Tag Archive for 'BD-UK'

Page 2 of 3

Localism, innovation – and national frameworks?


I think it was Cisco’s John Chambers that once said that big companies can’t innovate, as he refocussed a large part of their R&D budget to nurturing and developing partnerships with small companies that could. Today we are seeing a similar trend in the pharmaceutical industry, where large internal research labs are being replaced by smaller external research companies.

And it is smaller, more nimble companies that are developing innovative business approaches, technologies, and service delivery models in broadband; not just in the UK but across Europe. Heavy Reading predicted that around 60% of European connections would be delivered by non-incumbents, with the largest sector being local municipal networks led by smart, small-scale innovators.

While the pattern in the UK is a little different, we too are seeing innovation growing just as it has across the continent, but these companies need space and support to develop in order that their impact can be felt, their promise can be assessed, and for the main industry players to construct partnerships or acquire the best of them. So with this in mind, the ’s policies for supporting SMEs in public procurement exercises and the wider agenda are both smart and well timed if the UK is to genuinely deliver “Europe’s best superfast broadband market by 2015″.

Few sensible people would argue with the policy – but there appears to be growing concern over the implementation.

The announcement of BDUK’s intention to procure a national framework seems to have simultaneously divided the industry and undermined the Government’s policy objective. Having spoken to industry players that say they’ve seen drafts of the procurement plan, they tell me that it will require revenues of at least £40m generated in at least the last two consecutive years, excluding not just SME’s but many of the established players in the industry as well.

Nobody doubts that delivering such an ambitious plan will be very hard, but side-lining the most nimble, innovative players won’t make it any easier.

Let’s hope the rumours and grumblings are ill-founded!

Mixed Ambitions


Or why this isn’t an IT project.

Last year, when announced the BDUK competitions, I commented at the time that it felt like ambition was back on the agenda.

A year on, is really beginning to play out – or perhaps more accurately, a developing understanding of what it might mean is beginning to grow  as local authorities construct their broadband strategies. This process has created a space for communities, the public sector and the telecoms industry to have a dialogue.

As with any organic and new process, progress is far from uniform – in some places communities are developing a stronger voice; in other the local authority is taking a stronger lead; and some parts of the industry have been more receptive than others. In some areas progress has been rapid, and in others painfully slow.

If there is a criticism of the new localism agenda, it is this.

Local authorities have spent more than a decade increasingly micro-managed. There has been little reason to consider risks in their corporate strategy as they were largely told by how and what to prioritise. There has been little reason to open a dialogue with local communities because there was little scope to adapt to their needs.

Localism has put this process sharply in reverse – local authorities now need to consider their appetite for risk and to match it with their communities ambitions and needs – yet these skills no longer come easily to many councils. This isn’t a criticism of councillors or council officials – its simply a reality.

In fact, to their credit, many councils have risen to the challenge – at times it may be faltering but nevertheless localism is happening and I suspect it feels rather liberating.

But in some areas it has proved harder – the tools with which to form a dialogue with communities have been harder to muster, and the risk associated with taking risks has been too difficult to contemplate.

A common theme among these areas is that they typically draft in the IT department to lead their bid, assuming that developing a broadband strategy is a technology process which can be developed from the centre and in isolation using their specialists. Its not!

  • Broadband plans are about the local economy and competitiveness,
  • Broadband plans are about how local services are delivered,
  • Broadband plans are about people and businesses.

Local authorities who hand their broadband strategy over to their IT department will ultimately be as disappointed as if they had handed teaching or social work over to them.

IT is an enabler that helps to solve real world issues; broadband is just a tool they might use that cuts across every possible policy area. The strategic basis of a broadband plan must be in the hands of people who deal with those real world issues.

Look to . Ed is a multi-faceted person but he’s not a technologist, he doesn’t surround himself with geeks, and yet he fully understands the impact a good broadband strategy will have on the creative industries and media, rural areas and the wider economy.

has seen the benefits of localism and the impact broadband could have on his rural constituency without resulting to a discussion on bits, bytes and symmetry.

The certain disappointment of not following their lead may be hard, expensive and slow to rectify as well.

If neighbouring areas solve this problem better then rate-paying businesses will begin to migrate, making the rural areas a place to retire to rather than grow a business.

If businesses migrate, younger people will migrate to find the work.

And an area with relatively poor infrastructure means even elderly people will slowly migrate as the services which would keep them in touch with their families and allow them to stay in their homes longer won’t be there.

The risk associated with avoiding risks is much higher than developing a measured appetite that allows local ambitions to be met.

Being ambitious for your locality is the less risky path to tread.

An observation on British broadband #1


Some key announcements have been made in the last couple of weeks or so and its worth considering what they may mean for broadband in the UK – I don’t know why it took me so long but the conclusion is quite startling!

Firstly, we are seeing a host of new models and investment announcements which are making the final third – the most rural parts of the UK – a viable and exciting place to invest in -optic broadband – providing you have the logistics and business model sorted. Fujitsu, Rutland Telecom, NextGenUs and Jendens – jointly and severally – all making headway in their own distinctive way.

Secondly, BT has announced it expects to be lifting VDSL speeds using existing phone lines under its Infinity investment from “up to 40 Mbps” to northwards of “up to 80 Mbps” in the relatively short term. In their word – VDSL is a technology in its infancy and they expect to see considerable improvements as it matures. The combination of Fibre to the Cabinet (FttC) and VDSL is an architecture which really works best in more urban areas with diminishing returns as it tends towards more rural areas.

So the natural conclusion of these two shifts is that rural areas should become the place where fibre all the way to the doorstep dominates first – and urban areas will remain on copper for much longer but with services that keep in touch with their lucky bucolic friends.

Not something I expected to say out loud!

The (broadband) world is changing


I’ve just finished a week of very different conferences and workshops which have led me to a what feels like an exciting conclusion – the broadband world in recent weeks has shifted.

My evidence? On Friday CPEND, a partnership in rural North Dorset, hosted an event to report the findings of their broadband study. There have been many similar events over the years, looking into the nature and possible solutions to rural broadband problems. But this was very different.

The event hosted in Blandford Forum’s community hall was well attended by local people, parish and district politicians, with local MP Bob Walter putting his full support behind the work – very good to see but not something that shakes the world. However, attending in equal number were senior industry figures – people who make the decisions about where, when and how to invest in broadband.

This has been building since the autumn when hosted his blockbuster event in Cumbria, but the Blandford event wasn’t promoted as a  major headline grabbing affair – it was an event organized by a local group that had done some deep research and difficult thinking – not the sort of thing a year ago would have attracted key industry names like Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson and Geo.

All three events this week – Jenden’s investment workshop, NextGen roadshow, and the CPEND event – showed how the three essential stakeholders (industry, public sector and community) have now found the langage and the common ground on which to engage with each other in a way I’ve not seen before – a constructive dialogue has begun, exploring how all three can work together in a common cause.

Almost entirely absent from these events were the unreasonable, one-sided demands from communities expecting someone to fix the problem for them, or the rather superior pronouncement from industry dismissing any solution other the one they had in mind, or the rather dull and unambitious public sector statements.

The last few years, since first generation broadband became established and mainstream, have been something of a roller-coaster ride but at the moment I’d have to say I’m more optimistic that we’ll solve this – together – than at any time.

12p or a fifth-of-percent


The Broadband Stakeholder Group’s (BSG) Commercial, Operational and Technical Standards (COTS) working group has written to BDUK recommending that they find their way to supporting the development of framework to ensure retail service competition on next generation broadband networks.

This comes about two years after the team at BIS declined a proposal to do exactly that, feeling that it should be formed and funded by the industry at the recommendation of the BSG which, in turn, lead to the formation of the COTS process.

A year ago, when little progress had been made, a submission to the Technology Strategy Broad to build a market clearing system was also turned down, although that may have reflected the sometimes random nature of bidding to the TSB; one judge said the bid hadn’t understood the risks, a second said it fully understood the risks, while the third judge admitted they weren’t qualified to judge the bid.

Attempts to create a clearing system commercially also ran into treacle – enough written about that here already.

The reality is that it was always going to be necessary to create a wholesale marketplace for broadband services should the access market fragment as it has in most markets across Europe. It was obvious two years ago and its still obvious today.

If it were to cost around £1m to build a solution, it would equate to about a fifth-of-a-percent of BDUK’s £500m+ budget were the to have funded it.

Or, with about 8m premises in the final third, just 12p per customer were the industry to have funded it.

This really isn’t a big thing – other industries have done it – but, collectively, we seem to be unable to see our way around this.

This uncertainty is having a significant impact on the development of in the UK. Where schemes are developing, they are largely doing it as vertically integrated networks - not out of choice but of necessity. This is bad for the industry and customers alike, and remains a major failing in the BDUK procurement process where an open-access model is legal requirement.

Lets top sweating the small stuff!

Why waiting to bid for BDUK may be the smartest option . . .


. . . at least until after the 9th of May.

This advice is probably too late for some local authorities so apologies for the unhelpful suggestion to those who’ve sweat blood in the last few weeks and put together a submission to BDUK already. But if there’s any doubt in your mind that your bid isn’t quite what it might be then take my advice, submit an Expression of Interest and delay.

made it quite clear at Peter Aldous’ Suffolk broadband event last week – the money doesn’t run out next week – there is funding available for many more bids after next week’s closing date – and its far more important to get it right than get it early.

Why delay? In recent weeks there have been a number of significant announcements and movements in the broadband landscape that need to be carefully considered, and which could have a fundamental impact on your bid.

Up until the last week or so much of the discussion surrounding many local authority bids has focussed on (PSNs), regional backbones and digital village pumps. This was always only half of the story – a very important half but never enough to make a successful bid to BDUK.

The really hard bit is the access strategy – how do you get from the village pump to homes and businesses?

Strategies which simply delegate this responsibility to a locally unaccountable multinational is at best a fairly risky option, especially when we are in a new world of  and the .

Wishing to hand over responsibility for the access strategy is understandable – its complex and costly, a long way outside most people’s core competence. These are the holy trinity of criteria traditionally used for outsourcing. And certainly these are very good reasons why most if not all local authorities should not be attempting the access network themselves but the traditional options aren’t necessarily the only ones on offer.

There isn’t a business case for a top down deployment of next generation broadband for good reasons – and its not just about cash. Its certainly true that its very expensive to put in the ground, regardless of how deep into the access network it reaches, but that isn’t the only, or even perhaps the biggest, reason a top down approach doesn’t work.

The demography and landscape of the UK varies tremendously; the desires, aspirations and capabilities of the UK’s communities vary tremendously. These factors naturally suggest more than one technical solution and more than one investment profile. A traditional top-down telecoms model only works where a common solution can be applied to the widest possible population. So delegating the access strategy to company offering a traditional approach is likely to result in a lowest common factor solution rather than an optimal solution which unlocks the more ambitious in your economy.

Three good reasons are emerging which mean there are now alternatives and mean you should delay bidding to BDUK.

The most obvious perhaps has been Fujitsu’s announcement that it intends to build a fibre to the home (not cabinet) solution to 5m homes and businesses in rural areas. Their press release suggested this was not just a traditional top-down steam-roller deployment:

“The collaboration will actively support the involvement of local broadband groups, enabling dynamic and flexible solutions in rural communities for the first time”

At the moment it isn’t clear what that involvement will mean but the approach so far  has been much more inclusive than other major announcements by the industry – something anyone developing a BDUK bid needs to at least contemplate.

Secondly, the Big Society Broadband partnership’s knowledge-base, offering advice on how to approach rural broadband, will soon be published. Work put together by a wide array of experts including INCA, the Plunkett Foundation and ACRE. Plunkett’s experience of sustainable rural enterprise is being joined by ACRE’s network of rural community councils and the collective knowledge of INCA members’ of delivering next generation networks.

And finally, but certainly not least, city institution Jendens, have been beavering away behind the scenes for some months looking at scalable models which the City can be comfortable investing in while delivering that rich tapestry of local solutions.

While they may not be a name your have heard of, their knowledge of franchise structures, large-scale investment, and the telecoms industry makes their announcement very significant, bringing a fresh and exciting new approach to solving the final third problem. Their approach cracks the knotty problem of  how marry top-down and community-up approaches into a nationally deliverable, sustainable, and flexible model.

Jenden’s have released a document which describes their approach of enabling local authorities to create a menu of options for their county, allowing each community to enjoy a broadband solution that closely reflects their needs, capabilities and aspirations; the franchise structure can then attract local and national investment, and match the right organisation to build and operate the network in partnership with the local authority and community. The commonality of the franchise model makes it scalable and attractive to external investors and the service provider market while the flexibility of local franchise companies ensures solutions support local conditions.

The franchise model and the Big Society Broadband partnership’s approach have a lot in common, and together offer a new perspective on delivering a county-wide access strategy. This and Fujitsu’s announcement mean that if you have any doubts about your bid to BDUK then delay.

Jenden’s are co-hosting an event with INCA and the Big Society Broadband partnership on the 9th May in London

If you’re directly involved in developing your BDUK bid, click here to reserve your place.

The broadband landscape just got a lot more exciting!

A framework for localism – from pump to home


Local authorities across the UK are readying themselves for the BDUK process – some are in the process of issuing tenders, others preparing their bids to BDUK for the next wave, while others are doing the hard graft of getting their local broadband plans ready for later in the year.

A common theme among many plans is to use to deliver digital village pumps – points where local access solutions can emerge, relying on a school or GP network connection as back-haul. This requires that the core network procurement needs is drawn up alongside the strategy for delivering the access network. Without both, how can tender responses for the backbone be judged if the strategies, plans and aspirations of those expected to become stakeholders and customers haven’t been considered?

BUT not every community has the same capability; not every community has the same aspirations; and not every community has the same access to resources.

A village pump strategy needs to understand and support every type of community within a seamless and sustainable access framework. The uniqueness of each community is at the heart of the agenda of the , and the local broadband access strategy is one of the first – and best – places the policy can become reality.

Trying to construct a regional model which is able to support every community in a manner which plays to their strengths and aspirations is challenging, and requires careful and creative thinking.

Some communities will be perfectly happy with a “race to infinity” where they need do little more than express a vague intention to buy something delivered to their door, and where their demands for speed can be met by a lower-cost technology like wireless or to the cabinet (FttC). While this type of community is perhaps the easiest to support, it also generates the weakest investment profile and applying this lowest common denominator approach across a county would deny more energetic communities of the opportunity to express their capabilities and to demonstrate their ambition.

Some communities will want to become stakeholders, perhaps investing their own money or digging the trenches for a permanent solution to the broadband needs. Its the ambition of these groups that will drive the future  innovation and economic growth in a county, so its critical that their ambitions are supported alongside less technologically needy communities.

However, based on my email box, phone calls and conversations I sense that communities are becoming confused as often there seems to be less clarity surrounding the community access strategies than their is about the development of a joined-up local PSN. The access network is the most expensive and challenging part, and reflecting differing community needs and capabilities is hard but it is necessary for a successful local broadband plan.

In an earlier article I commented on the apparent lack of the manifesting itself in some local authority strategies. Developing a county-wide access framework which encompasses a range of solutions that can engage communities of all needs and aspirations fixes that. It certainly isn’t easy, and it will require creative and new thinking, but there is help available.

There are people who can help develop a community engagement programme that goes beyond a demand registration site; others who can build an investment case that leverages both city and community funds; and other still that can help shape the technical choices and delivery models that leave the community as stakeholders in a solution that fits their purpose, from within a coherent framework which can be delivered across the county.

In the coming weeks there will announcements regarding practical help and support for local authorities, communities, and network operators developing inclusive access strategies but If you’re in the middle of this work now contact me and I’ll put you touch.

What’s happening to the Big Society in broadband?


For many who’ve been campaigning to get better broadband into the UK’s rural areas the ’s  policy agenda is a very welcome opportunity to really make a difference, to fix this problem once and for all.

With ’s programme under way and DEFRA announcing £20m to support rural broadband things seem to be moving in the right direction – but there are some major challenges ahead.

There is a clear sense that politicians are not just espousing the big society principals, they really believe in it - just look to people like , Peter Aldous and Jesse Norman, and of course .

The challenges, to my mind, lie elsewhere.

Generally, public servants have spent the last decade and more centralising – local government had become a delivery body for , spending money as they were told, micro-managed from above.

means the direction of travel between local and central government is being put in reverse; the thinking should now be coming from local authorities in tune with their communities, and with the support of central government

This is very hard if you’ve not done it before

Whitehall civil servant’s natural belief is that they have the big picture.

Local government staff are quite naturally risk averse when confronted with new and difficult decisions which may affect the whole of their community.

It will take some time before Whitehall feels comfortable supporting rather than leading, and it will take equally long before local government feels comfortable sitting in the driving seat, guided by their communities.

In this climate, it is perhaps no surprise that the thinking  influencing some local broadband plans is drawing from the known, and appears to be taking those local authorities towards a traditional that will ensure only the biggest, most traditional businesses win,  and where community engagement is limited to little more than free marketing support.

Perhaps not surprising but it is disappointing given that the Big Society is a key strand of the Government’s policy agenda.

In the way that people like Jesse Norman introduced new thinking which led to a new wave of localism in , there is now a need to adopt some new thinking which will lead to localism in our digital society.

And this new thinking isn’t radical as in hippy – its radical as in different – its tried and tested in countries that have found the will to move on, and its has room in it for big companies, public bodies as well as communities – in a respectful partnership.

Successful local broadband strategies need to seek a balance:

  • Which permits the safety of an established major operator while underpinning the heart and soul of a community initiative
  • Which allows industrial scale investment while respecting the local stakeholders at the helm
  • Which attract the best national and international services while encouraging local services attuned to the community

There is no shortage of communities wanting to become stakeholders their digital future.

There are respected and experienced organisations that can provide the support that can focus that demand into action.

There are organisations willing to help raise funding to support the demand.

All that’s needed is for the processes already in motion to be encouraging of this demand rather the dismissive, and for the industry to try something a little radical.

The reward? A new contract with communities which delivers innovation, investment and opportunities. What’s not to like?

EU State Aid Approvals and fibre


Leading from some conversations over the last couple of weeks I thought I’d have a look to see if there exists any link between EU State Aid rulings for broadband projects and that countries ranking in the league tables. At the moment, this is little more than a work in progress while I try to understand why some countries make a big deal out of EU State Aid rules (UK tends to top the list) and how some countries seem able to make progress more efficiently  - please drop me a line if you can help!

This is what the data so far seems to suggest:

The more fibre you have, the less your feels the need to refer decisions to the EU for approval

This table ranks according to the League table, along with the the proportion of EU state aid decisions since 2003. If you’re looking for the UK, you’ll need to keep looking to the bottom of the table where you’ll find that we’re unranked by the FttH Council whilst accounting for 25% of all EU decisions, the highest proportion of any country. The UK started early as well with the first decision (in fact, the first 4!).

RankingCountryEU Decisions
1Lithuania3%
2Sweden1%
3Slovenia1%
4Estonia1%
5Denmark0%
6Slovakia0%
7Finland3%
8Netherlands4%
9Italy15%
10Latvia1%
11France5%
12Czech1%
13Portugal0%
14Bulgaria0%
UnrankedAustria3%
UnrankedCyprus1%
UnrankedGermany20%
UnrankedGreece1%
UnrankedHungary1%
UnrankedIreland4%
UnrankedSpain8%
UnrankedUK25%

At this time, there is no obvious and complete reason for this – the countries which have fewer decisions and more fibre don’t seem to have been caught breaking the rules especially – although I’m happy to be corrected. There, however, are a few possible partial explanations:

  • Many EU broadband projects tend to use templates from previous  rulings, and in fact the UK has proved to be a rich source of such templates. I’ve written about this before.
  • Most EU countries are developing national frameworks so that when public funds are used to stimulate broadband investment, the approval is essentially already done under an umbrella agreement.

At the moment, guidelines to Local Authorities refer only to the general EU guidelines on rapid broadband delivery, leaving it to each Local Authority to ensure they are not in breach of the rules – it would seem from this that the intention is for the UK not to have a specific framework agreement, which unless we learn from the approach taken by countries ranking much higher than us may mean we continue to maintain our lead on State Aid decisions and our slow deployment of fibre.

Chicken or Egg – Broadband or PSN?


As Local Authorities around the country are beginning to scramble to prepare for the competitions, a question seems to be hanging over everyone and is largely going unanswered: Which comes first – the PSN or the broadband?

A good number of local authorities are rolling their internal networking needs into the wider infrastructure project, which is tending to result in a PSN process leading the strategy and a fairly traditional ensuing. But its not clear to me that this is always the best approach.

Certainly the public sector is normally one of the biggest customers of broadband in any geography, and knowing that there is a willing anchor tenant certainly improves the business case but using the PSN as the basis for the procurement isn’t quite the same thing – the combined weight of the SME and consumer markets are considerably larger than the combined weight of the public sector, so procuring the network in the image of the smaller stakeholder doesn’t seem to make sense.

The case for broadband infrastructure can be made with or without the immediate custom of the public sector, while the existence of a next generation infrastructure will certainly make the procurement of a PSN easier and more powerful. Adding the promise of public sector business alongside that of local businesses and domestic customers helps the case – it doesn’t make it alone.

So if the public sector is seen as one of the stakeholders rather than the lead, how does this change the approach?

For any number of reasons, the procurement of a PSN means a traditional procurement exercise with a single county-wide winner. There is a relatively small pool of possible winners, all from the more traditional end of the market – it would be unlikely that Rutland Telecom or Vtesse, for example, would seriously consider bidding for a PSN contract, yet they are two of the most innovative network operators in the UK today and have demonstrated their ability to provide the kind of platform on which a flexible and high-speed PSN might be based.

Each locality will need to adopt its own approach, reflecting local needs and opportunities, as it prepares to bid for BD-UK cash. This may, in some areas, lead to a single big contract being awarded but its not the only approach, and its not one that easily meets the diverse needs of many geographies.

A more nuanced approach is likely to lead to some kind of framework, made up of a variety of providers coming together with a diverse set of stakeholders, each with their own needs and capabilities.

One such approach might adopt the LEP process, with  communities or parishes that naturally associate with each other joining forces as combined elements in a county-wide framework.

  • Some of these areas will have money to invest;
  • Some may be happy to sign pre-orders as collateral;
  • Some will dig the trenches;
  • While others will race for infinity.

Such a framework will attract a wider range of bidders, greater scope for investment, and a more creative solution able to optimise every inch of every county.

A PSN built on such a rich and diverse infrastructure, based on known and existing standards, will generate a greater scope for service transformation and the development of stronger partnerships with local people and businesses.

For me, the broadband comes first – the PSN is one of its anchors.



Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin