Pensions meet broadband - mutual benefits

Tweet

Read more!

Just been reading Francis Maude's statements on procurement, IT, government etc which led to the discovery of the launch of the Mutuals Information Service by the Cabinet Office yesterday. In the middle of the CW article is a reference to MyCSP - My Civil Service Pension (lucky buggers even getting a pension). MyCSP is a mutual handling, obviously, pensions so let's join the dots to broadband....

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



Now, as with all things in #ThatLondon Borough of Westminster, it appears one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. But, we're used to that....

The Cabinet Office is pushing hard for the involvement of SMEs in IT procurement. Sadly, this message didn't appear to make it down the road to BDUK, who specifically excluded SMEs of any size (in fact, most companies) in the procurement. But, to give them their due, are now rapidly trying to make up for lost ground by chucking £20M at the problem and taking it to the extreme by expecting communities to become social ventureprises and expecting parishes etc to move into a world dealing with the sharks that are telcos and the throwing knives that are gap-funding grants.

We have already begun to investigate #RCBF through this blog, and it seems from today's postbag and retweets that we are not alone in our concerns.

Anyhow, onto the positive. In that article, we find reference to MyCSP which is a mutual set up and owned by three parties - the staff (read: community), the government, and a private sector company. It manages 15 million pensions, which is not far different from the 20 million households in UK of which approx 70% at present want a decent broadband connection. The government plans to roll out more of such mutual and innovative structures so here is a little suggestion.

Read this quote from Francis Maude and let's replace the word 'employees'.....

Too often there’s been a binary choice between the Government providing a service itself, or outsourcing it to the private sector. These choices have historically been driven by a belief that services have to be controlled centrally – with a one size fits all approach that has left little room for innovation.

“We are looking for more innovative ways to structure services. We know that COMMUNITIES [employees] who have a stake in their business, or take ownership of it completely, have more power and motivation to improve the service they run. They can also benefit from partnerships with private or voluntary sector organisations which can bring in capital and expertise.

“For the private sector, which can no longer expect the generous margins of the past, tapping the talent of COMMUNITIES [frontline staff] to improve efficiency will be a priority. The state too can keep a stake so that taxpayers benefit from the rising value of an improved service...."

Each of the five #RCBF models could be run in this mutually beneficial way. And should be. So should all broadband projects. It is time for every Council, civil servant, company, community and consumer to endeavour to grasp new ways of working. The old ones clearly did not and do not benefit all, whereas a mutual can. Especially when it is a mutual with stakeholders from all parties represented on the Board, as Directors etc, not a Smoke & Mirrors Mutual.

This approach would put paid to all the greed currently rife in broadband, and which is about to explode yet further as consultants, telecom laywers, private companies etc seek to slaughter the cash cow that this tranche of broadband monies will end up supporting (rather than actual delivery) if we are not careful.

It's not just about money though. (Although you'd think it was all about money the way some people unceasingly mouth off about it). What it would be nice to see is some goodwill, collaboration and co-operation for the common good and mutual benefit. Especially at this time of year.

For more info on Mutuals, the website was launched yesterday http://mutuals.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/
Read more!

RCBF

Tweet

Read more! The Rural Community Broadband Fund has been launched with £20M in the pot. The discussions are now ensuing, particularly on Twitter, about how this will work. We have a few questions too....

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



There are now so many pots of money flying around for rural and urban broadband that it is incredibly easy to get confused. And that's those of us in the know. For those new to the party, it's difficult to believe that it's going to be possible to navigate the acronyms, processes etc and arrive at the correct, long term, sustainable solution, rather than just endeavour to spend the money on sticking plasters. And probably fail.

It would be fantastic if all of us who had campaigned so long and so hard for rural broadband to receive attention (and funding) were right now sitting here cheering that progress was being made. But the reality is that this is all looking like a right royal cock up that is being rushed through with little thought to what actually should be being done. But, no doubt, those who believe they are right will continue unchecked, without listening to those on the ground who can see the problems that this could all cause.

The places where the problems are going to occur are not in well-funded offices with annual budgets due to be renewed in April, but in hard-pushed communities already struggling to stay afloat and suffering volunteer fatigue, as government pushes its problems out of its departments and the civil service into the hands of the overtaxed and unpaid public.

So, with a quick background first, we have questions.....

RCBF comes from Defra and is from the Rural Development Program for England pot. It is aimed specifically at rural areas who qualify in the Final 10% (although this on the whole has not been defined by anyone yet) and community projects. (Unlike the £100M the other day, which is for urban projects, and is a slice of the £530M taken from the BBC License Fee and which was intended for the Final Third).

The reality is that all of this money, even with a zero added, is not sufficient for the task. But, instead of trying to do a few areas well with the money we have, we are slicing and dicing the pots into such small amounts that we are going to end up doing nowhere properly. Any business run in this way would be on its knees in a few months, probably weeks.

Currently, there is an Applicant's Handbook and a 5 page Rural Community Broadband Toolkit to guide you through the maze that is designed to part communities from 75% of the project costs. Section 7 of the Applicant's Handbook includes the completely bizarre statement under Value For Money

Based on BDUK’s experience of establishing Superfast Broadband solutions (24Mbps and above) in hard to reach areas, we would expect that a Superfast Broadband connection should require an average grant aid of approximately £300 per premise enabled.

(I'm sure all of us would love to know precisely where this BDUK experience has been gained considering the current state of play with BDUK bids in this country).

Expressions of interest for the RCBF are due in between 1st Dec and 31st January 2012. Which gives you, as Pastieman69 pointed out, about one actual working day to get it together if you are an average community.

Our questions:

The applicant is fully responsible for any liabilities associated with the project, such as the clawback of grant funds (potentially plus a penalty) should the project fail to deliver against your contract.

So if the network/upgrade is deemed substandard due to contractor fault(s) the community has to pay? Even if the contractor is BT/Fujitsu? Seems to be heavily in the telcos' favour to trigger this and then move in to remedy once the community have paid in full for it.

You cannot claim for any costs incurred in advance of securing approval of any full application.

So any consultants parachuted in to work on the EOI/work towards full bid with the community would have to be paid for by the community?

You will only be able to recover expenditure once you have been able to provide evidence that you have paid for it. This means that you can only claim against actual defrayed expenditure – at a static intervention rate for each claim.

Who decides the defrayed payment rate, and what happens if suddenly the price is increased overnight?

You will therefore need to make arrangements to pay for all works up front, meaning that you will need some reserve funds or other means to "bank roll" the project.

Ok, pay for it all from within the community, and we'll give you the allocation of funds to cover the "assumption of £300 per premise and up to 50%". What returns are investors/parishes & CIC's expected to get to repay any money borrowed against the project to fund it? And, more importantly, who will actually own the infrastructure - the community or the contractor/telco used to build/connect to it?

If procuring services, you will need to comply with public procurement rules appropriate to any contracts you put out to tender, and you will need to treat all bidders transparently and equally in your procurement process(es).

If you have to talk to/go through a telco to set this all up before putting out to tender, how can it be transparent tendering if you then award them the contract? Who will pay for the tender if it has to go through TED/OJEU?

Every single cost is already known for each technology. Except ONE. Backhaul. Where is the solution for getting affordable backhaul to each and every one of the communities in the final 10% or the Final Third?



Read more!

How low can we go, CEO of Geo?

Tweet

Read more!

Can you limbo? It is beginning to feel as if the bar is now perilously low to the ground and there are few sane folk left willing to sink to the depths of our apparently less than meagre national ambition to have the "best broadband infrastructure in Europe". (Yes, yes, hollow laughs all round at this seemingly ludicrous (cl)aim that is still being made in the face of so much fact-based evidence to the contrary).

Chris Smedley, CEO of Geo last week answered a few questions for 5tth about PIA, BDUK and the future, after the announcement that Geo were, sadly, dropping out of the BDUK process.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



There is not a single factor that is seeing off the valuable players in this game, nor is there out and out disagreement with PIA as a concept, rather it is the pricing and terms that are the issue. But the truth is that if you wanted to blame a single issue then PIA in its current form would be it. PIA has little to offer as a solution as it stands, and it is blowing business plans out of the water for UK broadband for our next generations. PIA needs serious work, or scrapping, so it seemed appropriate with all that is going on, or rather not going on, for a ditty to mark the occasion.



There has already been much said about Geo's departure, BDUK, the wisdom of the current approach of spending the money, PIA etc. For many, this departure by Geo feels like a tipping point. No longer is it just community folk, tech journos, and small players making a noise and querying what is actually being done in our name and with our money. Now the big guys are dropping out of BDUK, rural broadband, national and regional solutions etc and making it quite clear why.

LA: Is the BDUK process rescuable, or are we too far down the line of handing the money to BT?

Chris Smedley: That’s for Government and Ofcom (and maybe even BT) to decide. If BT voluntarily dropped the restrictions on PIA and BDUK quickly developed an alternative to the gap funding model then things could be turned round quite quickly. However, as we have asked for all these things already and been denied them on the basis that there is no demand from industry then I wouldn’t hold out too much hope. That means the much slower process of getting Ofcom to intervene on PIA and fibre leasing which will probably take two years to get clear pricing and fair terms for something we could all use as BT will when they deploy new fibre cables. I have no idea whether DCMS will ask BDUK to develop an alternative to the gap funding model. I think they should. I do find it difficult to see anyone other than BT winning the current pilots or the Next Generation Broadband Wales procurement as things stand.

LA: Chris, you must have done the numbers - what figures make it impossible for GEO? What is the gap?

Chris Smedley: Too difficult to generalise as each procurement was different. The simple facts are that using existing poles and ducts is about 5% of the cost of building a new network. Where they exist, other players simply have to be able to use them or it is impossible to compete against BT. If you can’t do so for the long distances to get to remote rural communities as the current PIA stops us from doing then we end up with a proportionately higher cost base than our main competitor for the longest parts of the network. If you then can’t use the new fibre cable to serve local businesses, the public sector, the mobile and wireless industries or other ISPs for backhaul then somewhere between 50-70% of the potential revenues in your business case are zeroed out. BT suffers from none of these restrictions (and has the lion’s share of the current market anyway) so it is easily going to be able to offer more “gap funding” than anyone else.

LA: What have BDUK said to you to make the decision to give up?

Chris Smedley: They have told us that they cannot address any of these concerns about PIA as they are the responsibility of the regulator, Ofcom. Ofcom have told us they are being considered within the Business Connectivity Market Review. This is currently due to conclude at the end of next year and then we will have to negotiate with BT a new contract – assume two years from now at current rate of progress – well after BDUK’s procurements will have concluded. They have told us that there is no demand (presumably other than us) for a non gap funded framework for bidders. Between them, they made our decision pretty easy in the end!

LA: Do you believe that councils could be illegally funding a furthering of a monopoly in 7-10 years' time through the BDUK procurement process?

Chris Smedley: I doubt it is illegal for them to choose BT through the BDUK procurement process – although if the European Commission do apply their state aid guidelines as they have said they will then you would expect no project to become operational unless it offers a fully unbundled dark fibre product to the rest of the market. BT won’t do this at the moment. The sad precedent is that when this got explored after the award to BT of the Cornwall project, Ofcom and Government supported a push back against the EU on this point, arguing (successfully) that this was a matter for the national regulator and that the chosen UK remedies were not unbundled fibre but PIA (!) and VULA (BT’s “virtually” unbundled service – whatever that means). We hear worrying noises from Ofcom that they are considering meeting the EU’s requirements for unbundling in the future with “wavelength unbundling”. For us, as a dark fibre operator, this is all nonsense. Optical fibre cables have lots of fibre in them. Unbundling is a simple lease of the sub-divided elements the market likes to buy (usually a pair).

(I'll put an intro to this next question as I have not blogged this yet. During our meeting with Jeremy Hunt recently here in Cumbria, John Colton of FibreGarden, one of the BDUK Technical Trials Pilots, raised the issue for consideration of a State Aid "premium". This would be for those going straight for the jugular and doing FTTH rather than interim solutions.

The BDUK money is currently being divvied up on a technology neutral basis with all solutions receiving the same per household however long the likely lifespan or suitability of the product, but this fails to appreciate that FTTH will need no further investment. The argument for a premium being that none of those communities/providers doing fibre with this round of money will require any upgrade dosh in the future, whereas all other solutions will be doing an Arnold Schwarzenegger impression. If we are to spend this money, surely we should spend it wisely?)

LA: Do you feel that fibre to the home is being penalised more than, say FTTC, BET, wireless?

Chris Smedley: Yes.

LA: On top of PIA costs, there is also fibre tax, and no premium is being paid to those willing to invest in the longer term rather than stop gap/interim solutions. Can this be rectified?

Chris Smedley: Easily by a determined government which REALLY wants to see fibre deployed across the UK.

LA: After Fujitsu making all the noise earlier this year, how do you feel about them being the first to work with BT on PIA? Stitched up?

Chris Smedley: We are still a PIA trialist and will remain so if possible as we are keen in the long-term to make PIA work. I have no idea why they think it is a good tactic to ignore the deficiencies in the current product and praise BT for launching the current limited product. You will have to ask them! [I will!]

LA: How can Geo now help communities (including councils) to ensure that the gap funding generates local profits as well as /instead of those for a private company?

Chris Smedley: We would have been happy to help by developing viable schemes for councils based on an alternative model to gap funding (like FibreSpeed). We wouldn’t ever have accepted the gap funding model. Going forward, we are going to be focusing on our core business and leaving this task to others (if there are any other than BT).

LA: Where do we go from here?

Chris Smedley: That’s now a question for Ofcom and Government, I’m afraid. Look at New Zealand would be my advice.

Many thanks to Chris for taking time out to answer my questions. It is undoubtedly way past time now for a long hard look at what route we are taking to achieve the goals required in this country. When such exciting companies as Geo and Vtesse are no longer available to innovate, inspire and connect the communities who so need the type of solutions that the agile, generous-spirited, imaginative yet profitable telcos (rather than the oil tanker behemoths) could deliver, summat 'as garn wrang, as they say round here.

Fujitsu & Friends, please stick it out. You are pretty much our only hope now to save this country from yet more global humiliation.




Read more!

Workington, working together?

Tweet

Read more! BT will shortly announce that they have just cherry picked Workington out of Cumbria's roll out. They may have made the announcement already....been busy here.....

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



This county that I and others choose to live in is being scammed. Big style. As are far too many others. (Or prove us wrong?). Not for the BDUK money per se but for the townships which would then make a rural rollout actually worth playing with. Using the BDUK procurement as a backdrop.

Apparently C&W, who didn't actually show at the suppliers' day in Carlisle recently, are backing out. Read: have left. So, we're down to two players (waiting for confirmation but that isn't due till about next spring) and word on the street is that someone high up in HMG is trying to keep BT's monopoly alive and well. Like that comes as a surprise.

There are questions that need asking at County level about the fitness of some of those making telecom decisions for our next generations. But ask yourself in far more depth and detail what the hell is going on in Westminster that yet another County is down to only (in reality) a single player with two initials?

Yes, a register is required of lobbyists but how about a list of every single ex-BT employee and shareholder who seems to be currently involved in some very poor decision making for the future communications infrastructure of this country?

Hey, we get the need for commercial cut throat games, but why not put in open access infrastructure and then let them chop chunks out of each other?




Read more!

Ready for the next item on the good news agenda?

Tweet

Read more! I wasn't. And nor were the projects here in Cumbria.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



Turned out (Mondayish) that there is an ITT out for consultants to advise the Cumbrian pilots on business plans, instruments etc. Came as a bit of a shock to the projects listed, as you can imagine. But I forwarded it to them in case they didn't know. They didn't.

Staffed by some of the most inexhaustible volunteers who have forged relationships within their communities (literally on their doorsteps), the idea that a furriner would be allowed access.....

Actually, it's worse. A PAID furriner, who knows absolutely nothing about these communities, and has been chosen in a rushed 5 day process (Oct 21st to 26th) could be forced in to Cumbrian communities who have established relationships that telcos, governmental departments and civil servants can only dream of. And not a single one of these hard working people who have already, in some cases, got networks up and running, HAS RECEIVED A SINGLE PENNY YET FROM BDUK.

The mind boggles.

So, I'm applying. Because I'm at least local and know every single one of these communities personally. And I'm in good company who can ask far more important questions than me starting with "Why not us?".

I'm sure we won't get it, although the team we have put together in a few short hours could do this job perfectly, without stepping on any toes or peeing money up the wall. (For those who feel like throwing my outcome income statement at me, I will explain this soon, I promise).

Can these furriners create the so-called Community Broadband Toolkit for the next wastage (sorry, spend) of public money called the Rural Community Broadband Fund due to be rushed through (sorry, launched) by the end of November.... when we find out who has "won" the chance to run the gauntlet of some severely cross Cumbrian communities, I'll post again.


Read more!

Hey, it gets better....

Tweet

Read more! I lied. It really doesn't.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com




In the last two days, rumours have been circulating on't Cumbrian jungle drums that one supplier (of the 3, or is it now down to 2?) on the Lot 2 list has told some folks that they are doing nothing more for now on any pilot*.

*There aren't actually any pilots** in Cumbria yet because the State Aid issues have not been resolved. We could be the first county to have pilots that come post-procurement. Go, us! For achieving sweet FA since Rory's event, let alone the 7 years or so since the Project-Access-debacle, we should get yet another EU award (I was there in Brussels, PA really did get one and it should be removed/denounced/stripped, publicly, for out and out lying about the success of that nigh on £20M spend, read: #fail).

**Oh and none of the pilots are actually allowed to do that innovative lark we were all so looking forward to. It has to be one of the prospective bidders or get oot. It's beginning to look as though if you don't choose the right one, you will find you have wasted at least a year of your life come next spring (see a future post on the actual date) when/if procurement is actually announced.



Read more!

Cumbria...take a very deep breath

Tweet

Read more! Herefordshire, North Yorkshire, Scotland and every other county who thinks it has won the pools with BDUK, this includes you too. Shall I give you the good news first? Or are you up for the bad?

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



OK, neighbours, take this in.

Good news first.

The shouting about outside-in has, finally, hit a target. (That's it, the good news). Only taken, what? A decade? Now, let's see if there is some sort of consistency between documents, thinking, procurement..... CCC, BDUK, CALC et al are being particularly tight-arsed with sharing info at present, but hopefully when Jim, Liz and all the others return, who seem to be missing in action right now (holidays and visits on Tuesday by ministers etc), this blog might have some answers for you. I'd far prefer to be doing a different type of digging but needs must....

State Aid compliance has not yet been met. Heard this from 3 different sources last night. So, if you are one of the pilots, leave your hands tied to the chair for a while longer. There is no ERDF dosh coming your way, yet. Personally, I'd JFDI and forget the promises of free cash - it's looking increasingly vacuous.

Still no definition of SFBB in any county, and particularly not ours. Ask your MP about symmetry if all you are going to get is 2Mbps, which seems to be the ambition for this fair nation now - roll back to 2002 or worse, 1984. Question of the day is though: since when has SFBB meant choice of provider before speed of connection?

I'm breaking this into multiple posts as even I am struggling to take this all in now we're past the good news.
Read more!

BDUK Money

Tweet

Read more! Have managed not to post the drafts that have been in the wings for several days, and those which were then written when the BDUK announcement became official. But, I will say this.....

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



The riots were a very visible symptom of much that is wrong in this country - in inner cities, for youngsters, for the impoverished, the excluded etc.

However, there are many INVISIBLE signs of what is wrong in this country - for manufacturers, farmers, those in rural areas, those digitally excluded. Meanwhile, people have been so British - keep calm and chocolate on, #riotwombles, #operationcupoftea, and all those who just go to work as normal. Each and every day.

Yet, has a single Gummint Minister thanked those who did NOT riot, those who cleaned up, those who kept the food and information flowing whilst you sat on your beaches? Have you thanked those bloggers and citizen journalists who tweeted or spoke from the streets with honourable, sensible advice to make up for the lack of central advice on WTF to do? Or have you been too busy slagging off those in opposition and highlighting your own failings?

Right now, to us, the electorate, you ALL look like you are in opposition. To the people of this nation.

Should we, the forgotten ones, riot too to get your notice, to bring you back from holiday, to bring you down to earth?

I've just binned 3 or 4 blog posts about why rural communities haven't. Yet. Rioted. But not just rural peeps, I think I speak for many other sectors too. Our patience is wearing thin with you, Westminster. You are TOO out of touch.

As an example, I suspect that throwing £530M (or a similar combin8tion of digits thereof) at the digital broadband problem will only exacerbate the divides and cracks that are now tearing this country apart. Because, IMHO and probably many others, this "solution" is yet again ill-informed, ill-suited to the problem and so, so, so poorly executed that you (who claim to be in charge) can only come in for flak.

Do any of you actually understand the problem you are endeavouring to solve? Or are you blinded by the glaring tarnish (sorry, varnish) of the glittering last century telco death throes?

Want my honest opinion? What an almighty cock-up you are busy creating. And so avoidable if you were less arrogant and listened to the people in this country.

Do I trust you to spend this BDUK money wisely? Not a bloody chance. You are already deeply in the mire of getting it wrong, and seem to have no comprehension of what results your actions will bring. Nor care.

Whether it is about Broadband or I want JD Sports or unprepared police forces sent to face 200 rioters with no kit - Westminster and local authorities seem unable to make even a simple decision any more from the ivory towers. Individually, some of you are doing well, but collectively - what a bloody shower you are.

Maybe your lofty perches are not the best places for y'all, after all? Perhaps, just perhaps, bending an ear to the ground, where the vast hubbub of activity takes place, is long overdue?











Anyone ready to #JFDI, stick around!

Read more!

Cumbria Broadband Slowspots

Tweet

Read more!

We have mapped the identified slowspots in Cumbria from data which appears to have come originally via BDUK. This map shows all those places where properties cannot receive 2Mbps or higher. We do not believe this map is complete and are asking the help of Cumbrian residents and businesses to make sure the full picture is understood, and publicly available.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com

The full Cumbrian broadband slowspot map is available here.

Zoom in, and if there is no circle near to your house or business premises, or within your postcode area, and a speedtest.net test shows that you receive under 2Mbps, please complete the following form and we will add your postcode to the map.

If you know of others nearby who suffer slow broadband, please help them to add their postcode too and tell others about this map, wherever they are in Cumbria, and the press, the radio stations, blogs, twitter etc.

(Due to some discrepancies with how Google maps renders postcodes, we think some of the postcodes are slightly misplaced on some browsers. We are working on this).



Should this data be available in the public domain for every county? We believe so. Then, use the people who can actually run the speedtests in their houses on their equipment (with whatever limitations that has) to pin themselves to the map to get a far truer picture of broadband in the UK. Ditto for mobile coverage.

UPDATE: BBC are announcing a similar crowdsourced exercise for national mobile coverage tomorrow. Hopefully the data will this time be made publicly available and stay on the website forever.

Read more!

Is Cumbria JFDI Part 2?

Tweet

Read more! I feel I can better expand on the Broadband Industry Day last week after catching up with some thoughts of those who were there too this week.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



There appears to be a mix of emotions surrounding not just that day and who was (and wasn't) present, but also the procurement process and progress in general.

There is one question which I feel needs to be asked over and over again until we get a reasonable answer: Why has Cumbria County Council chosen the short list for suppliers when the Council does not even seem remotely clear about what it requires and is therefore procuring?

The second question which follows that is: why are IT services included in the spend of a £16.8M pot destined to solve the rural broadband issue, not CCC's infrastructure problem?

It seems the second list is now down to four (CTC have dropped out because they were actually more interested in the IT services list, or so we hear) - BT, Cable & Wireless, Commendium and Fujitsu.

This is an eclectic mix to say the least. C&W, Fujitsu and Commendium all appear to be working on a telehealth experiment in Shap together. (About which it appears Shap know little to nothing). One could wonder if there are actually only two players left in that list? In which case, as CCC are still unclear precisely what is to be delivered, how on earth are Cumbrians to believe that these may be the best suppliers for the still-to-be-defined task? Particularly as there are other suppliers who fail to meet procurement criteria in multiple counties now who could deliver in a more agile and probably cost-effective manner, who seem far more interested in working with the communities.

My slightly more positive feel about BDUK and CCC on leaving in the pouring rain on Friday does not entirely appear to be reflected by others present. And having heard their concerns, I have to admit to beginning to feel as though we are on a roller coaster which may find itself running out of track before ere long. However, there is agreement that there are definitely some hearts in the right places, and support for community broadband. But there seems to be a growing feeling that process and bureaucracy may prove the undoing of the mere mortals/human beans that should be being served by the process rather than vice versa.

The suppliers seemed to have been a variety of - 'scared stiff', 'gobstruck' at the professionalism of the community presentations, as well as eager (or not, in some cases) to work with communities, as well as keen to work with other supplier partners (or not).

There is a concern I think that there will be a power struggle to ensure that the second list do actually deliver what Cumbrian communities need, now and in the future, and do not just pay lip service to what CCC and communities are saying purely to win the bid. This is extremely likely if CCC do not clearly define exactly what needs to be delivered and understand at least approximately what that may/should cost.

PhilT put this rather succinctly the other day when commenting about technology neutral bids when he said that what we should be doing is defining the gigabit connection and then allowing the suppliers to indicate precisely how they would deliver this. Rather than giving the suppliers enough rope to hang the entire county with which is what I think many are concerned that CCC may be doing, inadvertently or otherwise.

I did feel frustrated on Friday that there still seem to be too many on very steep learning curves, very late in the day, and that there simply is not enough collaboration and sharing of knowledge going on. To assume that all the knowledge is within the suppliers' camps is a disproven theory now, and actually it could be argued that some of the information that the communities now hold is far more commercially sensitive than that of some of the suppliers. Particularly those suppliers who are only in this for the money.

I think that as we are a Big Society area and were specifically given instructions by Nat Wei in Kirkby Stephen to kick down the barriers which prevent delivery of the right solutions for this fair land called Eden, that some of those barriers may be about to receive a serious kicking to remove them once and for all. And to be honest, not a moment too soon after the Project Access debacle.

It would also seem that some of the suppliers are treating this simply as a commercial process, which is fine, but in times of tight budgets, cuts etc, one would have hoped (in my little idealistic world) that perhaps the Council would work doubly hard to ensure that the money goes as far as possible. One community has reported that a supplier took away their shopping list to 'shave a few pounds off it' and came back with something that was almost double the original costings.

Which is standard public funding behaviour (think of a number, add a zero, times by pi) but in this day and age, and for community broadband for a county such as Cumbria which has such a high proportion of experienced fibre and broadband folk - that's not going to fly, is it, eh? Or one would hope that the Council would see through such behaviour and stamp on it.

I am beginning to wonder whether I am correct in believing that a growing number of folk are disenchanted with the entire procurement process and are actually planning to JFDI without the backing of the Council. Yes, it could prove inordinately difficult, but that depends on whether the rest of Cumbria understands what is going on and backs these communities. After all, it is not too difficult to vote out those who have been elected in the future if the actions of a few determined folk prove over time that the Council went about things the wrong way.

In reality, it only needs one reasonably sized community to work together with smaller suppliers, who could not even make those short lists, to JFDI, and a spotlight could be turned onto the winners of the bid to ensure they deliver above and beyond what 'hicks in the sticks' can. However, this would mean building a world-class network and not an interim solution; but it seems that there are at least two of the pilots that are already at the required level of knowledge and planning to carry that through. I suspect there are more who are not as vocal or as public who could also be a 'threat' to the Council's procurement over the coming 2-5 years.

And this, to me, is where things may well get interesting. If the communities act together to share information, skills, knowledge, best practice, we could see some best networks built on and in Cumbrian soil that surpass anything that the winner might choose to deploy given a commercial choice. And all of us will be far more interested reading a front page of the Herald that shows people we know, in places we know, digging where they live, than passing yet another BT van at the side of the road.

£16.8M is a drop in the ocean to some of the companies on that short list, but it could still turn dirty. It's not about that funding; it's about landgrab and having customers who may stick with the supplier for 20 or more years into the future. Trouble is, oh supplier friends of ours, this is a very tight-knit community and our jungle drums are far faster than any broadband you may care to install! Dirty tricks will be exposed in less time than you can dip a sheep, and will be shared via our traditional communications routes. And Cumbrians are vocal!

At a time when Cumbrians are struggling to make ends meet, wastage of what is viewed as OUR MONEY, paid from our TV licences, is likely to be taken badly. And if CCC act properly and there are penalty clauses for failure to deliver, this could become a costly exercise. But, let's not jump that dry stone wall before we get to it, eh?

Rory said he wanted to see spades in the ground before the end of this year. Or that's what I heard, but someone else thinks he said before the end of August. That being the case, we have come up with a pilot that could potentially do just that. And to me, that is one of the joys of rural living. Throw an idea into the communal pot, toss it around a little with your neighbours who are equally as passionate about Eden, work out the kinks and details, and then JFDI before moving on to the next project our communities need that no-one else can work out how to fund or action!

Watch this space....


Read more!

How low can we go in the UK?

Tweet

Read more! I am going to take the latest PIN from DCMS to bits. Every which place I am wrong, correct me. There are plenty of people who read this blog who could just for once come out of the woodwork and contribute, instead of leaving my pet trolls to do so alone. This Framework has been causing discussions in many circles for at least 2 weeks before it was officially announced, and it is IMHO time to get this country back on track before it is too late.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



This is the PIN (Prior Information Notice) for DCMS and BDUk for around £2Billion.

The primary purpose of this Prior information notice (PIN) is to inform the market of a prospective opportunity in connection with the UK Government's broadband policies and objectives.

The delivery of high speed connectivity to businesses and residential consumers and communities is required to address the UK’s economic growth and development agenda. The topography and/or demographic characteristics of certain geographies will require investment to deploy broadband infrastructure and this, together with the lack of competitive pressure, means that market-driven private investments alone will not achieve ubiquitous connectivity.

1. All topographies and demographics require investment to deploy broadband infrastructure. END.

2. Lack of competitive pressure....ah, are we now re-wording the term 'market failure'? If that is truly the case, then let's ask ourselves why and according to whom? Could it be that there is a certain incumbent who is ensuring that the pipes are so damned thin there is no pressure (scarcity vs abundance)? No access to the pipes - could that be inhibiting competitive pressure? No market - says whom? Perhaps we should revisit who is touting this so called "lack of competitive pressure"? And is it real when so many people seem ready to invest, dig, connect etc?

3. Could we please determine a time frame in which "market-driven private investments alone will not achieve ubiquitous connectivity?" Because given a few more months without public sector investment from the Treasury's coffers, communities large and small will pull their fingers out and connect each other. Bit like railways, electricity etc. Many of which were not publicly funded nor were there so-called incumbents preventing their every move. Communities still beat the private investments to delivery - in both the rural villages I have lived in during the past 37 years, electricity was delivered by individuals not market-driven investment from shareholder owned companies or incumbents. In fact, we had electricity before Manchester, and Lord Glenamara (who became Chairman of Cable and Wireless) wrote about it in his book. Market-driven? Hell no. Innovator, edge of the network, experiment-driven. Are you really going to skew the market by giving ALL THE MONEY to a behemoth, oil-tanker sloth that doesn't love each community it connects but only the profits it can reap for its shareholders?

Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) has been created within the Department of culture, media and sport (DCMS) to be the delivery vehicle for the government's policies relating to stimulating private sector investment using the available funding. Further details on BDUK, its objectives and activities can be found at: http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/8124.aspx.

I'd love to query the lack of capital letters in a major tender for £2Bn....but it would be more interesting to query that publication and BDUK about their achievement of those objectives to date.

BDUK is seeking to establish a framework agreement of suitably qualified prime contractors capable of delivering local broadband projects as required by local bodies or groups of local bodies. "Local bodies" potentially includes local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, devolved administrations and other public sector bodies.

Wait just one minute. Haven't we been here before? With first gen broadband? Can I not recall OGC asking for 12 suppliers for broadband solutions? And the massive outcry there was at the time about the failure to permit new entrants etc in to the game? Didn't we end up with something that (sorry, Paul) was called OGC BS (Bullshit or Buying Solutions, take your pick), and which resulted in a total failure to deliver first gen and IT solutions through 'preferred suppliers'? Isn't that what we have here, again? Are we really, so soon, going to repeat a similar futile exercise? Cut out all the innovators, new entrants, solutions providers already on the ground and digging into the ground? Seriously?

And who is defining 'Suitably qualified prime contractors'? A bank? Are any of these prime contractors going to be assessed on :

Failure to deliver consumer and business broadband requirements to date
Over-priced access for any third party to infrastructure built using public money
Failure to keep Britain in the broadband game through innovation

Prime contractors will need to be capable of delivering a range of broadband and related requirements, including (but not limited to):
— The design, build, integration and operation of wholesale broadband networks at a county, multi-county or regional level. Such areas could be of potentially up to the order of 500 000 premises,
— Broadband solutions that meet outcomes-based specifications rather than being tied to specific technologies and platforms,
— Open access wholesale services including for retail service providers (e.g. Internet Service Providers) to include as part of retail broadband packages for business and residential customers.
It is currently anticipated that: the framework agreement will be for a duration of two years with the possibility of up to 2 one-year extensions; and the contract notice for this framework agreement will be issued by the end of June 2011.

Right, one at a time. If these prime contractors were capable of delivering such a range of requirements, why have they not already done so?

Hasn't the noise from grassroots level reached BDUK about the huge dissatisfaction over the four pilots? From choosing the wrong contractual body (eg county councils who are being hit from all sides by public sector cuts, who have little comprehension of broadband tech or usage, and who are busy trying to tie in PSN, council and education networks into an 'innovative pilot' (cough, splutter) that brings telehealth, education and e-gov into homes, businesses, schools, GPs etc) to demanding £100M in the bank to connect a tiny village to show how it can be done elsewhere - do you not get it yet???

Have you not assessed what wholesale broadband networks are in place eg CLEO in Cumbria and Lancashire, and thought, "Hey, maybe we don't need to re-invent the wheel?"

Have you not mapped the existing infrastructure and said, "We don't need to spend £2Bn putting in a framework agreement - that would be a pure and simple waste of public money. What we need to do is force the existing infrastructure owners, the consumers and communities (however large or small) and our so-called Big Society government to join the dots."

Have you not considered that "outcomes-based specifications" is a totally lunacy when no-one can possibly know what is round the corner? Are you going to specify that one of the outcomes is that everyone can watch iPlayer or BBC News on the move, or are you going to accept that probably less than a year down the line bog standard TV will become old hat when everyone can livestream from their jumper?

Have you actually thought out why an ISP is required? Connect me or my neighbours into a DVP and why do I need an ISP? To be regulated? Oh, get on. Read the Dumb Network and work it out. ISPs are so yesterday, as is DRM etc.

We need dumb fat pipes. We have been saying it for years. Some people may need services, such as VM and Sky TV, but give people access and they will find their own content, make their own content, bundle their own packages and services, develop their own apps, create innovative apps as we see in Chattanooga, and much, much more.

Whilst local bodies may elect to deliver broadband via other procurement routes,

Except we, BDUK, may force them down a route where this is impossible, eg by issuing a Framework agreement that all local bodies must adhere to if they want any of the pots of money the Treasury has cajoled out of the likes of the BBC Licence Fee etc

BDUK expects that a majority of the available funding will be accessed via call-off contracts from this framework agreement. There is the potential for the framework agreement to cover projects with a total value of up to 2 000 000 000 GBP or more.
Further details on this opportunity will be provided at the industry day (see below). This further information may include information on: the scope of the framework agreement; the award procedure to be followed; anticipated timetable; funding; etc.estimated cost excluding VAT 2 000 000 000 GBP
Division into lots No

Division into Lots? No bloody chance. That would be opening the door to discussions with people who may be right, and prolong the agony for all concerned far beyond the next election.
Read more!

BSG pushes traffic management code of conduct for ISPs

Tweet

Read more! The Broadband Stakeholder Group have managed to get some of their members to sign a Code of Conduct about making available information to users regarding traffic management policies used to throttle Internet connections.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



Whilst this is obviously a good idea in the interim period (probably about another decade at this rate) until we finally break the Scarcity Model the telcos are so fond of, it does fail to address the actual issue - we need to upgrade our networks so they can cope with data usage in the 21st century.

Optical Reboot is such a nice term, and the ideology behind it is precisely what we require. We can come up with Codes of Conduct for errant ISPs wishing to avoid regulation, or we can tackle the problem head on. (Read the ADVAOptical blog, it's good.)

Today is Pi Day, and if we can celebrate a number, I think it's time we had a "Break the Network" day involving RaceOnline2012, that Online Centres bunch, BSG, BIS, BDUK, CLA, all the Unis, schools, hospitals, politicians, local authorities, and every other group who have ever been involved in technology, or should be.

The idea would be to show our telcos and government just how b0rked the network is in 2011, even with about half the country failing to comprehend what a computer is for or why anyone would even want one. If you made everyone use a computer on a specific day e.g. to fill out the census form, and then try uploading a video to the Census Dept showing what went wrong, that should cause a certain amount of network nightmares along with all the normal everyday usage that our connections struggle to cope with.

What do you think?!
Read more!

The FTTH Pledge Pot

Tweet

Read more! I believe (Blimey, sound like someone else!) that there is an appetite to invest in order to resolve the broadband issue. And, oh dearest Coalition, I think you may be making it harder than it need be.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



My belief in how to ensure that the UK has ubiquitous, accessible and affordable true broadband has never faltered. The Access to Broadband Campaign was built on the most solid of foundations, and I believe that all we pushed for in 2000-2004 stands solid today. AFAIK, the website and all the incredible content that we created, and which has fed into so much of today's thinking, is still there as reference material.

However, it is time to overcome an issue that is so simple to solve, so obvious a barrier, and so vitally important to resolve, if we are to succeed with Next generation broadband.

FUNDING.

Someone, somewhere, decided that Local Authorities, in the midst of massive and comprehensive budget cuts, and with no experience of telecoms or even knowledge of the last decade of broadband revelations, would be the most appropriate to "bring up to speed" and pilot solutions for an issue of such huge import as "Final Third First".

Knowing what effect next generation broadband has both socially and economically, someone, somewhere, chose to dump this firework into the laps of people who cannot possibly be expected to understand 25 years of FTTH, let alone 120 years of telecoms, in a few months, whilst also operating in what can only be called a "public sector war zone".

From the outside, it looks like the majority of people are trying to stick to the "Keep Calm and Carry On" ethos, whilst keeping their heads low so they are not caught in the crossfire of budget cuts and lay offs.That is entirely understandable - you too have mouths to feed, and mortgages/rent to pay.

The 4 BDUK pilots have not yet, in six whole months, actually been introduced to each other AFAIK. Online or offline. There has been no meeting that would permit these public sector bods, who are also citizens and consumers once out of their suits, a chance to talk to one another about common problems, issues faced with the procurement etc. Let alone bringing together the "Big Society" who have clearly established their wont to be involved in making the right decision with this money from the public purse.

There is no use of the premium channel we are endeavouring to build access to - t'interweb- so these 4 pilot communities can meet each other, talk, discuss, find solutions etc.

And there is certainly no-one out there saying "How do we get best value from this BBC License Fee money?"

Where are the business planners, showing all of us how the pilots will benefit us? Where are the economists, serial entrepreneurs, experienced commercial operators?

Where is the one single person asking ME, as a resident of this pilot area, how much I am willing to invest in a solution?


Why ask BT? Why not ask me first?

I run a business. Every single farm in Eden/Cumbria, Hereford, Scotland and North Yorkshire is a business. There are thousands of businesses in these 4 counties. We can invest against tax. We can make informed business choices. We run businesses, day in and day out.

Has a single one of us been asked how much WE are willing to put into the pot to ensure that we build a next generation infrastructure that will not force our children away from this area? Into education, work, houses etc away from their homes?

We care. We know how to make profits, even when times are really rough. We know what certain solutions are worth to us, to our families, to businesses, to our communities. And therefore what we are able to put into the Pot.

Are you really going to ignore all of us, sideline us, gag us, so that contracts can be given to companies who have zero interest in our children, our schools, our Parishes, our neighbours, our livelihoods and our communities?

Really?

I pledge here and now, from my Eden-based internet marketing business, £5,000 towards building a next generation broadband network within Eden that meets all of the State Aid Guidelines, and is community-owned. (Whether as a Trust, co-op etc).

I hope that it will be on a long-term investment basis, because I am proud to live here, and I know that FTTH is a viable, sound, economic investment for anyone. However, if it has to be a legacy from which I, in my lifetime, see no return, then I will GIFT this money because I appreciate all that the generations before me have done to leave legacies of land, buildings, funds, Reading Rooms, co-ops, Aid funds etc. In both Eden and Wensleydale, the evidence of previous generation's generosity is impossible to ignore.

It is surely our task to continue the work that the previous generations started in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Herefordshire and Scotland to ensure the well-being of our children?

I know I will not be alone, any more than my mother was with her railways - SCR and WCR.

So, I pledge £5000 for an Eden True Broadband Solution.

(And vultures, stay away. You have all been circling far too close recently.)

We can JFDI Pledge Pot Proposal

Read more!

How to spend £530M (or not...)

Tweet

Read more! One of the reasons to keep going with broadband campaigning (despite my frequent attempts to retire from all this grief) must be the chance to meet and have access to people who you would otherwise never come into contact with, and benefit from their thinking. For everything else there is Mastercard, but for quality replies such as this....

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



This weekend, at 8.09am, (which indicates how much the CCC update bothered me!) I sent the following email to someone I met whilst kicking my heels in a bar during the Lisbon 2010 FTTH Council Conference. He looked English, we got talking, and it turned out that, coincidentally, he too was at the conference. We met again in Milan a few weeks ago.

He is MD of a company already supplying 25Mbps and upwards to businesses, and who is about to start connecting rural domestic properties to similar fibre and FiWi services, with or without BDUK.

Whilst he was happy for me to publish his name, I have chosen to anonymise the content of this email. He is not based in Cumbria, and as far as I know his company is not planning to put in even an EoI for the BDUK Cumbria projects. I asked his opinion as someone who is *not* involved in the personalities or politics of this region.

As ever, I make no apologies for my approach to getting problems into the open - blame my Yorkshire upbringing. A spade is a spade is a spade.

Morning

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/broadband/update.asp


Before I give myself some sort of fatal apoplectic attack at the idiocy of our Council, would you care to make any comments on this from Cumbria County Council yesterday?

Thanks!
Lins

He replied:

From the horse's mouth:

“Our aim is to use these [Rural Market Testing Pilots] to discover exactly what needs to be done to make superfast broadband commercially viable in rural communities as well as urban areas, and to understand what kind of Government support will be necessary.”
Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, 15th July


The first step in understanding how government may invest in extending superfast broadband beyond where the private sector will get to will be the running of 4 market testing pilots in rural areas. The information from these projects, in addition to initiatives that are already going on across the country, will be used to better target possible government intervention and investment in ‘superfast broadband’ in the future.

The above is taken straight from the BDUK website.

Three phrases really stick out here: "market testing", "pilots", and "superfast". In my view these are the crucial elements of what the money should (one might even say "must") be used for.

Superfast

Clearly, there is no dictionary/legal definition of what constitutes superfast. However, I would argue that two, phased, meanings are emerging. The first, short term, measure is to get speeds above those theoretically possible with ADSL 2+ technology. A suitable goalpost for this in my view would be something north of 20 Mbps. For the medium term, then I agree with you that we need 100Mbps access, with a true symmetric capability.

Market testing

Market testing means, in my view, that the market must be tested! Put another way, then IF people do have access to superfast broadband at suitable price points (ie not expensive) then is there a good demand for it, what can it be used for, what will it be used for, etc etc.

Pilot

The BDUK website is VERY specific on this in my view - these are meant to be PILOT projects. They should be testing different solutions, different suppliers even.

So, returning now to the Cumbria "update".

First thing I notice is that the term "superfast" occurs only once in the whole update - in the first sentence as a descriptor for what the Accessible Cumbria project is all about. By the end of the update, the only speed mentioned has dropped to a miserly 2 Mbps. If that is what they think "superfast" means, then they should be sacked on the grounds of gross incompetence.

They then go on to state that "discussions with BDUK to date have focussed on two things", which they specify as:

• getting the best value for money
• ensuring any rationing is fair

Getting the best value for money should be measured against those three terms I listed above: Market Testing, Pilot, Superfast. That is what the money is clearly meant to be used for, and so that is what the successful use of that money should be measured against. Using the money for a different purpose should not be allowed and indeed if it is used for other purposes, then the County Council should be made to repay the money.

"Ensuring any rationing is fair" is a silly statement to make as it completely misses the point about what the money is meant to be used for. "Ensuring that the pilot addresses the challenges of delivering superfast broadband to all businesses and communities within Cumbria" would be a much better focus in my view.

The comment about FTTP is utterly ridiculous. Yes, it is expensive, but that is the point of BDUK money being focussed on "final third" areas where it is (supposedly) much harder to justify the investment. In any event, FTTP is only "expensive" where the cost per home passed is much higher than it is in dense, urban areas. Within a village, the homes might well be spaced as close as they are in an urban area and/or the cost of digging might well be less, thus helping to offset a higher home spacing.

The comment, "There are various degrees of enthusiasm and expertise in our communities which would also be shunned by the FTTP approach," is a very vague statement that is neither explained or justified. The person who wrote it is clearly not up to the task.

There then follows a long, rambling discussion about the provision of community points of presence. This serves only one purpose and that is to allow the council to spend the money on improving its own internal network with "spare capacity" perhaps being made available for community use. If they really think that the CLEO network, that they will have specified, could be leased to a supplier to then use for community access then they must have been smoking something. 

To fulfill the criteria of a superfast community point of presence (and for BDUK funding here, it must be superfast), means that the point of presence must be 1Gbps for any sizeable (eg hundred homes and upwards) community. The reason for this is that (assuming fibre delivery) the cost difference between a 100 Mbps and an 1Gbps feed will not be that significant, accepting that 100 Mbps wireless feeds would be ok for very small (few tens of homes perhaps) communities until a fibre path can be established/justified.

It really makes me fume that they think that they should install the CLEO network and then sub-let that to a supplier for community use as this is a classic way to waste money and opportunity. If anything, it should be the other way round - provide the funding that would have been spent anyway on the CLEO network to a supplier to help underpin its rollout of a true "superfast" backhaul network that is offered on an open access basis.

As for the concept of a "Quality Guild", well that just smacks of soviet style socialist thinking. It is also, I suspect, illegal under EU competition law.

Now moving on to the rationing bit...

I have to admit that the bullets do sound ok in and of themselves.

The concept of "broadband coordinators" sounds fine in theory. My real worry would be that it would be local loudmouths (aka "politician" types) who would grab these positions to further their own personal aims.

As with the [redacted] project, I see that the term "pilot" is being rapidly watered down as in "...for BDUK to make a statement about any intentions for Cumbria beyond the pilot phase...". These are meant to be pilot projects to see what works etc, not the pilot phase of a full rollout by the Council!! Megalomania or what?!?

Again, as with the [redacted] project, "action" is unlikely before summer 2012 - nearly two full years after the money was made available. That is little short of pathetic really.

Deploying 1 Gbps community points of presence to every village with (or close to) an existing BT exchange is pretty basic stuff. The costs of deployment are easy to suss out (Openreach EAD circuits have open pricing and the "excess construction" would not take that long for Openreach to assess). The County Council could have held a mini-tender just for the provision of these circuits very quickly and then have got them deployed within around a further six months. Whilst that was going on, the council could have been working on further, localised tenders for the "last mile" bits, combining a healthy mix of fibre and wireless (and even high speed satellite) deployment.

---------

[Note: Despite Ofcom's banning of all usage of the term "superfast broadband" without a TSR, I have permitted it this one last time on the 5tth blog. From now on, use superfast broadband within my hearing at your peril.]

Read more!

State Aid Guidelines

Tweet

Read more! Light reading for the weekend, folks! After last night's "Eden Valley Connective" broadband meeting with BDUK, I thought it was time to lay into the State Aid Guidelines.

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com


It is going to be very important for those within the BDUK pilot areas to help those in Councils etc to make the right decisions. We can all only do that if we understand how State Aid will and does affect choices made. For instance, it would seem that "open access" is being translated to suit the bidders already, and not either the project or the end users.

In addition, it would seem very important that Councils et al are very clear about 51.

51. In assessing the proportional character of the notified measures in "white" or "grey" areas, through its decision-making practice, the Commission has highlighted a number of necessary conditions to minimise the State aid involved and the potential distortions of competition. The lack of any of the following conditions in (a) to (h) would require an in-depth assessment [51] and most likely it would lead to a negative conclusion on the compatibility of the aid with the common market.

So, a) for instance reads:

(a) Detailed mapping and coverage analysis: Member States should clearly identify which geographic areas will be covered by the support measure in question. By conducting in parallel an analysis of the competitive conditions and structure prevailing in the given area and consulting with all stakeholders affected by the relevant measure, Member States minimise distortions of competition with existing providers and with those who already have investment plans for the near future and enable these investors to plan their activities [52]. A detailed mapping exercise and a thorough consultation exercise ensure accordingly not only a high degree of transparency but serve also as an essential tool for defining the existence of "white", "grey" and "black" zones [53].

Mapping for instance is vital. At Penrith conference, the maps failed to include our own homegrown networks like Cybermoor, Gt Asby etc so maps must include ALL existing service providers, not just the big boys.

Communicating with existing service providers about their plans. Hm, we are already hearing from providers and communities who are getting increasingly concerned that their ongoing work could be totally distorted by BDUK intervention unless local authorities try much harder to discover what is going on in their areas. (This has been ongoing for a while, but many of those now getting in touch are not 'planning' to build something, they have already JFDI.)

This small example of a detailed and complex document gives some idea of what we are all up against.

There will be a short test on Monday on the rest of the Guidelines. ;o)

(Next week, we shall be studying the Framework Agreement).

Have a good weekend all. And just a reminder that rural areas, kids and advanced technology mix really well. I suspect we may see something similar in Stoneleigh as a school holiday course in years to come...
Read more!

What short and selective memories we have (2)

Tweet

Read more! If you are late to the party, the intro to this particular post is here

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



Some of you won't remember LS29 and similar community networks who sought to connect communities to broadband when the incumbent was dragging its heels, urban and rural. Or even the trigger level campaigns for ADSL that employed well-meaning volunteers within communities around the country, (Think Infinity - it was exactly the same programme but more aggressive - most exchanges, not a just a "lucky" handful). Those people believed the adverts - everyone would be connected if they just trod enough miles around their Parish/exchange area to 'stimulate demand' with pre-prepared posters on behalf of a private company.

You probably don't recall the fight for the arrival of the LLU unbundlers. They came later in the tale. And their appearance was for a very good reason, but they are, sadly, still in the Betamax category for many consumers. And no-one seeks to help consumers make an informed choice, even today....

I know that the vast majority of the readers of this blog were not at the first BSG conference in Birmingham, (I did not sing my tagline; that rumour is not true!) or present when the Analysys Mason report was launched to huge dispute about that £28Bn figure for FTTH, or at the Amsterdam FTTH conference when the miniscule British contingent were so, so depressed at the oh so apparent lacklustre UK approach to telecoms infrastructure as we heard what other countries were doing.

Many of you may not remember the huge arguments during the trigger level campaign that ADSL was an "interim technology", "unfit for purpose in the 21st century" etc. The utter tosh (sorry, I mean corporate spiel) about how great ADSL would be for this country and how it would reach "nearly everyone" met with substantial resistance, but we didn't/couldn't spend £30+million marketing it to the British public. (£35M ISTR was the ad spend in year 1 alone by BT - Source: Marketing Weekly, on a train, many moons ago).

Back then, some were, and still are, trying to get party lines removed so people could have a phone line each. You think broadband notspots are bad? There are (AFAIK), or definitely were until very recently, still people in this country sharing phone lines on what used to be called 'party lines', so they must wait for the neighbour to get off the phone to make a call. House on fire? Tough. You won't find these people wingeing in online forums - they can't even consider getting online. And when that disconnectivity coincides with no mobile coverage? Well, go figure how this country is ever going to lead anyone in telecoms infrastructure when we allow that to happen.....

I'm quite sure most people don't remember the miraculous trigger level hits that occurred almost overnight when a community network offering an alternative to ADSL went public locally. Nor the fact that there were trigger levels reached that sometimes stretched the imagination for the total number of residents within that exchange area, or when local knowledge denied that that many residents could even access or use a computer to register. The announcements of ADSL exchange enablement which coincided (oh, how coincidental?) with community networks announcing to their residents that they were going live within days or weeks because the local demand was high, especially when there had been zero indication (in some cases, flat denials), that it would be 'economically viable' or that anyone else was willing to chuck a DSLAM in the exchange.

Someone, somewhere, was scanning local papers, which at the time were nowhere near as online as now, to counter any such community or technological 'attacks' on what can only be seen as a land grab. After all, if all you can offer a rural area is something worse than ISDN, do you *really* want a bunch of geeks to appear out of the rural or urban woodwork and set up a network that offers a far better solution, locally run, than you care to offer during THAT DECADE?

Can you spot the similarities yet? Are you mapping community activity to put in FTTH or alternative solutions vs Infinity and amended FTTC announcements? Well, you should be.

The good bit and the lesson that should never be forgotten was when Ed Brown of ADIT helped BT enable the 23 (was it 23? I think so) rural Yorkshire and Humber exchanges that BT claimed weren't viable. Yep, with public money, but, oh, if they prove to be viable after all, guys, you are paying that money back to the public purse. My sources tell me that repayment came to over a £1million.

So, if all these rural areas that we are planning to chuck £830M at turn out to be viable after all............? We should have anywhere up to £830M to play with all over again. N'est-ce pas?????


Some of the networks that consumed the Net from the mid 90s onwards and made it accessible to anyone in their region, on free spectrum that could be set to work on even the most battered PC that had been binned for running Windows 3.1, must have been a bit of a worry, I guess. But not to their users who (mostly) LOVED 'em and supported 'em. And many of whom, seemingly, are on worse connections now, 10 years later, because someone, somewhere has gone to great efforts to make it damned difficult for those altnets to bypass the...sorry, got to say it, incumbent.

I don't say this lightly, but I strongly believe, and am willing to hear otherwise, that there was an ethos of "Take 'em out at the knees" and we are seeing that again. Not for the greater good and well-being of UK Plc, but for a long-term gain that is endeavouring to capture as large a market share for THIS CENTURY as possible for shareholder interest.

And our memories are too bloody short.

Well, most of them are. You, whoever you are, are probably reading this because you are frustrated that the UK is lagging behind Latvia, Estonia, Korea, Sweden, and a whole host of other countries. Damn, where did our Empire go? Are we really Third World, or heading that way, because we can't play in the knowledge economy - we've not got much else to play with industrially. Have we?

Are we really going to forget that we were all promised the light fantastic with ADSL, and thousands and thousands and thousands of this people in this country have nothing, or near as dammit nothing, that you could call 'broadband' by the 1984 definition, let alone 2003 or 2011? Capable of simultaneous transmission and reception of voice, video and data - what the hell happened to that? I look at sending a less than 20MB PDF to the printer today and it's walk away from the computer time - pick a task to fill the time - I drove 10 miles to submit my self-assessment form (do it online? PAH!!!). In 2011. In Great Britain.

If you really believe that giving anyone the money for a future-proofed solution, when they are proposing a solution for the 21st century that reworks a 100+ year old copper telephone network, is right, then I suggest you take a look around the world at the places where for at least 5 YEARS, tiny little rural companies have been able to chuck more than is promkised with FTTC over far longer lengths of copper. Because if a certain massive multinational hasn't worked that one out when they should have been taking the lead, globally, then all I can say is that Peter Cochrane retired too damned early and we need him back in Ipswich to get fibre to the home back on the menu. Fast.

Or else we realise that ADSL is still, all these years later, a short term interim solution, as is anything over copper, and it is time to assess how much not having decent broadband is costing this country. That tax return I submitted today, well, dead sorry HMRC, but once again, you are getting nowt off me as I can't compete with the guys who started up in my sector 5 years and more after me. The competitive advantage that I, and many other companies in the IT industry had from being British, innovative, ingenious etc has now been so substantially eroded, you are now writing us cheques, year on year. Bloody genius. That should force the national economic recovery...not!!

If the Treasury, HMRC, our economists etc are willing to permit private companies to drag hundreds of thousands of small businesses into the gutter, when we should have been leading the world and cashing in, perhaps it is time to reassess exactly who is benefiting from this approach?

And you, oh Councillors etc who are going to make decisions for public purse money this year through the 5 BDUK projects, don't look to Cornwall. Look beyond these shores at what is being done elsewhere. Why are we NOWHERE CLOSE to being on the FTTH Council League tables even with the proposed spend on 'fibre optics' for the next few years being lauded in the press?

Ask yourself if the ASA was wrong to ignore all the complaints that, if you call it a fibre optic connection, it must be precisely that - not coax or any other form of copper. And are you falling for very expensive ad companies working their magic on your minds with convincing messages?

Or do you understand, fully, the implications of the huge savings this country will make - economically, environmentally and socially - if we have a comms infrastructure which is appropriate for this century? Are you going to deny this country that, by choosing, as David Durnford of Small World rightly pointed out yesterday, a non-innovative and oh so last century approach?

“Also the whole point of this Government money for Cumbria is to be innovative and BT’s approach is not innovative – arguably they shouldn’t even be bidding.”

Don't be governed by the pace of today. Make time to learn from history. Much of this very, very recent history is on the Net (accessible within seconds) and all of us owe it to this once great nation to look back, learn, and apply the lessons, so we don't find ourselves in 5, 10 or 20 years time from now in the same sorry state we are in today.

And yes, I accept this is a massive rant, but if in 1 or 2 (or another 15) year's time, when I am sitting on my fibred island, and I see the UK in a similar comms mess to the one it is in today, I would kick myself out of my hammock if I hadn't spoken out when I had the chance. Read more!

What short and selective memories we have (1)

Tweet

Read more! We are re-inventing a square wheel within less than a decade. And I think, now, that it has become more than just sad. I'm beginning to wonder whether it isn't bordering on "criminal" for the British population to be subjected to such "abuse", for whatever reasons it may be - shareholder interest, long-term market share gain, or just plain greed? Who am I to guess the whys and wherefores?

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



As I know many people don't particularly like reading, I'm going to write a shortish post, and then put my arguments in a longer one.

We are entering a phase of claiming that at least 30% of this country is not viable for FTTH..... and let's clarify that by saying that currently only one company is claiming that it is not viable. For their business......without any evidence.

So, on fairly hazy evidence, we are going to fund the shortfall, right? Using £830M (currently) of public money.

So, let's remember the most vital lesson learnt during ADSL roll out. Which was not that long ago, although I am aware that many of you don't remember that time - hence the second post.

When BT claimed that 23 (as I recall) rural exchanges in Yorkshire and Humberside were 'not viable' for ADSL rollout, the ADIT stepped in. ADIT was a DTI funded 'body' who were originally called the Regional Aggregation Boards (RABs), and of whom there was one per RDA until they were all amalgamated under a single umbrella, based in Newcastle.

Ed Brown, a nuclear physicist in charge of ADIT, decided to fund (ISTR) the roll-out so that Y&H could boast "100% ADSL broadband coverage" - with all the limitations we now know that incurs i.e nowhere bloody near 100% in places like Yorkshire & Humberside.

The ADIT (supported, as I recall, by Yorkshire Forwward) paid the money up front to put in the DSLAMS to the 23 exchanges

ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT (ISTR):

1) should those exchanges prove to be viable after all, BT would repay the money to the public purse.

2) every single exchange must have a future-proofed fibre 'middle mile' to the nearest POP for future-proofing and to remove any bottle neck should BT be equally reluctant to invest in future.

My sources tell me that over £1million was repaid because those deeply rural and remote exchanges did indeed prove viable and paid back according to BT's own criteria for ADSL enablement. (And enough people at BT read this blog to argue otherwise, should they wish to)

So, if you plan to give a SINGLE PENNY of the £830M to BT, let's do it on exactly the same basis.

First things first, if you try putting in FTTC, BET or satellite and claim it's innovative under the BDUK guidelines, whoever you are, you should be deported forthwith to Korea and plugged in to a bang until you finally get what 21st century broadband is. (That's equivalent to Ed's 2nd criteria for the funding)

And if the area you connect with money from the public purse proves to be viable for FTTH, YOU PAY THE MONEY BACK.

END. It is that amazingly simple. It is either is, or it isn't, economically viable. Currently there is very little data to prove that rural FTTH (into the Final Third) is not viable. In fact, read: none at all, except, and I hate to say this, the word of a private company with a long-term vested interest in a telecoms land grab for the 21st century to put them in an identical situation they "enjoyed" during the 20th century.

So, to reiterate:

Part of the BDUK projects? Or being told FTTH is not viable near you? Then, draw up a contract that supports the investment, but with a clause that demands repayment should those statements prove to be wrong or inaccurate. And when/if the supplier is proven wrong, get the money back and spend it somewhere that may prove more challenging in the Final Third.

Otherwise, all you are doing is paying public money to a private company to enhance their investment fund because of an unsubstantiated claim that "it is not viable".

Oh, and if you get asked to dig from the cabinet to your own homes because FTTH is also unaffordable to your community (as in Carlisle last weekend), the same contract should apply; thereby saving communities, councils etc a fortune in legal fees in drawing up a simple contract everyone can share.

And this, my dearest friends, is Big Society at work.
Read more!

Fibre tax and my licence fee

Tweet

Read more! I've got a bee in my bonnet again. Sorry folks but I think this stinks.....
This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com


Broken Telephone - Why are we pissing away £120M?
and also Is Govt robbing the BBC licence payers?

Would welcome a different viewpoint on all this, if there is one!
Read more!

NOW I feel like cheering!!

Tweet

Read more! All it took was a single meeting. (Two, actually!) Of community people who don't take shit (oops, sorry dad!) from Westminster......

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



The communities who most need broadband are no longer willing to sit back and await solutions from London.

Three cheers for Cumbrians, and folks from North Yorkshire, who in the last 24 hours have turned this crap on its head.

Digging is about to commence in the first mile. People suddenly have realised what they need to do. There is going to be no waiting about for funding decisions.

Reality has struck that BT do not need to be involved, that every community can do its thing, and that all of this next gen stuff can belong to US and our next generations.

Am feeling quite upbeat......and hope that other communities around the country pick up on what is now going on here in the north......


Read more!

Why I don't feel like cheering

Tweet

Read more! I ought to be upbeat and positive but I have this growing, nagging feeling of doom after the Chancellor's (hardly unexpected) announcement....

This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com



Part of me is over the moon that Cumbria is getting some money for next gen broadband. Because I feel that if anywhere could show the rest of the country how it should be done, it is here.

But, part of me has this gnawing feeling that it could all go completely pear-shaped. And is probably likely to, if past experiences are anything to go by.

Firstly, there are people already leaping on the bandwagon who haven't put anywhere near as many hours into thinking about how to solve the Cumbria problem as others. Educating those people, (some of whom think they know it all already, others don't have the time nor the inclination to listen) is going to be an uphill struggle. And may fail.

Secondly, it's now about money. This shouldn't be about money, it should be about the endgame - which is ensuring that citizens and businesses, wherever they live, get a future-proof service. But the vultures are now circling, and their endgame is different. Theirs is much more selfish than that, seeking 'a pot of gold', in their own words.

Thirdly, there is only one man with whom I am entirely in agreement about what should be done in Cumbria - Barry Forde. Every other proposal I have heard is (sorry, dad), bullshit. He should just be permitted to get on with it, just as he WASN'T with Project Access - which was an almighty waste of money and a right royal cock-up. He already has the full support of MANY communities, and soon will have many more. If we could elect him as the North West Minister for JFDI Broadband, he'd win any vote hands down.

Fourthly, there is enough will in Cumbria to deliver a project which is self-sustaining, which generates sufficient funds to be independent of any requirement for future 'grants' or subsidies, which can expand from the surplus it generates because it is run in a business-like manner by Cumbrians, and which proves once and for all that the £28BN figure is a number generated to satisfy the incumbent's desires, and not based on what others can deliver ubiquituous next gen FTTH for.

Will we learn from past mistakes here in Cumbria? Somehow, something inside me is refusing to accept that we will.

I am hoping that the coming months will prove that Cumbria and Cumbrians are capable of shooting the vultures out of the air; hearing the sane voices not just the loudest, greediest ones; of ensuring that this pot of money is well-spent and well-spent several times over, not just once; and that the end result is a MODEL for others to follow, not dismiss as a failure.

I'm also hoping that the lessons learnt during this project are openly and honestly shared. One of the biggest short-comings the grant funding 'crack' we have become addicted to has engendered is the need for projects to gloss over issues or problems, not seek help elsewhere in case word leaks out and it upsets the funders (future and present), causing others elsewhere to re-invent the wheel, unnecessarily.

I'm not sure why I am feeling so despondent. I think I have joined the leagues of cynics. Must be my age!




Read more!