West Sussex BDUK Phase 2 - Lost in a sea of blue!

West Sussex CC have finally got around to telling us what they are doing in the period up to December 2017. Maybe there is more to come, maybe not?

Looking at their excellent new high level roll out map, on the Better Connected website, we can see that it is good news for some. A few of the larger village settlements are set to benefit and there also seems to be some copper rearrangement going on for SOME long lines - but not many!

The appropriate use of the colour blue on the maps key shows up very clearly how many of us have missed out so far with regard to the fixed wired solution. With nothing in the pipeline I think it is fair to assume that a line can now be drawn and we will simply get nothing!

With the prospect of a satellite solution on the horizon things are starting to look bleak. However, for some of us it does look like Fixed Wireless will come to the rescue. Blaze and Kijoma both look well placed to provide us with a service that will actually probably be far better than anything we could have expected from BT.

Link: http://www.westsussex-betterconnected.org.uk/media/1...

That is a lot of blue. I was very lucky to be in the commercial roll-out area, by a whisker.

Remember that 95% of the country (E+W) lives in 10% of the land area.

While the target remains only 95% of the population, you'd very much expect the maps to be predominantly blue.

Yes, a bit like mobile phone coverage, where there are vast swathes of the country with no coverage at all - usually the exact spot you happen to be!

Edited by kasg (Tue 15-Dec-15 12:21:03)

In reply to a post by chilting:

The appropriate use of the colour blue on the maps key shows up very clearly how many of us have missed out so far with regard to the fixed wired solution. With nothing in the pipeline I think it is fair to assume that a line can now be drawn and we will simply get nothing!

Well I think it is clear right now nobody knows what is going to happen in Phase3. The BDUK trials of Fixed Wireless are behind schedule and it seems those trial results will not be available until mid or late 2016 at the earliest.

And what about those Blue areas, do many of them actually have cabinets and did they get any upgrades in Phase1? When BT actually figures out what it can do with G.Fast is BT allowed to roll out G.Fast into those Blue areas?

The blue areas don't have cabinets that can be upgraded. BDUK phase one has upgraded every cabinet in West Sussex.

It is true that most of the land area that isn't covered has a lower population density but some smaller settlements have still been left untouched so far, although the second phase is targeting a good few.

Most of the blue area is made up of less populated areas, as is obvious, but the main problem with these areas is that they are often served by multiple cabinets and sometimes more than one exchange. The complications of upgrading these sorts of areas and the capital required to basically put in a new network make a fixed wired solution very impractical. That is why fixed wireless will be a better option to cover the blue areas on the map.

Are you sure every cabinet in West Sussex has been upgraded? That would suggest that only EO and long lines fail to get high speeds.

Yes, phase one has been very though in that regard. There may still be a few cabinets in one or two exchange areas that are in the process of being upgraded.

Also lots of the EO lines have also been transfered to new cabinets but I am not sure just what percentage..

The problem is simply lines more than 2km long. We have residents on the West Chiltington exchange that are 5.5km from the exchange. Also the ad hock way that the service has been installed over the last 50 years means that many residents are not served by their closest cabinet.

Not looked at the missing cabinets but it is not many at all since the fibre based coverage is sitting at 98.3%

https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/index.php?area...

As with other parts of the UK there is FTTP sometimes appearing for longer lines and Northern Ireland has shown how cabinets can be inserted deeper into the network too.

The Think Broadband figures for the Arundel and South Downs constituency give a very clear picture of the state of play for rural West Sussex at the end of the BDUK first phase.

With just 77.2% superfast coverage and with 9.2% under the new 10Mbps USC it is clear that we do need a very effective fixed wireless network to fill the gaps. The second phase of the BDUK project has only very modest ambitions.

In reply to a post by chilting:

With just 77.2% superfast coverage and with 9.2% under the new 10Mbps USC it is clear that we do need a very effective fixed wireless network to fill the gaps.

I am not saying that Fixed Wireless is not the way to go, but the 77% number are just those who are above 24Mb, it might be that many or most of the remaining 23% are connected to a cabinet at some speed below 24Mb and when we know how G.Fast is rolled out it may bring the number above 24Mb up into the high 90's.

But be aware that UK.gov has essentially allowed BT off the hook to provide G.Fast to 100% by 2020 and for those that do not get it, they expect Satellite to be acceptable, which it is not.

Something that I find quite interesting is that the area around me where roughly 1000 houses are going up is now a field of blue with a tiny area under the commercially viable, in cases like this is it possible BDUK aren't sure what BT are doing in those areas and if nothing has been done when funding is reviewed again then they may take a look at it? In my case I'm not sure if I'm grey or blue...time will tell

I have a request in at WSCC to try and establish exactly what is going into the black areas and how the ??2Mb/10Mb?? is going to be handled and how that will fit with this map.

I fear you are, as you say; 'lost at sea' in the blue and need to seek alternate means.

Where has BT stated coverage of G.fast will hit 100% by 2020?

The remaining 23% will certainly not benefit from G.Fast unless many more cabinets are installed.

In semi-rural areas like West Chiltington with 2,000 lines in 20 square miles just think of the number of cabinets that would be needed. The trouble is that even that would not solve the problem because the area is served by multiple cabinets and many residents are not connected to the nearest cabinet.

FTTP would be the only fixed wired solution for most of the remaining 23% but then you are talking big money to connect just 500 lines on our exchange alone and with just a 19% uptake for superfast so far in our area no politician will make that a reality.

Yes, I wondered about that. Apparently new developments are dealt with by a different department at BT and even if you are next door to the development they have no obligation to connect you to the new network if one is installed.

In a sinister new development WSSC are now offering the option of Satellite from the West Sussex Better Connected website for residents getting under 2Mbps.

Successful applicants will be provided with a pathetically slow service with high latency and between 0.1 and 0.2 Mbps upload plus a voucher for £350 to cover the costs.

It has not been stated anywhere and neither did I, I had stated that G.fast would/could get close many places into the high 90% range and that those who do not get 24Mb or better will be left to covered by the USO which has obviously been set at 10Mb so as to allow for UK.gov to claim that Satellite is a viable solution even if you are just 100m too far from your nearest G.fast node.

In reply to a post by chilting:

The remaining 23% will certainly not benefit from G.Fast unless many more cabinets are installed.

Not new cabinets, but small 16 and 24 line boxes fitted near to clusters of houses. If they can sort out getting the power supply to these boxes.

With the BDUK funding in Phase1 my local exchange had about 290 EO lines on it, 2 new cabinets were added so it does happen. No EO lines now.

In reply to a post by kasg:

Link: http://www.westsussex-betterconnected.org.uk/media/1...

That is a lot of blue. I was very lucky to be in the commercial roll-out area, by a whisker.

Being under the commercial roll-out doesn't mean its a good thing.
We have been under the commercial fttp project since end of 2011 when they started installing all the fibre hardware and are yet to see fibre, however 4 doors down can.

So just saying being under the commercial project isn't always a good thing.

I just wished Ofcom forced BT to have a deadline date to commercial projects.

Paul

Yes, but the fibre still has to be installed deep into the copper system.

This may be an easy task in some places but in many you will be disturbing old ducting. Maybe fed, as in the case of our local network, down sunken tree line lined lanes under shingle in short terracotta pipes.

Why make the effort when fixed wireless can deliver the same result - high speed broadband - at a fraction of the cost, in a much quicker time scale.

G.Fast is not an option in rural areas.

GFast is not cabinet based. It is a different solution and may be delivered in a very different way.

Not sinister, it was announced in the budget so sounds like WSCC are now offering what the government promised in the latest budget update. The government have set this direction not the local authorities. And it doesn't stop fixed wireless providers from moving in - in fact it could help them as they should now know the areas that aren't going to be covered by the projects.

In reply to a post by chilting:

Why make the effort when fixed wireless can deliver the same result - high speed broadband - at a fraction of the cost, in a much quicker time scale.

G.Fast is not an option in rural areas.

Fixed Wireless is *not* a replacement for fibre, it is a good compromise, but to say that it performs in exactly the same way as fibre and is indistinguishable from fibre is not true.

I actually live in one of those locations in a different county which is similar to yours, a rural location with many cables just in a trench without ducting for 2km between me and a new BDUK funded cabinet.

So Yes, to use G.Fast would require fibre extended from the Cabinet for at least 1.5km and to do that would require new poles or ducting. New poles can be erected quickly, BTO have a fancy truck for doing this, of course some people may object to them!

So, there are high performance point-to-point radio systems which are closer in performance to a fibre connection, we should expect to see a few of them used to connect 16 and 24 line G.Fast boxes back to the Cabinet or direct to the Exchange, again providing power is the issue. These point to point radio systems already exist and are well known to BTO, they do not need development, the G.Fast boxes need development but that will not take too long.

So G.Fast is an option in rural areas.

But it will take time. BTO are playing the long game, whilst you are eager to get something sooner than later, BTO want the solution which is best for the long term as and when the economics make sense.

The question that has not been answered by WSSC and HMG/BDUK is -

"Why can't the satellite subsidy also be used by residents to fund a fixed wireless connection"

This is all very good in theory and for the long term I hope you are correct but the trouble is that we have been promised high speed broadband in the past and not received it.

Residents and businesses need firm commitments not promises of some future utopia.

The roll out with G.Fast could simply mirror the FTTC roll out and the ADSL roll out before that with the rural areas still way behind.

Fixed Wireless technology is available now, it is well suited to cover rural areas and many small companies are waiting in the wings to provide the service it just needs the authorities to back these schemes, with very little public money, just with publicity to give them credibility.

I don't think anyone has claimed wireless to be "a replacement" - chilting said "fixed wireless can deliver the same result - high speed broadband - at a fraction of the cost, in a much quicker time scale." which is true. Quite honestly G.fast is a busted flush panic move by BT, and to ensure fibre to 250-500m from all properties in the rural areas is just not possible economically in my opinion. Then there is the big crosstalk issue with g.fast.

Why has no-one apparently done any 'lateral thinking' here?

A g.fast network to a wireless mesh - yes.

What about mains electricity connections? I recall 'smart meters' were going to use the mains for communication. Why not broadband a la Homeplug type system?

Very few houses are without mains water - run a fibre down the pipe?

Yes, it will impact on BT's copper investment. Maybe this nettle needs grasping by someone in HMG with a 'full set of two'?

Edited by mikejp (Wed 16-Dec-15 09:40:53)

In reply to a post by mikejp:

What about mains electricity connections? I recall 'smart meters' were going to use the mains for communication. Why not broadband a la Homeplug type system?

I believe smart meters are using mobile network rather than mains networking. Using mains networking is likely to be hit and miss and networking may not travel through various types of nodes (home ones aren't supposed to get past the meter so certain types of equipment presumably stop the signal. Plus, you would get ham radio people up in arms because they would become a massive antenna causing interference - could even interfere with TV/radio/etc.

Very few houses are without mains water - run a fibre down the pipe?

How will you break the fibre out at the premise - likely to get lots of leaks. Also, if the mains pipe bursts and a section needs replacing you would have to cut the fibre and re-splice it - that would require a water engineer and a fibre engineer (from 2 different companies) and getting both onsite at the same time would likely be beyond their abilities.

It is difficult enough getting utilities to share poles - getting them to share other infrastructure would be nearly impossible.

"home ones aren't supposed to get past the meter" - when I was last looking the plan was to join 'pre' meter. The radio hams will not be too happy with g.fast either, will they?

G.Fast presumably has lots of rules around it that limit interference. To do that over mains electricity may be much more difficult. And if you do it over mains electricity (presumably injecting the broadband relatively close to the home) then the comms engineers will be dealing with very high voltage interconnections - again that will seriously change the role requirements and training. I believe others have considered these options (and I suspect BT themselves at Adastral Park) but my suspicion is the issues involved outweigh the benefits.

BT do a lot of research themselves and I would be surprised if they haven't done a number of these in the R&D labs. Just because you haven't seen them do it doesn't mean they haven't.

If you do a google you might find examples like this. Looks like powerline broadband failed because they couldn't get the bandwidth they needed.

EDIT - And here is the first item I came across around using water pipes. Haven't read it but probably contains some interesting positioning from the water industry.

Edited by ian72 (Wed 16-Dec-15 10:43:46)

It can be cabinet based (not in current trials though) but this is one of the deployment options and very likely to be a big part of the first wave for dense urban areas i.e. I know of urban areas where almost everyone is with 300-400m of their cabinet.

As things stand BT is pretty much locked out of the final 3%.

I wonder how many countries around the world are worrying about the final 3%, and I mean looking beyond the headline PR

Smart meters use the mobile network. The first thing the BG installers did when they installed my meter was to check the signal strength of the mobile network where the meter is located.

Well, that rules out a smart meter here in rural Sussex, then!

In reply to a post by chilting:

... we have been promised high speed broadband in the past and not received it.

There may have been the best of intentions offered, promises unlikely.

In reply to a post by chilting:

The roll out with G.Fast could simply mirror the FTTC roll out and the ADSL roll out before that with the rural areas still way behind.

That could of course happen. Nobody knows. Those people who are already connected at 30Mb/s or higher will have little need to upgrade any time soon to G.fast, having to replace the modem/router for instance. Most businesses could run effectively on a 30Mb/s connection.

Those still on ADSL, not even ADSL2+, will have made no such hardware investment and would be the target market most likely to actually pay for an upgrade to get them from their sub 5Mb/s connections to above the 10Mb/s USO target and into the 30Mb/s range.

In reply to a post by chilting:

Fixed Wireless technology is available now, it is well suited to cover rural areas and many small companies are waiting in the wings to provide the service it just needs the authorities to back these schemes, with very little public money, just with publicity to give them credibility.

I really feel for the Fixed Wireless providers, they do provide a viable option but getting enough people in a community to be pay the upfront costs is a struggle. People find it all to easy to moan about things, but as soon as you start asking them OK, if you want better than 2Mb/s how much are you willing to pay. As soon as you start saying it might be £300/house to get started and £20-£30/month and a 24 or 48 month contract, you have lost 50% of the people at that point. People moan and 'want' something, but then when you give them the option and the likely costs, they walk away muttering 'but it only cost me half that to get a new phone line' or something similar.

Speculation warning! And if you started to plan a Fixed Wireless installation *today*, it might take 12 months to get enough people to sign up, 6 months to get equipment bought and installed, 12 months for all those to sign up that said they would because they have a tie in with their existing ISP. In that 2.5 years period, if G.fast or something similar becomes available at a lower cost for the same performance or a higher performance for the same cost as the Fixed Wireless system. Now you get people leaving. A lot of grief to go through.

I am not sure how many countries have made it to anything like 97% coverage - we seem to be doing rather well in that respect.

Certainly the Irish Republic is way behind us - vast areas have no superfast coverage.

What I find frustrating is that the subsidy for customers to connect to satellite is not being extended to fixed wireless.

The £350 would more than cover the customer installation costs for fixed wireless.

Why not give the customer a choice of satellite or fixed wireless?

Satellite is already available to pretty much everyone. There are relatively few areas that have access already to fixed wireless (and if they do then they may not be eligible for the voucher anyway as they can already get a service).

It may also be to do with state aid - not sure if the government has done some sort of deal with the sat providers that allows them to do these vouchers - doing a similar deal with lots of small wireless providers may be beyond what they want to deal with.

You are probably correct and that may be the reason fixed wireless hasn't so far increased its coverage because it hasn't been promoted by BDUK.

It needs to be offered by BDUK as an alternative to satellite and given exactly the same subsidy under the voucher scheme.

Eligibility to use existing networks should also be OK because it is the same with satellite - that is also an existing network.

If you watch this session on http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/2d2b7457-95... in the 2nd half the BDUK folks acknowledge at least that it needs to be made more practical for smaller providers, such a the FWA providers, to be able to bid for small areas rather than whole postcodes.

I have not finished watching the whole broadcast yet

Thank you very much for the link godsell.

That puts things into context and has gone a long way to restoring my faith that we will get there in the end. The BDUK folks certainly do look to be on top of things. However the main problem remains that it is very clear that nothing is going to happen very quickly.

One thing that still puzzles me is why BT and BDUK have come in for so much for so much criticism for the delivery of the project. It does actually have seemed to run more or less as planned and given fairly good value for money.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I wonder how many countries around the world are worrying about the final 3%, and I mean looking beyond the headline PR

Here's a presentation that embeds some data relating to Korea's approach to rural areas.
http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/2-Mr-Kwan...

In summary, though, they had a "Rural Broadband" project running 2006-2008, which attempted to bring 2Mbps to everyone. An $80m project that aimed at 160,000 premises in villages smaller than 50 premises. $500 per home, and included satellite. This is about equivalent to the USC portion of our rollout.

That project, of course, overlapped with the urban part of the follow-on "BcN" project which, I think, had 100Mbps aims, as well as being all-IP, and ran 2004-2010.

The "Rural BcN" project followed on from the urban one, 2010-2015. I guess the same aim: 100Mbps to the villages. It looks like two approaches, with one targeting the 23,000 villages with between 50 and 240 premises, and another targeting the 13,000 villages with less than 50 premises.

You can't tell whether the second programme actually reaches into the final 3% though.

While the "Rural BcN" project has been running for the last 5 years, the urban "ultra BcN" project has been running too. Urban areas always end up with faster, sooner.

In reply to a post by chilting:

What I find frustrating is that the subsidy for customers to connect to satellite is not being extended to fixed wireless.

The £350 would more than cover the customer installation costs for fixed wireless.

Why not give the customer a choice of satellite or fixed wireless?

I think the point about subsidies that are spent in the form of vouchers is that they mean no new infrastructure - just affordable access to existing infrastructure. So the key is the definition of "affordable". In this case, affordable access for those who are sub-2Mbps.

The conditions for the satellite vouchers, at least the ones I read for the trial, mean that the user won't qualify for a satellite voucher if an FWA operator is available. In turn, that implies that they believe an FWA service that is already available (ie no new infrastructure) is within the affordable criteria, whereas satellite isn't.

Improving fixed wireless infrastructure probably needs to be seen differently: As a viable way of supporting superfast speeds to the 3%, which likely needs more infrastructure, and so likely needs to be funded differently - from a different pot, with different requirements. Some of those requirements don't aid wireless.

Because there are those that believe the project contract was for 100% coverage and with a 90% target nationally many believed they'd be in the 90%

I suspect that until coverage hits 110% i.e. total overbuild we will have increasingly vocal complaint levels and also every 4K video editing house will have moved to a property 5 miles from the nearest property and be demanding symmetric 10 Gbps so remote editing possible.

In the commons select committee the BDUK folks actually hinted that they were aiming for as close to 100% as they could get - it will be interesting to see if they reach their goal.

However, they didn't give a time scale and if they don't get new funding that may slide.

In the select committee hearing the BDUK folks were talking about guiding smaller companies through the bidding process and the complications and frustrations that can be encountered when they haven't had to apply for funding in the past.

My point is that it would be far better if the funding was directed from the customer as it was with the Connection Vouchers rather than funding the altnets directly.

Is it not up to the politicians both local and government to clear the way through the red tape to let this happen. This would also speed up the process and allow many more players into the market - even for example a very local fixed wireless project serving just a small hamlet.

The reason for this project in South Korea is probably rather different from the UK.

In South Korea, with so many young people living in the cities, the villages are rapidly dying as they are mainly inhabited by old people, schools are closing, it is all rather grim.
I guess by improving broadband they are trying to entice the younger generation back to the villages.

Maybe this should be a lesson to us that we need to improve rural broadband or our rural villages may start to decline.

This meeting and guiding was more about the minefield that is UK and EU red tape, something BT lawyers are well used to, and adds to the cost of doing business with government.

The vouchers for USC are a different ball game, and it makes one wonder why people are not already signed up to a fwa service if it is available in an area, at a guess mainly people not aware of the option or in some cases not able to get it, e.g. ground dips slightly so masked from signal.

Many wireless services carry a £50 to £150 set-up fee that seems to put people off, but then at the wholesale level so does FTTC, but competition means this is written off over the contract term.

Also administering a voucher scheme dealing with 3 or 4 satellite providers is easier than one dealing with 100+ fixed wireless providers, some of which are very small.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

... easier than one dealing with 100+ fixed wireless providers, some of which are very small.

this to me is the most important point, if a few of them at least joined togther to appear as a single company or a few smaller regional companies, would make a whole lot of sense, they may be bale to share some of the infrastructure too to save costs and maybe achieve some economies of scale.

As chilting says, the voucher scheme should be customer led eg "Mr A wants to use his for FW" while "Mr B wants a satellite connection". It appears to be a mis-conception here that the vouchers are for the PROVISION of infrastructure whereas they are purely for connection. No voucher money would go to a FW company for the infrastructure, any more than it would go to a satellite company for a new orbiting box of tricks, and no need to deal with "100+ fixed wireless providers". Just one customer.

FW connection costs compare very favourably with satellite.

I don't think it is that simple.

Customer gets voucher. Customer gives voucher to company. Company install connection. Company sends voucher to government to get payment. Government check company against list of allowed suppliers and arranges payment.

It is the last bit that is more difficult. They need to avoid fraudulent activity and therefore are going to need to do vetting of the companies and have a database of all the approved suppliers. That is where it gets more complicated the more suppliers you have - someone's got to do the vetting and maintain the database including removing companies that get deselected for whatever reason.

In reply to a post by chilting:

Thank you very much for the link godsell.

That puts things into context and has gone a long way to restoring my faith that we will get there in the end. The BDUK folks certainly do look to be on top of things. However the main problem remains that it is very clear that nothing is going to happen very quickly.

One thing that still puzzles me is why BT and BDUK have come in for so much for so much criticism for the delivery of the project. It does actually have seemed to run more or less as planned and given fairly good value for money.

Let's see

1.>Lack of communication about what's happening. (Though some Local Authorities have been better than others.)

2.>Leaving the slower areas to last. I.e they went for coverage first rather than bringing the slowest areas up to speed.

Sure it might be more or less running to schedule as planned and good value but that's small comfort to those waiting for it, with some not having any speed improvement for getting on a decade i.e still on 20CN non-LLU exchanges . So they are already paying more and have been for a while for what is technically an inferior service.

And yes I know the reasons for BTOR being rather more coy with dates as people kept complaining about the dates slipping etc..

The thing is though they did all that for the Connection Voucher scheme.

I can see no reason why it cannot simply be copied to give everyone the USC.

Connection vouchers were used to connect to existing infrastructure, new infrastructure, fixed wired, fixed wireless and maybe even satellite - what is the difference???

.............and I see it far more simplistically Customer proves less than 24Mb connection - Easy. County give voucher, and say "This is yours to spend as you want. You hereby give up any further claim for any subsidy for improved broadband. That's yer lot" No need to avoid 'fraudulent activity' - the customer does that (sale of goods and services). The CUSTOMER sends voucher to government to get payment.

Let's keep as many bureaucrats/quangos/pollies out of this mess as we can?

In reply to a post by chilting:

The reason for this project in South Korea is probably rather different from the UK.

...

Maybe this should be a lesson to us that we need to improve rural broadband or our rural villages may start to decline.

I think that process is already well under way here (though perhaps less noticeable in the South East).

Anyway, Mr Saffron asked about what other countries are doing to ensure NGA availability reaches the outlying areas.

It appears that BT nicely provide us with some graphs in their written evidence to the DCMS select committee:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeee...

They cover major EU countries, and the "big names" worldwide - and we won't compare too unfavourably with many of those, being a touch behind South Korea and Japan.

In terms of covering rural areas with "superfast" speeds, I'd prefer that we were aiming to be best in class when compared with the "decent middle" group of countries, especially the low countries and Scandanavia, rather than just the major economies.

I actually don't mind that we don't necessarily have a target to be balls-out fastest in our most commercial areas. But I'd much prefer us to have a "nobody gets left behind" policy at the other end.

Connection vouchers, from individual customers, are a really inefficient way of upgrading big infrastructure. It doesn't help concentrate demand, and it doesn't help the engineering work be focussed into one company for that particular area.

That's the way to guarantee schemes will go bust.

the engineering work be focussed into one company

- so, how many satellite companies are in the scheme?

Let's also not forget that all this scheme is going to do is provide at least 2Mb.

Have hard copies of those graphs from a doc given out at the G.fast launch to the city audience, did not run them up the flag pole as the usual 'they are fake', 'I don't believe it' comments would ensue.

The thing is that BDUK working with BT to upgrade their network is in a way the easy part when it comes to administration and implementation - in other words they speak the same language.

When it comes to mixing BDUK with a multitude of smaller companies I don't think that we will get anything like the same sort of synergy However good the intentions from BDUK.

A connection voucher type scheme would mean that as long as companies/ projects could satisfy certain criteria they could provide a very versatile and competitive force in the telecoms market.

If we could grow companies in this sector they could give us the best in class status that you are talking about. These will be the companies that we will need in the future when FTTC is considered slow. But I fear that by creating barriers with red tape the entrepreneurs will look elsewhere.

I had assumed naively that any scheme now must be targeted at meeting the 10Mb USO the 2Mb number is old news.

It has only been announced recently, a consultation will run in early 2016- so its only the 2Mbps USC that is a current target.

In reply to a post by mikejp:

the engineering work be focussed into one company

- so, how many satellite companies are in the scheme?

Let's also not forget that all this scheme is going to do is provide at least 2Mb.

You appear to have taken the wrong end of the stick there.

The current scheme, promoting a kind of connection voucher for sub-2Mbps people, is not about upgrading infrastructure - so has no big engineering challenge. There is no need to focus work into one company (as a way to make the infrastructure affordable and cost-efficient). Multiple satellite companies (at retail and wholesale level) are welcome.

However, you were suggesting the use of the voucher scheme for sub-24Mbps people. That would require a >24Mbps superfast solution, likely not satellite, and likely would need an upgrade to infrastructure. My point was that, for this particular scenario, cost-efficiency is a necessity, one company (at wholesale level, within a certain area) is a necessity, and such necessities would not be provided by a voucher scheme.

In reply to a post by godsell4:

I had assumed naively that any scheme now must be targeted at meeting the 10Mb USO the 2Mb number is old news.

The 2Mbps USC is still the current active target for 2015.

10Mbps is not a USO, and has not been set as a future USO yet, either.

All that has happened is that the government has said a 10Mbps USO would be nice, so they're going to run a consultation next year. The outcome of the consultation will determine what USO actually gets set.

However, we've seen that the recent "consultation" on London's new runway was meant to do the same thing. But, as it came back with an undesirable answer (3rd runway at Heathrow), the actual government decision has been put off again.

It is entirely plausible that no USO commitment gets made ... or just cancelled by the government that will be in power then anyway.

In reply to a post by chilting:

A connection voucher type scheme would mean that as long as companies/ projects could satisfy certain criteria they could provide a very versatile and competitive force in the telecoms market.

I think you are deluded there (said politely, though, and agreeing I could be wrong)

Just like the MP's that chant that the need for more competition is what will solve things here - when, in reality, the fear of competition is what stops anything from happening at all.

Would B4RN work well if a second, parallel community project ran in parallel? Would competitive FTTP networks really happen across the Lancashire fells?

Or would they accidentally stop either company from reaching a critical mass of subscribers to first break even, and second pay back the community loans?

BDUK has presided over the systematic creation of dozens of guaranteed regional superfast monopolies. No one was willing to supply, never mind compete, in those areas under proper commercial terms. Every county was *bound* to create a new monopoly once a subsidy was offered - because it just made it even harder to compete.

For these BDUK areas, the competition needed to come in the tendering phase, not in the operational phase.

So, BDUK phases 1 and 2 will have taken coverage from 76% to 96%, and will have upgraded all the cheapest, most cost-effective areas. What is left - the 3% - is the most expensive.

Are you really suggesting that the 3% will become a new competitive battleground? With a multitude of operators willing to build infrastructure in case a connection voucher comes their way? (In this case, I'm talking of a voucher to cover transition from sub-24Mbps to 24+Mbps).

I fear that splitting vouchers across multiple altnets in one area is more likely to cause business failure.

If we could grow companies in this sector they could give us the best in class status that you are talking about. These will be the companies that we will need in the future when FTTC is considered slow. But I fear that by creating barriers with red tape the entrepreneurs will look elsewhere.

If you could get these companies out there, and competing, and responsive to vouchers, and looking profitable ... then your suggestion has merit indeed - and the reduced red tape would help. But I think it is a very, very, big "if".

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I fear that splitting vouchers across multiple altnets in one area is more likely to cause business failure.

I just found a rather interesting case study highlighting this problem - over in the evidence being gathered by the ongoing DCMS inquiry on broadband.

BTW - this is a great story that shows the recent BDUK business connection vouchers could indeed be pooled for creation of infrastructure!

In there, is a little story, of a company that needed broadband in deepest, darkest Herefordshire. They put together a "community interest company" (something like B4RN), with an aim of digging fibre amongst businesses using land from the Duchy of Cornwall).

It was most certainly a scheme that aimed to install new infrastructure.

All good ... but the necessary funding was going to come from 28 companies, pooling their £3,000 connection vouchers.

In essence - the project would work, so long as they took concerted effort to pool all the connection vouchers into one company, which would then be viable. It could fund one backhaul - and the total cost was roughly equivalent to the quote for one leased line to a single company.

The equivalent cost, for residential vouchers of ~£300, would need concerted effort from 280 householders.

[End of story: The scheme failed, because the government had only approved a few of the vouchers when the scheme was frozen. Not enough vouchers to make the project a go, though]

In these areas, it *really* takes concerted effort to make an infrastructure project worthwhile.

Link: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeee...
Look at Q9-Q17

In reply to a post by mikejp:

No need to avoid 'fraudulent activity' - the customer does that (sale of goods and services). The CUSTOMER sends voucher to government to get payment.

So, how does the government know that the customer spent the voucher on their broadband rather than on alcohol/drugs/whatever? You need to then have some sort of process for vetting every return to ensure it was spent on broadband. And if that is that you have to review the invoices then those invoices could easily be forged.

It is easier on this sort of scheme to have a small number of companies that can, if necessary, be audited and they put in batches of vouchers at the same time to effect a single payment to each company. The admin of doing it from individual customers would be expensive and would reduce the amount of money available in the scheme.

However, you were suggesting the use of the voucher scheme for sub-24Mbps people.

- no, "proves less than 24Mb connection" was indeed a typo. Try reading the post again with "2Mb". The amazing thing being missed here is that whilst eliminating the 'sub 2Mb' folk through a voucher scheme there would be an amazing number of consumers of new wireless broadband that would find themselves able to take a >24Mb service on the same network. Something satellite just cannot reasonably offer and something that also seems to be a concept that cannot be discussed in 'polite circles' - thus better 'Value for money' - as the mantra goes. A vast increase in >24Mb capability for the costs of vouchers.

Lost in a sea of blue!

Fixed Wireless will certainly give the final 3% a excellent and fast service if they have access to it but it won't be solution in its self for the vast majority of broadband users in West Sussex because of the lack of capacity.

If the USC continues to rise over the next 5-10 years as peoples expectations of what is a good service increase then FTTC will not be able to deliver in rural West Sussex and the water levels in the "sea of blue" will rise leaving the BT commercial areas high and dry and the rest of the county lost in a sea of blue.

Actually, the situation was far worse than you describe. No-one responsible for promoting and/or administering the voucher scheme could agree on what the rules meant. Remember that it was a "connection" voucher scheme. The underlying assumption was that the vouchers would pay for the installation of the connection from an existing fixed wire network to the business premises requiring a connection. It was not originally envisaged as a way of funding infrastructure - i.e. extending any network into a new area.

Then the question of paying for joint connections - or is it infrastructure - to serve a business park arose, which was the origin of the idea of pooling vouchers. This was accepted but none of the local authorities running the scheme had clear guidance on where the dividing line between shared connections and infrastructure should be drawn. What was worse was that BDUK said that it would audit whether the vouchers had been properly used - after the money was spent. If it was thought that the money had been spent on ineligible expenses, then the vouchers would have to be repaid and the supplier would be left with a large liability.

The response was inevitable. Any administrators or suppliers with a sense of self-preservation asked for advance guarantees that particular pooled schemes were eligible. BDUK would not or could not provide such guarantees so most of the proposals collapsed. The whole program was a huge waste of time for anyone hoping to underwrite infrastructure costs out of the vouchers, though I don't doubt that it helped a few business parks get connections.

The combination of bureaucracy and lack of clarity about the intention of the voucher scheme meant that schemes such as the one you described were almost bound to fail. A similar voucher scheme for USO-type cnnections would be even worse.

Yes a good point, will keep that in mind, and now thinking about it, if you watch the parliament.tv link, there were some replies from BT that said somehing like we are prepared to meet the USO if 'the market conditions are correct' or something similar ... which kind of suggests they are looking for more funds to get there. BT is a business, we can not forget that.

So, how does the government know that the customer spent the winter fuel allowance on their fuel rather than on alcohol/drugs/whatever? You need to then have some sort of process for vetting every return to ensure it was spent on fuel. And if that is that you have to review the invoices then those invoices could easily be forged.

??

Edited by mikejp (Fri 18-Dec-15 15:48:24)

The winter fuel allowance is given to everyone over whatever the age is and can legitimately be spent on anything.

Are we saying that anyone on less than 2Mb should be given money to spend on whatever they want?

If so, then why do it as a voucher rather than as a direct payment? Also, if it is to spend on whatever they want it doesn't do anything for the countries take up of slightly-faster broadband.

If they are giving vouchers specifically for broadband then they would need mechanisms to know it was spent on broadband.

I am not sure about the other counties but West Sussex have an an online application process that requires their broadband team to verify that the applicant can only get up to 2Mbps.

Presumably the payment is handed over to facilitate the installation if the applicant is successful?

The applicant never sees the money, they get a voucher code which the provider then counts against the install fees etc. The provider then uses the voucher code to claim back the money.

Now of course no provider is ever going to charge more for installs now are they.

In reply to a post by gah789:

The response was inevitable.

Absolutely. You're going to get audited against some rules that no-one can define?
A guarantee of bureaucratic paralysis.

In reply to a post by gah789:

A similar voucher scheme for USO-type connections would be even worse.

With what you've written, I'd agree even more strongly now.

Post deleted by WWWombat

In reply to a post by godsell4:

there were some replies from BT that said somehing like we are prepared to meet the USO if 'the market conditions are correct' or something similar ... which kind of suggests they are looking for more funds to get there. BT is a business, we can not forget that.

I think we have to bear in mind that the current USO affects only BT, and expects them to deploy copper to match, and to bear all the costs too. No other telco (save KC within Hull) has to take on the commitment, or cost, of a USO.

With that in mind, I think BT's drive is to say (on one hand) that they will support the existence of a broadband USO at some speed, but that they want to deflect any attempt to enforce them as the only supplier or to make them bear the costs alone.

In reply to a post by mikejp:

However, you were suggesting the use of the voucher scheme for sub-24Mbps people.

- no, "proves less than 24Mb connection" was indeed a typo.

A typo that changes the whole gist of the post, and invalidates the rest of the thread. Little point in commenting beyond that...

In reply to a post by mikejp:

The amazing thing being missed here is that whilst eliminating the 'sub 2Mb' folk through a voucher scheme there would be an amazing number of consumers of new wireless broadband that would find themselves able to take a >24Mb service on the same network.

I don't think it is being missed at all. Just recognised that it can't be handled fast enough.

If the "phase 3 market trials" have proved anything, it is that small wireless projects - even with the focus and funds that the trial brought - can't be progressed as quickly as desired after all.

However, promises have already been made to farmers, so *something* has to be available.

Separately, BDUK believe that there is a final 0.5-1% who would be left out of terrestrial "superfast" plans too. 1% who would need satellite for superfast capability.

Is that 1% the same 1% that are now being offered vouchers for basic broadband services? If so, then perhaps the money isn't being wasted at all, and will turn out to have served a dual purpose.

In West Sussex many of the residents who are being offered satellite vouchers are the same residents who are the the potential customers of the wireless services that are at present just waiting for the legal process to be completed before they can be deployed.

By offering vouchers to these customers that can only be used for satellite and not fixed wireless WSCC is putting the financial viability of the wireless projects at risk. They are also maybe putting the financial viability of other existing wireless operators at risk or at least discouraging them from expanding their networks.

If we want topnotch superfast broadband why are we compromising. There is to much talk and not enough practical action - what has happened to the spirit of B4RN.

In reply to a post by chilting:

By offering vouchers to these customers

Are they offering satellite vouchers to those subscribers?

The council ought to be checking whether a wireless service is available to them - and you'd expect the checks to include wireless schemes that are about to come on-stream.

Certainly the West Yorkshire scheme performs checks on both existing and planned coverage before issuing a voucher, and points to both wireless vendors and 4G as alternatives to be tried.

I guess, though, that this step requires the wireless vendor and the council to be on speaking terms. Not a state of affairs that has existed well in Sussex, IIRC.

The fact that the vouchers aren't made available for the wireless schemes suggests that they are already viewed to be affordable. An important hurdle, in the eyes of state aid.

They are also maybe putting the financial viability of other existing wireless operators at risk or at least discouraging them from expanding their networks.

In what way? The satellite voucher will/should only be issued if there is no wireless operator.

And, as "everybody knows", satellite is a poor choice anyway (technically, and pricewise), so "everybody" would be bound to jump to a wireless operator as soon as possible. Wouldn't they?

If that is true, perhaps satellite is a generator of business for wireless schemes, simply by opening people's minds to the fact there are better alternatives out there.

If we want topnotch superfast broadband why are we compromising.

The satellite scheme under way has nothing to do with superfast - it is all about mopping up the last dregs of sub-2Mbps coverage.

The reason we are compromising is because it is a fast solution. It has always been a fast solution, but it only really became a viable fast solution when sufficiently few people were left in need of it. Too much demand would quickly make it unviable (and not just on cost grounds).

There is to much talk and not enough practical action - what has happened to the spirit of B4RN.

Your complaint there is targeted at two different groups of people: The "too much talk" is coming from politicians, bureaucrats and "big telco", but the "not enough practical action" (a la "spirit of B4RN") is from the grassroots.

Why is there not enough grassroots action going on?

I suspect the answer is that there aren't enough "professors of networking" willing and able to lead such projects for free.

Without a trustworthy technical linchpin around whom the project can coalesce, any grassroots group remains left with talk as the only option.

I must give credit to WSCC, they are certainly on speaking terms with the new provider, who is already offering a service in the Chichester area closer to the coast.

It could be that they will direct residents towards the fixed wireless operator rather than give them satellite vouchers at the application stage but as the scheme is so new, I am not sure.

It would of course be very beneficial if WSCC actively promoted the presence of Fixed Wireless operators on the Better Connected BDUK site but unfortunately nothing is mentioned. The main problem I had when I was distributing leaflets about the proposed new service back in the summer was credibility - residents simply didn't believe what could be achieved.

With regard to grassroots action I think that the county councils have a role here. The BDUK teams around the country now have a good reservoir of knowledge between them. Maybe each council could appoint a technical development officer to liaise with local groups to promote local grass roots schemes. So much can be achieved when you have the goodwill of the local community - access, take up etc etc.

I think the problem for most councils is they don't have money to spare. To employ even one person to do broadband potentially means not employing a social worker. Broadband is largely being done where central government are providing funding - if they aren't then most councils don't have that much leeway to fund it themselves (and a single "technical officer" could cost £80K+ a year by the time you have paid salary, pension, national insurance, expenses, office space, IT equipment, etc, etc).

Government (and EU rules) are driving what funding can be readily spent on. Some councils have gone out of their way to find other ways but most are unable to prioritise this above the other work that councils do.

I see West Sussex also have a scheme for businesses to get up to 40% towards building broadband networks for business parks and the like. Bids for funding have to be in by January 15th.

There's definitely a credibility gap for wireless operators - even if they are the very best at engaging.

You're almost certainly right about the role in local government - and that aspect was reported into the DCMS inquiry, that local engagement helped enormously.

So bridging the two - having local government become as engaged with wireless broadband as it has been with fixed/BT and, in turn, engaging the public - will be important.

In North Yorkshire, the local officials already had in place the concept of community broadband schemes, and included working with wireless operators. Their (pilot) BDUK plans wanted to ensure that further community plans could be built on top too.

The fly in the ointment, right now, is to figure what the scope of the phase 3 project really is. Not long ago, it was the "final 5%". Then BT reckoned their extra clawback and underspend could fund getting to 96%, so we're at the final 4%. Then BDUK reported that 1% was urban, and out of scope, so we're now at a final 3%.

Right now, things still feel too fluid, so decisions that could be taken are being postponed. And I can't help but think that throwing a 10Mbps USO consultation in the middle will aid decisiveness.