Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BT Fibre Pulls Out of Chelsea Over Ugly Equipment Cabinets

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sounds-like-some-elvis-costello-lyrics dept.

Network 136

judgecorp writes "The up-market London borough of Kensington and Chelsea has lost its chance for BT fast fibre. After residents objected to the ugly fibre cabinets, and the council repeatedly refused permission to install them in historic sites, BT has said the borough will not get its fast BT Infinity product at all. The borough says it doesn't need BT, as Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered."

cancel ×

136 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

heh (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168509)

I've pulled out of a few ugly cabinets in my time.

But, really you should use a condom.

Re:heh (0)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168643)

Oh, hey, Zach. [smbc-comics.com]

Re:heh (-1, Offtopic)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169825)

I hear ya!!

I mean "pull out"? That doesn't sound like the manly thing to do!!

I say leave it in and get the job done.

Hell, if her cabinets are too ugly, just roll her over and go from behind....

go aberdeen! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168555)

go aberdeen!

I think turtles are animals (-1, Offtopic)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168573)

I think they are. But what do turtles think?

Now, thanks to science, we know what turtles think.

I say, thank GOD for science! If GOD hadn't made science for us, we would still be horrible slaves of the Italian overlords.

More to the point, can I use the internet to find things on the web? Becuse there are many cool people, not just on the facebook or the blog, but on the web too, and I want to make them my FRIENDS for JESUS! I command you to help me, slhsheashdote, or squitrrelfart on your mom!!!!!

Some people just like to complain. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168575)

Dafuq is their problem?? Shit government, nobody doesn anything against it, and then they focus on irrelevant shit such as this??

If somebody is bitching about some cabinets, instead of actually important stuff, then he has some serious (repressed) problems of his own.

Re:Some people just like to complain. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40170101)

Well some people will complain for the sake of complaining. However for a lot of people the appearance of their neighborhoods is more important then high speed internet. Especially for a technology that within a few years may be obsolete. Say more wireless. where those transmitters are hidden from general view.

Re:Some people just like to complain. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171813)

Or, from what I've been hearing (allow for a dump truck full of salt whenever "gloom and doom" meets "internet") it might go the other way, leaving those historic district types with a historic lack of access.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spectrum-crunch [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Some people just like to complain. (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172069)

they are worried that the nanny wont be able to push the giant All Terain prama on the pavemnet (side walk) :-)

Re:Some people just like to complain. (2)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172511)

I both of your assertions are incorrect.

Firstly, fibre doesn't become "obsolete", seeing as endpoints can be upgraded. You ignore that the speed of light is the universal speed limit. I'd really like to know how you can get 1Gbps out of 4G.

Secondly, for decent "wireless" (I assume you mean 3G/4G), you need towers that are quite visible. This doesn't even address the limitations of 3G/4G networks under heavy subscriber numbers.

The same faulty rationale is being used here in Australia to argue against the National Broadband Network.

Re:Some people just like to complain. (2)

Smauler (915644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173129)

By the way, for people in the US, the _average_ house price in Chelsea is about £1.5 million [bbc.co.uk] , so well over 2 million dollars. The average semi-detached house price is £12 million. It's not a normal part of the the UK, by any means.

Re:Some people just like to complain. (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173579)

Transmitters hidden from general view? Yeah right.

The NBN wireless towers (for areas not covered by fibre) in Australia are being made 40 meters tall and hidden they are not.

Agreed (4, Interesting)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168601)

TBH, those are fairly ugly. Seems there could be a market for disguising them just like they do some cell phone towers or simply having the city allow it to be put in spaces not out in the open.

Re:Agreed (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168743)

They look pretty similar to the Virgin boxes that the residents seem to be fine about. Maybe a bit taller.

BT Infinity is made of fail anyway. It's expensive, slow and capped to hell. Rather than do real fibre to the premises they decided to roll out last century's technology.

Re:Agreed (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168813)

I've been looking at getting it. How capped to hell? I'm changing ISP in the next week or so. Any recommendations other than BT, SKY, talk talk. Virgin is evil and not on my list ...Even if it was free..

Re:Agreed (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171067)

Taek a look at the UK Free Software Network [ukfsn.org] if you want a non-evil ISP.

I live in RBKC. I started with talktalk in March, and it's fine. I have only paid in advance for 1 year's phone line rental (£114), but the broadband is literally free for a year (they gave me a tesco voucher £25 and I used a cashback site which gave me £70 amazon voucher).

Compared to that, BT is really expensive, but then again they currently spend £20 every month sending snailmail spam to every flat in my building. On the other hand, Virgin spends £40 doing the same thing as they use A4 sized envelopes!

Re:Agreed (4, Insightful)

ATMD (986401) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172075)

I was on UKFSN when I lived with people, but had to switch to a cheaper ISP when I started living on my own. If I could afford it I'd definitely go back, though - proper business-grade ADSL, a /29 subnet, fantastic latency and great customer support (it's run by a geek in his garage).

That was a couple of years ago so it may have changed, but I'd certainly be willing to try them again if I had the chance.

Re:Agreed (5, Informative)

ShakingSpirit (1799676) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169597)

They look pretty similar to the Virgin boxes that the residents seem to be fine about. Maybe a bit taller.

BT Infinity is made of fail anyway. It's expensive, slow and capped to hell. Rather than do real fibre to the premises they decided to roll out last century's technology.

BT Infinity is great, and pretty much the best choice for internet access in the UK, just as long as you don't get it from BT... Plenty of other providers which resell the same FTTC service but without the crappy throttling/shaping. I'm with Zen and get 60down/20up solidly, couldn't be happier to be honest.

Re:Agreed (4, Informative)

RdeCourtney (2034578) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168831)

BC Hydro here allow kids to put murals on the boxes like this [eileenmosca.com] and they also wrap a lot of the boxes in flowers and tree photos to blend them into the environment..

Re:Agreed (2)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168833)

If oil drilling rigs can be so disguised that they aren't noticed in the middle of LA then I am sure that BT could have disguised their cabinets enough to make the snobs happy.

That only works (4, Funny)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171769)

because LA looks like a cesspool to begin with.

Re:Agreed (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168837)

Couldn't they have made them into the shape of the old red payphones? This seems like the company was being a bit arrogant.

Re:Agreed (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169009)

My thinking exactly. Cover them with tart cards [wikipedia.org] and no one will spot the difference.

Re:Agreed (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169299)

If they made them to look like blue police call boxes people would be fighting over having one on their street.

Re:Agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40170961)

Probably not. I can't remember that exact reason, but I think it is something to do with planning permission, these boxes are at about the limit of the size they can have with current regulations. They certainly can't be any taller than they are now, maybe they can do something with the length and width to make them into the shape of a scaled down phonebox, but I doubt they are able to do even that.

Re:Agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171099)

We still have red payphone boxes. Tourists would get confused and maybe "arrested" by the local PCSO for trespassing.

Re:Agreed (1)

colinnwn (677715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171289)

I don't have a dog in this game, but it doesn't seem arrogant to me. If the neighbors wanted BT and thought the boxes were ugly, the council/neighborhood should have offered to pay a reasonable amount for them to be camoflauged. Why should BT pay when they don't pay to camoflauge them in poor residential neighborhoods? Now if they did offer and BT refused or said it would cost them big daddy warbucks, then it does seem arrogant of BT.

Re:Agreed (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172343)

I too don't have a dog in the game. I'm not even on the same contient.

If BT wants to move into my neighborhood (which seems unlikely) then why should my neighborhood pay _anything_ to bring their equipment up to my existing standards? As long as my neighborhood's standards are not designed to foster unfair competition, it is up to BT to conform with the existing code.

If a home builder wants to build in a community, they don't get an "assistance" to bring their quality in line with the local code and regulations.

Re:Agreed (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168855)

This type of Infrastructure stays around for 50 years on average, and there's no need to accept such crappie equipment strewn all over the landscape because once in, you are stuck, they will never improve or replace them.

If you don't force them to do it right the first time, it will look like hell forever.

I have a ground mounted transformer, a telephone cabinet , a cable company cabinet all sitting in my front yard, all because the subdivision builder granted them easements. The service companies bitch where I shroud them with Rhodies.

Re:Agreed (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169401)

Our street in Ontario has the same problem. Every 8-10 houses you get three service boxes in your front yard (I'm not a utility nerd, so I'm not sure what's what), one of which is the approximate width and depth of a washing machine, and perhaps two and a half feet high, and painted the same green as the boxes in the BT story. All down the street you have these ugly-ass boxes that have been graffitied by neighborhood kids. They bitch when you plant something to camouflage them, but you can't get the bastards to come out and paint the thing when it gets tagged. I really don't want to look like I live in a crackhouse. Props to Chelsea and Kensington for giving BT the whatfor, because once these things are in you're not going to get rid of them.

Re:Agreed (0)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169933)

"Me too". We bought a new build in Ontario. It was off-plan and was a lovely corner lot which was going to be fantastic to landscape with little rock falls to the back garden with the WO basement.

It was so exciting watching it being built, I had big plans.

Then along came the transformer box, the Bell & Rogers boxes nestled together (not even straight) a crooked lamp post and and a crooked stop sign. All this on our 'premium' lot. Oh and the slope to the back garden got 're-graded' and a huge wall put in with an 8' fence on top, effectively cutting our property in half (well, making a good 25% of it unusable so we ended up with a standard rectangle back garden).

To top it off, we ended up with paper thin walls, renters next door that worked in bars and got home and played music loud from 2am till 7am when they went to bed. My wife had a 9 month hellish pregnancy during all this and we bought just before the market slumped.

When we finally moved into an older house (With a 2-car workshop in the back garden where I can build a locost :) ) we managed to not lose tooo much money, and we only have 1 utility now, a bell box, nicely hidden.

What an experience that was lol. Sorry for the off-topic, the services on Ontario property reminded me of it all and I needed a vent as I had not vented anywhere about it yet. I feel better now. Thank you lol.

Re:Agreed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171405)

lol

Re:Agreed (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173305)

paper thin walls

This is the biggest problem with houses... I really think that this is a good place when government regulation could help. The number of times police, courts, etc get involved with noise and neighbour disputes that stem from noise - If you mandated decent walls, you'd save money, grief, and hassle.

Re:Agreed (1)

colinnwn (677715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172507)

Not that the USA is anything to aspire to. But it sounds like you have underground utilites with ground level service boxes painted neutral colors. Most of us would love to have that. Only the nicest and richest neighborhoods in the USA have underground utilites. Most neighborhoods have all utilites on poles on the front street. Lucky neighborhoods have the utilites on poles in the alley, so you only see the poles/utilites on crossing streets.

If it was me, I'd set up a survellence camera on the boxes and send the video to the police when they get tagged, and then go out and repaint them green with some exterior paint real fast. We don't have a problem with camoflauging these boxes with plant material or something easy to move, as long as you don't complain to the service company when the plants get torn up.

Re:Agreed (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173299)

So why cant the box be buried and an access cover put over it? I never understood these eyesores...

Re:Agreed (4, Interesting)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169375)

Here in Ann Arbor, the city has allowed local artists to adopt and paint these types of boxes as well as fire hydrants. It's actually pretty neat. It doesn't quite make them disappear into the background but they're not quite the eyesore anymore.

http://julihoffman.wordpress.com/tag/ann-arbor-photos/ [wordpress.com]

Re:Agreed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169425)

I don't think the paint color is the issue, otherwise I expect BT would have agreed to disguise them however the borough wanted. The issue seems to be the location, number, and physical design of the cabinets. No doubt BT is trying to minimize the length of fiber it has to run to save money. If there are fewer cabinets in out-of-the-way locations, then they're going to be that much further from where they need to be to service customers. Underground installations would also obviously increase costs.

Re:Agreed (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169959)

Physical size is clearly the issue here. I can guarantee you that these boxes are mostly empty space inside, and the actual equipment could be configured to fit in a much smaller space.

Re:Agreed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171483)

I can guarantee you that you're wrong.

http://www.trefor.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cabinet-with-kit_small.jpg

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/ispnews/data/upimages/subfolders/2009%20Broadband%20Hardware/fttc_deployment.jpg

Re:Agreed (1)

dj245 (732906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169885)

It wouldn't take a whole lot to put up some cheap, but durable statues or other outdoor art, and build the equipment cabinet into the pedestal base. There are probably artists who would be happy to get their work on public display for little or no cost.

Or you could build the cabinet really long, and make it look like a bench. It would be warm too.

A new paintjob? (5, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168613)

Perhaps if they're painted like a police box, nobody will even notice they're present?

Re:A new paintjob? (2, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168699)

or a CCTV camera

Re:A new paintjob? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168843)

Perhaps if they're painted like a police box, nobody will even notice they're present?

As a bonus, equipment with broken chameleon circuits could continue to operate in the community. Of course, you'd also have to put up signs saying that upon meeting an adult who talks very quickly and mumbles about his screwdriver, you are instructed to immediately provide your full name and some kind of sob story. It'll save them when the monsters, sentient water, spacecraft, and parasites come.

Who or What is BT? (0)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168635)

Seriously.

Re:Who or What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168703)

BT is the former British Telecom.

Re:Who or What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168709)

Without any knowledge except the city and borough names, I'm guessing "British Telecom" or something equivalent.

Just consider this article as a "Revenge of the Limeys" for all the ones that use US-known TLAs.

Re:Who or What is BT? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169459)

Without any knowledge except the city and borough names, I'm guessing "British Telecom" or something equivalent.

Just consider this article as a "Revenge of the Limeys" for all the ones that use US-known TLAs.

I suppose TLA could also stand for Two Letter Acronym....

Re:Who or What is BT? (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40170027)

AISFATLAYF

"Actually It Stands For A Ten Letter Acronym You Fool"

Re:Who or What is BT? (1)

majesticmerc (1353125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168793)

BT is one of the telecommunications providers in the UK (like Verizon or AT&T in the USA I think).

Re:Who or What is BT? (0)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168851)

After reading the summary and the article what exactly did you think BT stood for?

Re:Who or What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169431)

After reading the summary and the article...

Thanks! I needed a good laugh today!

Re:Who or What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171149)

BT stands for expensive broadband, monopoly and waste. You still have to pay £120 to BT to get a new phone line in the UK, even if you don't use them as your ISP or phone provider.

Re:Who or What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40170109)

BitTorrent - they're a file sharing company.

How it really happened... (4, Funny)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168637)

In my mind, I like to picture this spat ending with them shouting "INDUBITABLY!" at each other and throwing tea.

Re:How it really happened... (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168667)

i just spit my coffee out all over the keyboard reading that.

Re:How it really happened... (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168787)

I think you're confusing them with the folks in Boston.

The Brits value tea far too much to be throwing it anywhere, except in a tea pot to make a brew!

Re:How it really happened... (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173409)

Heh... the sludge that most people drink, and contaminate with 3 sugars and 1/4 a pint of milk doesn't taste like tea anyway.

Guess it's a little like coffee in that respect...

Re:How it really happened... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40174033)

Yes, coffee doesn't taste like tea either.

I am glad that I live elsewhere (0)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168695)

I would not use Virgin as an ISP if there was any sort of alternative -- I would rather stay at ADSL2 and accept a lower speed. Virgin: just say no!

Re:I am glad that I live elsewhere (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168775)

I used Vermin cable internet for several years and had no problems at all.

Re:I am glad that I live elsewhere (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169343)

Well anyone in the habit of saying "no" is more likely to be a virgin.

Re:I am glad that I live elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171233)

The only difference is that Virgin can provide internet connection without a phone line. I got cut off for ~24 hours every 6 months or so.

I had to go with Virgin for my old place as I didn't want to pay for a landline installation. It was £20 a month. I have just moved to RBKC and started with TalkTalk, and will be paying £10 a month on average (free for first 6 months). However I get unlimited broadband and phone calls all day.

Seems justified... (3, Interesting)

Antony T Curtis (89990) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168707)

From TFA:

... would not use sites that already had unused BT equipment ...

Seems reasonable to refuse on those grounds alone.

Re:Seems justified... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169245)

Undoubtedly it wasn't the right kind of equipment for fiber, so they'd have to rip it out and put in a new installation anyway. Then it probably isn't in a good location, requiring them to run a longer line, which increases costs. Most dust ups like this come down to money in the end.

Re:Seems justified... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169377)

Indubitably it wasn't the right kind of equipment for fiber, so they'd have to rip it out and put in a new installation anyway. Then it probably isn't in a good location, requiring them to run a longer line, which increases costs. Most dust ups like this come down to money in the end.

FTFY

Aesthetics (1, Insightful)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168803)

Every time aesthetics trumps functionality I get just a little bit sadder.

Re:Aesthetics (1)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169001)

Every time aesthetics trumps functionality I get just a little bit sadder.

Agreed.

#FirstWorldProblem right here.

Re:Aesthetics (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169591)

Firstworldproblem indeed.
I just moved to Canary Wharf and considering it is the largest financial sector area in Europe, I'm amazed that I have the suckiest Internet connection I have experienced since approx 1995.
Can you believe it: No fiber possible, max bandwidth (irrespective of "competition"): 1-2 Mb/s.
I should have stayed in Zambia where 1) throughput was better - and - 2) if the ISP sucks, you can always fall back on 4G.
4G has not even been deployed in the UK yet (but is readily available for a humane price in Lusaka).

Re:Aesthetics (5, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169367)

If you are unable to see that aesthetics actually has functional value, then I'm surprised you're actually capable of the emotion of "sadness".

Re:Aesthetics (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169423)

Every time cost trumps quality I get just a little bit sadder.

Re:Aesthetics (2)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169507)

Functionality for who? If I was a customer then *maybe* I wouldn't mind seeing their ugly boxes littering the landscape. But what about everyone else? Not everyone is a customer and some people actually like living in nice places.

Re:Aesthetics (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169769)

Every time I see a neighborhood or historic building legally vandalized, simply so a utility company could make a few extra bucks, I get a little bit sadder.

They aren't ugly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168807)

Those cabinets aren't ugly, they look like your run-of-the-mill residential power transformers. If the council wants them to look different, they should commission someone to make a better cabinet, or design something that can be put over the existing one. Denying over 34,000 residences fast fiber connections is ridiculous.

Re:They aren't ugly (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40168959)

If it bothers the "34000" then it's their duty to pressure the council. 34K votes is a bunch.

Re:They aren't ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169815)

The (rather wealthy) area already has access to *faster* full-fibre technology broadband. Virgin cable is a full fibre service, whereas this is "fibre to the cabinet": BT lay the fibre to these new cabinets, and then use copper as normal, using VDSL technology.

Re:They aren't ugly (3, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 2 years ago | (#40170965)

The (rather wealthy) area already has access to *faster* full-fibre technology broadband. Virgin cable is a full fibre service, whereas this is "fibre to the cabinet": BT lay the fibre to these new cabinets, and then use copper as normal, using VDSL technology.

I know Virgin have been advertising "fibre optic internet" for many years, but no, it isn't "full" fibre, its basically just FTTC. The only real difference between Virgin's and BT's network is that BT runs fibre to the cabinet and then VDSL over a copper pair to the premises whilst Virgin run fibre to the cabinet and then do DOCSIS over coax... Wake me up when FTTP gets widespread.

Re:They aren't ugly (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 2 years ago | (#40171899)

Virgin isn't "full fibre", it's HFC like every other cable TV network.

Their advertising campaign was obviously effective at getting their "fibre" message across.

Re:They aren't ugly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172209)

RKBC includes North Kensington, a craphole of chavs and single mums on benefits.

Re:They aren't ugly (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40173685)

Virgin cable is a full fibre service

Yes, they make tiny little cavities inside the coax cabling where they install the fibre runs. Don't ever look at a Virgin cable when it isn't attached, it might blind you!

what the fuck happened to slashdot?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40168849)

Toilet learning differs from Toilet training. Child toilet training is something that is adult directed; toilet learning is when the child is involved in their own learning. Toilet training may involve a time pressure on your child which seems to be a quick fix but may have consequences. Toilet training involves an attitude of having to do it now because the adult chooses so. The difference between toilet learning and toilet training is the adult’s attitude which can make a big difference for the child.

Toilet learning starts with readiness signs, and is not learned through a reward system. Toileting is a skill that needs to be learnt. It cannot be taught overnight. The key to toilet learning is teaching not training the child. Learning on their own is reward enough for them to be able to independently help themselves in remaining clean or not soiling themselves. Allow the child to learn on their own with a bit of support and help from the adult with the use of toilet training pants and clothes they can independently put on themselves. Toilet learning is linked to the child’s self-esteem, so genuine verbal praise is important. There are no ‘accidents’ during toilet learning, only lessons. Language also plays a big part in keeping a positive attitude with toilet learning.

Sounds Like SF (3, Insightful)

cis4 (2565359) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169011)

This same issue came up over AT&T wanting to install boxes in SF. Google SF ATT Boxes.

As much as I hate NIMBY's, they have a good point here. If you're going to build something on public land, at least make it pleasant, unobtrusive, or both. Otherwise, buy the property and stop relying on the public to subsidize your business.

I still don't get why utility boxes have to be so ugly. How difficult is it to make a box look appealing?

Re:Sounds Like SF (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169075)

why don't you ask your wife.

Make it look like the TARDIS (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169181)

Bitches.

Why not underground? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40169211)

Why not to building underground?
Are they afraid it will get filled with liquid or some crap?
That thing could be made tigh... wait that jokes in bad taste. But really, they could be sealed pretty easily without it being expensive or whatever other nonsense.
Simple example would be tough rubber on the sides of the lid that goes on top of the container. The edges of the lid go over the sides like a pringles can lid.
For any more rain to possibly become a problem, they town would actually be flooded by all definition.
Then if there was tiles, add hooks and place it back down on top. If cement or others, attempt to take the layer off without breakage and place a frame on it and hook it do. If not, make sure you have a few extra tiles backup that you can just slap down to make it look nice and not some beige generic lid.
Either that or you can be all fancy and make a nice lid design to slap down in the middle of a street. They are rich enough to do it, damn it.

It's not like they are building a bloody war bunker or something. Building a few feet under in less than a foot wide in to the ground is so easy a 10 year old could do it safely. (and I'm actually being serious there)
Why are they possibly complaining that their actual product would be safer underground, because they need to spend, what, 5 extra minutes having to remove the lid, disconnect the power from a master switch and lift the entire thing out?
Quite frankly, if they needed to do maintenance so much on something that should be industrial-scale secure and foolproof sounds quite amateur at best.

Eh, I dunno. Whatever. It is only BT. I gave up caring about them when their connection was dying 3-7 times a day for months. Note that 3 minimum. (Worst was it fell once during an Oracle Exam. If anyone has ever done one of those, you'd know they are attempt-based and you get 3 of them. IP reset and had to start again. BRILLIANT GUYS, BRILLIANT. Both terrible companies I wish were gone)

Re:Why not underground? (3, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169331)

They are deploying thousands of these all around the country, putting them underground would be considerably more expensive...

It's not just maintenance for which they need to access the cabinet, connecting new customers up requires that too.

Also, these cabinets contain quite a lot of kit that generates heat, that would need to be vented somehow and you can't just put vents in the top because water would get in. If you sealed them such that they were waterproof and insulated by dirt and paving slabs on all sides, they would overheat very quickly... With the above ground cabinets, you can have vents which are angled downwards to prevent rain ingress and the metal case will also conduct heat fairly well and is cooled by fresh air on the outside.

Fiber Nazi (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169273)

No fiber for you!! Next!!

but people will invariably blame the wrong party (2)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169519)

Cue the people in that area complaining that BT's service is slow, or that they can't get it at all. They'll invariably blame BT, and won't consider that it was their own politicians who prevented them from getting service.
Now I wouldn't call those boxes particularly ugly, but I'm sure if the council was willing to work with BT something could be arranged.
I work for a telco providing fibre service in north america. Our boxes are slightly smaller than that I think (it's hard to get a sense of scale from the photo), and white, they are often hidden behind fences or shrubs, or in back alleys etc. As long as we have access to them, we don't really care what is done to conceal them. In some places they have been treated with a wrap of some form of artwork (one place I really liked was in a touristy part of a city where the box was turned in to a large map of the area, made something that had to be there anyway serve yet another purpose.)

Re:but people will invariably blame the wrong part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173223)

Sounds like AT&T uVerse to me:

If so, then some feedback from a (former) customer:
1. Your 'slightly smaller' white boxes are still too bloody big and too numerous, oh and a few of them actually blew up.
2. Your speeds and prices aren't actually all that competitive against Comcast, still claiming caps, still trying to bundle when all I want is internet.
3. Your TV service was absolute rubbish when I saw it. The main issue seemed to be the horribly designed Motorola DVR's running the Microsoft MediaRoom software internally... the remote was next to worthless, responsiveness was atrocious, on and on.

We ended up canceling and switching back to Comcast for internet and DirecTV for television... uVerse was so promising but the implementation is horrific.

FFS (5, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40169867)

The borough says it doesn't need BT, as Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered.

Yeah, and who needs competition, we all know monopolies are the best way to ensure low prices and good services, am I right?

I understand that the boxes may be ugly, but that statement is utterly moronic.

Re:FFS (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40170585)

It's just them playing hardball in the media. Companies and clients routinely do this when it comes to negotiations. Don't be surprised if at some point in the future a compromise is reached with nicer looking boxes.

Ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40171703)

It is rather ironic, BT is the ex-monopoly and Virgin a private competitor.

How hard is it to use different cabinets? (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40170395)

I understand their complaint and it's reasonable. Just use a pretty box.

Why FTTC and not FTTH, anyway? (2)

maXXwell (172246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40170711)

This seems to be as good a place as any to ask this: why are providers going with FTTC anyway, rather than FTTH (fibre-to-the-home)? These large cabinets are artifacts of FTTC -- at some point the fibre has to be broken out into bundles of dozens or hundreds of copper (coax or twisted-pair) drops that then need to be driven with enough power to push the signal for the last few hundred metres. Isn't this already a flawed approach? Moreover, this reduces the total bandwidth available between the local exchange carrier and the premises.

As I understand it, FTTC permits the provider to deliver high bandwidth services (at least by today's standards) at lower infrastructure costs then FTTH. However, this seems to be 'kicking the can down the road', to use the prosaic expression.

So, how much are the providers saving? For example, I've read it costs the National Grid on average 13 times more per mile to run 400 kV transmission lines underground as it does via pylons. Is there a similar figure that can be cited for the difference between FTTC and FTTH?

We seem to be living in a golden age of infrastructure underinvestment.

Re:Why FTTC and not FTTH, anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173557)

You are 100% correct sir.

This is about cost and nothing else.

FTTC (aka FTTN) over twisted pair copper (VDSL) for the last few hundred meters is a horrible compromise that is fraught with compromises and problems. You STILL have to play this ridiculous game of "how far from the node am I" when you're ordering the service. You still have to deal with unreliable and bandwidth limited service because they're trying to run high bandwidth services over old crappy copper wires that were never designed for this purpose.

Doing the same thing over coax is marginally better simply because coax is a much better cable, but you're still making compromises and in most cases the telcos are taking advantage of the higher quality coax cables by simply making the nodes fewer and further between. So what you're left with is still a gimped service.

FTTH is the only way to go, it's so sad that we aren't there yet. They were talking about a "national broadband infrastructure" (in the US at least) for the last decade+ and we're still dealing with a patchwork of greedy telcos.

Virgin Media (3, Interesting)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 2 years ago | (#40172385)

Richard Branson's Virgin Media has got it more or less covered

As a Virgin Media customer in Kensington, I can say that's a load of horsesh

Win Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40172857)

A rich community and a rich company both not getting what they want.
I love it.

The case for a new last-mile infrastructure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40173377)

The case discussed here, as well as the extremely similar issues that continue to plague the AT&T uVerse rollout here in the states, underscore why I STILL believe it is necessary to have a separate INDEPENDENT data infrastructure.

It's so obvious and simple yet the entrenched providers and clueless, self-serving politicians make it seemingly impossible to achieve.

My ideal setup would be the creation of a not-for-profit entity to build and manage a FTTP last mile infrastructure. This entity would be responsible for maintaining the lines themselves as well as the regional nodes (sized based on population density). This organization would be explicitly forbidden from offering any actual services to the end users. They would be paid out of fees to the companies which can "light up" the connections at the regional nodes. I'm ready and willing to pay for the creation of this network via my public taxes, as long as it provides open and shared access in terms of selecting providers (anyone willing to put kit in the regional node office).

You get a nice fat fibre connection to your premises (house, business, apartment complex, whatever) and then you can purchase services from anyone willing to install kit into the regional nodes, including multiple separate services over the same line. Technically this is extremely easy to implement, politically not so much.

That would foster TRUE COMPETITION so you know it will never happen.

I am sure... (1)

SchMoops (2019810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40174187)

I swear there's a joke somewhere in the headline, but I'm missing it somehow.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?