Eden’s Broadband Champions meet with BDUK
12:35 in guest post by Libby Bateman
On 16 December, Libby Bateman, UECP project officer and Broadband Champion for Ravenstonedale, convened a meeting between Mike Kiely of BDUK and Broadband Champions from across the Eden valley. Here, she blogs about her experience as a longstanding broadband campaigner and her perspective on the latest developments in the campaign:
Yesterday, I walked through the snow with a young friend of mine to her home halfway up the Uldale Valley. She is one of three children in their late teens and early 20s and I feel like I am letting her down when I say: “it may be another twelve months before we can get broadband to your home”. She has now been unable to drive her car for three weeks because of the snow. She has been completely isolated from the outside world with no broadband, a very unreliable landline, and no mobile signal.
Six months ago, it was very simple: we were going to dig in the fibre, plug it in, and switch it on. Our problems were: which route do we take? And how do we make it affordable?
Then, along came the Big Society, which seemed to be purpose-made to help us in what we were trying to achieve, and along came some money from BDUK - another real bonus.
But the result of these two strokes of luck has been delay. Instead of bashing on and building our networks, we now have to wait for the powers-that-be to catch up. The BDUK funding and the resulting government procurement have slowed things down. But, however frustrating this may be, we can’t rush the process: it’s essential that they get it right first time.
To quote a good friend, this is where the Big Society and Big Government come crashing into each other. But remember, we are the Big Society Vanguard, which means that the government is hoping to learn from us how it can work better with communities. And so, yes, we may well go bump a few times, but isn’t that part of any learning process?
Now, my intention is to ensure that, in twelve months time, we really do deliver broadband to the top of the Uldale Valley and that we don’t just get faster broadband to major population centres to satisfy government statisticians.
So, when Mike Kiely from BDUK said ‘I would like to come and see you’, I leapt at the opportunity. It was a chance for our Broadband Champions to have direct input in to the procurement. Now I don’t profess to have much of a clue about the process - I have picked up bits of information here and there - but generally I find the whole thing very complicated.
At the meeting on Thursday night, some broadband champions suggested that they wished to set up a Community Interest Company (CIC) and build their own networks, with the BDUK money being used to provide decent and affordable backhaul for their networks.
But I wonder whether we really have the skills in our communities to manage such a CIC, which would be subject to the same rules and regulations as any telecommunications company as defined by Ofcom? And even if some our communities do have these skills now, will they have them in the future? I wholeheartedly agree with a comment, which was made at the meeting that, if we are to build a community network, then it needs to be defined to a standard that would enable it to be taken over by another company at a later date.
So, thank you to all of you who came on Thursday night and, not least, to Mike Kiely for listening to us. We all have a lot of work to do, and this was never going to be an easy ride. If it was, somebody else would have done it years ago!
Also, it turns out that my original two questions still stand: ‘which route do we take? And how do we make it affordable?’ But the great thing is that BDUK is now asking them - it’s not just me - and that has to be progress. So, keep trucking guys, we are getting there!
Comments noted. Progress is never fast, but it has to be sure!
Hello Libby,
The following URL was one we found helpful when we too were struggling with similar problems with a CIC project,some time ago. We hope it can help.
http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/CICleaflets/FAQ%20-%20October%202009%20V7.00%20Final.pdf
Whatever it takes, we have to get the answers, because if we let the council give the money to bt for cabinets your friend at the top of Uldale and many more like her will end up with BET or satellite. If we are going to build a futureproof network for Cumbria it has to be done right. And cabinets are so wrong. They will never help the final third. They will only help those in urban areas and widen the digital divide that exists. I hope Mike has taken all this on board (I am sure he has) and can talk to the council. They will need a lot of education before they understand the politics of it all. It strikes me all the council can see is tick boxes showing that many who already have adsl would get a slight upgrade. It may win them a few votes in the very short term but history will tell a different story.
It is 2003 and project access repeating itself. The BDUK funding is for the final third. Not to prop up an obsolete business model.
With the big society initiative there is a chance the voice of your friend crying in the wilderness will be heard. We have to work out a way of a CIC or similar running the whole shebang. There will be profit in it, so maybe a dragon will appear? The reason BT don’t do it is because they will have to upgrade all the urban areas to FTTH if they do it for the rurals, and they would far rather keep them on the cabinets and copper phone lines, but a new entrant wouldn’t have the legacy infrastructure to protect would it?
chris
I recon I know a friendly dragon Chris!
Cabinets, as in FTTC, will work fine for those close to them, and will be good for many in the final third. It’s the rest that’s the problem.
Where does it say BT have to upgrade all rural areas to FTTH if they do it for rurals, again, duf information from cyberdoyle.
Many community projects rely on a tiny number, 1%?, being involved at the start and continuing support is often the issue. Broadband is too important not to have 24×7 support and can’t wait for ‘the expert’ to return from holiday.
You say:
12. A TV terrestrial Broadcast network that delivers all channels to all customers
Do mean via UHF aerials and please define ‘all’ channels.
I asked Ed Vaizey last Tuesday what he felt the main barriers were to communities being more involved in providing broadband for the final leg of the data (from exchange or village pump) and he commented on the sustainability angle being a bit tricky for a CIC dealing with infrastructure.
He commented later that he would be asking for reviews of policy (and joked about the list of ALL the things he would be reviewing and how he was hoping to review EVERYTHING) and one woman asked - will you also be doing a review of procurement policy. I was amused - he like any politician I have met managed to make a joke out of it)
erm I mean I was amused at the ladies comment and not as much at Ed’s response…
good on you Libby, bring on the dragons!
Somerset, I think you are missing the point. The point is that funding is for the final third, to stop the digital divide. Cabinets will only make the divide wider. Funding must not go to BT to help the people in the more urban areas. If you use the big society support and bduk funding to get NGA to the hardest to reach people then market forces WILL deliver to the others. This is the most sensible way to use the pilots to prove it can work. This is our chance to make it work. We just have to JfDI.
It would help if the ‘final third’ was accurately defined.
Is funding going to urban areas that are in the BT FTTC/P rollout? It should be to the rest. FTTC will work for those that will get ~40M, not less.