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
jack

so you can be anti that's your choice
all I say is be sure what ou think your getting and when your getting it
don't believe all the hype
be very interested in what exchange your in !!!
and te comment around thet They will be able to lay cable to the whole village in a few days -- i think the person who told you that is either deluded or misspellingthey wont have a design yet, or worked out how to tap in the backhaul (hope that not far) and how many conservagion village they have to dig up to get to you -- those are the facts !!! -- --
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman Rather than dissing Gigaclear, why not step forward with FoD and increase the numbers of FTT dp(manifold). The subsidies are there within existing budgets. BT will be forgiven for being late, but the current strategy of alienating LA's by withholding infomation means if 10 Gigaclears appeared, each would be used.
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@Fastman - why diss Gigaclear, even of they reached all their commercial goals they would not glean 1% of all access lines in 5 years.
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
VFM I have provided factual information around the choices a village has to make -- it is then upto the village to make an informed choice -- you would not believe what some villages are told by so called resident experts -- one community was told that BT was dependant on XXX network and it was all the same infrastructure any way !!!
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
for the cost of fod for around 3 or 4 premises you could probably enable a whole village for FTTC !!!! if the village worked together
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@FASTMAN Fibre to a manifold where power costs is excessive is what I referring too.

I can well believe the excess, but that is a occurring in a vacum arising from incomplete and inconsistent information by local 'relationship' directors.

Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
VFM as indicicated I have no view on on that I was referring to individual in villages who are misleading villages !!!!

you keep referring back to the BDUK stuff my comments are not around that
--
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
FYI power costs are horrible , I have some in central London where the cost od power was in circa 35 - 40l alone -- so power will be more excessive the further off the grid you get
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
@vfm
"Since when does a county sign a £35m subsidy agreement with promises of £20m from BT, in the midst of excess modelled costs, underspends and clawback ... ? It is most peculiar."

If you have to ask that, then you are missing a fundamental aspect about how contracts work - especially in the balance of risk between BT and the LA. They are rules for the two parties to follow ... including, in this case, the timing.
...
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
Your 4 issues are controlled by the contract, as rules that both sides are governed by, and still are. Those rules are, financially, entirely in the LA's favour, and will play out over time ... but the time is part of the contract.

You have discovered no flaw there yet, save a disagreement over the timing ... It is all just 'stuff' that will get resolved as intended by the contract.

Your constant 'crying wolf' won't suddenly negate all those contract clauses!
...
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
"and is then forced to contract for 6,500 premises?"

Surely this is precisely what we'd expect? Follow-up contracts. With H+G being lucky to have Gigaclear working nearby, and willing to bid.

Of course, every LA has coverage visions, and needs to keep projects rolling to meet those and keep voters happy, especially while they have a team employed for that purpose. It motivates them to line up multiple parallel contracts.

Nothing to see here. Please move along...
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
@fastman
I think the worst power costs come when infrastructure needs upgrading (like overloaded transformers), rather than just the length of connection, though I guess that doesn't help.

Worst case in North Yorkshire was £90k for 3 cabs in the centre of Skipton.
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@WWWombat fundamental aspect of any contract is the level of trust which governs the relationship between the parties.. not stuff.. including time.

When..stuff.. leads MPs and those informing them calling for BT to be split, perhaps a review of the relationships and how they are being conducted should be considered.

Posted by JacktheMac about 1 year ago
@Fastman

Please check the facts. It’s £100 for pot connection. If you choose Gigaclear as your provider, they charge a further £100 on first contract.

This isn’t 'hype’ – it’s been contractually agreed by Fastershire with Gigaclear. And their ability to lay cable, unhindered by BT’s crumbling network, is excellent.

Villagers in nearby Northleach are demanding an end to their non-functioning BT FTTC in order to join Gigaclear.
Posted by JacktheMac about 1 year ago
@Fastman

Also, all the wayleaves and permissions were in place *before* Gigaclear signed the contract.

BT claimed it would be ‘impossible' and ‘uneconomic' to upgrade the exchange (Withington) to FTTP. Gigaclear have made BT look stupid and greedy.

Why are you so eager to diss something you don’t seem to know much about ?
Posted by ValueforMoney about 1 year ago
@JACKtheMAC - is a summary of Withington issue published? Although subsidy is available whole tranches of such places are being denied service. WWWombat describes this a just..'stuff'.. as if it is acceptable. It needs to be documented so more accountability can be established or at least an attempt to do so.
Posted by JacktheMac about 1 year ago
@VFM - sorry, been on holiday. Not sure I understand your question. Withington exchange is current unupdated BT exchange. Gigaclear will bypass this with their new FTTP. The areas that were up for bidding were clearly defined by Fastershire: BT did not bid on this area of 6500 homes as they concluded it was ‘uneconomical’ to install FTTC. Most properties in the area have less than 1Mbps, and require hourly router reboots.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.