Broadband News

BT quote £550,000 to provide broadband to 80 homes in Erbistock

The small broadband not-spot of Erbistock near Wrexham was announced back in April as the location of the next fibre deployment by Rutland Telecom, the small company enabling broadband through fibre-to-the-cabinet technology. Rutland Telecom estimated the cost of connecting up Erbistock at around £50,000 for 80 households, around £625 per households. The BBC revealed on Saturday that BT had quoted the village £550,000 to provide a similar broadband link.

"We've been able to do this work for £50,000. I'm not sure why BT said it would cost so much more, but essentially this is a case of community action and a small company working together.

"This is now the first Welsh notspot area to receive broadband using this method. We hope to go live in October."

David Lewis, (Managing Director) Rutland Telecom

The residents of Erbistock will be receiving a massive speed boost, getting speeds of up to 40Mbps from the new Rutland Telecom connections. A BT spokesperson explained that the high costs were because of the long line length from the nearest BT exchange Bangor-on-Dee, and that any solution would need to be provided on a wholesale basis to other providers.

Erbistock residents are also looking in to covering some of the costs of the new broadband connections through grants available under the Welsh Assembly's broadband support scheme which allows funding of up to £1000 per applicant to enable a broadband connection.

Comments

Oh man.. here we go :)

Hopefully Rutland will publish the actual costs when done to see how their estimate held up.

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

If BT had come up with double or triple and if Rutland's solution involved questionable microwave links it might have been understandable.

But over ten times the cost is just weird. Either BT seriously didn't want to get involved or else the Rutland solution is two tin cans and a bit of string for backhaul.

I'd like to see /both/ quotes in detail :)

  • AndrueC
  • over 10 years ago

I have a theory.......

BT accidentally moved the decimal point. :S

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

Still to cheap? ;o)

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Think it just shows if there isnt a big enough profit BT arent interested ?

  • jeep
  • over 10 years ago

Jeep i reckon Snout, shareholders, trough, money, potentially explains it all too well.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

5.3 miles.

  • Somerset
  • over 10 years ago

I've another theory. BT couldnt be arsed looking into it so plucked a figure from thin air and decided to times it by 10 to ensure they didnt loose any money.
Either that are some serious drugs were in use at the time!.

Slim

  • audioslim
  • over 10 years ago

That figure is a disgrace. Hopefully Rutland can lead the way in linking up people who are being unfairly disadvantaged by BT.

  • TheGuv
  • over 10 years ago

quote"I've another theory. BT couldnt be arsed looking into it so plucked a figure from thin air and decided to times it by 10 to ensure they didnt loose any money.
Either that are some serious drugs were in use at the time!."

LOL maybe they let a cross eyed employee use the abacus :P

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

It does sound suspiciously like a 'Go away, little man' style quote. Pretty bad if that is the case and somewhat short sighted. I'd really like to be able to compare the two proposed solutions otherwise we're guessing.

  • AndrueC
  • over 10 years ago

Well I'm surprised BT even gave a quote. That said what technology was the quote for? I doubt it was FTTC! I suspect it was for copper re-routing and/or BET.

  • timmay
  • over 10 years ago

I wouldn't of thought much profit was made.

  • krazykizza
  • over 10 years ago

^^^ From who?

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

Maybe BT were quoting for building a whole new exchange in the village as the copper line from Bangor-on-Dee is too long.

Probably never even thought about laying fibre.
Or maybe did, but as this area is not on their roll-out plan, they didn't want to give anyone else ideas.

  • greemble
  • over 10 years ago

I would also love for rutland telecom to post their cost details!

^^^You're probably correct that they didn't even think about laying fibre :P

  • Legolash2o
  • over 10 years ago

Wholesale...

BT knew a large portion would not be using their retail product but competitors., npt to mention they'd still have to compete with undercutters...

Another example of forced socialism inhibiting progress...

  • otester
  • over 10 years ago

I still maintain my theory, they got confused where decimal points should go.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

BT cost would include setting up the exchange for LLU...

  • Somerset
  • over 10 years ago

I cannot see anything to be surprised about here. BT have always been greed and overpriced. No longer can they lay the blame on not being able to undercut competitors.
When I wanted a NTE5 fitted, which BT law says you cannot do yourself, I was quoted nearly £200 just to turn up, plus materiels, an hours labour plus VAT, just to hang two wires onto terminal 2 and 5. Needless to say, I went by my law.
But, you must bear in mind, that poor old BT has to somehow pay for the thousands of engineers that waste half the day drinking tea and doing homework on the side with BT materials.

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

quote"BT cost would include setting up the exchange for LLU... "

What absolute tripe!

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

good for you m0aur, screw their pricing

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

And the law?

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Who are you to ask, BT??

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

No, if you want to abide by the parts of the British law you want to and break other parts that's your business, hopefully it doesn't extend further than master sockets!

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

cb - BT said that any solution would need to be provided on a wholesale basis to other providers - hence LLU in the exchange. £500k though?

  • Somerset
  • over 10 years ago

@GMan
Let's hope for teh sake of his neighbours that our friend m0aur does not also take issue with the rates charged by electricians and gas fitters!

  • New_Londoner
  • over 10 years ago

My nephew, who when the bottom fell ut of fitting double glazed windows, became a 'Qualified' BT engineer in an instant, so quickly became eligible to drink tea at our expense. Not even a Not Very Qualified certificate required.
I on the other hand, as an indentured electronics engineer and amateur radio operator allowed to build and use transmitters up to 400 Watts, feel equally qualified.

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

@New_Londoner
My job involves programming, testing & certifying control panels. This involves working on live 440v three phase. This has to be done in production testing, but is something that would cause the average spark to soil his underwear.

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

@Somerset. It would have to be available on a wholesale basis , either as SMPF, MPF or GEA which any solution by BT would be. Which is not the same as actually unbundling an exchange, the cost of which would be paid by the LLU operator.

  • rogan8
  • over 10 years ago

@New_L or that he's not happy with the price of High Definitions TV's so he just takes them at zero cost :)

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

rogan8, let me fix that for you.

It would have to be available on a wholesale basis , either as SMPF, MPF or GEA which any solution by BT would be. Which is not the same as actually unbundling an exchange, for which a charge of a regulated amount is levied on the LLU operator.

  • rasczak
  • over 10 years ago

m0aur - your point is?

  • Somerset
  • over 10 years ago

Just seen - any of us who 'feel' qualified to do something should be allowed to.

  • Somerset
  • over 10 years ago

@Somerset
I have several points, from BT being rip off merchants, to forums that are meant to be helpful, always containing an element know-all nit-picking anoraks, whose sole aim seems to be to ridicule and belittle others.
"feel" has nothing to do with it, I simply stated I had far more qualifications than some BT engineers

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

There's nothing wrong with doing something yourself if you are able to do instead of paying someone else, I replaced the waster cistern in my toilet the other week instead of getting a plumber out, its just when the law comes into it its an issue I would have said. The master socket is BT property and you have tampered with it.

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Quote "The master socket is BT property and you have tampered with it.
"
Then quite simply, they should have maintained 'their' property by replacing the faulty box, instead of trying te usual cash grab from me.

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

If its a real fault they should replace it, if it has gone faulty due to environmental issues like flooding/surges/lightening etc I don't think they will

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Not that I have had "flood/surge/lightening etc", but surely in a fair world, there is NO WAY i should have to insure "BT Property" against such things, but unfortunately BT do not live in a fair world, and like most companies, will go to any length to protect their product, be it fair or otherwise.

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

I'm sure it will be their in the T&C's you signed up to though, if not you should have argued the case rather than risk a possible prosecution and fine.

You'll find virtually no goods or services are covered by acts of god.

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

GMAN99 - I note with some disappointment that even you used the word "should" and not "will" in "if it's a real fault [BT] should replace it". Do you not have faith in BT that they will do what's right because they should?
Also, I love how you seem to be OK with BT charging m0aur £200 + labour + parts to replace an NTE5 regardless of how it was damaged. Totally reasonable.

  • ElBobbo
  • over 10 years ago

:O) I say should because I'm not party to all of the facts, I never said I'm ok with BT charging him anything again I've no idea whether the NTE5 was smashed to pieces or whether it had just gone faulty through wear 'n' tear etc just that he replaced it. If it was not damaged by someone accidental or otherwise and wasn't an act of god I would expect BT to sort it for free, of course I would, I'd be right there next to him shouting down the phone if they wouldn't

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

I do hope Rutland comes back with a success story and some real figures on costs. Hopefully this village/area will be one the first of many to get decent broadband for a reasonable cost.

  • ElBobbo
  • over 10 years ago

Yes I would certainly like to see what it cost vs their estimates and also what they are doing, backhaul etc.. more details

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

It looked like builders came in after the previous tenant and ripped out extensions damaging the box. I spent half an hour on hold, and another being passed to the usual clueless customer service departments to get nowhere. I believe my actions were that of a reasonable person, which is what usually decides a legal dispute. I have no more to say on the matter.

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

Getting the thread back on track, it is nothing new, for BT to invent situations to justify a scandalous quote.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/household-bills/article.html?in_article_id=496626&in_page_id=510

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

So in that case BT were right to charge you, surely you can see that? Your issue was with the previous tenant or builders that is who should have been footing the bill as they caused the damage. You can't expect them to pick up the cost because of other shoddy labourers? If you've not more to say that's fine I'm glad you explained the fault though, can't say I blame BT for their actions in this case though

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

JUST FUCK OFF BT FANBOY

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

Yes a massive amount of money but where do you get that BT invented a situation to justify the price? If it was at saturation point and that was the price to provide it, that's the price I guess. Are you saying that they invented the situation, it was resolve two years later by Unicom who said there were 4 lines available, so in that 2yrs you don't believe it possible that 4 lines became available? That's 4... not 400

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Nice.. replace BT with any other company.. replace it with Virgin and their coax termination point in the home I'd say the same thing for them, it wouldn't be Virgin's fault and they should charge as well. Its just common sense?

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Looks like Rutland were offering a 40mbps FTTC for £50,000 while BT were still plodding along with copper so as to not spoil their rollout scedule.
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/bt-defends-broadband-quote-for-welsh-village-9538

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

quote"cb - BT said that any solution would need to be provided on a wholesale basis to other providers - hence LLU in the exchange. £500k though?"

Im sorry thats a weak excuse, for £550,000, id hope they were paying for every LLU companies kit to go in the damn exchange LOL

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

quote"Let's hope for teh sake of his neighbours that our friend m0aur does not also take issue with the rates charged by electricians and gas fitters!"

Yeah cos if you have noise on your phone line its going to blow up like a gas leak and destroy buildings isnt it :rolleyes: IDIOT comparrison

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

quote"My nephew, who when the bottom fell ut of fitting double glazed windows, became a 'Qualified' BT engineer in an instant, so quickly became eligible to drink tea at our expense. Not even a Not Very Qualified certificate required.
I on the other hand, as an indentured electronics engineer and amateur radio operator allowed to build and use transmitters up to 400 Watts, feel equally qualified."
NO NO NO you must NOT tell the BT fanboy wildlife you are an intelligent chap You havent done your 3 week course that involves climbing up a dummy pole

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

quote"Quote "The master socket is BT property and you have tampered with it.
"
Then quite simply, they should have maintained 'their' property by replacing the faulty box, instead of trying te usual cash grab from me."

Mwahahaha i believe the kids call that PWN'D

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

quote"So in that case BT were right to charge you, surely you can see that? "

Right to charge him for another persons damage to BTs equipment....... I agree with the users follow up post in caps there....... Oh and get help

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

^^ If he owns the line now and the property its for him to pay and claim for, I'm sorry you have no common sense CB, again blinded by your hatred.

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

quote"^ If he owns the line now "

NOBODY except BT OWN the line you tool

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

He rents it, a previous person who was renting caused the damage, its up to BT to get any monies from that previous renter of their Line/Faceplate who caused the damage..... DOH! Thats the LAW

I spose if you rented a house and something was damaged by the previous occupier, you would be happy to pay to get it fixed? You wouldnt complain to the landlord and expect them to pay or them go after the prior occupant. NUMPTY!

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

A whole new level of thickness

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

just wondering CB, are you a teenager? all this talk of fanboys and pwn'd and basically some of the c**p you type on here makes me wonder

  • CaptainHulaHoop
  • over 10 years ago

Late 30's, want to know my shoe size also?

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

quote"A whole new level of thickness"

Dont dis-credit yourself in that manner, ill let you off for being dumb enough to suggest an individual OWNS a BT line, rather than rents it..... My god that would be a good scam from BT, someone owning a phone line but still getting them to pay monthly rent on it... That brain cell of yours must really bounce around at times.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

You "OWN" the phone line but aint allowed to touch it at certain points either as you point out, but must by law get BT to look at it....... WOW thats another good scam they are onto, forcing people that "OWN" things to pay them to service it.
WOW the amount of flem you have produced in this thread is pure genius.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

40Mbps?! I wonder if Rutland Telecom would like to replace the existing connections in my part of London?

  • rkidley
  • over 10 years ago

@rkidley
FTTC will be available in most of London next year, no need to pay anyone to build that as its coming anyway. Well worth having in my opinion, particulary with upstream speeds of up to 10Mbps.

  • New_Londoner
  • over 10 years ago

"I spose if you rented a house and something was damaged by the previous occupier, you would be happy to pay to get it fixed?" Exactly my point making yourself sound even more stupid (now arguing with yourself) if the previous occupier has damaged a utility you get them to fix it, not ask the utility provider to fix it for you for free and cry the poor tale saying it was someone elses fault. I entirely agree (as that was my point) now please convince your other self of it, the one you are arguing with.

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

Its not the current home owners responsibility to get a prior tennant to pay up its the person you pay the rent to..... Same should go for BT, previous renter of their line did the damage, BT should fix it for the current renter and get the previous one to pay up. THATS how the law works which is what you wittered onto m0aur about in this thread. You and New_Londoner had the nerve to say law suits him only when he sees fit, it sounds like you are now doing the same.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

Arguement is mute anyway now. Follow up stories on this £550,000 lark demonstrate BT have been idiots... They opened their mouths and proved it, not once but two further times now. :D

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

Are you 100% sure about that CB? I'm serious.... so if you bought a property and when you finally moved in you saw the main fuse box was hanging off the wall the electricity board would fix it free of charge (to you) and chase up the previous tenant to recover costs? (same with water/gas etc)

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

NO the owner of the property AKA the landlord would chase up the electricity board, the owner of the property would pay the electricity board and its upto the owner and the electricity board who pays what..... Bugger all to do with me, i didnt damage it, i dont own it, im not paying it..... THATS the LAW If the landlord or electricity board want to go after the prior tennant thats upto them, i couldnt care less who pays what, its not my fuse box, not my damage so the other parties can decide who pays.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

THE OWNER of the property is responsible for the PROPERTY the fuse board is in the PROPERTY. The FUSE BOX is OWNED by the electricity board. The electricity board bills the OWNER in the case you describe, The owner and/or landlord (depends on damage caused, were they bypassing the meter via this fuse box???? you need to be clearer) then go after the prior tennant....... ME as the new RENTER of the PROPERTY doesnt give a cack either way, i dont pay.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

I OWN nothing, as the renter of the property, i dont own a fuse box, i dont own a BT line and i didnt do any damage.

The again you know all this i suspect and in typical idiot fashion you are trying to cover your cock up of saying a person "OWNS a BT LINE"

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

The usual late night caps frenzy. Owns was a bad word to use in hindsight, I meant whoever has taken over the line, the rental of it, payment etc. You don't own a BT line, you know it I know it and you know I knew it. If m0aur is renting well yes that is an entirely different matter all of this should have been resolved by his landlord, in fact that makes his dabbling even worse!

  • GMAN99
  • over 10 years ago

quote"You don't own a BT line, you know it I know it and you know I knew it."

Then why did you say he did? Oh and in the same post say i have no common sense? Maybe you should examine alot of what you have to type before you accuse me of things like that and ranting. Talk sense then maybe i wouldnt have to rant at you.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

Why is it, that 90% of traffic on ALL forums, is nothing but insults and personal vendettas, that have no bearing on the thread involved.
Personally, I have very little time for forums, precisely because of the snivelling nit-picking anoraks that frequent them

  • m0aur
  • over 10 years ago

GMAN99 and a few others here dont like it when anyone points out some BT failings.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 10 years ago

Post a comment

Login Register