|
|
|
| Grimly Curmudgeon replied to Nick Brooks on 10 May 2004 |
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
They're taking the piss.
|
| Will replied to Lurch on 19 May 2004 |
I found another source of info on this story, the final
paragraph is the most revealing - reading between the lines it appears
that BT may have installed the cable on the wrong side of this chap's
boundary, and are now looking to resite the boundary...
|
| Andy Hall replied to Will on 19 May 2004 |
I'm not sure that I'd read that into it at all.
It is very common for there to be a services strip at the edge of a
property next to the road. I have one about a metre wide at the end
of my drive where it connects with the road. It's marked either side
with stone inserts at the edges of the drive.
AIUI, it is my property, but any organisation delivering services
(e.g. cables, pipes, etc.) has an automatic wayleave to use this area
as long as they make good afterwards.
The fences at the sides of the drive go all the way to the road and
belong to me.
Given that scenario, it is easy to figure out what could have happened
in this instance.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Will replied to Andy Hall on 19 May 2004 |
Hi Andy,
I guess that you live in a fairly modern property? I have seen
such like that have blocks let into front lawns that read "boundary"
or similar, a meter or so before the inner edge of the pavement.
The area that I live in, which must be similar to a huge number
of others, predates this scenario, in that my boundary extends to the
inner edge of the pavement, the demarcation evident by slim inset
"kerb stones". As far as I'm aware - and I was the first occupant of
the property nearly 40 years ago - all of the services, with the
exception of the overhead electrical supply, run under the road. The
water cutoffs are let into the pavement, and I can remember my father
(I didn't say that I was the head of the family!) cutting the 'phone
line whilst laying the front lawn. The phone line entered the property
perpendicular to the frontage.
It is possible that you are correct in your deductions, but
having witnessed the "workmen" that the utility companies tend to
employ, I am not too surprised that the cable might well be within
this chap's boundary...
|
| Andy Hall replied to Will on 20 May 2004 |
Exactly.
Oh sure. They don't bury in the correct place or depth.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Lurch replied to Will on 19 May 2004 |
Typical BT, get someone else to move the world if it means we don't
have to do anything.
|
| MBQ replied to Will on 20 May 2004 |
"We are also looking into the fact that Mr Brown may have extended his
boundary into the public highway"
Reading between the lines it appears this chap was putting up a new
fence and trying to grab a bit of extra garden ;-)
MBQ
|
| Set Square replied to Nick Brooks on 10 May 2004 |
Not quite sure why BT's fibre optics cable was going under this man's
garden!
In any case, I would hope that the Public Liability part of his household
insurance would pay.
|
| David replied to Set Square on 10 May 2004 |
I would want to know why they replaced 2km of cable rather than using a
couple of splice enclosures and a patch in the cut cable.. The system margin
should have been able to cope with this fairly easily and the material cost
would be perhaps £100, add in the labour and I'd look at less than a grand.
Looks like an excuse to upgrade the link and get somebody else to pay for
it.
cheers
David
|
| David Hearn replied to David on 10 May 2004 |
Firstly I can only assume the cable must have been near the boundary wall.
I doubt a fibre cable would go through someone's garden. No idea though how
deep it was buried and how protected it was. Maybe the guy was using a
digger?!?
As for why 2km of cable was replaced - joints in fibre do add losses.
Depending on the length of the cable (in this case, 2km) a joint may have
reduced it to unsatifactory levels. I would have expected a joint to have
been possible - but I've no idea as to the infrastructure in place in that
guy's situation.
D
|
| David replied to David Hearn on 11 May 2004 |
snip
In general a system is designed to cope with increased losses of 6dB to
account for aging of components etc. Each splice/joint should add less than
0.1dB excess loss(typically 0.02dB for a decent splice). They would need two
splices to remake the connection, to give a max of 0.2dB excess loss which
should still leave a margin of 5.8dB.
even if the cable had say 100 fibres the cost of connecting them all would
be in the region of 100x2 x £20/splice, to give £4000 + £1000 for
enclosures and other sundries.
depending on the system even upgrading the source/receiver units could be
more economical than relaying the cable
Something is certainly missing from the story... but then again the the guy
who went through the cable must also have been very careless, every cable is
generally enclosed in a green plastic pipe, which should be fairly obvious
at the time.
cheers
David
|
| David Hearn replied to David on 11 May 2004 |
Maybe it had been a common problem along the 2km length of fibre. 29 people
before him damaging the cable outside their house such that he was the
unfortunate person who hit the 6db limit... ;)
Certainly glad it wasn't me with the bill though!
D
|
| Michael Mcneil replied to David Hearn on 19 May 2004 |
"David Hearn" <dave@NoSpamSwampieSpammer.Org.Uk> wrote in message
news:c7ql04$j3d$1@slavica.ukpost.com
So in law he is only responsible for the fraction of it that they didn't
cause and maybe not even that. You get a bill to setle out of court by a
certain date after that things get expensive.
However the corporate world of Thatcherist monopolism has a good chance
against the average DIYer in the British legal system. Remember the
golden handshake for the disasterous first boss?
I'd offer a fiver a week and renege on it as often as I could. And
advertise where it is buried and how to damage it, all around the local
schools.
|
| Andy Hall replied to Michael Mcneil on 20 May 2004 |
What on earth are you talking about ?
That's a really sensible idea...... NOT.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
|
| Badger replied to David on 09 May 2004 |
Looks like a metpost through the cable, he'd never see the thing...
As for repair costs, I worked for BT marine (when we, as in the UK)
still had our own ships etc, the joints and stuff were for a max of 25
fibres, don't know about land based stuff, but I'd have thought jointing
would have been much cheaper, still atleast it didn't have a king wire
at 25Kv in it!
Niel, now working in the "home" of fibre comms.
|
|
