The opening talk at yesterday’s Westminster eForum meeting was given by Robert Sullivan, the relatively new head of Broadband Delivery UK, itself the quite new organisation charged by Government to facilitate the roll-out of superfast broadband in the UK.
He first addressed the objective as set out by Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: “within this parliament we want Britain to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe.” This clearly begs the question what one means by “best” - Sullivan said BDUK was working on a definition and thought it would not be a single measure, such as headline speed. Instead it would be some sort of “scorecard” based on “outcomes”. They wanted a dialogue with stakeholders about this. If one were being sceptical one might think the target would be set in a way which pre-figured success.
Sullivan discussed the “Theoretical Exercises” that had examined the economics of providing superfast broadband in three challenging real-world areas – a paper is being written on this and will be out “soon”. But some particular points had already emerged:
• Delivering the USC is not a separate issue
• The cost of backhaul is a major factor in the economics
• Getting revenue to cover opex is difficult enough even if capex is 100% funded
• A mix of technology solutions is likely
The key obviously is getting a viable business case. Sullivan covered the three primary ways of doing this:
Reduce costs: duct and pole sharing as in Ofcom’s Wholesale Line Access review – BT reference offer due by January 2011; reuse of other utility infrastructure – electricity poles seems the most promising; reuse of public sector networks
Increase demand: through community engagement; demand registration (eg BT “Race to Infinity”); and increasing online activity by demonstrating benefits (Race Online 2010)
Public funding: £530m was secured through the Comprehensive Spending Review (ie taken from BBC); ERDF funding is available; other public sector bodies (eg councils, Devolved Administrations) might wish to contribute; and a variety of business models could be explored – gap funding, revenue share, public asset ownership.
The four Pilots announced – in North Yorkshire, Highlands & Islands, Cumbria and Herefordshire – will be funded to the tune of £5m to £10m each. These pilots will test the reuse of public sector networks and infrastructure sharing.
A BIS strategy paper is due in December.
In questioning, Sullivan explained that he thought the scorecard would be more about applications than headline speeds, and that performance requirements would follow from that. Tendering for pilots would be done locally through the usual open procedures – details are being worked out now, but they will not all be ready at the same time. Finally, we had the inevitable question about “fibre tax”, the rating system applied to fibre networks. To which we had the civil service answer of “ongoing round table discussions”, need for a level playing field etc etc.
So on the plus side there is some money available and pilots are soon to get under way. On the other hand. BDUK seem to be a classic civil service outfit, Sullivan has no telecoms experience and no real decisions have been made yet. It will still be for community groups to drive things forward.
Friday, 5 November 2010
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Westminster eForum Building 21st century broadband
Sub-titled "paying,laying and simulating demand", this WeF meeting today went over much of the common ground on "superfast broadband"- things do move forward but not exactly in leaps and bounds.
I'll be writing more detailed reviews of each session over the next couple of days, but to give an overview, here is my summary
"Same old barriers" - Robert Sullivan, Broadband Delivery UK: a classic civil servant session: we're reviewing what "best broadband in Europe means" ("When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean); a strategy paper will be out "soon"; we must have a dialogue about all this. There were some real points too: eg backhaul is an issue.
"Delivering next generation infrastructure" - Liv Garfield, BT. Impressive roll-call of statistics, a sound grasp of reality, and no bullshit. But no solution to final third.
"Making rural broadband a reality": Charles Trotman, Country Land and Business Assocaition; "our members own half of Britain", "The Duke of Westminster's estate has not-spots in it" - perhaps the Duke could cough up a contribution to rural broadband himself !
Malcolm Corbett INCA; "patchwork quilt of initiatives" - INCA is stitching together (not stitching up, I trust)
Jonathan Freeman, Arqiva - surprise, a common radio network would be a good thing
Mark Falcon, Three - surprise,surprise, Three do a lot of mobile broadband.
"100Mbps Britain", Duncan Higgins, Virgin Media
Fast broadband is selling. VM broadband is fastest and most accurately advertised
NGA and 100Mbps demand
Martin Scottt, Analysys Mason: demand comes from multiple uses of known technology (eg HD, P2P), then from increased cloud computing and then who knows (Rumsfeld "unkhown unknowns")
Adrian Crook, Fibrecity: customers buying 100Mbps - offered on a "suck it and see" basis
Colin Browne, Consumer Panel: very anxious that the superfast broadband debate doesn't eclipse the 2Mbps Universal Service Commitment.
Antony Walker, BSG: customers view headline speeds as a proxy for quality of experience; industry needs to understand demand levels for business cases and network dinmensioning; public policy should not be driven just be headline speeds, but by opportunities for innovation and improved productivity
Delivering and laying the 21st century network: Ronan Dunne, Telefonica O2 UK.
Glossy presentation and corporate speak (eg "O2Learn") got in the way of a real message, but clearly there is an investment challenge, a need to revise business modela and a concern about inclusion.
"paying for the laying"
Tim Johnson, Point Topic: £530m not enough (no evidence though)
Andrew Riseley, Berwin Leighton Paisner: Australian Government is investing £26bn and structurally separating Telstra - but will it happen and will it work ?
Simon Loe, Alcatel-Lucent: understated presentation given all they are doing, but highlighted a key issue of how to capture benefits of eg TeleHealth within the business case.
Aidan Paul, Vtesse: usual complaint about ratings system and "fibre tax" - doesn't mean he's wrong though.
Watch this space for more over the coming days.
I'll be writing more detailed reviews of each session over the next couple of days, but to give an overview, here is my summary
"Same old barriers" - Robert Sullivan, Broadband Delivery UK: a classic civil servant session: we're reviewing what "best broadband in Europe means" ("When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean); a strategy paper will be out "soon"; we must have a dialogue about all this. There were some real points too: eg backhaul is an issue.
"Delivering next generation infrastructure" - Liv Garfield, BT. Impressive roll-call of statistics, a sound grasp of reality, and no bullshit. But no solution to final third.
"Making rural broadband a reality": Charles Trotman, Country Land and Business Assocaition; "our members own half of Britain", "The Duke of Westminster's estate has not-spots in it" - perhaps the Duke could cough up a contribution to rural broadband himself !
Malcolm Corbett INCA; "patchwork quilt of initiatives" - INCA is stitching together (not stitching up, I trust)
Jonathan Freeman, Arqiva - surprise, a common radio network would be a good thing
Mark Falcon, Three - surprise,surprise, Three do a lot of mobile broadband.
"100Mbps Britain", Duncan Higgins, Virgin Media
Fast broadband is selling. VM broadband is fastest and most accurately advertised
NGA and 100Mbps demand
Martin Scottt, Analysys Mason: demand comes from multiple uses of known technology (eg HD, P2P), then from increased cloud computing and then who knows (Rumsfeld "unkhown unknowns")
Adrian Crook, Fibrecity: customers buying 100Mbps - offered on a "suck it and see" basis
Colin Browne, Consumer Panel: very anxious that the superfast broadband debate doesn't eclipse the 2Mbps Universal Service Commitment.
Antony Walker, BSG: customers view headline speeds as a proxy for quality of experience; industry needs to understand demand levels for business cases and network dinmensioning; public policy should not be driven just be headline speeds, but by opportunities for innovation and improved productivity
Delivering and laying the 21st century network: Ronan Dunne, Telefonica O2 UK.
Glossy presentation and corporate speak (eg "O2Learn") got in the way of a real message, but clearly there is an investment challenge, a need to revise business modela and a concern about inclusion.
"paying for the laying"
Tim Johnson, Point Topic: £530m not enough (no evidence though)
Andrew Riseley, Berwin Leighton Paisner: Australian Government is investing £26bn and structurally separating Telstra - but will it happen and will it work ?
Simon Loe, Alcatel-Lucent: understated presentation given all they are doing, but highlighted a key issue of how to capture benefits of eg TeleHealth within the business case.
Aidan Paul, Vtesse: usual complaint about ratings system and "fibre tax" - doesn't mean he's wrong though.
Watch this space for more over the coming days.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
£530m for super-fast broadband
In yesterday's Comprehensive Spending Review, despite the huges cuts elewhere, the government announced that the £530m earmarked for rural broadband will be safeguarded. Super-fast broadband will be trialled in the Highlands, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Herefordshire. The money is being recycled from the BBC:
- £230m is left over from the Digital Switchover budget;
- and the BBC will contribute a further £150m in each of 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The recently announced project in Cornwall cost £132m - so how far will the money go ?
Previously we analysed the Labout Government £6/year "broadband tax"
Then we suggested that this figure looked close to the amount needed,but probably fell a little short. So on that basis the current amounts won't do the job.
However, there may be other ways forward. The costs for local initiatives tend to be less than BT; the fund might be used only for initial capex rather than full funding; and local community services may generate extra revenues that telcos could not capture.
We wait with interest further details from BDUK
- £230m is left over from the Digital Switchover budget;
- and the BBC will contribute a further £150m in each of 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The recently announced project in Cornwall cost £132m - so how far will the money go ?
Previously we analysed the Labout Government £6/year "broadband tax"
Then we suggested that this figure looked close to the amount needed,but probably fell a little short. So on that basis the current amounts won't do the job.
However, there may be other ways forward. The costs for local initiatives tend to be less than BT; the fund might be used only for initial capex rather than full funding; and local community services may generate extra revenues that telcos could not capture.
We wait with interest further details from BDUK
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Broadband Delivery UK explain more of their plans
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)