Steering the QE2

Published on September 29, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 1 Comment Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

The hand wringing over the global economy continues, and the UK is now having to consider a second round of quantitative easing (QE – hope no-one thinks this will be about luxury cruises).

In normal times we have Qualitative Easing – changing the quality of the money supply by adjusting interest rates. When you can no longer adjust the quality of money then you need to adjust the quantity – in earlier times that meant printing new notes but today that typically means the central bank buys bonds (debt).

The last ’s QE1 programme resulted in the Bank of England buying bonds, and the money was used to fund general expenditure. This resulted in criticism from some quarters that the new cash didn’t optimise its impact on the wider economy. Expanding the money in circulation can have two high-level impacts:

  • It can ensure money is circulating so the economy doesn’t stop, and
  • It can be used to re-shape the economy so its more competitive when recovery comes.

It was certainly true that the former happened – because nurses and policemen kept their jobs and were paid the economy kept flowing. But the process didn’t have any lasting impact on the efficiency of the economy.

If we are to have a second round of quantitative easing, so called QE2, then a lasting impact will require investment in the shape of the economy - infrastructure, for example.

It is widely accepted that the funds available to BDUK form only a small proportion of the investment needed to ensure every UK business benefits from super-fast , even when added to the level of funding already committed by the industry. However, if QE2 was used to underwrite local authority bond issues, the sums committed to could be dramatically increased – and I purposefully use the word “underwrite” rather than simply “buy”.

Under the agenda, communities are encouraged to become more involved in their area but for many its simply not reasonable for them to build their own broadband infrastructure as it was the first time around, but that isn’t to say they don’t have a role beyond simply marketing the benefits of broadband.

By encouraging their local authority to issue infrastructure bonds, the community may be encouraged to invest in their future; by having the Bank of England underwrite the issue means the risk is somewhat reduced and the full funds may be raised in areas where there isn’t the investment cash available. This could be the 21st century “Tell Sid” campaign!

By using a local authority to issue the bonds, rather than a commercial telecoms company, ensures the wider economic impact for the area can be embeded in the process, alongside the commercial reality.

But since bonds are essentially long term loans that need to be paid back at some point in the future, today’s preferred gap funding models favoured by BDUK may not be ideal. As the local authority is today essentially providing grants to a third party to own, build and operate the network, there is no obvious mechanism for the local authority to recoup such an investment.

However, a model where the local authority issues a concession to a third party to build and operate the network but ownership remains with the local authority – or at least a stake is owned by the local authority – means they can at a later date refinance their investment to repay the bonds.

The UK already has examples of this kind of structure. NYnet in North Yorkshire is an example where the local authority retains 100% ownership, while FibreSpeed is a joint-venture model between Geo and the Welsh Assembly Government. There are pro’s and con’s to both approaches but the essence is the same – the bond owner would retain a stake to secure their investment.

I’ve no idea if we will see QE2 but if we do, this kind of approach would ensure not just the immediate re-floating of the economy but also a longer lasting impact on the UK competitiveness – we could become the first G20 country to have a fibre switch-over!

Its all about black and white

Published on September 17, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 12 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Anyone who has been close to any public sector involvement in is likely to have come across references to Black, White and Grey areas but I get the impression that the meaning is often not well understood; this is perhaps not surprising because there are in fact two models and rarely in my experience is the specific one being used named.

A bit of background. In 2009 the EU laid down some guidelines on where it was reasonable for a state to consider intervening in the broadband market; this introduced the concept of Black, White and Grey areas for classifying market failure in both and basic broadband areas. A black area is generally one with a strong, competitive market; grey with a developing market; and White where the market has essentially failed. White does not necessarily mean there is no broadband, just no functioning market.

Basic Broadband

  • A Black area is one which has two competing fixed line infrastructures. So in the UK that typically means areas where both BT and Virgin offer services.
  • A Grey area is one where there is only a single physical infrastructure but it supports a wholesale marketplace. In the UK this covers any unbundled telephone exchange where there is no cable service, for example. Perhaps surprisingly this covers both Ofcom market 2 and 3 areas.
  • A White area is one where there is no choice of physical infrastructure and no wholesale marketplace. This in the UK means Ofcom Market 1 areas with no other infrastructure.

NGA Broadband

The definition for NGA is broadly the same:

  • An area with competing NGA broadband infrastructures would be an NGA Black area. In the UK that might mean an area with both Virgin DOCSIS3 and BT Infinity services, for example. Somewhere like Bournemouth with City Fibre and Virgin would also be Black.
  • An NGA Grey area is where there is only a single NGA provider with a wholesale market. This means an area with only BT Infinity would be classed as Grey – but an area with only Virgin would not as they don’t wholesale access services.
  • An NGA White area is one where there is currently is no NGA market available and no credible plans to deliver an NGA service within 3 years. This could include areas where Virgin is the only NGA operator and the footprint of many community projects like Alston Cybermoor as they don’t currently wholesale their services.

There are some major caveats in this!!

Only fibre-based fixed-line technologies are currently considered NGA technologies – wireless and satellite are currently considered “complimentary” and an area served by either is not considered as NGA Grey or Black. This means an operator using a Gigabit microwave technology could legitimately face state subsidised competition from a 40 Mbps FttC provider – FiWi is not currently protected! This may (should!) change but its a risk that needs to be born in mind today!

What’s an Area?

The EU guidelines recommend that an “area” isn’t defined as an exchange district as it may benefit the incumbent. So what is an area? At the moment this is something of a grey area, to stay with the theme. The UK is providing local authorities with some latitude to choose between postcode areas and ONS “super output areas” (LSOA).

For a community thinking of building their own broadband solution, this loose definition may be critical. A postcode may only have 20-40 premises while a LSOA typically has about 400. A small community scheme may be protected from subsidised competition if the local authority decides to use postcodes as their defining area.

BUT if the LA uses super output areas as their measure, then any network which is much less than 400 premises could face a competitor legitimately subsidised by the BDUK framework.

Since BDUK are currently modelling communities as groups of around 100 premises, this seems rather contradictory.

BDUK Ambitions

The three years rule means that BDUK are able to focus their funding on the final third – the bit that BT haven’t formally announced. Their ambition appears to be to increase the NGA Grey and Black coverage from 66% to 90%. In the final 10% they want to ensure its at least Basic Broadband Grey (ie at least a single wholesale infrastructure).

NB: Big things you can’t ignore!

  1. Anyone considering building a network, whatever their motives, needs to make sure both BDUK and the relevant local authority are completely aware, not just of the currently footprint but the credible expansion plans covering the next three years. Failing to be on their radar may mean state subsidised competition and a battle over illegal state aid few smaller operators will be able to afford.
  2. A vague intention to offer wholesale services or simply making an offer to the market that is ignored is not good enough to be classed as “Grey” – you need to demonstrate a functioning wholesale market! Failing to demonstrate real wholesale agreements means your area remains “White” and could be legitimately subsidised. Working with a  national franchise model like Broadway Partners and including an existing mediator that can deliver a proven wholesale market will certainly help both whether you’re at the planning or delivery stage!
  3. And communities going it alone need to know what their local authority considers to be an “area” – if its an ONS LSOA, make sure your project covers one!

The more you think about this, the more implications you will stumble across. This a very messy, complex, and shifting space. Whoever you are, don’t do it alone!

Unintended consequences

Published on September 16, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 7 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Even the best planned actions can fall foul of unintended consequences but its probably fair to say that the more rigorous the thinking the less likely they are.

In this vein I’m beginning to hear of a growing number of communities that are finding that, far from supporting them as they try to become part of the solution to their problems, their local authorities are becoming hostile. Of course this is far from common but it is being reported and does appear to be growing in some districts.

The root behind it seems to be the mechanism which is supposed to protect them. BDUK is only allowed to spend its funds in what the EU calls “White areas” – areas where the market has failed to deliver a viable broadband solution.

The logic chain says that if a provider delivers a viable solution then the area must be designated as either “Grey” or “Black” depending on the level of new competition.

Some local authorities, understanding this, are concerned that if their communities push ahead, their BDUK allocation will start to shrink as more areas become “Grey”. While the local authorities don’t directly profit from the BDUK money, it will mean they have less funding to engage one of the framework partners.

My understanding is that BDUK has essentially divided their half-billion fund in two broadly equal pots; half for achieving 90% FttC and half to ensure the final 10% has access to at least 2 Mbps via satellite or wireless.

Based on this, the level of subvention per premise in the final 10% is significantly higher than in the 90%, so community projects starting out now may result in a disproportionate drop in the LA’s BDUK funding – or at least that’s how some local authorities appear to be understanding it.

The logical answer to this is to ensure communities are, in reality, engaged in this process as stakeholder and not simply as “demand stimulators” (glorified marketing agents), and that, as Mr Clegg said, BDUK increase the speed of the programme so people don’t feel excluded or simply tired of waiting.

But do the normal rules of logic apply here though?

Reliable data

Published on September 11, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 8 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Recently we have seen BDUK announce the funding allocations to local authorities and the devolved assemblies, and the companies aiming hoping to get on the national framework have been short-listed. The sums awarded to councils were modelled by BDUK according to their understanding of need, and at the moment the framework companies are trying to develop a consistent understanding of what will be required of them and their shareholders should they be successful.

At stake is the investment of billions of pounds and public and private money, and the future competitiveness of the UK economy. Yet questions have been raise in several quarters for quite some time now about the accuracy of BDUKs data on which all this investment sits. So for the record I decided to correlate a source of data I have grown to trust – from who in turn get their DSL data from BT – against a set of BDUK data for the same area. The sample included a little over 19,000 postcodes.

BDUK Broadband Speed data

(click the graph to see a bigger version)

The plot shows BDUK speeds along the horizontal with BT speeds on the vertical, with each point representing a postcode average. If the two sets agreed the points should broadly align along the diagonal but its clear there is a limited correlation between the two sets.

This data is for , so the first location I checked was my own postcode. BDUK suggests that I should get 13971.456kbps while BT suggests I get 6Mbps with ADSL2+. With an ordinary ISP I do in fact get 6 Mbps (Be There uniquely allow me to tune the connection so I get a shade more).

In fact on 76% of occasions the BDUK data offers faster speeds than BT’s reported data, and on average 52% faster.

When focussing in on just the 2 Mbps Universal Service Commitment, relying on BDUK data would result in about 900 postcodes having a problem addressed which doesn’t exist, yet almost 40% of the areas which do suffer at less than 2 Mbps would have been missed altogether.

In 63 cases the discrepancy was more than 22 Mbps – or rather BDUK expected people to receive what they now consider “superfast broadband” when in fact no broadband was available at all.

From what I understand none of the usual sources relied on by the industry provided BDUK with this data and that the speeds are reported to thousandths of a kilobit suggests Excel may have been involved somewhere along the line rather than empirical data.

This information was provided to BDUK but they were largely unconcerned about the discrepancy at the time.

I’ll allow you to come to your own conclusions about the impact this might have had on the decisions BDUK is making and the fairness of funding allocations. For organisations seeking to be part of the framework, this data appears to be having a continuing impact.

NOTE: This is one of a number of blog articles which had gone unpublished for some time, occasionally dusted off and updated but left on the spike. For much of BDUK’s existence I have been supportive, and after it became clear that they were ignoring offers of help and advice from many of the people I know I had remained reluctant to be openly dismissive. But as the programme evolved it has become harder and harder to be supportive, there became fewer and fewer good news stories to write about, and my own postings became less frequent and rarely positive good news stories.

I’m publishing this now to draw a line under the whole process – time to get on with projects that make a difference in reality.

Suffolk issues two important tenders

Published on July 31, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 0 Comments

I’ve recently been working with Suffolk ACRE on shaping up two key tenders for the county – one a small but very important fibre project in the village of Parham, the other a model for wireless to ensure everyone in East Suffolk has access to good, reliable  wherever they may live.

Beyond simply delivering broadband in challenging areas, the goal for both is also to learn – to create models and case studies which will influence the way broadband can be delivered in rural areas everywhere. The Parham fibre project, for example, is as much about creating a sustainable balance of roles between the local community and network operators as it is about simply delivering super-fast broadband.

The tender is seeking companies who are keen to demonstrate innovation in the way customer connections can be installed both in terms of technology advances as well as process and business innovation.

My own feeling is that these could be very important projects – ones which help develop our understanding of how we can deliver true next generation services more widely through smarter collaboration between the public sector, industry and the community.

Suffolk ACRE’s formal notice is as follows:

“Suffolk ACRE has issued two invitations to tender for the design, installation and operation of a wide area wireless next generation broadband network in east Suffolk and also a fibre to the premise network in Parham. Companies interested in bidding should in the first instance email: broadbandbids@suffolkacre.org.uk. Closing date for bid submission is 9am on the 12th September 2011.”

So if you’d like to be considered for either of these exciting tenders, please contact Suffolk ACRE directly at broadbandbids@suffolkacre.org.uk.

Clearing up a little confusion. . .

Published on July 22, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 0 Comments

I just wanted to clear up a little confusion that I’ve had fed back to me.

BroadwayPartners is a new venture which has brought together the financial acumen of Michael Armitage and Alexander Sleigh with the experience of David Brunnen and myself, with hopefully two or three surprising additions coming on board very soon to complete the team.

While we are very supportive of what INCA is doing in the industry, BroadwayPartners isn’t an INCA venture or subsidiary – although we do aim to become members very soon (all part of the bootstrap phase) and will work to support their aims.

I suspect the confusion came about because this blog is very kindly syndicated by INCA on their website (and long may it remain so!), and my involvement was announced here.

If, like BroadwayPartners, you are engaged in new forms of , independent and collaboratively minded, perhaps you should consider joining INCA also.

Speech to INCA workshop – Community Broadband is Dead

Published on July 19, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

What follows is the transcript of a speech I gave to INCA’s workshop held on the 19th July at the Frontline Club. This was a difficult speech to give, but one I felt I had to give.

The speech was given as part of the events opening “provocations” to seed debate, so it was just 5 minutes long. To help clarify some points, I’ve added footnotes to the text – hover over the numbers to see some of my clarifications.

-

It saddens me – that I feel it necessary to say what I’m about to say but it does come from the heart.

There is no such thing as “community ” – its dead, gone.

Or rather “community broadband” as its often described – a neatly delineated, easily identifiable scheme run by ardent enthusiasts on the fringes – is dead.

This is an image that perhaps fitted the initial wave of broadband schemes a decade ago, when the policy was to fund regional procurement programmes and target wireless and satellite solutions at the rural fringes.

That ended in 2005 when Tony Blair stood up at his party conference and announced that broadband was done – or at least I thought it ended then

To celebrate 10 years of unevolving community broadband, it appears we are to do the exact same thing again, if the the models appearing from BDUK are to be believed[1] – either a very brave move based on something none of us have spotted or one detached from any sense of ambition or reality.

In the beginning communities clambered across church roofs, installed wireless aerials, and were the pioneers of broadband in rural areas – over 200 at the peak.

Today, communities recognise they still live in broadband unfriendly areas, but they also recognise that the technology is more complex this time and the business case much longer and more difficult to make.

That doesn’t mean, though, that they can simply be patted on the head and told not to worry. Many, many communities – wise from their experience – know they need to be involved if they are to have an infrastructure which meets their ambitions.

Right now, very few know what form that role will take – demand stimulation, contracting to pre-orders, helping with way-leaves, investing their own money, and, yes, possibly digging their own trenches – but they know they must be stakeholders, sat around the table as equals.

Those from the industry that have overcome what might be called the Rumsfeld “unknown-unknowns”[2] and have started to do the really hard thinking – and I include Fujitsu, Geo and BT as much the likes of Rutland – have realised that the traditional resource constrained, lean and efficient relationship with customers can’t support the business case – the take-up and cost-savings necessary to deliver long-term solutions in any geography.

A much more collaborative relationship is needed, working with communities as partners, developing what Kees Rovers calls the “us feeling”[3] – but this is a very hard thing for a traditional telecoms company to do – its not obvious how you can make it scale, for example – but they know that to be a successful player they need to find answers.

Which is why you find senior executives from major corporations turning up to village halls – this has created a growing, common vocabulary and a space in which a dialogue between stakeholders can occur and a balance sought.

Local authorities also often turn up to these meetings – they have the equally hard goals of reducing costs, transforming the way they deliver services, while ensuring they have a competitive local economy

But I’d have to say that, in my experience, few councils have moved much beyond a strategy which involves “shovelling the money towards an industrial giant in the hope it just makes the bad problems go away”.

I don’t blame them – this is very hard, far from their core competence, and the advice they often receive is contradictory, rapidly changing and detached.

However, where the shift has happened its been quite brilliant to watch – my own county, , has gone through a lot of real pain to move from an overly simplistic model towards one which understands , understands the nature of the problem, and is beginning to understand the nature of the solution.

It certainly wasn’t easy for them – and they deserved to feel proud of the progress they made – at least until BDUK decided to become misty-eyed for the past and shifted their policy from localism to the centralism of the last .[4]

As a result we now have a situation where the industry is increasingly able to sit around the table with communities, work with them towards the holy grail of long term solutions which scale and meet both sides ambitions and capabilities.

While, it seems, at a completely different table sits the voice of BDUK, advising councils, and closing out many of those who may know a thing or two about this space.[5]

The reason this comes from the heart ought to be clear to most of you. Like many in this room, I’ve spent a very long time trying to figure out how to deliver sustainable and universal broadband. There are very, very good people in BDUK who have been part of this process – and from the outset those people sat around the same table as the rest of us, seeking the same solutions, and for that they garnered a lot of respect and goodwill from just about everyone.

In the last few months, however, much of that goodwill has evaporated. I’m yet to find a single person active in this space – industry or community – that thinks the framework is a good idea – I have found one or two in the public sector but even there, support is far from universal.

So, to the leadership of BDUK I say this – stop listening to price tag of the advice, and start listening to the experience within your organisation. Only then can you properly guide local councils – and recover your relationship with the parts of the the industry that matter and with communities.[6]

And more widely in the public sector I say this – Community Broadband, as you know it, is dead!

Lets start afresh and recognise that all forms of future broadband are in a sense Community Broadband – long live community broadband! Thank you[7]

-
Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. All BDUK models and the advice they seem to give to local authorities talks of FttC to much of the country, typically based on BT products and services, with wireless and satellite services for the rest. Don’t assume this means BT are in some way complicit – I suspect they are as frustrated as everyone else↵
  2. As anyone who has been involved in building a next generation access network will attest, the process is a complex journey which only begins after the first step. Operators whose experience is limited to core networks or first generation broadband are yet to understand this complexity. Experienced major operators have found this as much as smaller, newer organisations – those that understand the complexities of are a clear subset of the industry.↵
  3. Kees Rovers is the man behind the OnsNet network in The Netherlands. His approach is defined by 7-pillars, necessary principles for a successful broadband project. The “Us feeling” is a sense the community is in some way a stakeholder, engaged in its delivery.↵
  4. BDUK’s expectation that local authorities should use their central framework to find a single partner to deliver their local broadband plan has in many cases stopped the very difficult but necessary thinking being done by many local authorities, and pandered to those that wanted any easy process.↵
  5. The BDUK framework excludes almost every organisation with experience of building next generation networks, in some cases by what appears to be carefully crafted rules targeting specific organisations. There is also frustration being expressed by a growing number of people who feel excluded from dialogue with BDUK – meetings cancelled, concerns ignored, and a sense the dialogue has simply ended.↵
  6. I don’t know what changed inside BDUK but its clear something changed. From the outset there was a very fluid and constructive dialogue between most people involved in this space – at one time I might meet people within BDUK almost weekly. That phase has very clearly gone now. Personally I’ve not had a dialogue with BDUK of any merit in some months, and much of the advice I and many others have offered in the past has clearly been set aside.↵
  7. I’d like to think that its not too late for BDUK to repair their relationship with the industry and communities but time is certainly running out. A year has gone by, and the framework will absorb much of the next one. Communities and the industry want to make progress more quickly, with greater ambition, and with more consensus – BDUK should be part of that process, and not  allow themselves to become a competing factor as we move forward.

    This remains a very challenging goal but the policy can’t be a success if the majority of stakeholders are at odds with the policy delivery team. The original goals need to be restored; this process which will surely only deliver an efficient way to spend money needs to encompass the goal of becoming a broadband superpower again – and that will need everyone.↵

Announcement: Getting us back on track

Published on July 6, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 0 Comments

It’s become fairly obvious that recent posts have started to diverge from the ’s plan – not the policy but the actions taken to implement the policy. Its something I’m disappointed about, but its also something that has clearly become more widespread.

For a long time now I’ve been trying to get my head around how to combine the necessary stakeholders so the most creative solutions can start to benefit people, the economy and the telecoms industry.

So today I’m announcing that I’ve joined forces with some of the most experienced hands in the industry to form BroadwayPartners

Together with David Brunnen, Michael Armitage and Alexander Sleigh, BroadwayPartners will provide the capability to link communities with industry partners to deliver sustainable and ambitious broadband solutions.

BroadwayPartners delivers a form of franchise structure where local communities can participate in a two-stage process leading to a sustainable and fundable broadband vehicle that matches ambition with capability. We will will match each scheme with the most appropriate industry partners from a framework of experienced companies who will help build and operate the network in concert with the local community.

Recognising that in order to build a superfast next generation network requires significant investment, BroadwayPartners are in the process of creating two new funding structures:

  • A national investment fund
  • A templated community investment fund

When launched, the national fund will be open to anyone interested in investing in next generation broadband in the UK, with funds invested in a variety of local franchised schemes. While the community investment fund is designed for people and businesses that wish to  invest specifically in their own local scheme.

During the two-phase process, a careful balance of local and national funds will be matched with vendor and network operator investments to deliver the optimal solution for each area.

For communities, BroadwayPartners will provide a mechanism to structure and prove the business case for delivering the best broadband infrastructure possible, matching ambition with a sustainable business plan and the right mix of industry partners to make it happen.

For companies involved in delivering next generation broadband, BroadwayPartners will provide a structured approach to engaging communities and bridging the investment gap.

We hope to make ambitious broadband plans viable in just about any community, anywhere.

Broadband Poll

Published on July 4, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 4 Comments

First of all, thank you for all the people who completed the poll.

And now the results.

Is the proposed BDUK framework good for the industry and customers?

  • 63% disagree
  • 21% are unsure
  • 14% agree
  • 2% were unaware of the framework

I suppose the upside is that the BDUK have done a good job of promoting the framework, but with only 1 in 7  supporting the framework it suggests more work is needed to engage with people.

Is the ’s 2015 broadband target still realistic?

  • 80% said “No”
  • 11% said they were “Unsure”
  • 9% said it was achievable

Such a clear statement surprised me – personally I have moved from a big “Yes” to “Unsure” and drifting towards “No”, and not really known for sitting on the fence I suspected that the answer would be more nuanced than this. I guess my concern about such a clear sentiment is that there may be a temptation to redefine the goals so Sir Humphrey can try to persuade us the goals have been met – perhaps by limiting Europe to the EU, or by redefining the speed within a band which begins at just 15 Mbps.

Do you feel more or less optimistic than 6-months ago about the development of “superfast” broadband in the UK?

  • 2% were a lot more optimistic
  • 20% were a little more optimistic
  • 5% felt it was too difficult to call
  • 40% were a little more pessimistic
  • 33% were a lot more pessimistic

So a clear majority (73%) are feeling less happy about the way we are progressing towards our digital future than at the beginning of the year. This didn’t surprise me – I can’t remember the last conversation I had with anyone in the industry that felt things were moving along nicely, and certainly confidence in BDUK’s ability to deliver seems to have taken a major knock in recent weeks.

I have to come clean now – the reason I set the poll was to cheer me up. I was hoping the message coming back would be that its not as bad as I thought and I should look for the positives because they’re clearly out there. Sadly the clear majority feel at least as depressed as I do.

The poll was set up to be anonymous – I’d really like the 2% who are more optimistic and the 14% of who think the BDUK framework is helpful to contact me and tell me why they are more positive than the majority. I won’t publish names if you prefer, but I’d really like to see the more positive side.

So if you said you’re more optimistic or you felt the BDUK framework is a good thing – contact me! Please!

Everything should be made as simple as possible. . .

Published on July 3, 2011 in Adrian's tech blog. 6 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

The debate about what’s going wrong with the policy is becoming quite complex, messy and somewhat emotional.

For me, the key policy of making the UK the best “superfast” (meaning > 24 Mbps) broadband market in Europe is the right one. Delivering that in tandem with the bill and while supporting SMEs couldn’t be better. These are all things that get my total support – and I hear very few detractors (quite the opposite).

The rub for many people seems to be in the delivery – a matter of policy implementation and interpretation. A key example (totem?) is the framework which contains what appears to be little more than lip service to the policy – an opening few paragraphs that give the appearance of supporting the policy followed by a long list of qualifying criteria which, one by one, chip away at the goals until there is almost nothing left – even the stated objective of super-fast broadband seems to have been discarded, or at best re-framed, along the way.

There have been conspiracy theories that this is a stitch up between and BT but I don’t support that for one minute. To begin with, I suspect that the framework isn’t something BT would prefer to support but will pragmatically go along with as its what’s on offer.

Einstein is quoted as saying:

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.“

For me this is a case of a very complex problem that’s been reduced beyond the possible degree of simplicity – the framework assumes a level of homogeneity of technology, scale, business model, financing, risk, partnership and so forth that just isn’t possible – BUT it is much simpler to manage.

The original policy objectives appear to have got lost in a drive to find the optimal process – or at least the one that’s the least bother to oversee.

This isn’t a time for a difficult u-turn – this is a time for politicians to crack the whip and make sure the policy is implemented as stated.

There are very good people inside BDUK, and they didn’t suddenly switch off. Something has happened that group at the top – whether it was the change of management or the influence of KPMG but it is something that can be corrected – but time is not on anyone’s side. One or the other or both need refocussing, and very soon.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin