Following the broadband money

ICO to vet Welsh broadband dispute

with 4 comments

wales-welsh-flag-16-pA decision by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) to not release the test methodology and raw test data for the £425m Superfast Cymru broadband project has been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint stems from a claim by a junior minister that the project had led to more than 100,000 premises being connected at an “average speed of 61Mbps”. It is part of long-running scepticism that the contract will deliver what the WAG has claimed it will, and now subject to audit.

The claim, by deputy minister for skills & technology Ken Skates, was challenged by broadband consultant Richard Brown. Using the Freedom of Information Act, Brown asked the WAG to supply the methodology and the raw test data on which Skates based the claim.

The WAG refused, saying the information would be published at a later date. Brown asked for a review of the WAG’s decision.

Rob Hunter, director of finance and performance in the department of economy science and transport, again refused Brown’s request. He referred to the earlier reason for non-disclosure and added that the information, together with an explanatory narrative, will be published, “probably in summer”, together with a ministerial announcement.

“I am of the opinion that publicly releasing the raw material at this time, without the explanatory narrative and accompanying explanatory ministerial announcement, would cause disruption to the Welsh government’s pre-set programme and the ministerial process in relation to this work in that the raw information, if released prematurely, may be misconstrued and re-published by some, or extracts of the information re-published, in such an ambiguous way as to cause confusion amongst the public and cause disruption to the effective conduct of public affairs.

“To that end, I do not think it is reasonable in all the circumstances or in the public interest to release this information prematurely. Rather, I believe the public interest would be best served if the information were released alongside the ministerial announcement and consultation participation report so that the public can review the information in context. I am satisfied therefore that the balance of the public interest falls in favour of withholding the information.”

In his complaint to the ICO, Brown said, “It does not serve the public interest that a junior minister can make claims in a press release (that is subsequently printed in the press), [but] that the information for testing those claims is withheld until a later date.

“I have been separately informed that the test data is not formed in the manner that has been described, in so much as that the 100,000 connections are not live connections (as described by the junior minister in his release), but are (in the majority) simply theoretical tests that have taken place to establish the possibility of these connections and their speeds.

“Such theoretical connections belies the claim made by the junior minister that the connections are ‘live’ with an average speed of 61Mbps. As such the public interest is in fact damaged due to the claim likely being both false and misleading. The determination to publish the data at a later date, simply moves the ‘proof’ to a later date in an effort to minimise its relevance in informing the public interest.”

Brown noted that WAG had waited until the last possible day to reply to him. “I am of the opinion that this is contrary to the spirit of the act, and is contrary to the commissioner’s guidance, and furthermore is a deliberate attempt to prevent access to information that would be appropriate to informing the public interest.”

In support of his complaint Brown claimed that Hunter’s statement that premature publication could confuse the public was “simply without merit”.

He said, “If this were indeed the case, then a programmed press release by the junior minister would not be possible for precisely the reasons given for not substantiating the claim made by the same junior minister. Further, had the junior minister not made such a wildly unsubstantiated claim in the press, the public interest would not need ‘early’ access to the data to test the claim made.”

Brown believes that Skates’ claims cannot be upheld using the withheld data. The denial on the grounds of future publishing and the unnecessary use of the total time allowance for responses were an attempt “to obfuscate the correct and appropriate informing of the public interest” rather than trying to preserve such public interest as Hunter claimed.

“The commissioner will be aware that such actions are contrary to the act and the deliberate attempt to prevent the legitimate release of information that informs the public interest remains an offence under the act,” Brown said.


Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2014/06/30 at 22:38

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. wow, if only we had more Richards. The press releases are becoming a bit of a joke. Every area trots them out and hardly anyone challenges them. Go Richard.


    2014/07/01 at 07:36

  2. Whilst ildly contemplating my navel this morning, I mused “What a strange figure, 61Mbps”. I thought, could it be that some wildly spinning junior erk in the Civil Service or Welsh Parliament or, heaven forbid, BT, had struggled to come up with a figure for release and had thought -“Hmm – half way between the BDUK 24Mbps and the hyped BT 78 might let us off the hook for an ‘average’ “?

    No, it surely cannot be…………..

    mike phillips

    2014/07/01 at 08:22

    • not to mention of course that the small print on some FTTC contracts states that the speed measured within 10 days of install will be what is recorded as the line speed with respect to ticking the “complies with BDUK” box . This of course not reflecting the speed the line will back off too after the initial connection as it settles in with crosstalk , noise and other sources of error inducing effects.

      so you may get 61 Mbps for a week.. after a month this may settle to say 36 Mbps to prevent complete Loss of service due to ebb and flow of interferers , especially where overhead lines are concerned.

      Same happens with ADSL, initially you may get say 5 Mbps, not long before it drops to ~2 Mbps or less.

      Us whining about it is pretty irrelevant though, as with most government driven programmes , it has to succeed, if it doesn’t then they throw more of our money at it until it does or a change of government occurs..



      2014/07/01 at 17:06

      • You can’t expect them to do anything other than take the initial 10 day period – if they took say day 100 as the result it would be shamefull in s lot of cases. If they then looked at day 400 it would be even worse. The state of the lines, joints, connections x-talk etc are all things that. Telco’s don’t want people to know about – hence the ‘up to’ discription for just about every service provided which isn’t on a guarenteed barer.


        2014/07/02 at 16:53

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: