Why is there so much wrong data about NGA?
A reader in the (fixed line, pax, Kijoma) broadband-starved county of West Sussex has just sent us this screenshot. It shows that BT estimates the dial-up line in question will get a “typical line speed” of between 750kbps and 2.5Mbps if the subscriber upgrades to broadband.
Our reader says previous correspondence with BT revealed that the a line length of “8.5-9km/DB losses of between 82 and 86 DB”, which probably makes it impossible to achieve those speeds. “I am most impressed with the BET they are obviously going to employ here!” he writes.
More seriously, he adds “Does this flawed data get into BDUK’s/LAs systems? We need to know. This customer is possibly ABOVE the USC (universal service commitment) according to BT, but is only getting 40kb.”
This is not the only flawed data that BDUK or even Ofcom might hold. Bill Lewis of Kijoma has been fighting to have his wireless broadband footprint included in the coverage maps – to no avail. Kijoma provides high speed broadband to parts of West Sussex, including areas served by three of the four BT exchanges in the UK that cannot deliver broadband. West Sussex County Council’s map of the area do not show Kijoma’s footprint.
Everybody involved the the next generation broadband project, including BT, is on record saying that there needs to be a mix of technologies, including wireless, in the local access loop. Why then are existing wireless providers being ignored? Why do the maps not reflect truly what’s available? What other incorrect data are being used to support claims to £530m of taxpayers’ money?
Enough people have raised the incorrect data issue with BDUK, DCMS, Ofcom and the government that for them to ignore it is wilful. We must ask why.
Would it shrink the areas eligible for state-aided funding? If so, in whose interest is that?