| Minutes 20/12/04 |
| |
|
| |
Minutes of Meeting on 20 Dec 04 at Talbot Court
Farm, Tresham |
| |
|
| 8 |
Matters Arising from Meeting on 1 Dec. |
|
| 8.1 |
Howard Nichols is looking into progress made on
providing the school with broadband. |
HN |
| 8.2 |
John Huntley and James Vernon still waiting to hear from respective
mobile phone companies with masts on their land as to whether they
have any arrangements with wireless ISPs. |
JH and JV |
| 9 |
Results of Survey |
|
| 9.1 |
RG issued a statement (Appendix A)
he had compiled entitled Analysis of Broadband Survey Results as at
20 December 2004. |
|
| 9.2 |
It was noted that:
- 58 users were in favour which was a very good response and it
was believed there were others who would be interested;
- most users wanted a 512Kbps service at a cost of £30pm (the
median value), but a significant number wanted a basic service
for £25pm;
- 15 users wanted to access VPNs (remote office computer systems);
- 33 respondents have a business use (and we hope most of these
will complete a RABBIT grant application which will meet setting-up
costs);
- there was very little demand for a public meeting.
|
|
| 9.3 |
RG issued a schedule of addresses drawn up from postcodes entered
into the Royal Mail website. |
Group members to co-ordinate with survey data. |
| 10 |
Update on proposals from ISPs |
|
| 10.1 |
RG reported on proposals received as follows:
- Supplier A - working on providing a service from Rodmarton to
Tresham, including W-u-E and Tetbury; needed to talk to Tim Watton
of RABBIT regarding funding capital costs; the group felt this
was ominous;
- Supplier B - has provided a detailed response;
- Supplier C - has also provided a detailed response;
- each supplier is proposing a different method of making the
connection between our distribution network and the internet (known
as the "backhaul").
|
|
| 10.2 |
The group concluded:
- Supplier A - the signs were that this proposal is proving too
expensive. Furthermore, we are trying to find a solution which
will meet the requirements of a wide range of people, and the
user-group felt that the monthly fees of this proposal do not
recognise this.
- Supplier B - this proposal seems technically feasible and just
about affordable. However, for the same reason given above the
user-group felt that the monthly fees of this proposal are also
unaffordable.
- Supplier C - this proposal also seems technically feasible and
very affordable, with the monthly fees being well within the range
requested by users in the survey. The group felt that this proposal
should be examined further by members of the group meeting the
supplier and talking to users of their existing service. It was
planned to do this in the week commencing 10 January.
- We must evaluate the feasibility and expense of using a satellite
service to provide the backhaul.
|
RG to write to ISPs as appropriate.
RG to investigate. |
| 11 |
Date of Next Meeting:
not set
|
|