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