Author Topic: Promise 8 Wi-fi when is a complaint not a complaint, or a promise not a promise?  (Read 5394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1554
  • Gender: Male
Mellon Ph1Lc

Thanks for the replies only I am not sure what you actually get as compared to what is advertised.
All posts on this forum are my own and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline Ben Reid

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 44
I forgot to add an extra variable which is servers and their suppliers some servers have data restrictions due to hosting packages which could ultimately affect your transfer time of content

Offline moley

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
I forgot to add an extra variable which is servers and their suppliers some servers have data restrictions due to hosting packages which could ultimately affect your transfer time of content

Several more factors

- latency (effectively distance) to server you are downloading from...
- configuration of your PC (especially for older PCs, the TCP-IP tuning may not be optimal for high latency connections)
- your virus checker (honest!)  I did some testing of this, and discovered that on an older PC, the virus checker was limiting my apparent download speed. 

To be honest, for 100 MB download speeds it's worth checking that your hardware will actually be able to take advantage of it.....

But maybe I need to have another go at persuading Virgin that although my address shows up as not having cable they *could* run a cable into my house very easily from the adjacent close (if they run into back of house rather than front of house).

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
I have an answer to question 11 - which was as follows

Question :- At the outset of the project On page 15 of the Cabinet Member Briefing Note Digital City UK Ltd were granted free use of accommodation at the DMJ Tower for a period of 12 months. Now that the 12 months has elapsed what is the position with regard to the provision of free accommodation at the DMJ Tower?

 
Answer from Coun Perkins - Given Digital City have invested in the office and that the Council do not need to use the space, nor is there lift access to allow the space to be let for a commercial rent, we are happy to continue the current arrangements.

So there we have it - an executive decision made by Coun Perkins in his capacity as a Borough Councillor and not as Director of Digital City UK Limited.  I am grateful to Coun Perkins for his response and I accept that he really did think that someone had replied to my enquiry. Better late than never, although as I unravel the answers to other questions I feel sure that they will inevitably lead to more angst.




Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !

Answer from Coun Perkins - Given Digital City have invested in the office and that the Council do not need to use the space, nor is there lift access to allow the space to be let for a commercial rent, we are happy to continue the current arrangements.


So why the twelve months charade?   :crazy2:

Charity organisations would fall over themselves for this space.  :o

It's a joke...


Offline moley

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !

Charity organisations would fall over themselves for this space.  :o

It's a joke...

Yup.. and on that topic whilst they are extending the handouts to Digital City, we are also getting this:

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8454023.Charities_to_lose__council_discount/

Moley

Offline Chris Watts

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
That's one in the keister for Cameron's big society Perkins. Well done.

Offline Drone

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 713
  • Gender: Female


 
Answer from Coun Perkins - Given Digital City have invested in the office and that the Council do not need to use the space, nor is there lift access to allow the space to be let for a commercial rent, we are happy to continue the current arrangements.

So there we have it - an executive decision made by Coun Perkins in his capacity as a Borough Councillor and not as Director of Digital City UK Limited.  I am grateful to Coun Perkins for his response and I accept that he really did think that someone had replied to my enquiry. Better late than never, although as I unravel the answers to other questions I feel sure that they will inevitably lead to more angst.

The council do not need the space??? Unless he's already planning for a post-reduncency world, GP obviously hasn't asked the annoyed people over at Wat Tyler who are sick off not having enough desks to go around, and are just about to have their cleaning service slashed.
derp derp herp herp derp

Offline Outoftowner

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Quote
Answer from Coun Perkins - Given Digital City have invested in the office

Come on GP, a wall calendar showing hand out dates paydays and tea making facilities isn't an "investment."

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1554
  • Gender: Male
I have an answer to question 11 - which was as follows

Question :- At the outset of the project On page 15 of the Cabinet Member Briefing Note Digital City UK Ltd were granted free use of accommodation at the DMJ Tower for a period of 12 months. Now that the 12 months has elapsed what is the position with regard to the provision of free accommodation at the DMJ Tower?

 
Answer from Coun Perkins - Given Digital City have invested in the office and that the Council do not need to use the space, nor is there lift access to allow the space to be let for a commercial rent, we are happy to continue the current arrangements.

So there we have it - an executive decision made by Coun Perkins in his capacity as a Borough Councillor and not as Director of Digital City UK Limited.  I am grateful to Coun Perkins for his response and I accept that he really did think that someone had replied to my enquiry. Better late than never, although as I unravel the answers to other questions I feel sure that they will inevitably lead to more angst.

Des

I welcome the fact that the questions you posed on 29th September 2010 have finally been answered personally by Cllr Perkins. It is some consolation to me that Promise 8 does finally produce results.  :clap:

I look forward to reading the answers to each question and thank you for  posting them. No doubt to allow an open and transparant and engaging discussion to take place, which is something the council leader has said on several occaisions he welcomes.  Also it has allowed me as a cllr to learn that the office arrangement in respect of the DMJ has been/is intended to be  varied. I am puzzled by Cllr Perkins Response to the question 11 as the Cabinet has as far as I am aware only  minuted the offices for free use for 12months? I could be wrong here, but it is my best recollection as I do not have the minute to hand. 

I know Cllr Bluh and Cllr Edwards signed off the decision note however in the best interests of openess and transparency, I do not for one minute believe that even if they are "happy" for continuation? They would be content on the basis of that "happiness" to allow Cllr Perkins the Deputy Leader of the council and member of the wifi company board to independently vary the terms of the free office provision without reference to cabinet for a minute to continue the use and allow scrutiny of that decision?

Posted on my blog here: http://tinyurl.com/38y95vs
All posts on this forum are my own and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline Outoftowner

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Steve Wakefield wrote:
Quote
I know Cllr Bluh and Cllr Edwards signed off the decision note however in the best interests of openess and transparency, I do not for one minute believe that even if they are "happy" for continuation? They would be content on the basis of that "happiness" to allow Cllr Perkins the Deputy Leader of the council and member of the wifi company board to independently vary the terms of the free office provision without reference to cabinet for a minute to continue the use and allow scrutiny of that decision?

Soory Steve, I can't quite get my head around what you are saying. Can you please re-word these points to make them simpler? Thanks.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6641
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
I suspect Cllr Wakefield is talking in Political code because he's become aware that some Bluhligans are making noises about 'getting him'.

Put simply, I think Cllr Wakefield is saying that being 'happy' for the free office space arrangement to continue is insufficient - a cabinet minute must be produced to set out and justify why the extension beyond 12 months is needed.

Perkins has made reference to Digital City making £40,000 worth of improvements to the office. This was almost certainly paid for out of the £450,000 loan. If the loan is not repaid the 'improvements' to an un-rentable office will have been done at taxpayers expense, as will the business rates paid by Digital city during its 'free' stay in the DMJ.

There is no such thing as a free lunch for taxpayers, unless their name is Hunt apparently.

Offline Drone

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 713
  • Gender: Female
Well, if DC have spent £40,000 on the offices and are yet to pay rent or pay any of the loan back, couldn't we take back the 'improved' offices in lieu of payment? £40,000 - that's a lot of pot plants and pen holders...
derp derp herp herp derp

Offline Des Morgan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 612
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
DRONE raises a very good point - one can only assume that council tax payers money was used to 'do up' the offices.  In Coun Perkin's world such things are 'purely academic'

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1554
  • Gender: Male
Des

If you were launching a start up company would it make good business sense to you to spend 40K on offices; when you only have a lease on  them for a year?
All posts on this forum are my own and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1306
Perkins has made reference to Digital City making £40,000 worth of improvements to the office. This was almost certainly paid for out of the £450,000 loan. If the loan is not repaid the 'improvements' to an un-rentable office will have been done at taxpayers expense, as will the business rates paid by Digital city during its 'free' stay in the DMJ.

There is no such thing as a free lunch for taxpayers, unless their name is Hunt apparently.

How fascinating that DC claim to have spent £40,000 on a building they do not own or for which they do not enjoy a renewable lease!

Perhaps someone should ask them on what have they spent £40,000?

Are DC or Rikki Hunt expecting to stay there ad infinitum?

and finally is this worth a tuppeny jot if the building is unusable by anyone else, supposedly?

Offline Des Moffatt

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • Hello !
Not sure if you're asking me or Des Morgan Steve.
However apart from the probity of the matter there is a very good commercial reason the Council should not give office space for free under any circumstances.
I was always frustrated that the property Officers advising Thamesdown told us that we could not let shops to a charity or voluntary group for free.
The argument being that even though the unit in question was not a desirable unit to let it free would undermine the lettability of neighbouring units at their true commercial value. I reluctantly accepted that and when units were let to supported organisations the Council had to go through a process of charging the market rate and grant aiding to that amount.
That analysis has not changed in my opinion.

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1554
  • Gender: Male
Des

It was Des Morgan, however you have raised a good point, as I now remember this happening at the time. It was when the HRA had some properties within it that were not part of the usual council asset property portfolio. It was where shops had flats over them or they had been built on estates. I also think it was applied to end the commercial element of teh DMJ flats that were being left vacant as the rents were set very high or have I got that wrong? Anyway thanks for reminding me.  O0
All posts on this forum are my own and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

 

Sorry, the copyright must be in the template.
Please notify this forum's administrator that this site is missing the copyright message for SMF so they can rectify the situation. Display of copyright is a legal requirement. For more information on this please visit the Simple Machines website.