Does USC exist?

Does the USC still exist?

I'm getting indications the DCMS/BDUK are letting BT out of the USC portion of the contracts - though obviously will not get paid for these parts.

At the moment, it looks to be on the contracts based on the central framework.

eg: http://myparliament.info/Debates/Commons/2015-03-04/...

Edited by deleted (Thu 12-Mar-15 13:48:59)

Enforce USC rigidly now - which is an option and get satellite or BET vouchers a plenty

OR

Knowing that more money for superfast is on the way (the 95%) and then more for beyond that and go for getting much faster speeds without the satellite step.

I think the words from Ed Vaizey are not what was actually meant, since the USC is still a part of the contracts and some councils are exploring wireless and satellite solutions. He meant Con/LD got rid of the 2 Mbps by 2012 first, and decided to adopt a 90% superfast with 2 Mbps for the rest, but that has now change to 95% and if the final 5% pilots work out, then the solutions and cost for that will be known.

As a individual waiting longer to get any improvement is a real pain, as a nation building to hit superfast targets probably is better value for money. Doing the two at once was always going to be interesting.

Satellite was always the cop-out option for some of BDUK, it was just how much. From the PAC meeting it was promised that there would be 2mbps by 2016 to all those remote farmhouses so they could submit all their forms online. It was just a matter of how many properties would only get service that way and whether there was going to be some form of reserved capacity. The Australian NBN is even going to have a couple of dedicated satellites for their service for hard-to-reach areas.

In the meantime, things are suspiciously quiet on the USC front. I've no doubt that everybody is doing as much as possible to minimise the number of locations that will have to rely on satellite for a 2mbps USC as that will be an embarrassment for all. Also, if there has to be some reserved bandwidth to meet USC requirements, then it's going to be awfully expensive. As yet, no hint on what's to be done.

I think the words from Ed Vaizey are not what was actually meant, since the USC is still a part of the contracts and some councils are exploring wireless and satellite solutions. He meant Con/LD got rid of the 2 Mbps by 2012 first, and decided to adopt a 90% superfast with 2 Mbps for the rest, but that has now change to 95% and if the final 5% pilots work out, then the solutions and cost for that will be known.

I agree entirely - that Ed Vaizey's answer at the bottom refers to the old unfunded policy from the ex-government, blown away by the coalition.

My mistake was in just linking to the whole debate, when I specifically meant to refer to just Anne Marie Morris's question - which I don't think got answered... and I've since seen more indication (offline) that the USC no longer appears to be part of the framework contracts.

Where I heard it from was not part of the framework contract anyway, so it is hard to tell what is really going on - but I think there is something in there.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

get satellite or BET vouchers a plenty

I've seen nothing about the reasoning why they've decided that the USC can be removed from BT, but now you mention it, I vaguely recall that the funds will be re-allocated into a connection voucher scheme for satellite.

Perhaps the voucher scheme would have to be non-technology-specific, so could allow for BET too. Or maybe even a sub-SF-speed WISP. Anything that gave 2Mbps+ would do.

IIRC, BT's oral response to DEFRA was that they thought they'd meet 98.5% of the USC requirement just by the NGA deployments, which suggests that there isn't a huge chunk left. Perhaps the conclusion is indeed that it can be left to (subsidised) satellite.

Knowing that more money for superfast is on the way (the 95%) and then more for beyond that and go for getting much faster speeds without the satellite step.

I agree that the emphasis, moving forward, keeps most minds on the superfast rollout. Organisations used to dealing with the public masses will now tend to focus in just that direction.

As a individual waiting longer to get any improvement is a real pain, as a nation building to hit superfast targets probably is better value for money. Doing the two at once was always going to be interesting.

And they probably really should have been doing three things at once...

What we are now seeing for the "final 5% market test" pilots doesn't seem to be anything that is hugely technically advanced. If those projects were done a year earlier, we could have seen a wireless/satellite phase 3 happen in parallel with a fixed-line-fibre phase 2.

Although if they did that, we arguably wouldn't have had a USC target at all.

A lot of the problems have been brought about by compressed timescales, compared to traditional infrastructure, e.g. the moans over projected BT costs. If the BDUK pilots had been allowed to complete then much better planning would have been possible for the other 39 areas, but that would mean we would only just be starting to plan in most of the UK.

Once public money got involved it was always going to be a messy affair, at least when its pure commercial money everyone knows who to moan at.

It is clearly unreasonable to expect the USC to be met overnight.
My West Chiltington exchange has been upgraded to FTTC but those of us on long lines have been given absolutely no indication when and how BT are going to meet the USC. I myself can get above the USC with 3.5Mbps on fibre but my neigbours on ADSL can only get up to 1Mbps and some outlying properties are still on dial up.
To be fair we do have promises of improvement but no hard facts.

"It is clearly unreasonable to expect the USC to be met overnight"

But that's exactly what BDUK's published plan is here in Essex. The parishes (over 80 of them) which are getting Alternative Technologies to get them up to 2Mbps are all lumped into the final 3 months of the Phase1 of BDUK project.
That's an awful lot of anything to roll out in a brief 3 months, across a largely rural area.

I do wish they'd come clean about it and publish a believable plan for us.

Yes, this is clearly the point.
We get promised things will be done but no detail on how they will be done.
We simply have to guess WHAT will be done and more importantly IF it will be done.
Promises .... promises.....

In reply to a post by chilting:

Yes, this is clearly the point.
We get promised things will be done but no detail on how they will be done.
We simply have to guess WHAT will be done and more importantly IF it will be done.
Promises .... promises.....

In just over a month we get to choose what promises we want to believe.

I find it ironic that BDUK promises are looking shaky whereas BT+Cornwall Council+EU delivered ahead of what it promised.

Promise by a politician or contracted target not reached?

Two very different things, and given the number of 'misquotes' from politicians and the way some have hung on those from years ago, we end up with people believing its a 90% of every community target, rather than a national 90% target where existing urban area coverage helps.

My promise comes directly from WSCC in an email from their press officer.
However, looking at the Openreach info on the Where and When website the only thing that is available on the West Chiltington exchange is FTTC.
There is no mention of how they are going to deal with the long lines. As our exchange is at Storrington we have no exchange only lines and the ADSL only lines are very slow because of the added distance, some customers are still on dial up.
The USC will not be met in West Chiltington without further expenditure. My cabinet 4 has 288 lines running from it, only 200 lines give superfast speeds.

USC does not to be done over copper BT network of course

Should be pretty simple if USC was part of contract and not met then penalties should kick, if council signed a contract with no penalty clauses then more fool them

I don't think there are any details on *how* BT will do USC because they have no USC-specific solutions right now. Nothing that we don't already know, and which are pretty expensive.

I think that most of BT's hopes are focussed on the uplift that comes from the NGA installation, even at fringe areas, alongside copper re-arrangement (for both EO and non-EO).

For some people, therefore, the USC solution hangs on whatever can be done to raise fringe speeds of existing NGA nodes - whether that is any of the potential features of Vectoring, G.INP, or GEA-ADSL2+.

For others, it depends on the installation of a new node that takes over the job in the fringe regions. FTTRN would do this, if BT could solve the power issue. FTTdp would do this, and would solve the power issue, but tried+tested+risk-free reverse powering is probably still a way off - possibly too long to be included in these projects.

With the original 90% target, I think BT would have had to do something for USC coverage.

However, with most projects heading for SEP funding, the higher target of 95% SF means that most of the USC cover (for the other 5%) really is going to come from the spill-over.

Meanwhile, phase 3 (unlikely to be BT? Likely to be wireless?) could end up going ahead in parallel with the SEP phase.

My suspicions are that politicians and civil servants are juggling with the hot potato of whether it is worth spending anything extra on the USC if the funds could be better used on improving either the SEP or the phase 3 project, or in subsidising the few (as few as possible, I hope) places that will always end up on satellite.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Should be pretty simple if USC was part of contract and not met then penalties should kick, if council signed a contract with no penalty clauses then more fool them

You are right, if it came to arguing about the contract penalties in a court. It would be "pretty simple" to decide upon a financial result to a breach of contract. However, the breach, and penalty, still wouldn't get the villages what they want - faster speeds.

BUT ...

The whole point of this thread is about whether the USC is part of the framework contracts still. If they (presumably DCMS/BDUK) have dropped the USC portion, then it is no longer a part of the contract. And presumably dropping the condition is done at some cost to BT - either "just" the budget that was meant for USC, or with some penalty.

This too is "pretty simple" - it is just a commercial re-negotiation of the content of a contract. We just need to find out if it is what has happened.

West Sussex is a framework county, so would be affected by this decision.

The MP named at the start - Anne Marie Morris - is an MP within Devon, and CDS is also a framework area.

As far as I am aware its not been dropped from the framework but I don't sit in on BDUK meetings so maybe some deal has been done behind closed doors.

I don't share your optimisim that a national target of 95% will upgrade enough cabinets to provide USC uplift. As has been said before that 95% is a national target not a local target. For example in our district I am told that BDUK estimates will only get c. 80% coverage superfast even after Phase2. Therefore simply not enough cabinets wil have been upgraded to provide fringe USC uplift.

Looking at the result of the recent consultation on the next phase by WSCC there have been a few developments. They have amended their maps slightly and say that we can expect more detail in May 2015.
I can only see one road with a few houses that falls in the white area [currently served by FTTC] on the basic broadband map [Spithandle Lane near Steyning].
However, my postcode is shaded grey and some of my neighbours are below the USC so I guess the map may not be completely accurate.
Still it seems that as my postcode is white on the other sub 15Mbps map I am still in the intervention area.
The result of the consultation is tagged on to the bottom of the announcement of the consultation dated October 2014 a link can be found on the West Sussex Better Connected site, under News..

Can you see a map with individual postcodes? I just see a 1-page pdf for each of basic & nga.

No, unfortunately they don't publish the postcode list, you have to request it.
Even with local knowledge it is difficult to interpret and using local knowledge it is easy to see some mistakes.

I suspect the absence of a denial that it has been dropped suggests that it has been, except where councils have given a specific deadline to their ratepayers and will be under pressure to deliver.

WWWombat

Regarding the USC and Superfast North Yorkshire, I was informed on 24 November 2014 by John Moore, the Chief Executive of NYnet, that the recent reports, which were presented to meetings of the Executive of North Yorkshire County Council held on 29 October 2013, 18 March 2014 and 18 November 2014, have reflected the growing reality that the USC would be carried over into subsequent phases of the roll out of superfast broadband in North Yorkshire. Furthermore, I was informed by Mr Moore that this approach is apparently now recommended by BDUK.

In addition to the above, Mr Moore went on to claim that, following the report to a meeting of the Executive held on 18 November 2014, Superfast North Yorkshire will review, in the middle of this year, the position regarding the USC, taking into account the (by then) announced coverage of phase two of the roll out of superfast broadband in North Yorkshire. On 24 November 2014, Mr Moore claimed that BT had not formally requested any change to the existing contractual date for the delivery of the USC, which was before the end of 2014. The end of 2014 has been and gone and the Superfast North Yorkshire website has been recently updated to acknowledge the delay in the delivery of the USC, which is now by the end of 2016. Presumably, BT took the time and trouble to formally request a change to the date for the delivery of the USC and this request has been agreed upon by those involved, without any consultation with those living and working in the communities affected I hasten to add.

Edited by deleted (Sat 14-Mar-15 14:55:44)

I think we knew that the USC phase in North Yorkshire was being shifted out beyond the phase 2 work, simply because £2m of the funds for phase 2 is being re-allocated by BT from the phase 1 USC budget of £5m. The re-allocation can only happen if they don't have to cover the phase 2 properties with USC funds (and it indirectly tells us that getting SF speeds to these properties costs 4-5x as much as getting USC speeds).

It seems strange that BT would even have to request a change of date; I'd have thought that the change would have been an implicit part of the phase 2 deal (as it accounts for 20% of the overall budget there) - and I'm sure the phase 2 deal was signed back in July.

John has been making presentations to area committees this week, where you get confirmation that North Yorkshire is not using the BDUK framework contracts, and that the USC contract is still in place right now. If the stuff about the framework contracts is vaguely correct, I'd expect that there will be discussions to be had with the non-framework counties too.

Not a lot has changed in NY since November; operationally, phase 1 progress is at 671 out of 695 cabs. Strategically, it feels like a lot has stalled, waiting for the election to be over & done with.

The phase 2 map should be appearing on the website in the next couple of weeks too, and work there starts in April.

It also feels like NY is currently at the position where most counties will be at when they hit 95% - that the remaining premises will be waiting for a decent wireless solution to be allowed into the project. For this, the airwave pilot (and feasibility study) makes for interesting reading.

WWWombat

Thank you for the news about the map(s) for phase two and the presentations to the area committees.

Regarding the Superfast North Yorkshire strategy for phase three, this really is now looking more like the final 10% rather than the final 5%. With the progress that is being made by BT Openreach on phase one and phase two of the roll out of fixed-line superfast broadband in North Yorkshire slowing right down to a snails pace, I reckon the Airwave report on superfast wireless broadband provides a far better insight into what might be a way forward for those living and working in communities outside the market towns and larger villages in rural North Yorkshire, as well as elsewhere in the UK.

In reply to a post by RuralWire:

Thank you for the news about the map(s) for phase two and the presentations to the area committees.

There are still some area committees next week, if you want to go (Selby and Richmond, certainly, possibly one more).

Regarding the Superfast North Yorkshire strategy for phase three, this really is now looking more like the final 10% rather than the final 5%.

Yes - NY's population will have 10% left to be considered for the SEP funding (still unspent) plus whatever extra funding happens after the "final 5%" trial.

Right now it looks like SFNY doesn't have a problem with money - it has a problem finding an authorised technology that it can spend the money on in a way that gives value.

With the progress that is being made by BT Openreach on phase one and phase two of the roll out of fixed-line superfast broadband in North Yorkshire slowing right down to a snails pace,

That was indeed noted, and helps show why - even with oodles of money, it doesn't give us a quick enough result.

A year ago, FTTRN looked like it could step in with a value proposition that could be rolled out quickly enough. Today, that possibility seems as far away as ever - so it might have lost its place entirely.

In fact, today, G.fast and FTTdp seems closer - with the prospect of reverse power countering FTTRN's main problem. But G.fast will take a while, and I suspect that decent reverse powering (that doesn't accidentally kill a few people) is further away still. It won't quite be quick enough.

I reckon the Airwave report on superfast wireless broadband provides a far better insight into what might be a way forward for those living and working in communities outside the market towns and larger villages in rural North Yorkshire, as well as elsewhere in the UK.

Reading between the lines, I reckon the same thing. And that it will be quicker.

The bottom line is that in West Sussex the first phase of BDUK has done little to lift the broadband speed for customers who get less than the USC.
In percentage terms I guess the vast majority of those benefiting from FTTC already got more than the USC.
To get away with what is clearly a failure of one of the main reasons for having public intervention, it is very important that the second phase isn't delayed and that it delivers. Putting all their eggs in the BT basket is maybe rather stupid?

All this raises again the question as to why contracts involving public money were awarded without the contractor specifying how he was going to deliver the contractual requirements.

Maybe they are delivering the contractual requirements for the first phase.
BT can only upgrade the outlying areas AFTER they have installed FTTC.
My gripe is that they have started a job and left it half finished.

gerarda

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. Your point is particularly relevant with regard to how BT Openreach intend to deliver the USC. The plain truth is that BT Openreach do not have the technology to deliver the USC themselves. All they can realistically do is offer up the services of the satellite broadband vendors, which is not going to cut the mustard, as far as the overwhelming majority of those affected are concerned.

WWWombat

Thank you for the information about next weeks meetings.

The development of a coherent and comprehensive strategy for phase three in North Yorkshire is looking somewhat urgent. There is not only the commitment to extend superfast coverage to 95% of North Yorkshire by the end of 2017, but there is also the North Yorkshire County Council commitment, which predates the Superfast North Yorkshire project, to bring high quality broadband to 100% of North Yorkshire by the end of 2017. Without FTTRN or something similar from BT Openreach and fixed wireless NGA or something similar from Airwave, then any real tangible progress towards either of those two commitments is going to grind to a virtual halt.

To be fair, a failure to deliver or a delay in the delivery of superfast broadband to communities in the Wolds, Eskdale, Swaledale and so forth would be frustrating, but understandable. However, any delay to the County Council's long-standing commitment to deliver high quality broadband to 100% of North Yorkshire by the end of 2017 would be entirely unacceptable, to put it politely.

At the end of the day its not a technology problem its a money problem. FTTrN can be deployed, but if the power costs are daft it is edging towards the point of may as well do FTTP/H. The last one would be great, but given the drip drip stream of public money there is never a pot available that's big enough.

The thing is that if they stop now they fail. The USC won't be met.
Therefore, it is important that pressure is maintained on the politicians to meet the USC.
It is our best hope of getting decent broadband in rural areas.
It would also be an advantage if the USC was increased to maintain the pressure in years to come.
The USC is the lever for improvement.

For the USC the Phase 1 money should have been sufficient with the commercial risk of paying more than they expected to achieve it falling on BT. If the contracts allow them to renege on this it is scandalous,

Edited by deleted (Sun 15-Mar-15 12:46:57)

Increasing the USC would be a major contract change and give BT the total right to extend the deadline.

I've said all along that USC was going to involve some satellite, and if BT took the decision am sure vouchers would appear in a few weeks for those who wanted it.

If people are honest, what did we expect in 2010 with the Labour USC for 2012, i.e. they had 18 months but the body (BDUK) had literally just been set-up and no contracts even signed or out to tender.

In terms of harm to the UK economy, should we spend a few hundred for every business and home that wants the USC speed in the short term, or is a higher speed a better goal, but where some have to wait longer?

USC and Superfast are both things people want NOW and they don't want to pay a lot

I would say the USC is a need (even if now a bit too slow), Superfast is a want.

MrSaffron

An interesting point.

If the cost of power issue connected with FTTRN can not be resolved, then it's genuinely open to question as to what, if any, involvement BT will have in North Yorkshire beyond the end of phase two. The report presented to a meeting of the Executive of the County Council back in November last year made the position clear, without FTTRN available at an acceptable cost, the County Council could commit all the remaining funds to a phase three with BT, but they would probably only secure access to superfast broadband for a further 3,800 premises out of a total of 41,500 without access to superfast broadband at the end of phase two. Perhaps, the Airwave trials will offer a more practical and pragmatic way forward in terms of coverage, costs and timescales, not only in terms of superfast broadband, but also a meaningful USC.

I am not suggesting increasing the USC for phase 2 or even phase 3 but as the technology improves it should be kept as an option.
Regarding not meeting the USC in the first phase this was always going to happen. I think a rush to satellite would be a great mistake.
It will be far better to ensure that phases 2 and 3 deliver decent broadband for all, regardless of their location.

At the budget to day the target was confirmed as the sneaked in delayed by one year date of 2016

At the budget it was a USO of 5Mb, not a USC.

A big difference between the O and the C.