They do exist, and not in just the new in take. They just need the platform to make a difference.

Until we break the monopoly which is throttling innovation and get some affordable backhaul into the rural areas we can’t build open access networks or any networks. The only way is economy of scale, and not many areas will work together at this moment in time, as they are all waiting for government help. Once people realise they are stuck on the wrong side of a digital divide they will start to work together. Like b4rn has.

As I pointed out to you, the data-book to support a bid to the RCBF contains little you wouldn’t need to complete a business plan should you be asking for funding from private sources; I see no reason why public bodies wouldn’t want to know that you have proof of demand, have a basic understand of your broadband landscape, your potential competition, and the offering you plan. If you think this is to challenging, perhaps you’d like to try a private equity house and see if they ask for less.

Also as pointed out to you, local authorities, including yours, have been willing to help communities to complete the application process, and in some cases have been willing to offer grants to help fund the process – don’t think the average private equity house does that.

Cabinets aren’t suitable for rural areas. BET is a total waste of space. Satellites are great for a quick fix, but too expensive for most people to run long term. Wifi is not up to it. Mobile hardly exists in rural areas. The only sensible solution to rural is fibre. New fibre networks can be expensive to install, and the ROI can be quite lengthy, but looking at it long term they are the most cost effective. The eventual Return on Investment is there, as is the enhanced quality of life, regeneration of rural areas, compliance with EU dictates, a break up of the monopoly which is throttling innovation in this country and altogether the Best Thing we could do if we want to see a digital britain in our lifetimes.

Broadband, roads, nuclear power, etc etc – basically anything where most of the money stays onshore.

In most cases councillors don’t engage with the solution at all, council leaders engage when there is cash by want a simple solution that doesn’t commit the council to a complex solution, and local authority officers have a tendency not to see solutions beyond BT. A pretty sweeping statement and there are of course exceptions but as rule of thumb that’s probably a fair generalisation (if a generalisation is ever fair).

Motivations for community wireless projects varied. Most I think didn’t expect to be in this game for the long-haul and were happy to shut down when an alternative solution came along. Some had unhelpful public funding constraints which were aimed at economic drivers rather than SME business drivers. And some were just bad businesses, like in any sector.

While I think communities for the most part have learnt from this experience, and there is evidence that some industry players are also beginning to develop a more nuanced approach largely from their European experiences (again, not all good), the public sector at national and local level hasn’t really moved on – except in some very welcome pockets.

At the moment communities feeling that their best option is to become part of their own broadband solutions are likely to find their sustainability will be enhanced by working with industry partners and damaged by working with the public sector. I hope this changes.

The base offer expected by BDUK is that the final 10% will be solved with some mix of wireless and satellite – just like pre-2005.

I think there is also somehow this sense that a community network is one exclusively run by the community and the community alone. That might have been the approach for early wireless networks and one or two NGA pioneers but it certainly isn’t the model adopted across Europe and its not likely to be the one adopted by sustainable, viable networks in the UK.

It is critical that this idea that community networks are small and amateurish. Those communities that can’t move on will fail and deserve to. But I see very little evidence of communities rushing to build fibre networks as they might have done early wireless ones. The vast majority recognise the difference in business model, longevity and complexity.

Its just a shame the public sector hasn’t seen that change, and that parts of the industry are clearly going to lose out while others begin to benefit from higher take-up, better loyalty and more sustainable partnerships.

Might be worth having a look at this: http://wooster.org.uk/2011/07/community-dead/

Let’s face it the notspots are still notspots 6-8 years after the ADSL1 rollout so the magic of “community” didn’t deliver to those areas.

The USC is met by satellite, isn’t it ?

How do community networks ensure they they have skills and commitment for the next 20 years?

No-one should be thinking about doing this alone, and I include Councils and most of the industry in this. This is especially true as very little briefing information is available to anyone but public servants – with the BDUK Huddle site a closed area its very hard for anyone to know what can and can’t be done.