Br0kenTeleph0n3

Following the broadband money

Posts Tagged ‘DCMS

How to get better value from that £250m for rural broadband

with 10 comments

BrokenTelephone doesn’t normally publicise paid-for events, but we’re making an exception in this case. We have long argued that the UK has ignored alternatives to the gap-funded model beloved by BT to finance investment in broadband networks. At last someone has heard us and is taking he message seriously.

Adrian Wooster, late of BDUK and now with Broadway Partners, is putting together an event for 12 March to look at the non-engineering aspects of getting next generation broadband into the Final 10% – funding, investment, business models, social inclusion, and the dreaded state aid. It is aimed at the public sector, financiers and communities.

The timing is perfect because DCMS has just announced how the £250m of the £300m promised years ago will be divvied up: England £184.34m; Wales £12.1m; Scotland £20.99m and Northern Ireland £7.24m.

The official reply to BrokenTelephone’s questions about the terms and conditions tied to the allocation was, “Procurement will be a local decision – we’re not dictating who the supplier should be. Where contracts are already in place with BT, local bodies can decide to extend them (within contractual limits); or to undertake a new procurement either using the national framework or not.”

Reading between the lines, there is a desire for local authorities not to simply give it all to BT but to conduct genuine fresh procurements in an attempt to get better value for taxpayers. INCA has shown that LAs can likely get better value for their taxpayers’ money if they go with altnets rather than BT. INCA executive director Malcolm Corbett is on record saying that procurements that pick BT find they contribute up to 90% of funds to what is meant to be a match-funded process; altnet solutions could come in at 30%, thanks to the willingness of private investors.

BT is already trying to “white ant” altnet coverage areas, making it difficult for altnets to provide coverage without overbuilding BT’s subsidised coverage areas. It is also spending £50m to fill in city not-spots and hook up multi-tenanted buildings to stop Hyperoptic and CityFibre from having a free run. BT claims that serving 150-home villages like Lancashire’s Dolphinholme is commercially viable. That might be true, but only because BT is running a fibre to a nearby radio mast; Arqiva or a mobile network operator is picking up most of the capital cost, and the village (or rather homes along the road) is covered en passant at marginal cost.

The other big win for LAs is that many would-be altnets offer fibre to the home; BT’s fibre stops at the street cabinet. So even if the altnet fails, the fibre is in the ground; LAs could get BT or another big operator to take it over at a fraction of the cost than if they picked BT at the start.

Wooster says the event will present funding options that don’t depend on gap-funded grants. “The UK is largely alone in gap-funding. There are very good, tested models that we should be learning from. These have a bigger economic impact and are better value for the stakeholders including, not least, the public sector,” he says.

Wooster says delegates will learn to how create more options and choices for broadband delivery; how to maximise their SEP allocation; how to love state aid; how to get new funding streams without spending a penny; how to de-risk their projects; how others abroad have done/are doing it; and how to make your area a contender for ‘Best Broadband in Britain’.

The event will be at the Riverside Studios in Hammersmith, so reasonably central. Fees are £99 each for civil servants, and £50 each for communities. Book via https://broadwayworkshop1.eventbrite.co.uk.

UPDATE

The price for communities has dropped to £25, and Wooster says, “We will listen to cries of poverty.”

Advertisements

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2014/02/27 at 10:32

SMEs short-changed in Belfast broadband scheme

with 6 comments

The department of culture, media and sport (DCMS), home to communications ministry and Broadband Delivery UK, has given Belfast city council £13.7m from its Superconnected Cities fund. This fund is designed to provide small and medium enterprises with a “step-change” in the speed of the broadband they use to connect to the  internet.

SMEs can apply for a voucher to the value of £3,000 towards the cost of installing faster internet connections.

The city council added another £3m to bring the total to £16.7m.

Why then does the city say “Over £9 million is going towards the voucher scheme…”? Why not all the money? What will the remaining £7m go on?

Could this provide a clue? “By 2015, the council aims to have improved wireless and wi-fi access across the city, via metro wireless in the city centre and wi-fi hotspots in more public buildings.”

Taxpayers have so far chipped in nearly £24m of the £56m spent so far to get next generation broadband into Northern Ireland, only for Ofcom to report NI still lags the rest of the country in take-up.

UPDATE

Belfast City Council replied: “The remaining portion of the investment package will provide a metro wireless concession to allow in-fill of the 3G/4G service  and an outdoor Wi-Fi for Belfast, as well as the provision of free to the public Wi-Fi in public buildings across the city.  The tender process for the Metro Wireless already has been advertised: http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/business/investinginbelfast/superconnected-belfast/superconnected-metrowireless.aspx.  BCC is still in negotiations with other public bodies which will allow us to design the free Wi-Fi in public buildings scheme;  details of this will be published in the coming months, depending on the progress we make in our negotiations.”

Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland Executive said on 7 February it would sponsor a further £23.5m investment with BT to fill in some broadband not spots and cover 45,000 more homes at an average cost of  £522/home.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is contributing £9.9m; the European Regional Development Fund’s (ERDF) £5m; BDUK £4.4million, and BT  £4.2m to the project, which puts state aid intensity at 82%.

This brings the total spent on next generation broadband in Ireland with BT to £93.6m. The 2011 census found 703,300 households in Northern Ireland, which makes the average cost per home passed so far £133.

In July 2011 we were told the NI roll-out was “complete”. Further down in the story BT said “at least 89%” of phone lines would be connected to a fibre-enabled cabinet. The present investment will take that to 95%.

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2014/02/16 at 20:53

Broadband talk sparks questions over BSG lobby role

with 12 comments

Richard Brown, who last week gave a presentation on “superfast broadband in Wales” to the Mid-Wales branch of the British Computer Society, was invited to provide a report-back on the meeting. He writes:

A little while ago, one of the Chartered Institute of IT (BCS) members got in touch, after he had spotted some of my comments in your blog. He got in touch to ask whether I would consider doing a presentation to members, about broadband in the UK and more particularly expand on the area of superfast broadband and public funding to deliver it.

Obviously I was pleased to be invited, but talking for around an hour about any subject is rarely easy – particularly when the audience is likely to be far more knowledgeable about how the tech works than I could hope to be. The thing is – they (the institute) didn’t want to increase their knowledge about the tech – they wanted to understand why the relatively large sums of money didn’t seem to be making any difference to the outcome.Wales is still wholly underserved for broadband, and mobile communications.

I took the BSG report as my inspiration for two reasons:

  1. I think that the assertion that the median requirement for broadband in 2023 at 19Mbps is more a self serving announcement for the members of Broadband Stakeholders Group (BSG) than a true reflection of the likely growth and potential for fast communications
  2. 19Mbps as a median suggest many need much less, but the report clearly states that only 1% would require 35Mbps-49Mbps in the same year

BDUK was originally set up to fund the ‘gap’ between the commercial rollout of the major ISPs (primarily BT) and those that would appear to never be able to receive superfast (24Mbps+) broadband.

I think that BDUK is failing, and BSG being a primary lobbyist to Westminster is part of the problem.

At the point that it became clear that my presentation had attracted the attention of (Public Accounts Committee chairman) Margaret Hodges’ office, (BT’s NGA MD) Bill Murphy’s interest was predictably high.  He seemed overly desperate to make sure that I ‘told’ Margaret Hodges that 100k premises in Wales could now benefit from superfast broadband because of the BT/Welsh ministers’ contract.

I’ve made my opinion of that quite clear in the presentation – and trust that both Bill and Margaret have been able to hear me clearly state the same.

1250 views of the presentation have accumulated since I added audio (BCS tech failed to record the presentation on the night), which is around the same number of views that the 25 most recent presentation BCS have on their YouTube feed have accumulated in total.  I think this demonstrates how important this issue is, and just how serious a sage institution such as the Chartered Institute of IT take this issue.

There were live examples of properties that had been passed by and are included in the premises passed figures (probably as bad a measure as Up To for broadband download speeds), and utter confusion (and a little irritation) that the Welsh ministers refused to be open about what the contract they have signed is likely to deliver.

The focus on the Welsh government failing to deliver on public promises was to be expected, as most of the attendees are Welsh residents – but, I did make an effort to point out that Wales is not unique in it’s failings.

I have been asked outright if I would consider setting up a public broadband interest group, along similar a vein to the NRA for gun users in the US.  I am not sure that the two are necessarily analogous in anything other than the potential threat to a group of the public who have no collective voice.

I am not even sure how I would go about funding something like that. I am seriously considering it though – we desperately need a counter lobby to BSG, which is  not serving the public well.

Do I think the future of broadband communications in the UK is bright? Not particularly – that is why I think that it might be time to bring the public together with a single voice.

Richard

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2014/02/03 at 10:04

Lies, damn lies, and broadband statisitics

with 19 comments

UK SFBB penetration to outstrip Japan by 2018. Really?

UK SFBB penetration to outstrip Japan by 2018. Really?

It took a single question to unstitch a carefully woven fabric that pictures the UK as a global leader in high speed broadband.

Three reports have came out in the past couple of weeks that appear to justify the government’s broadband policy. One, on the domestic demand for broadband was from the Communications Chambers for the Broadband Stakeholders’ Group. Another, from SQW, reported on the economic impact of broadband to the department of culture, media and sport (DCMS), which is responsible for the UK’s telecommunications policy and implementation. BT earlier commissioned market researcher Analysys Mason to write a benchmark report comparing the UK’s roll-out to competitor nations.

The reports are well worth reading to understand the assumptions and methodologies that led to the conclusions drawn and pictures painted. Each in its own way puts the rosiest possible gloss on the numbers. SQW found a 20 to 1 ROI in terms of gross value added by 2024. BSG said the average home will need only 19Mbps by 2023, and the top 1% of homes will need only 39Mbps tops.

Analysys Mason partner Matt Yardley told a Westminster eForum audience in London yesterday that the UK coverage of high speed broadband would slightly exceed Japan’s  by 2018 (see graph).

It all looked so responsible as to the use of taxpayers’ money.  Only the cynical might think that the coruscating National Audit Office report on the value for money that taxpayers can expect from the £1.2bn (or is it £1.4bn?) they are giving BT has anything to do with the sudden improvement in our insights into broadband a la UK.

Then a question from Kcom’s financial director Sean Royce dimmed the glow. Referring to the graph (above) that showed the negligible perceived differences between the UK and Japanese  coverage by 2018, he said, “I’m just keen to understand what your observations might be if superfast broadband was 100Mbps rather than (EU-defined 30Mbps).”

To his credit, Yardley didn’t duck it. “The EU policy objective is on take-up,” he said. “This (chart) is based on a 30Mbps definition of superfast. It would be interesting to know if these (data for other countries) were 100Mbps to the users themselves, because we know that there’s a combination of fibre to the home and fibre to the basement using VDSL (to the flat/office), but I don’t have that breakdown. But it’s pretty clear that if we took a definition of 100Mbps, then a gap would still exist.”

According to an Arthur D Little presentation to the FTTH Council Europe, in December 2012, fibre to the home or basement was available to 90% of Japanese homes, and 42.5% were connected via fibre. According to OECD figures for September that year, the average advertised broadband speed in Japan was 95Mbps.

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2013/12/06 at 06:54

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:
1. WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP ON RURAL BROADBAND (1)?

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 http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/politics/mps-pile-on-pressure-over-rural-funding), 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 http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9069211/rural-revolt/), 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.

2. DID THE MINISTER SAY PUBLISH LOCAL BROADBAND ROLL-OUT PLANS OR DIDN’T SHE? ?

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: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240207856/BT-and-Whitehall-tell-council-to-keep-BDUK-postcodes-quiet

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.

http://www.superfastnorthyorkshire.com/where-and-when

 

IT SEEMS THAT SOME LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

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: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/10/uk-gov-creates-confusion-bt-bduk-broadband-coverage-data.html

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.

http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/wgheadlines/10770542.Pledge_to_work_for_extended_rural_broadband_coverage/

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

 

WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP ON RURAL BROADBAND (2)?

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

Welsh dragon protects BT broadband treasure

with 9 comments

wales-welsh-flag-16-pDisclosing the terms and conditions of BT’s £425m Superfast Cymru contract with the Welsh government would prejudice BT’s competitive position and create expectations that, if not met, would hurt BT’s reputation and share price, says the head of Wales’ ICT Infrastructure Delivery, Simon Jones.

Jones was responding to a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from Richard Brown, director of Wispa, a Welsh broadband consultancy. Brown had earlier been refused any information related to the contract, the biggest and most expensive single next generation broadband project in the UK.

Jones wrote to Brown saying, “Where possible, the Information Commissioner prefers complaints to be resolved by informal means, asking both parties to be open to compromise. With this in mind, I have reviewed your request and decided that with the passage of time, I am now able to release some of the information…

“The information that has been redacted is:

1. Terms and Conditions clauses:

a. 7.14 (cost per premise cap)

b. 18.4 – 18.8 (retentions)

c. 18.10 (loss of funding)

d. 20.1-20.2 (drop dead date)

e. 24.1 (limitation on liability)

2. Schedule 2 (Targets)

3. Schedule 2, Annex 1 (The Grantee’s completed Project Plan)

4. Schedule 4 (Postcode data – full lists of postcodes)

5. Schedule 5 (Testing and Test Criteria)

6. Schedule 6 (Eligible Costs and Financial Information)

7. Schedule 8 (Milestones)

8. Schedule 12 (Clawback)

9. Appendix 1 (Initial Documents)”

Jones put forward various reasons for not disclosing the above information.

“Releasing information on the location of sites and hosting protocols for internet websites would be likely to make the network vulnerable to e-crime,” he said.

He acknowledged a public interest in the information. “Release of this information would also help the public to find out where the network is located and how it could be served with broadband services.”

But this had to be balanced against the potential harm of releasing it.

“The release of exact locations of infrastructure deployed would likely increase the risk of theft and/or criminal damage to the network. There have previously been a number of attempted thefts of network assets, with one attack breaching the security in one location. There have also been acts of criminal damage on several locations in the past which were investigated by North Wales Police. This resulted in significant coststo repair the damage caused. Release of information on asset locations would be likely to increase the risk of further attacks.

“In the absence of a strong competing public interest in the release of this information, I believe the public interest arguments identified for non-disclosure outweigh those in favour.”

Turning to the confidentiality aspect, Jones said the information was protected by Section 41 of the act.

“…the information which is exempt under Section 41 was inserted into the contract from documents that were originally provided to us by BT in confidence as part of the competitive dialogue procurement process during the bidding stage. A key concern of bidders in competitive dialogue procurement is the protection of commercially confidential information. Given the sensitive nature of this information, I am satisfied that disclosure of this confidential information would breach confidentiality and as such, the confidentiality of the information should be preserved…”

Jones went on to say that releasing the details would be prejudicial to BT’s commercial interests because it could be used by competitors.

“BT is still actively competing with other companies to win similar business. There is a pipeline of opportunities currently available for BT to bid for in order to provide similar services to other public authorities. Additionally, some of the redacted information, if disclosed, would reveal BT’s strategy for products that are not yet launched.

“The redacted information may also create an expectation/reliance by BT’s national Communications Providers that such products are or will be available when BT is at a stage of the project where there is still reasonable uncertainty as to the timescales for their delivery. It is likely that failure to meet these expectations would be damaging to BT’s reputation and thus affect business and share price. Disclosure of this information would therefore be highly prejudicial to BT’s competitive position in relation to these opportunities and future business and I believe the resultant harm to BT’s commercial interests (should this information be released) would be substantial.”

Jones said the public has a right to know that the Welsh government is investing public money wisely, and that the award of public sector contracts is fair and within the rules. But he believed the public is interested only in the “wider detail of the contract rather than the detailed financial and operational information”.

Jones said that suppliers might be put off selling to the Welsh government if the details of their proposals came out.

“I am satisfied that disclosure of the redacted information would be likely to result in BT failing to compete in the market place and thus would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests. Whilst the information may be of interest to those working in direct competition with BT, I cannot see any wider public interest in releasing the redacted information. As such, I have concluded that the public interest in withholding the redacted information outweighs that in releasing it and this exemption is therefore engaged.”

If one accepts this view, then one must also accept that BT’s competitors are entitled to the same protection. This is not the case.

In May BDUK, which is overseeing the broadband delivery programme, issued guidance to local authorities who are considering applications from community network operators or altnets for funding to cover the “Final 10%”. These guidelines state plainly that the supplier who wins the main contract under the BDUK procurement framework has a right to scrutinise proposed projects to assess their impact on the main roll-out.

So far, only BT has won any such contracts, and Fujitsu Telecom, the only other eligible supplier, has long since withdrawn from the market.

One might argue that the Superfast Cymru contract is a different beast from the average BDUK county procurement.  True, but that is sophistry. BT’s network does not stop at the border; nor do its business practices.

According to the guidelines, if an altnet proposal partially covers premises in the “90%” then the altnet, the Local Authority, DEFRA and BDUK have to establish if the BT project can be “re-scoped” to cover other areas defined as “no-build” in the SCT (Speed and Coverage Template that the LA agrees with BT). The LA, “at its sole discretion”, can ask BT via a “change request” to include the altnet’s proposed coverage footprint in the main roll-out.

If the LA decides not to raise a change request, then the altnet can go ahead only “where it can be clearly established that premises are eligible premises for funding under the RCBF”. But the information it needs to do that is protected by the non-disclosure agreement between the LA and BT, and, according to Jones, by S41 of the FOIA.

If the LA goes ahead with a change request, it has to ask BT to assess the impact of taking the altnet’s coverage footprint out of the main contract. To do this, BT would need to know precisely where and when and what its would-be competitor plans to build, without disclosing its own plans.

You might think that gives BT an unfair competitive advantage; we could not possibly say.

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2013/10/31 at 08:27

35% is SuperConnected success, says BDUK

with 9 comments

need-for-speed-highresBDUK has pronounced itself happy with the results of its two month pilot of a voucher scheme to increase small business connectivity in cities, even though only 35% of requests for funding led to a quotation.

The original £150m SuperConnected Cities project aimed to set up fibre to the premises (FTTP) networks in 22 cities. Following legal objections from BT and Virgin Media, this was replaced with the voucher scheme. The scheme allows SMEs to apply for grants of up to £3,000 to fund a connection to a broadband service that gives “step change” in the speed received.

The scheme was red-lighted (deemed in imminent danger of failing) in a Cabinet Office report last May.

The £2.25m pilot ran, largely unpublicised, from the start of August to the end of September in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Manchester and Salford.

“The supply chain supporting the use of vouchers is either competitive or regulated so this will prevent distortions to competition,” BDUK said.

BDUK reported 59 suppliers registered, though some were inactive prior to the scheme. Sixteen didn’t meet the registration deadline, and a further 19 said they were interested in Phase 2 of the project.

There were 690 voucher requests, of which 443 conditional offers were made (12 rejected), leading to 240 quotations from 28 suppliers.

BDUK declined to give a breakdown of the location of the requests, or many contracts were signed, or the amounts committed.

However, Metronet, a fibre-wireless ISP in the north-west, claimed 13 orders from the voucher scheme. This earned the firm a visit from communications minister Ed Vaizey during the recent Conservative Party conference to learn the secret of their success.

MD James McCall is on record saying businesses depend more on having a reliable service than raw speed.

BDUK said, “Some cities and suppliers have noted that some SMEs fed back that they value the quality of service elements of business grade services and that a service under 30Mbps can represent a significant upgrade in capability. We will consider whether there is an opportunity to be flexible around minimum speed required for business grade services.”

It added, “From our perspective and that of the (European) Commission the scheme the market test have (sic) been successful.”

BDUK is holding two industry days to provide feedback and discuss phase 2 on 18 and 21 October in London. It will present its findings to the European Commission Case Team on 31 October and to the Commission on 6 November. Ministers will decide whether to go to phase 2 shortly after.

Written by Br0kenTeleph0n3

2013/10/17 at 05:02