BDUK no go...

So Staffordshire have released their 'preliminary' coverage map for BDUK investment. Unsurprisingly I am in the 3% who will get 2Mbps by hook or by crook by 2016. As I am the local 'Digital Champion' I have posted some questions and observations on their Facebook page - a remarkably lonely place but given that those who will get fibre have nothing to say and those in the 3% are unlikely to have BB anyway its not surprising.

I have Satellite and I can say that it is NOT going to provide a solution to the 3%. I am on the Tooway Ultimate package at £65 per month. It purported to offer 20Mbps down, 6 Mbps up and unlimited downloads. In reality its about 3Mbps and a FUP has been introduced of 60Gb/month as the service is horribly oversold. Its not upscaleable, latency is poor, downloads limited and its expensive.

The Staffordshire Project Manager contacted me (after a particularly spicy post of mine) to explain the situation.

I was amazed by 2 things.

1) BT are telling the Council what they can and will upgrade. There does not seem to be a dialogue where the Council can go back and say 'no don't go there, go here'.
2) The coverage map is very clearly put together by identifying cabinets, drawing a zone around them where 24Mbps can be provided with certainty and then joining up the circles.

The latter results in some crazy situations. My 90 year old neighbour 75m across the road will get Fibre. A single dwelling about 600m away and off the road will get Fibre, whilst all around it will get 2Mbps. The reason is clearly that my neighbour and the house in the woods are within ?1Km of a cabinet from another exchange.

My Exchange (Field) has one cabinet adjacent to the exchange. It serves about 400 houses and businesses. Most of these are strung out along the B5027 along with the phone lines - I am at 5k. So about 100 houses and business in and around Field will get Fibre - the rest 2Mbps.

BT will not be installing new cabinets and will not be using pole mounted cabinets and linking them with fibre - its either a) too hard or b) too expensive or c) both.

In terms of equity its poor and before anyone says it, no I am not moving. I moved to a rural area so that my frail elderly mother-in-law would not have to go into a nursing home and be supported by the state.

Anyone else find themselves high and dry?

In reply to a post by knighton:

I was amazed by 2 things.

1) BT are telling the Council what they can and will upgrade. There does not seem to be a dialogue where the Council can go back and say 'no don't go there, go here'.

Why is that amazing? The lines and equipment are owned by BT. The council can't tell BT which bits of its network it should upgrade. The council may have asked BT to cover as many people as possible but there's a limit as to how far the council can interfere with how BT runs its business.

2) The coverage map is very clearly put together by identifying cabinets, drawing a zone around them where 24Mbps can be provided with certainty and then joining up the circles.

That might be part of the process but the biggest part (the overall intent) will be to maximise BT's revenue. Or more likely minimise the loss they are going to take.

BT are just trying to make money off a service they offer. Unfortunately you seem to live in a place that is difficult to supply and/or doesn't have enough potential customers to allow for an adequate financial return. People have queried BT's plans in the past and found mistakes in their figures so it's worth pursuing that but I doubt it happens often.

Edited by Andrue (Sat 07-Dec-13 20:06:22)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Why is that amazing?...

Because the BDUK is tax payers money and should be being spent where businesses don't see/get a good return?!
I'm with the OP surely there should be a dialogue.

Edited by b4dger (Sun 08-Dec-13 12:05:38)

In reply to a post by b4dger:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Why is that amazing?...

Because the BDUK is tax payers money and should be being spent where businesses don't see/get a good return?!
I'm with the OP surely there should be a dialogue.

Oh I imagine there's a dialogue but it consists of requests rather than instructions. Most likely as I suggested BT attempt to provide the greatest number of people with a service for the money on offer. If the council insist that 300 people in location A get an upgrade it might mean that 450 people in location B and C don't get anything.

The joy of a cold harsh reality where no one from private firms or Government was willing to put up more than enough to ensure everyone benefited from much faster broadband.

The reality of a UK wide promise of 90% getting super fast speeds meant that 10% missed out...now in some counties it is looking to be less.

No-one has done an analysis of how much money contractors and power supply firms are gaining from the work.

I have yet to see a Public-Private project end up with the Public bit seeing all the benefits anticipated and the Private bits NOT ending up seeing their benefits realised.

As an NHS Consultant I see this every day with PFI projects for Hospital building and the ISTCs introduced by Lord Khazi. The latter are closing en masse as no-one uses them and they are p*ssing money away. The former are so crippled with long-term debts their future is unclear.

The sad truth is that the Public Sector does not have people with the skills to negotiate and manage such large projects - witness the PAC destruction of BDUK progress so far.

As at least 50% if not more of the local money comes from Taxpayers, there should be evidence of a greater degree of input from those people.

Whats galls is that I, others nearby and many in similar communities HAVE engaged with the 'public consultation'. We have filled the forms, gone to Council meetings, had Village Hall Sub-committes, completed our project reports and sent them in. It would appear that this was also a waste of time and money IF the effort was never going to influence the outcome in any way.

BT/Openreach were always likely to win the contract with Virgin and others not bothering to apply or precluded because of the rules, and Fujitsu pulling out.

That being said, the coverage map could have been produced 5 years ago by a competent Land Surveyor with a map of BT cabs and the rules around speed falloff after the cab.

It feels that the last 5 years have also been a waste of time and money.

Speaking to the project manager, what amazed (yes amazed) me was that there will be no de novo infrastructure build, simply the upgrading of exchanges and the siting of new fibre cabs.

A £25 million pound project of which the only visible signs will be a rash of new green cabs next to the old ones and those without will remain without.

In reply to a post by knighton:

A £25 million pound project of which the only visible signs will be a rash of new green cabs next to the old ones and those without will remain without.

?
So many of those without will become with? I'm not sure what you are trying to say, other than all cabs should receive FTTC at a cost of a heck of a lot more than £25m. Also bear in mind the effect of distance of the user from the cabinet. The benefit of FTTC drops of dramatically after 800 metres.

Err...what I am trying to say is that those with the biggest problems in the first place i.e. not able to have any form of BB via copper, will remain without it because there appears to be none of the funding being applied to extending the reach of the current exchanges beyond where the last cabinet can reach to in terms of providing 24Mbps once fibre enabled.

My hope is that either fixed wireless (geography depending) or 4G will provide some of the infill - mind you, I assume BT/OR would have to subcontract this.

In reply to a post by knighton:

Err...what I am trying to say is that those with the biggest problems in the first place i.e. not able to have any form of BB via copper, will remain without it because there appears to be none of the funding being applied to extending the reach of the current exchanges beyond where the last cabinet can reach to in terms of providing 24Mbps once fibre enabled.

But those without are the hardest to provide for. It's not some hatred of people in remote areas that led to the current situation. It's economics and civil engineering FTTC may not change that situation much if at all.

Hence my comment. Providing for 300 people who are currently 'without' might lead to a situation where they leapfrog 450 who currently have a poor service. In that situation perhaps it's justifiable but suppose the 450 have a service that will soon be inadequate. Now you're talking about ensuring that 300 people have a useful service at the expense of 450 who will soon not have a useful service.

Again this isn't about discrimination. It's about money and the limitations of the landscape. If you happen to live in the most difficult to supply area in the country there's not a lot anyone can do. Beyond a point we can only shrug and say that you're not economically viable.

In reply to a post by knighton:

1) BT are telling the Council what they can and will upgrade. There does not seem to be a dialogue where the Council can go back and say 'no don't go there, go here'.
2) The coverage map is very clearly put together by identifying cabinets, drawing a zone around them where 24Mbps can be provided with certainty and then joining up the circles.

1) Is absolutely correct. BT have agreed to hit a certain level of coverage, the council have agreed to this. BT know how they plan on reaching this level of coverage. The council could've said they would micromanage BT, however they would have had to accept a lower level of coverage in return.

I will repeat that the council agreed it would be this way. BT didn't just lay down the law on this and would've agreed to provide a lower level of coverage had the council told them to. The council would've requested that BT serve as many homes as possible and left to them how to achieve this.

2) Yep. Virtually impossible to do it any other way. Obviously the coverage is approximate but to calculate coverage down to the premises would've cost way too much and taken way too much time. This time and money is better spent actually deploying.

Unsure why you're saying that the latter results in crazy situations - it doesn't. The way the copper network was built results in these 'crazy situations', not how the coverage map is made. That just reflects the reality of the copper network.

In reply to a post by knighton:

BT will not be installing new cabinets and will not be using pole mounted cabinets and linking them with fibre - its either a) too hard or b) too expensive or c) both.

The answer is B). Could be done, would cost too much and result in lower overall coverage. The agreed coverage level given the budget probably doesn't account for building new cabinets every km across a 5km cable run, building new fibre twins for those, and then provisioning them with fibre backhaul and power.

It sucks but this is in no way amazing, it makes perfect sense. To serve your 300 premises would've soaked up funds that would've provisioned I can safely say well over 1,000 premises nearer existing cabinets. It's a no-brainer from the point of view of both council and BT. Would it be reasonable to expect upwards of 1,000 premises to go without to serve you guys?

Again, rubbish but they did what they could with the resources available.

OK, I am clearly in a minority both in the way I feel about the process and in terms of the availability of BB!!

I am irritated that I have, at the behest of the County Council, spent far too much of my time in drumming up support for a local village report on the needs of the area, when it is/was patently clear that for the money involved it was a non-starter.

I recognise this isn't about deliberately setting out to disenfranchise rural areas, but the end result is the same.

The lack of initiative in terms of non-fibre approaches in the plan is very frustrating.

Its almost as if Fibre is the only solution anyone has considered.

Be honest now, how many of the contributors to this thread DO NOT have decent BB?

In reply to a post by knighton:

Be honest now, how many of the contributors to this thread DO NOT have decent BB?

Guilty as charged - see my sig.

However, whilst agreeing with the others that your getting stuck for the moment with rubbish broadband is because of the way the system has to work with the money available, I also find it hard to believe there couldn't have been a better approach.

Well I'm in the same position as the OP.
Local BDUK roll out maps show two nearest cabinets not in the roll out - this semi-rural area not far from a city.
So no possibility of SFBB before say 2017 to 2020 - if other funding arrives post the end of the BDUK scheme.
Two local cabinets serve around 200 properties each.
(A third one slightly further away is being enabled for SFBB)
Typical speeds for these two cabinets range from 12Mbps down to 2Mbps. I suspect the lower figures are more related to rubbish internal phone house wiring than BT).

In reality the OP needs to consider that in most people's lives SFBB is not really a priority.
They have far more urgent/important things to worry about.
Locally I have communicated the situation around and frankly no one cares - it really is not an issue.
Now start discussing planning/house building - now that really will get people irate.

I'd agree with the other replies. It is all a matter to producing the best overall result and the hard to get to who would consume more of the money are always going to be left out and done last.

A big part of the problem is that DCMS and others keep called the spending a rural broadband programme, so those who know they are rural get excited and upset when they see what they would consider urban people getting a service.

The real only hope is that projects are cheaper to roll-out and can go further for the money they have.

The NAO/PAC stuff this summer did nothing really to progress things, beyond creating headlines and political point scoring.

Its nice to see gold old BT taking all the flack. Yet no one mentions Virgin when they pick and choose the area's they want to invest in.

Times are hard for everyone. Just how many in the new coverage area's will actually take up the service?

Until less than a week ago I had 1.5Mb down, 0.2Mb up. My opinions haven't changed in the past few days.

I should point out that I wasn't disagreeing with you that it sucks, I was just trying to explain a little of the background. I'm sure the project manager and BT have completely different points of view on the matter.

Edited by deleted (Sun 08-Dec-13 23:42:55)

your FTTC is already live?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

your FTTC is already live?

It has been since Thursday 5th.

OK, I am clearly in a minority both in the way I feel about the process and in terms of the availability of BB!!

Unfortunately in your county you are in a minority that covers 3% of people. The money will stretch so far - 97% from a council perspective of coverage is very good considering the government target was 90% as mentioned earlier in the thread. Unfortunately you happen to be in the 3% which is very bad for you but someone has to be in that group or coverage would be 100%.

It is unfortunate but it is economics and statistics that are speaking - statistics only ever care about the majority and profits don't care about the individual either.

I also find it hard to believe there couldn't have been a better approach.

Yes, they could have stuck to the (original ?) goal of the USC and not spend money on superfast upgrades other than those necessary to meet the USC, then done more superfast with any money left over. ADSL2+ from street cabs for example is an approach that would favour adequate speeds with wider coverage over fast speeds for the numerical majority.

By putting the emphasis on Superfast they've not addressed many of the notspots / slow spots and used the money to improve the speeds of many who had adequate speeds already.

Politically it may have been wise - more happy voters and bigger percentages to claim.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

I also find it hard to believe there couldn't have been a better approach.

Yes, they could have stuck to the (original ?) goal of the USC and not spend money on superfast upgrades other than those necessary to meet the USC, then done more superfast with any money left over. ADSL2+ from street cabs for example is an approach that would favour adequate speeds with wider coverage over fast speeds for the numerical majority.

By putting the emphasis on Superfast they've not addressed many of the notspots / slow spots and used the money to improve the speeds of many who had adequate speeds already.

Politically it may have been wise - more happy voters and bigger percentages to claim.

I agree.

People seem to think I don't understand the economics of the situation

I do.

The Hilderstone exchange has about 3 cabs. Cab 3 which is in Milwich is 4.2Km from the exchange by road. The lines follow the road so presumably they will have to feed fibre to this cab down the same main road they would have to feed fibre up to a roughly similar distance from the Field exchange.

The difference of course is the cabs. 1 for Field and 3 for Hilderstone.

550 lines from Hilderstone and 400 lines from Field so not a massive difference in lines.

It IS economics but apart from the fact I am in the 3%, it is the pointlessness of the efforts we went to in the 'public engagement' which galls the most.

The economics would not change so the 'public engagement' effort was unecessary.

I think the public engagement was 2 fold. Firstly, to show the supplier there was economic advantage to them for installing things. Secondly, to show BDUK that there was a demand within the council area for the services.

So, on an aggregated level it appears it was successful as the project is going ahead. On a personal level for yourselves it probably wasn't worth the effort - but until BT had done the "desktop" work to review the costs and profit potential they may not have been able to tell you it wasn't worth it (why put the effort in unless there is a chance of getting a profit for the shareholders at the other end - that was what BDUK procurement provided BT with).

In reply to a post by ian72:

I think the public engagement was 2 fold. Firstly, to show the supplier there was economic advantage to them for installing things. Secondly, to show BDUK that there was a demand within the council area for the services.

So, on an aggregated level it appears it was successful as the project is going ahead. On a personal level for yourselves it probably wasn't worth the effort - but until BT had done the "desktop" work to review the costs and profit potential they may not have been able to tell you it wasn't worth it (why put the effort in unless there is a chance of getting a profit for the shareholders at the other end - that was what BDUK procurement provided BT with).

Interesting.

If its anything like the Health Service, if capital funding becomes available, you had better spend it because you won't get it again.

I seriously doubt that the project would have failed to go ahead if the consultation had not taken place.

I am quite sure the rough figures for how many properties were without 'superfast' and how many could be supplied with it were known in advance by BT - after all, non BDUK Fibre rollout was progressing anyway and the chunks supplied by BDUK money were those areas they weren't planning to cover.

As for the demand, my understanding is that the demand for Fibre in the areas that BT have rolled it out under their own steam is not as good as was hoped anyway. Perhaps things are different in the 'have not' areas.

A stipulation for council's receiving the funding was that they could show demand - and the accepted method to do that was via public consultation. So, council's did consultations - if BDUK/EU hadn't required that then I doubt very much they would have bothered.

EDIT : PS - you also have to remember was that supposedly there were 2 companies in the running for BDUK. Even if BT did know where demand was and where it could economically deliver that is not necessarily the case for Fujitsu who may have welcomed the data and for whom the economics may have been different (due to not already having infrastructure in place).

Edited by ian72 (Tue 10-Dec-13 16:40:08)

With no clear demand from public it could have hit EU State Aid buffers even harder - councils have some figures to show demand, rather than just the opinion of those trying to sell their own particular solution.

In reply to a post by ian72:

EDIT : PS - you also have to remember was that supposedly there were 2 companies in the running for BDUK.

That was just the framework agreement, Cambridgeshire took BDUK money and ran their own procurement. BT won, from several entrants.

Northants used their demand stimulation efforts as part of the procurement ie to show the bidders (BT & Fujitsu at the time) what demand there was. A village of ~1000 that didn't engage is missing out while one of ~500 that made an effort is getting FTTC.

Knighton
Remember that those outside the circles will get a Minimum of 2Mb, those inside are meant to get a minimum of 24Mb.

So of the 400 houses, in theory 100 will get greater than 24Mb, the other 300 will get between 2Mb and 24Mb. You may find quite a few are close to the 24Mb, if the cables are good they may get more.

It will not help you at 5km, all that can help you is, Today Satellite, late 2014 maybe 4g, 2015 onwards hopefully ! fibre to the DP

Your satellite meets the 2Mb at present so in theory no BDUK money needs to be spent to help you get the USC