Following the broadband money

Anger mounts over rural broadband delays

with 16 comments

BrokenTelephone is grateful to Patrick Cosgrove for assembling the following reports of wide-spread and growing anger with the politicians, civil servants and operators responsible for the UK’s next generation broadband programme, especially in rural areas.

In a letter on behalf of the South-west Shropshire and Marches Campaign for Better Broadband, Cosgrove wrote to subscribers as follows:

The agitation over rural broadband seems to be moving to Westminster. And not before time.

We’re quite used to Lib/Dem MPs breaking ranks within the Coalition but, with the exception of Europe, not so often Conservative MPs.  That seems to be changing now with respect to the countryside and the cross-party Fairer Funding Campaign (see, of which the broadband issue is part. Put it this way, if you were in government, large numbers of your rural voters were thoroughly fed up with the reality of no decent broadband in the foreseeable future and many of them were stampeding in the direction of UKIP for a whole host of reasons (see, wouldn’t you do something about it with an election starting to loom? Despite David Cameron’s staunch defence of BDUK’s rural broadband programme, and Maria Miller’s shake-up of BDUK management, it seems that even Conservative MPs are starting to publicly question matters.

This is what John Glen (Conservative Salisbury) said on 31st October: “I thank the minister for that answer (to a general question about the progress of rural broadband roll-out plans), but what do I say to the local authority and residents in village such as Pitton who believe they are in the percentage that will not qualify for the imminent roll-out through the BT deal? They want to be free to develop new community-based solutions with alternative providers, as they anticipate they will not get anything from BT for a long time.”

To which the minister, Ed Vaizey, replied, “I am happy to meet my Hon Friend to discuss any issues. The Rural Community Broadband Fund (RCBF) is designed to support community broadband projects that the programme is no reaching.” To which we say, “But we know that the RCBF money is languishing in Europe because any application has to confirm that it won’t overbuild on BT’s intended infrastructure, only BT won’t tell anyone with any precision where they are going to put that infrastructure.”

Shortly afterwards, Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton Conservative) asked, “What will my Hon Friend say to the 5% of those living in the hills, particularly farmers, who will not have access to superfast broadband by 2016? Will he implement the Select Committee report recommendation that they be given advance warning, so that they can make alternative arrangements to those on offer from BT?” To which Mr Vaizey replied, “As I have said repeatedly, it is up to local authorities to publish their local broadband plans and I am delighted, particularly after the Secretary of State wrote to them, that many have now done so. People in Wiltshire and Yorkshire will know where the project is rolling out”. To which we reply, “Scroll down to the next article to see what a farce that is.”

Then Philip Hollobone (Ketttering, Conservative) said, “It seems to me that BT is a big company that sometimes does not treat small communities very well. May I draw to the attention of the Minister the village of Rushden in my constituency, where residents are complaining that they are not getting the the proper broadband they deserve, despite their best efforts”. And Mr Vaizey replied, “I hear what my Hon. Friend says. BT is a big global company that we should be proud of, but from time to time issues will be raised by our constituents. I am happy to meet him to discuss the problem in detail”. To which we reply, “It’s not just Kettering, Thirsk & Malton and Salisbury. It’s the whole country, including 1,208 people in rural Shropshire who signed a petition making the very same points, and 31 parish and town councils who are also very unhappy.”

We  desperately need some strong leadership on this at Westminster as it’s flying in the face off all reason to declare that everything’s fine when it plainly isn’t. A little more honesty and a lot more action would be a great help.


Knowing who is or isn’t in line for having their broadband upgraded is essential for communities that want to make alternative arrangements. If you don’t know, you can’t apply for public subsidy such as DEFRA’s RCBF grant in case it ends up double-funding an area. Even if you don’t want to apply for funding and you might have sufficient people to make it a viable proposition, alternative broadband providers are not going to invest in your area unless they are certain that BT won’t be operating there in the future, and no-one will tell them.

Here in Shropshire we sent a Freedom of Information Request to Shire Hall asking for a detailed broadband deployment map. They gave it to us but it didn’t tell us very much. We’d seen the Public Accounts Committee recording where Sean Williams of BT said that there was no reason why such information shouldn’t be available, and then we read that Maria Miller of DCMS had said she was “keen to see this information made available” so that other broadband Internet Service Providers and community groups could “determine whether it is worth their while to develop local broadband projects to fill in gaps” so we’d hoped for something a bit more precise. Later we learned that FOI requests were being sent to local authorities all across the country and either receiving similarly opaque answers or, as in Devon’s case for example, were told that they daren’t publish for fear of being taken to court by BT, their so-called “partner”.

Now Cumbria County Council has told Computer Weekly, “The … matter was raised at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). However, subsequent clarifications issued by Maria Miller’s office defined what BT meant by information that could be shared. The list of postcodes to which you refer, called the speed and coverage template (SCT), is excluded. BT considers that (it) is commercially sensitive.”

This decision could leave community-based broadband schemes schemes in limbo for several years if they were hoping for RCBF money (which won’t be there for much longer), and no chance of alternative providers plugging the gaps on a commercial basis for fear that BT will suddenly announce that they might bring fibre to those areas after all (as appears to have happened in parts of Wales and Worcestershire, and probably elsewhere). Meanwhile BT has added to the confusion by saying that it remained happy to hand over the details for release by local councils. It seems that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has chosen to shirk responsibility for the mess by saying that it was ultimately a decision for BT and the local authorities.

The full story is here:

Interestingly, North Yorkshire was a pilot area for rural broadband, and it seems that its contract with BT was different because it can publish anticipated deployment to post-code level (see next link). Therefore some bright spark at BDUK or DCMS must have agreed to a tightening up of all the local authority contracts that followed the pilot. It would be great if we had a map like this.



Cumbria County Council and Devon have now spilled some of their beans. We wonder if this was code for  “We’ve been stuffed by BDUK and BT so can’t say too much, but please read between the lines”. After all, what local authority in their right mind wouldn’t want  100% of their residents to have good broadband, or would want the degree of continuing aggravation that’s resulted?

Refreshingly, in Lancashire where there is still two-tier local government and a thriving community broadband scheme (B4RN) that doesn’t appear to get on with BT too well, Lancaster City Council’s Scrutiny Committee has asked Lancashire County Council to:

1. Request that BT as soon as possible, produces a clear roll out programme for its superfast broadband in the Lancaster District to enable other providers to work in areas not covered by the BT programme

2. Seek immediate permission (!) of BT to provide a clear statement of the terms of their joint agreement

3. Request the removal from any future rural broadband contracts with BT that are on a non-disclosure agreement basis to facilitate openness and transparency.

(Plus more – see this link for the full story:

West Oxfordshire District Council, another second-tier local authority, also seems to have had enough, but they’ve been very polite about it so far.

We will contact them to see if we can learn anything from their approach.



Therefore, the situation isn’t just bad, it’s actually worse than before the rural broadband contracts were signed with local authorities. Up until then communities could apply for RCBF money, now there’s no point. Up until then alternative broadband providers were moving into new areas but now they are not (or if they are they’re keeping it secret – what madness!). And to make matters worse, BT, Sky, Virgin etc have been signing large numbers of people up to their entertainment and sports packages, irrespective of whether these customers have superfast broadband or not, so the whole system is starting to slow up because too many demands are being made of it.

We repeat, “Where is the leadership?”


Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2013/11/07 at 03:18

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The leadership? there isn’t any. They are all being led by the nose by BT. Vital vision has paid off, and councils are infiltrated by BT global and handing over assets like you’ve never seen. Lancashire is prime example of asset stripping. Following what happened in Liverpool, watch that space. The whole thing is a shambles, but thankfully its all being documented this time and heads will roll. History will not forget.

    A few politicians have tried to stand up to this monopoly, but lets face it, with a multimillion pound advertising lobby and full time ‘evangelists’ and a pretty boss at openretch they don’t stand a chance.

    BT do not need the RCBF money that was put there to help communities, but they are hell bent on making sure no community gets it, and to that end they will leave no stone unturned. They will not allow new entrants into the market to show up their old fashioned copper network that cannot deliver the future.

    Europe and its state aid rules further complicate the process, and so Defra can’t use the money for the areas that are entitled to it. They could try harder, but maybe they have vital vision too? Who knows?

    The last one to leave ‘digital britain’ please turn out the lights.


    2013/11/07 at 08:49

  2. Exbury & Lepe Parish in the New Forest finds itself in a Catch 22: BT claim (at the last miniute) that we are ‘commercially provided for’ however, whilst our exchange and street cabinet are ‘enabled’, the distances involved preclude a decent service. There are no plans to upgrade the infrastructure that will improve the service. Therefore whist theoretically BT could provide a service in fact they have no intention to do so. The only solution forthcoming is for us to pay £40000 to have the infrastructure to upgraded part of the parish.

    By declaring us ‘commercially provided for’ BT have excluded us, for state funding rules reasons, from being included in a bid to the RCBF which we have been actively involved in for the past 2 years with other parishes in the Forest.

    That said the whole RCBF process is a bureaucratic nightmare with constant uncertainty, moving goal posts and hopelessly short timeframes compressed by the lack of timely decisions. What a shambles! Ed Vaizey waffles away without solving problems or getting a grip of BDUK. DEFRA et al: his Minister Maria Whats – her – name is equally ineffective.

    Peter Hayward-Broomfield

    2013/11/07 at 23:13

    • Welcome, Peter. Sorry to hear about the above events. Sadly, it’s not untypical. Please keep us informed of developments.


      2013/11/07 at 23:54

    • Peter, we are in exactly the same situation here in Dunkerton, a small village just 5 miles from the city of Bath – a city buzzing with new technology firms and excellent broadband coverage.

      Dunkerton is part of the BT ‘commercial rollout’ and so will not benefit from BDUK money to improve our 1.3mbps broadband speed. Our local BT street cabinet has been upgraded, however, we are too far away from it and so cannot benefit.

      The local PC is about to have ‘crisis talks’ with BT (a meeting to which I have been invited) – however, we’ll all need to sign an NDA before they’ll even talk in general terms about our possible options.

      I suspect an infrastructure upgrade (i.e. a new cabinet sited in a more centrally located position) maybe in the offing but, as you’ve found out, that will cost £’000’s.

      Also, let’s be clear that money will be ‘given’ to BT whereas, if they would allow the Local Authority to release the information the local ‘altnet’ so desperately requires in order to move forward, that same money could be ‘invested’ in our digital future instead.

      And there you have it. There’s a big difference between giving and investing. BT knows it and so the NDA’s abound, the stranglehold continues and the needs of rural people and rural businesses are ignored by a Government which passes the buck.

      Happy to discuss with you further, Peter if you would find it useful.

      2013/11/10 at 21:09

      • This is what is happening all over the country. It needs to be made as public as possible, because the digital divide is growing ever wider with each cabinet enabled. Also the fact that cabinets in business areas are not being enabled to protect leased line revenue needs to be made public. It is covered up by calling the whole exchange area ‘superfast’ because some cabinets have been done. Also low income areas won’t get their cabinets upgraded but again the statistics will count them as being done if they are on an enabled exchange, in the same way they covered up the fact that people couldn’t get adsl. Ofcom et al said 99.8% of the country had access to broadband, but in reality they didn’t. Their phones may have been connected to a broadband enabled exchange but they struggled on long lines to even get dial up.


        2013/11/11 at 09:32

      • It is possible that cabinets in business areas, I assume you mean business parks, have not been done as part of the commercial rollout as there are too few potential customers for the ISPs.

        I could give you some examples of cabinets in low income deprived areas. Do you have any evidence that cabinets without FTTC are included in the connections total?

        Also, how many sins do BT have and why do you consider Cornwall to be a white elephant? The alternative there would have been significantly more funding for 100% FTTP, many might agree it would be worth it.


        2013/11/11 at 19:26

      • Have you been overdoing the meds? These questions don’t make sense. “How many sins do BT have?” Eh??? Your suggestion that there are too few customers in business parks to interest ISPs is patent nonsense. Does Smithfield not have enough potential customers? Shoreditch?


        2013/11/11 at 23:50

      • I understand the ‘digital divide’ is something to do with numbers of people with different broadband speeds, but can someone please show the calculation to show how it is changing.


        2013/11/11 at 21:23

      • Latest numbers here –

        ‘While the gap between average urban and rural speeds is likely to widen in the short term, Ofcom expects that it will begin to decline over time, as the availability of superfast broadband increases in rural areas.’

        So the digital divide will go down as each rural cabinet is enabled. Or maybe it does not matter as it is the service to each property that is relevant, and that will improve for most over time.


        2013/11/12 at 08:17

      • Somerset

        2013/11/14 at 09:14

      • Sponsored by BT supplier Huawei.


        2013/11/14 at 09:59

  3. […] Seems like more and more rural communities are mounting pressure on their MPs over the delay in rolling out broadband, we too are in the dark. Read the full article […]

    • @Somerset you are incorrect to say that upgrading rural cabinets reduces the divide. That’s such a simplistic view and bears no relation to what is actually happening on the ground.

      In many cases a cabinet upgrade actually increases the divide. Our local cabinet has been upgraded but we are so far away from it we cannot benefit from the faster speeds available to those who live near it. Result? Divide increases.

      And why is this so? Because the technology which is being pushed by BT is FTTC with the final mile delivered over copper (or even aluminium in some cases). The further away you live, the less likely you’ll be able to benefit.

      Wait – isn’t that what BDUK is supposed to address? Yes, except that BT has decided that we live in a ‘commercial rollout area’. Therefore we do not benefit from the extra money available under BDUK.

      This is happening all over the country. Those affected live in small communities and have no co-ordinated voice. The BT stranglehold means our Local Authority is powerless to act and local ‘altnet’ providers cannot get moving because BT will not release postcode information.

      Meanwhile Ministers quote averages and everyone pats themselves on the back for a job well done.

      2013/11/12 at 08:49

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: