Br0kenTeleph0n3

Following the broadband money

How BT strangled Ewhurst’s FTTP project in red tape

with 17 comments

BT invoked EU red tape to scupper a communmity-inspired partial fibre to the premises (FTTP) project in Ewhurst, Surrey, condemning villagers to a long wait for high speed broadband.

This emerged today, with the publication of a letter from the Surrey County Council explaining why it withdrew a £180,000 grant for the project .

The council’s letter says, “EU State Aid regulations do not allow public funding to be spent in areas that are included in BT Openreach’s partial fibre upgrade areas.”

Ewhurst has been and still is plagued by long distances to the local exchange, poor condition of the ducts, lots of poor quality (aluminium) cables and an unsympathetic incumbent. So it called for tenders, secured a quotation from Vtesse Networks and a “non-compliant” reply from BT, lobbied for the money, was awarded a granti n December 2010 from Seeda , the local development agency, and was about to sign the order when the grant was withdrawn, scuppering the project.

All this came out in February, almost exactly a year ago. Council and funding agency staff refused at the time to explain their decision, claiming, off the record, that they were under a non-disclosure agreement between them and BT.

At the time, there was no public indication that BT intended to upgrade the Cranleigh exchange that serves the two villages.  As recently as March 2010 BT wrote to Ewhurst saying that Cranleigh was not not on the “current or next phases” of the NGA (next geneation acces) FTTC schedule. This meant EU state aid rules should not have come into play. Then BT spoke to the county council.

The council now says, “Following BT Openreach’s inclusion of the Cranleigh exchange… in their national fibre upgrade programme, the £180,000 of funding being referred to was withheld…” BT added Cranleigh in April, at least three months after the grant was witheld.

So what’s happened to the money? According to the council letter, “The funding stream … is no longer in place and the £180,000 cannot be accessed.”

To be fair, it might have wound up in Defra’s £20m Rural Community Broadband Fund (RCBF) as part of its Rural Development Programme for England, which targets communities in remote areas. The council suggested that Ewhurst residents might like to approach the RCBF. After all, Ewhurst is 10 miles from Gatwick Airport.

There are problems with the RCBF. It provides only up to 50% of the project cost, after the expense (and all the risk) has been incurred, with no indication of what is an allowable expense.

Also, any approved plans must tie into the county’s broadband plan if the county council receives money from BDUK. This gives the incumbent operator, most likely BT, an insight into who is looking for funding, what their plans are, and potentially repeating the Ewhurst story.

But BT is laying fibre in the village. Walter Willcox, who helped lead the Ewhurst project for the residents, says, “As far as I can deduce BT are spending a small fortune laying what I expect to be a bespoke and restricted fibre network for their FTTC, all the way from Cranleigh but then only install their small 100 (line) service FTTCs instead of Vtesse’s 500 line cabinets.

“Whilst I expect the small cabinets will be adequate for say a couple of years BT will then be forced to spend very substantial amounts on expansion – unless they are about to do FTTP for the whole country.”

Hold your breath if you feel lucky.

Advertisements

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2012/01/04 at 08:00

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is a problem country wide. I blame the vital vision course that many officials have been on. They ignore grassroots initiatives and believe the incumbent who is dead set on protecting its copper phone lines. Vtesse could have done a much better job for the residents. The same thing happened on a much bigger scale with Cornwall.

    chrisconder

    2012/01/04 at 10:25

  2. Why is the size of the cabinet relevant, surely sized based on expected demand?

    Somerset

    2012/01/04 at 10:47

  3. This story provides an excellent, if disappointing, indication of the dangers of centralised funding schemes and complex uber-projects. Ewhurst is quite a wealthy area, with a number of well-known celebrities having homes locally. It seems almost a perfect location for a DIY broadband initiative. It’s unfortunate that the residents couldn’t make up the shortfall and just do it themselves.

    Mike Hughes

    2012/01/04 at 11:43

  4. Why does Walter say it is ‘ bespoke and restricted’?

    Somerset

    2012/01/04 at 13:42

  5. Ian, I have another side to the Ewhurst story that you may be interested in. Especially with relation to Walters efforts. Ping me an Email if you are interested.

    Bill

    2012/01/05 at 12:29

    • Hi Bill

      Happy new year – hope it’s a better one than 2011.

      Definitely am interested. What’s the story? If you prefer, shall I call you this evening? If so what number should I use?

      Best wishes Ian

      Ian Grant

      2012/01/05 at 13:34

    • I too would be interested to hear more on this…

      Mike Turner

      2012/01/07 at 15:11

  6. Somerset

    2012/01/05 at 13:43

  7. hi,

    I should of ticked the “notify me of new posts” button, sorry about that. Only just saw the response from Ian.

    I am in this morning if that helps, not sure what numbers you have for me though.

    cheers

    Bill

    2012/01/11 at 10:09

    • Hi Bill

      I’m on deadlline for a 2000 word piece – I’ll call next week. Am thinking of starting a crowd-sourced broadband map of UK, including wireless. What do you think?

      Best wishes Ian

      Ian Grant

      2012/01/11 at 22:49

  8. What’s the other side to the story?

    Somerset

    2012/01/21 at 08:57

    • Does there have to be one? If you know it, let’s have it.

      Ian Grant

      2012/01/21 at 15:01

      • Bill said there was.

        Bill
        2012/01/05 at 12:29

        Somerset

        2012/01/22 at 10:37

      • Bill might be right. Perhaps he can persuade BT to release everyone involved from their non-disclosure contracts so that they can tell us what happened.
        Why does BT insist on on non-disclosure agreements when public money is involved? Why do public officials agree to them?

        Ian Grant

        2012/01/24 at 07:31

  9. […] trenches, lay duct and hook up customers, things look different. The Surrey village of Ewhurst is no stranger to disappointment brought on by BT. For years it has tried to get high speed broadband into the village, so far with negligible […]

  10. […] for well over a decade now – one of the most recently well-documented such debacles is Ewhurst in Surrey – a saga which continues to this day with unresolved issues, failure to repair ancient […]

  11. […] spokesman for the Surrey village of Ewhurst, which had an independent deal with Vtesse Networks for a fibre network “gazumped” by BT, reports, “Ewhurst (has been) without VDSL for 80 days due to inadequate equipment provision. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: