A new page has appeared on the BIS website, devoted to Broadband Delivery UK - http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/telecommunications/broadband/bduk
Interesting snippets from this include:
- BDUK Chief Exec is Adrian Kamellard, reporting to Ed Vaizey (joint DCMS, BIS)
- 4 organisational goals for BDUK are defined, covering USC, "high speed connectivity", and use of public asssets
-BDUK is responsible for 3 "market testing" projects for superfast broadband
- BDUK are holding an "Industry Day" to make announcements about these projects on July 15th - if you want to go email martin.doyle@bis.gsi.gov.uk.
No news yet on how they will choose the trials.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Do Jeremy Hunt's forecasts for superfast UK broadband stack up?
The Guardian’s Charles Arthur asked this question in his blog today - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jun/08/superfast-broadband-jeremy-hunt-analysis .
Interestingly, it’s a topic we considered in regards to Stephen Carter’s £6 pa proposal back in July last year:
http://telecomsregulation.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-stephen-carters-numbers-add-up.html#links
Carter’s “Next Generation Fund” would have generated £163m pa. We concluded that, using the Analysys Mason study figures for FTTC costs, this would be close to the amount of subsidy needed to get BT to fibre the “final third”. But for FTTH it was nowhere near enough.
Creaming money off the BBC digital switchover fund (with dubious logic, and against the prevailing “savage cuts” philosophy) generates £250m pa apparently – but only until 2012. Our NGF calculation assumed 10 years of tax (or a 9.2 year payback), so there is a big shortfall from the £2.8bn cost the A-M report implies.
The way around this impasse is to do things more cheaply than BT would. The new Government has talked of “pilots” to examine other ways of doing things, and community groups generally believe that BT’s costs are much higher than theirs would be. Ofcom are pushing BT into duct sharing, but anyone who’s looked at this knows what a nightmare this would be in practice. The BBC guessed that other utilities (sic) might also be required to share ducts – but again this would be challenging, since they can’t even agree to dig the roads up at the same time. It will be interesting to see what these pilots are, and what they are planning to do.
This statement neither “details” not “clarifies” government policy, but simply raises a new set of questions.
So: “nice try, no cigar”.
Interestingly, it’s a topic we considered in regards to Stephen Carter’s £6 pa proposal back in July last year:
http://telecomsregulation.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-stephen-carters-numbers-add-up.html#links
Carter’s “Next Generation Fund” would have generated £163m pa. We concluded that, using the Analysys Mason study figures for FTTC costs, this would be close to the amount of subsidy needed to get BT to fibre the “final third”. But for FTTH it was nowhere near enough.
Creaming money off the BBC digital switchover fund (with dubious logic, and against the prevailing “savage cuts” philosophy) generates £250m pa apparently – but only until 2012. Our NGF calculation assumed 10 years of tax (or a 9.2 year payback), so there is a big shortfall from the £2.8bn cost the A-M report implies.
The way around this impasse is to do things more cheaply than BT would. The new Government has talked of “pilots” to examine other ways of doing things, and community groups generally believe that BT’s costs are much higher than theirs would be. Ofcom are pushing BT into duct sharing, but anyone who’s looked at this knows what a nightmare this would be in practice. The BBC guessed that other utilities (sic) might also be required to share ducts – but again this would be challenging, since they can’t even agree to dig the roads up at the same time. It will be interesting to see what these pilots are, and what they are planning to do.
This statement neither “details” not “clarifies” government policy, but simply raises a new set of questions.
So: “nice try, no cigar”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)