We often get questions on here about the BDUK project, especially
- Why the BDUK target for the final 10% is a measly 2Mbps
- How Satellite is a measly get-out clause
- Why use 24Mbps when EU specifies 30Mbps
Well, while looking at the "Coventry, Solihull, Warwickshire" website, checking yesterday's BDUK announcement, I came across some interesting additions to the standard targets that we perceive BDUK to be all about.
1. The council there very much sees the EU 2020 target to be the main focus, and that the current BDUK project is just a step on the way. Those targets are 30Mbps universally, and 50% take-up of 100Mbps+.
2. That as much of the current BDUK funding as possible contributes directly towards the 2020 target. They don't want to waste money within *this* project hitting targets when it won't *also* help towards the 2020 target.
3. They specifically say that, for the last 10%, they're only focussing on a minimum of 2Mbps to "minimise the amount of gap funding allocated to providing short term throwaway solutions"
So, they don't want to get people just above 2Mbps onto 4 or 8Mbps, unless this directly helps towards reaching 30Mbps.
4. They acknowledge that satellite would solve the short-term problem of a 2Mbps minimum.
5. But then state that "this approach would make no contribution to the underlying infrastructure required to deliver faster speeds over fixed and mobile networks", and largely dismiss it.
6. They also mention "this approach does not contribute towards BDUK’s objective of delivering fibre to every community."
Other broadband plans that I have seen make similar statements, but this is the first time I've seen it phrased in a way that rejects throwaway solutions because of 2020.
So, the big picture - the 2020 targets, and "fibre to every community" are actually more important than the interim BDUK targets.
I can't answer the 24Mbps vs 30Mbps thing though...