BROADBAND 890xxx  
       
 
 Minutes 20/12/04
   
  Minutes of Meeting on 20 Dec 04 at Talbot Court Farm, Tresham
   

Present Bob Davies, Leighterton peggydavies@yahoo.co.uk
 
Richard Goodenough (chair) richard.goodenough@tresham.org.uk
Tom Hatherell, Tresham tom.hatherell@farmline.com
Howard Nichols, Leighterton hkn@extra-galactic.freeserve.co.uk
 
Apologies Bob Suter, Tresham bob_suter@uk.ibm.com
  Pam Stokvis, Lasborough pam@scorpion.co.uk
  James Vernon, Bowldown jamesvernon@bowldownfarmsltd.co.uk

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