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”.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Analysys Mason report on “NGA risk in the UK” – missing the moment
Back in March, Analysys Mason (AM) published a report on behalf of HMG entitled “An assessment and practical guidance on next generation access (NGA) in the UK”
(available here http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/assessmentngafinalreport) . An assessment it may have been, but its approach and consequent guidance has been undermined by the recent election.
The approach AM took was to create two dimensions: (1) three scenarios for the penetration of NGA across the country at 2012, 2015 and 2017; (2) three areas where the impact of not having NGA are highest – areas of highest “deprivation” (or social exclusion), “rurality” and “e-attitudes”. From this they produce areas classified as “priority”, “action probable” and “watching brief. This they do in commendable detail at the level of “lower super output areas” (LSOAs), producing many pretty maps of the country to illustrate their conclusions.
The problem however is that neither dimension is really solid.
The “base case” roll-out assumption has commercial plans (BT and Virgin) supplemented by the Next Generation Fund (Labour’s £6 pa tax) to subsidise up to 90% coverage. The “extended coverage” takes this up to 95%, on the basis of aggressive local initiatives (publicly funded). The third scenario is a “downside” case with no subsidy, reaching 70% population by 2017. In addition, they make some minor adjustments to take into account local initiatives, such as South Yorkshire Digital Region, but these affect only 2.5% of the LSOAs.
Clearly now, with the new Government’s focus on reducing the public sector deficit, and from the coalition partners’ manifestoes, there is little chance of public investment in such adventurous projects. Instead guidance on how that gap could be filled by community initiatives that require little public subsidy would have been helpful. Structured properly, these projects would be driven by local volunteers and use lower-cost local suppliers. This would be a better focus for a new NGA roll-out programme.
Similarly, the impact dimension is pretty soft. There is an unstated assumption that NGA is all about access to some sort of “socially valuable” services – e-government, training, education, even cheaper shopping. Yet the most likely driver of NGA take-up is television/video entertainment – broadcast, on-demand, YouTube, facebook etc, particularly once TV sets come with internet access built in (Sony has already launched one). Most other services are readily accessible at 2Mb/s. If government is concerned about citizens lacking access to important services, it should make sure they are available on the most widely available platform – the TV set.
The AM approach is to mash together Experian and CACI measures for social deprivation, mash them further with e-attitudes (ignoring obvious correlation effects) and overlay a fairly arbitrary “rurality” factor for good measure. It is not at all clear what that final index really represents and whether it forms a firm basis for the investment of several billion pounds of tax-payer money.
AM has as always produced a report which has admirable analytical detail. Sadly on this occasion they have missed the political sea-change and missed the opportunity to find ways of liberating local energies.
(available here http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/assessmentngafinalreport) . An assessment it may have been, but its approach and consequent guidance has been undermined by the recent election.
The approach AM took was to create two dimensions: (1) three scenarios for the penetration of NGA across the country at 2012, 2015 and 2017; (2) three areas where the impact of not having NGA are highest – areas of highest “deprivation” (or social exclusion), “rurality” and “e-attitudes”. From this they produce areas classified as “priority”, “action probable” and “watching brief. This they do in commendable detail at the level of “lower super output areas” (LSOAs), producing many pretty maps of the country to illustrate their conclusions.
The problem however is that neither dimension is really solid.
The “base case” roll-out assumption has commercial plans (BT and Virgin) supplemented by the Next Generation Fund (Labour’s £6 pa tax) to subsidise up to 90% coverage. The “extended coverage” takes this up to 95%, on the basis of aggressive local initiatives (publicly funded). The third scenario is a “downside” case with no subsidy, reaching 70% population by 2017. In addition, they make some minor adjustments to take into account local initiatives, such as South Yorkshire Digital Region, but these affect only 2.5% of the LSOAs.
Clearly now, with the new Government’s focus on reducing the public sector deficit, and from the coalition partners’ manifestoes, there is little chance of public investment in such adventurous projects. Instead guidance on how that gap could be filled by community initiatives that require little public subsidy would have been helpful. Structured properly, these projects would be driven by local volunteers and use lower-cost local suppliers. This would be a better focus for a new NGA roll-out programme.
Similarly, the impact dimension is pretty soft. There is an unstated assumption that NGA is all about access to some sort of “socially valuable” services – e-government, training, education, even cheaper shopping. Yet the most likely driver of NGA take-up is television/video entertainment – broadcast, on-demand, YouTube, facebook etc, particularly once TV sets come with internet access built in (Sony has already launched one). Most other services are readily accessible at 2Mb/s. If government is concerned about citizens lacking access to important services, it should make sure they are available on the most widely available platform – the TV set.
The AM approach is to mash together Experian and CACI measures for social deprivation, mash them further with e-attitudes (ignoring obvious correlation effects) and overlay a fairly arbitrary “rurality” factor for good measure. It is not at all clear what that final index really represents and whether it forms a firm basis for the investment of several billion pounds of tax-payer money.
AM has as always produced a report which has admirable analytical detail. Sadly on this occasion they have missed the political sea-change and missed the opportunity to find ways of liberating local energies.
Friday, 21 May 2010
How to get your share of £2m from the Technology Strategy Board
Yesterday, the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) explained how the competition for funding of “Network Services Demonstrators” is going to work. £2m is available to fund selected demonstrators which sit at the intersection of thinking about the economics of the network, the economics of content and services and access protection and empowerment. The TSB were deliberately but frustratingly vague about exactly what they wanted to sponsor, looking instead for innovative ideas. But some key points did come through:
• Although not precisely defined, it is clear that they are looking for perhaps 5 to 10 projects in total – so you get an idea of scale
• There must be a network facility ( a “site”) which is open to content owners and service providers, and which allows innovative ideas (including new business models) to be tested; it is NOT just about fibreing up a village
• There must be real users connected to it; real revenues may be generated, if required to test a business model for example, but these will be deducted from the costs being funded
• Out of scope would be anything which was primarily about network provisioning, anything without a network partner, lab/research prototypes and genuinely new technology- it is a “near market” funding.
The independent assessors will be looking for the added value coming from TSB funding (ie what would happen because of the funding that would not have happened otherwise), the impact of service enablers, a proof on principle business model and pretty specific plans for implementation (including, APIs, SLAs and various other abbreviations).
The ten questions on the application form cover:
• The business proposition – is it a viable market, is there a realistic future
• The benefits including wider spin-off benefits
• The technical approach and innovations, both commercial and scientific
• Risks and risk management
• Partners’ track records and experience
• Costs, revenues and added value
The TSB will fund 50% of eligible costs (including in-kind costs), and there are various restrictions on how that is shared and a limit to academic involvement. The deadline for submissions to Stage 1 of the procedure is noon on the 24th June. Further steps lead to a decision by 7th October and project commencement around December/January.
For more information go to the Innovate website: http://digitalbritain.innovateuk.org/
NetStrategics can help with the development of business cases and innovative business models and is keen to hear from anyone planning to submit a project to this competition.
• Although not precisely defined, it is clear that they are looking for perhaps 5 to 10 projects in total – so you get an idea of scale
• There must be a network facility ( a “site”) which is open to content owners and service providers, and which allows innovative ideas (including new business models) to be tested; it is NOT just about fibreing up a village
• There must be real users connected to it; real revenues may be generated, if required to test a business model for example, but these will be deducted from the costs being funded
• Out of scope would be anything which was primarily about network provisioning, anything without a network partner, lab/research prototypes and genuinely new technology- it is a “near market” funding.
The independent assessors will be looking for the added value coming from TSB funding (ie what would happen because of the funding that would not have happened otherwise), the impact of service enablers, a proof on principle business model and pretty specific plans for implementation (including, APIs, SLAs and various other abbreviations).
The ten questions on the application form cover:
• The business proposition – is it a viable market, is there a realistic future
• The benefits including wider spin-off benefits
• The technical approach and innovations, both commercial and scientific
• Risks and risk management
• Partners’ track records and experience
• Costs, revenues and added value
The TSB will fund 50% of eligible costs (including in-kind costs), and there are various restrictions on how that is shared and a limit to academic involvement. The deadline for submissions to Stage 1 of the procedure is noon on the 24th June. Further steps lead to a decision by 7th October and project commencement around December/January.
For more information go to the Innovate website: http://digitalbritain.innovateuk.org/
NetStrategics can help with the development of business cases and innovative business models and is keen to hear from anyone planning to submit a project to this competition.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
PLUM CONSULTING FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT GOVTS CAN DRIVE BROADBAND TAKE-UP
Plum Consulting presented the results of their research (commissioned by Vodafone), into the role of Governments using demand-side measures to support broadband take-up, to a meeting of the Broadband Stakeholder Group last night. They looked at broadband take-up in several countries - Europe, US and Korea – and age and educational factors, and identified substantial variations between them. However when they looked at specific government interventions – such as Spain spending €6bn in internet education – they found that the increase in take-up was indistinguishable from that which would have happened anyway. Increases in take-up in older groups was simply a “cohort effect”- people getting older.
One of the problems the researchers faced was that few of the interventions were structured to provide post-hoc review of their effect (particularly against the counter-factual of expected growth anyway). So Plum’s main recommendation was that if Government wanted to drive take-up it should conduct small scale trials, structured in a way to provide such sound information into their effectiveness.
In their view, the most significant factor in driving higher take-up was educational levels. Korea provided a good example of this where the older groups, who had been educated when Korea was relatively poor, showed below average take-up whilst the younger generations showed above average take-up.
Plum did explore the main causes and barriers to take-up. Broadband was seen by non-adopters as not relevant, expensive and complex. A positive “social infrastructure” – education, workplace usage, local language content – supported higher take-up.
Addressing these issues, Plum compared PC-based broadband with mobile broadband platforms such as iPad. They concluded that mobile broadband would drive greater take-up as it was application-led (improving relevance), much easier to use (no file structure, faster, easier updates) and could be supported by pre-pay options (getting round credit card issues). The reader might like to recall, however, that the research was commissioned by Vodafone.
In the Q&A session, some people questioned whether mobile was an appropriate platform for services like completing your tax return or accessing medical records. It seems clear that different platforms offer different advantages and that they will be used in different ways.
Whether putting Government services online would drive take-up was raised. The general view was that it would not, as closing down offline options would too badly disadvantage those groups of non-adopters who might specifically need those services.
I think a more significant effect would be internet on the TV set. The TV is almost universally adopted and easy to use; the fastest growth in internet applications requiring broadband is in iPlayer and other on-demand TV services, YouTube and Facebook – ie video-based services. So it seems inevitable that once TV sets with internet access built in become available - with a simplified browser replacing the EPG - that broadband take-up will accelerate dramatically. Current internet applications then in effect replace Teletext. Of course that might show up that the question was not what it appeared – it is not broadband take-up per se that is the concern, but use of online services to help Government reduce costs.
You can read Plum's account of the research from page 31 of the document at
http://www.plumconsulting.co.uk/pdfs/Plum_March09_Demand-side_measures_to_stimulate_Internet_and_broadband_take-up.pdf
One of the problems the researchers faced was that few of the interventions were structured to provide post-hoc review of their effect (particularly against the counter-factual of expected growth anyway). So Plum’s main recommendation was that if Government wanted to drive take-up it should conduct small scale trials, structured in a way to provide such sound information into their effectiveness.
In their view, the most significant factor in driving higher take-up was educational levels. Korea provided a good example of this where the older groups, who had been educated when Korea was relatively poor, showed below average take-up whilst the younger generations showed above average take-up.
Plum did explore the main causes and barriers to take-up. Broadband was seen by non-adopters as not relevant, expensive and complex. A positive “social infrastructure” – education, workplace usage, local language content – supported higher take-up.
Addressing these issues, Plum compared PC-based broadband with mobile broadband platforms such as iPad. They concluded that mobile broadband would drive greater take-up as it was application-led (improving relevance), much easier to use (no file structure, faster, easier updates) and could be supported by pre-pay options (getting round credit card issues). The reader might like to recall, however, that the research was commissioned by Vodafone.
In the Q&A session, some people questioned whether mobile was an appropriate platform for services like completing your tax return or accessing medical records. It seems clear that different platforms offer different advantages and that they will be used in different ways.
Whether putting Government services online would drive take-up was raised. The general view was that it would not, as closing down offline options would too badly disadvantage those groups of non-adopters who might specifically need those services.
I think a more significant effect would be internet on the TV set. The TV is almost universally adopted and easy to use; the fastest growth in internet applications requiring broadband is in iPlayer and other on-demand TV services, YouTube and Facebook – ie video-based services. So it seems inevitable that once TV sets with internet access built in become available - with a simplified browser replacing the EPG - that broadband take-up will accelerate dramatically. Current internet applications then in effect replace Teletext. Of course that might show up that the question was not what it appeared – it is not broadband take-up per se that is the concern, but use of online services to help Government reduce costs.
You can read Plum's account of the research from page 31 of the document at
http://www.plumconsulting.co.uk/pdfs/Plum_March09_Demand-side_measures_to_stimulate_Internet_and_broadband_take-up.pdf
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
COLLABORATION NATION - NEXT STEPS
The “Collaboration Nation” conference organised by the Technology Strategy Board showcased the 84 feasibility studies chosen in the Digital Britain innovation competition, worth in total £2m. Further funding and support will be available for the next phases:
A DIGITAL TESTBED will enable innovators to test out their ideas, experimenting in a realistic setting and demonstrate the opportunities to potential investors. The TSB are planning for this to go live during the summer. I have to confess that I don’t really understand what this “testbed” actually is, but the picture on the screen looked like an impressive networks operations centre.
A new concept, NETWORK SERVICES DEMONSTRATORS sounded more the sort of thing that will appeal to community groups. There is another £2 million up for grabs in a new TSB competition starting on the 10th May. As well as looking at technical issues, the competition will be looking for innovation in business models. This could be a great differentiator for projects which deliver tailored community services.
Going further, with the DIGITAL BRITAIN projects (both those which went through feasibility and other new ones), there is another £18 million available in a competition beginning in July. The focus of this will be on collaborations which bring together industries and communities. There will also be another round of feasibility studies again next year.
Two other areas are also the subject of funded competitions. £8m is available for TRUSTED SERVICES SOLUTIONS in a competition starting on 10th May, and £5m for SMART METERS AND SMART GRIDS later the same month.
So over £30m allocated for innovation in this area – impressive in times of such financial crisis. I suppose there is a risk that these initiatives get cut after the election, but on the scale of things £30m doesn’t make much impact on the deficit.
Community broadband projects have been successful in the first round of feasibility studies. The well known Cybermoor project in Alston, and a neighbouring project in Weardale both got through and presented their work. 21Media from Lancaster University who worked with WrayComCom also got funding for a study into utility-like community networks providing a standardised infrastructure for multiple providers and service offerings. Aegis Systems were looking into low-cost backhaul using the 1800 MHz band, and Broadband Access Strategies LLP are building a review of cost-effective technologies for rural areas.
For more on these and other projects go to http://digitalbritain.innovateuk.org/
A DIGITAL TESTBED will enable innovators to test out their ideas, experimenting in a realistic setting and demonstrate the opportunities to potential investors. The TSB are planning for this to go live during the summer. I have to confess that I don’t really understand what this “testbed” actually is, but the picture on the screen looked like an impressive networks operations centre.
A new concept, NETWORK SERVICES DEMONSTRATORS sounded more the sort of thing that will appeal to community groups. There is another £2 million up for grabs in a new TSB competition starting on the 10th May. As well as looking at technical issues, the competition will be looking for innovation in business models. This could be a great differentiator for projects which deliver tailored community services.
Going further, with the DIGITAL BRITAIN projects (both those which went through feasibility and other new ones), there is another £18 million available in a competition beginning in July. The focus of this will be on collaborations which bring together industries and communities. There will also be another round of feasibility studies again next year.
Two other areas are also the subject of funded competitions. £8m is available for TRUSTED SERVICES SOLUTIONS in a competition starting on 10th May, and £5m for SMART METERS AND SMART GRIDS later the same month.
So over £30m allocated for innovation in this area – impressive in times of such financial crisis. I suppose there is a risk that these initiatives get cut after the election, but on the scale of things £30m doesn’t make much impact on the deficit.
Community broadband projects have been successful in the first round of feasibility studies. The well known Cybermoor project in Alston, and a neighbouring project in Weardale both got through and presented their work. 21Media from Lancaster University who worked with WrayComCom also got funding for a study into utility-like community networks providing a standardised infrastructure for multiple providers and service offerings. Aegis Systems were looking into low-cost backhaul using the 1800 MHz band, and Broadband Access Strategies LLP are building a review of cost-effective technologies for rural areas.
For more on these and other projects go to http://digitalbritain.innovateuk.org/
COLLABORATION NATION – DEPLOYMENT AND OPERATION OF DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE
“Collaboration Nation” was the conference organised by the Technology Strategy Board to showcase the 84 projects chosen in the Digital Britain innovation competition, worth in total £2m. One of the afternoon strands focused on infrastructure issues, the most relevant to community broadband initiatives.
BATH LABS was the first presentation. Their project aimed to demonstrate NGA delivery to flats, hotels etc at speeds of 1Gbps using unused bandwidth in the existing internal terrestrial TV distribution system. They reckoned this gave faster installation and reduced costs. A major advantage is that the TV system will already have maintenance arrangements (usually high quality). The market is a sizeable niche, though the many and varied installation arrangements can make a one-size fits all solution difficult. Neat solution for valuable niche.
NEXUS ALPHA have developed a very low power computer and are looking to take that further to 0.5W to 3W in order to run solar powered WiFi. This would be ideal for remote regions, bringing web connectivity to otherwise unconnected communities, and for temporary systems in emergency or relief situations.
To my mind, the most interesting presentation for community broadband groups was from POWERLINE TECHNOLOGIES. They string fibre over the overhead electricity infrastructure. A head-end is then installed on the final pole, where the transformer is located (and which is already reinforced). This provides 200Mbps to an average of 8 homes over broadband powerline communications. The same system can also provide backhaul into 3G not-spots and smart-grid capability to the electricity company, thereby sharing the costs between more players. They aim to do a proof of concept trial in April, and are looking for community partners.
ZAP CORPORATION’S pitch was totally different. They have a method of IP packet inspection which enables them to insert targeted content (ads) into IPTV streams. A profiling engine allocates individuals to one of many sub-sectors, allowing ad agencies to select appropriate content to be delivered. There are some data privacy issues, though active consent and the fact that individuals’ information is not released to the ad agencies get around most of them. Clearly this is a coming service – time will tell whether this is the right technology.
For more on these and other projects go to http://digitalbritain.innovateuk.org/
BATH LABS was the first presentation. Their project aimed to demonstrate NGA delivery to flats, hotels etc at speeds of 1Gbps using unused bandwidth in the existing internal terrestrial TV distribution system. They reckoned this gave faster installation and reduced costs. A major advantage is that the TV system will already have maintenance arrangements (usually high quality). The market is a sizeable niche, though the many and varied installation arrangements can make a one-size fits all solution difficult. Neat solution for valuable niche.
NEXUS ALPHA have developed a very low power computer and are looking to take that further to 0.5W to 3W in order to run solar powered WiFi. This would be ideal for remote regions, bringing web connectivity to otherwise unconnected communities, and for temporary systems in emergency or relief situations.
To my mind, the most interesting presentation for community broadband groups was from POWERLINE TECHNOLOGIES. They string fibre over the overhead electricity infrastructure. A head-end is then installed on the final pole, where the transformer is located (and which is already reinforced). This provides 200Mbps to an average of 8 homes over broadband powerline communications. The same system can also provide backhaul into 3G not-spots and smart-grid capability to the electricity company, thereby sharing the costs between more players. They aim to do a proof of concept trial in April, and are looking for community partners.
ZAP CORPORATION’S pitch was totally different. They have a method of IP packet inspection which enables them to insert targeted content (ads) into IPTV streams. A profiling engine allocates individuals to one of many sub-sectors, allowing ad agencies to select appropriate content to be delivered. There are some data privacy issues, though active consent and the fact that individuals’ information is not released to the ad agencies get around most of them. Clearly this is a coming service – time will tell whether this is the right technology.
For more on these and other projects go to http://digitalbritain.innovateuk.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)