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.