Tag Archive for 'politics'

Page 2 of 3

VOA views on network architecture


The Valuation Office’s clarification on rating networks seems to have aroused much debate – I decided not to publish my own piece on the general tone of the clarification as much has been said before, and none better than this: as clarification goes, this does seem to be a unique piece of work.

However, there was one aspect I didn’t think had been explored yet.  It’s worth understanding the VOA’s position on and the impact they may have.

On the access network piece they have two means of calculating :

  • For domestic users there is flat rate of £20 per home connected
  • For businesses there is a table which relates to the distance, amount of fibre in the scheme and the number of fibres lit

However, the VOA has this to say in their worked examples:

The following scenarios are intended to provide clarity to the approach the VOA would adopt when applying the approach set out above. The scenarios cover FTTC, FTTH- and FTTH-P2P, and have the following assumptions underlying them.

  • The end users in each case are a mix of residential and business customers; the identity of the end users as either residential or business users will not necessarily be available to the organisation liable for the rates on the asset (particularly if they are providing wholesale access to other service providers).

The implications of this are that if business customers can’t readily be singled out then they will be rated as domestic customers at £20 per connected premise. This really only applies to PON networks (not just GPON as the VOA asserts) where customers share a single splitter, while in an Ethernet overlaying a point-to-point network each customer will always be identifiable.

I calculated that the additional rateable value for connecting a corner café in a small town network might be in the order of £330 per year depending on all sorts of variables but as an order of magnitude it will do. This would be unavoidable if the network used a P2P Ethernet but if the café happened to share a PON splitter with some domestic customers then the rateable value might be reduced to £20 per year.

If I were designing a network today this would certainly influence my choice of technology, and if I were a member of the Metro Ethernet Forum or a manufacturer of fibre I’d be rather concerned that I’d been singled out in this way.

** UPDATE ** But this has wider implications than just prejudicing the technology choices of network owners. For it to be reasonable to claim that its not possible to differentiate between business and domestic customers, the PON splitters would really need to be buried in the network and not in the point of presence; the deeper the splitters are embedded the more reasonable the claim.

However this reduces the openness of the networks and the degree of infrastructure competition that can be developed. So adding to the clamour of the MEF, fibre manufacturers and network owners should be Ofcom – the VOA’s guidance as it stands impacts competition and choice.

Perhaps rather than a little more clarity, a simpler, fairer mechanism is called for!

It would be so much nicer if the civil servants behind this work sat back and took a long, deep look at what they are actually trying to achieve and designed a framework which did that simply and directly, rather than adding more caveats and “clarification” to an already over-complicated morass.

Ambition is the new agenda


Last Thursday I attended the ’s Industry Day where they laid out their key policy framework and work programme for and the . If you hung around just long enough to hear , and Caroline speak, and with only one ear on what was being said while you rushed to submit your copy you might be forgiven for thinking this was another platform where the new government blames the old for a delay in delivering on a promise – BUT you’d be VERY wrong.

Before the two phrases kept cropping up – “We’re in this together” and “Big Society”. For me, Thursday’s event was possibly the first time I’d seen a concrete example of what that meant in real terms. What was announced wasn’t a policy which handed large sums of money to a semi-state organisation to proscribe how better broadband would be delivered from on high. Instead we heard from Ministers explaining what their role was in defining and delivering the future, what we could reasonably expect from , and what needed to come from others.

We heard how the Government will remove barriers to investment and create the structures necessary to support local communities in defining their own broadband futures, and how industry would be encouraged to support that process, enabling a smart division of skills that could solve all but the most intractable of broadband problems.

And we heard from a Minister with a vision of 50 Mbps symmetrical services reaching most people by the end of this delivered by the combined efforts of Government, industry and communities. I suspect that sent a few shivers through Whitehall but knowing the people involved I’m sure they are universally excited by the challenge.

Starting immediately is a month long consultation seeking paper solutions to three paper broadband problems. These will be used to shape the Government’s support programmes, ensuring both commercial and community organisations receive the right kind of support in the right manner. At the same time, the English regions and the devolved assemblies are each being asked to construct a long-list of areas they want to benefit from next generation broadband. From this, Broadband Delivery UK () will announce the location of three real market testing projects in September and begin a tendering process to find the right mix of commercial and community players to make them a reality. From these projects they aim to learn about the impact of state aid, forms of broadband registration and demand stimulation, and infrastructure sharing open access models.

While this is going on, BD-UK will be negotiating with the EU towards a national state aid agreement which for the first time since dial-up modems were in short trousers will provide clear guidance to local authorities on what they can and can’t do.  State Aid legislation has been a bigger block to UK investment in broadband than almost any other, with state sponsored projects crippled by fear of challenge or paralysed by years of rulings before they can begin work. The first roadblock gone – and with it gone, a new process will be in place to unlock the public networks which already reach many of our most remote communities.

Secondly work will push ahead on infrastructure sharing including the opening up of BT’s ducts as well as other assets like the sewers and culverts. This is a knotty problem and not a panacea but an important element in making the UK an easier place to invest in. Second roadblock going.

With all this work hopefully complete – the lessons from the market testing projects learnt, infrastructure hopefully opened up, and state aid put to bed – the Government will announce the main programme of work next year to support local delivery of super-fast broadband, supported by what they termed “mid-level ” to make it easier for the service providers to link to homes and businesses. This time next year we will be well prepared for the main challenge ahead.

Did I hear all the answers on Thursday?No
Does that worry me?Quite the opposite – I’m relieved!
Am I excited?Absolutely!

For the first time in a long while, ambition is back on the agenda. Whether we actually achieve at least 50Mbps symmetrically to every corner of the UK doesn’t matter nearly so much as the way it will change the shape and aspirations of an industry, and the people and businesses that it serves. The journey matters as much as the arriving, and we are on our way.

The Constituencies without hope of NGA


The release of the Ordinance Survey data allowed me to play around with the Department for Communities & Local (DCLG) data on where they believe next generation is most likely to appear. Here’s my league table of the top 25 Parliamentary Constituencies least likely to see investment in :

ConstituencyRedAmberGreen
Dwyfor Meirionnydd Co Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Kingston upon Hull East Boro Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle Boro Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Na h-Eileanan an Iar Co Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Haltemprice and Howden Co Const96.77%3.23%0.00%
Beverley and Holderness Co Const95.74%4.26%0.00%
Central Devon Co Const95.24%4.76%0.00%
Montgomeryshire Co Const95.00%5.00%0.00%
Kingston upon Hull North Boro Const94.29%5.71%0.00%
Berwick-upon-Tweed Co Const93.55%6.45%0.00%
North Cornwall Co Const89.66%10.34%0.00%
North Norfolk Co Const89.47%10.53%0.00%
Derbyshire Dales Co Const88.89%11.11%0.00%
Harwich and North Essex Co Const88.24%11.76%0.00%
Thirsk and Malton Co Const88.24%11.76%0.00%
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale Co Const88.00%12.00%0.00%
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Co Const87.50%12.50%0.00%
Delyn Co Const87.50%12.50%0.00%
Ynys Mon Co Const87.50%12.50%0.00%
North Herefordshire Co Const87.10%12.90%0.00%
Ross, Skye and Lochaber Co Const86.96%13.04%0.00%
Forest of Dean Co Const86.84%13.16%0.00%
Louth and Horncastle Co Const86.84%10.53%2.63%
Ludlow Co Const85.71%14.29%0.00%
Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire Co Const84.38%15.63%0.00%

The Red, Amber, Green columns are the percentage of each constituency unlikely, possibly, or probably a target for investment in “superfast” broadband.

There are, according to the DCLG model, 56 constituencies where they don’t expect any investment including the Speaker’s constituency in Buckingham. The leaders of the three main parties do better:

  • Gordon Brown – 50% of his Kirkcaldy constituency is likely to see investment
  • David Cameron – 55% of his Witney constituency is likely to see investment but the largely rural areas outside the market town won’t
  • Nick Clegg – 90% of his Sheffield constituency is likely to see investment, not least through the Digital Region project

As for the candidates who may be responsible for digital policy after the :

  • Stephen Timms serves one the hottest broadband constituencies in the UK – East Ham is 100% Green
  • and ’s Surrey and Oxfordshire constituencies are both good in parts but rural areas mean broadband have’s and have not’s
  • Lynne Featherstone, chair of the Lib Dems Technology Board, serves another hot broadband area – Wood Green in London is 100% Green

Other names of note on the list include:

  • Social media convert John Presctott and Home Secretary, Alan Johnson appear at 2 and 3 on the list of notspots due to the peculiarity of Hull
  • East Yorkshire Tory MP and civil liberties campaigner, David Davis is 5th on the list with just 3% of his constituency possibly a target of investment
  • Liberal cheeky-boy Lembit Opik and past leader Charles Kennedy are high on the list because they serve rural areas of Wales and Scotland
  • Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP’s (who don’t mention broadband in their ) serves the 27th least popular target for broadband investment
  • And leader of Plaid in Westminster, Elfyn Llwyd tops the list of NGA notpsots in the DCLG model as the constituency least likely to see broadband investment

To see how your constituency fairs, download the full list here in CSV format.

Think broadband’s important for the next Government? Click here for a quick breakdown of the main parties views on technology.

Dwyfor Meirionnydd Co Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Kingston upon Hull East Boro Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle Boro Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Na h-Eileanan an Iar Co Const100.00%0.00%0.00%
Haltemprice and Howden Co Const96.77%3.23%0.00%
Beverley and Holderness Co Const95.74%4.26%0.00%
Central Devon Co Const95.24%4.76%0.00%
Montgomeryshire Co Const95.00%5.00%0.00%
Kingston upon Hull North Boro Const94.29%5.71%0.00%
Berwick-upon-Tweed Co Const93.55%6.45%0.00%
North Cornwall Co Const89.66%10.34%0.00%
North Norfolk Co Const89.47%10.53%0.00%
Derbyshire Dales Co Const88.89%11.11%0.00%
Harwich and North Essex Co Const88.24%11.76%0.00%
Thirsk and Malton Co Const88.24%11.76%0.00%
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale Co Const88.00%12.00%0.00%
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Co Const87.50%12.50%0.00%
Delyn Co Const87.50%12.50%0.00%
Ynys Mon Co Const87.50%12.50%0.00%
North Herefordshire Co Const87.10%12.90%0.00%
Ross, Skye and Lochaber Co Const86.96%13.04%0.00%
Forest of Dean Co Const86.84%13.16%0.00%
Louth and Horncastle Co Const86.84%10.53%2.63%
Ludlow Co Const85.71%14.29%0.00%
Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire Co Const84.38%15.63%0.00%

Broadband policies laid bare


The fever is hotting up and with the first televised debate out of the way hopefully the campaign will put personalities aside and start to focus on pledges and policy. With that in mind I thought I’d do a quick skim of the main parties manifestos for any mention of – how might our politicians be squaring up to Peter Cochrane’s comment that we aren’t even in the global 20 counties.

So here goes, in no particular order:

  • Labour have pledged to re-instate the 50p levy on fixed line telephones which will raise around £150-170m per year with a total fund over time of around £1bn specifically targetting the “final third”, with mobile and services for 10% of the population.
  • Conservative is the only party to have published a specific technology ; its a wide-ranging document but perhaps begins with mandating duct and pole sharing, and if the market fails to repsond by 2012 they may retain the Digital Switchover levy on the TV Licence fee to raise around £200m per year, with a total fund over time of perhaps £1.4bn also taregetting areas of market failure. Local authorities will also be given new powers to invest and support local partnerships.
  • Lib Dems want to “support public investment in the roll-out of superfast broadband, targeted first at those areas which are least likely to be provided for by the market“ but give no further details about the types of intervention, the costs, time-scales or what “super fast” means.
  • Scottish Nationalists manifesto took a bit more time to find as their website suggests they hadn’t updated their policies for this election, leaving the 2005 manifesto alone in the list of document. Finally locating it wasn’t much help either – broadband isn’t mentioned once in their 32-page document – bad for arguably the most digitally excluded region of the UK.
  • Plaid Cymru have said they will “prioritise access to broadband with the aim of providing super-fast broadband to our companies and homes. We will also campaign for compulsory mobile network sharing – giving people across Wales improved mobile coverage.” No costs or specifics are given.
  • UKIP have no mention of broadband or technology in their 16-page manifesto. Since a lot of broadband projects in the UK are at least part funded by the EU it would have been useful to understand how they plan to unlock investment should they win the election and pull the UK out of Europe.
  • The Green Party says it want to ensure “that all have digital access; give BT an obligation to provide affordable high-speed broadband-capable infrastructure to every household.”  No mention of funding so I guess that’s bad news for BT shareholders.
  • The BNP appear not to have released a manifesto for 2010 but since was invented by a Nobel winning Hong Kong immigrant in the UK who has since repatriated himself no doubt they feel their work is done.

Of the main parties, only Conservatives and Labour provide details of how they plan to kick start investment, and choosing between their broadband policies seems to come down to whether your prefer a 50p levy on phone lines and the possibility of a satellite connection in a perhaps more top-down policy (Labour), or a continued levy on the TV licence fee and more local partnerships working together to find solutions (Conservative).

Addendum: Since writing this, the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, has appeared on BBC Newsnight (24 Apr) where he explained to Jeremy Paxman that his party do have a broadband policy. They appreciate that its too expensive for BT to install the fibre optic cables they want us all to have, so they will be using penal servitude – prisoners safe enough not to be sent to their plans for a South Georgia penal colony will be expected to dig the trenches and install the fibre. Glad to offer clarity on this!

I’ll leave it for you to make your own minds up.

Plus ça change


Half a decade ago when we last worried and campaigned for access to we were told the panacea for rural areas was going to be .

Since then we have experienced a number of fairly spectacular collapses (remember Aramiska?) and today satellite broadband services are largely back in the margins as something that can truly reach pretty much anywhere with a view of the southern sky, making it appealing to anyone looking for a quick fix, but something not especially welcomed by the people expected to use it.

The reasons people don’t like satellite services hasn’t – can’t – change. It’s not about bandwidth, the cost, that you can’t watch BBC and Sky services – these can be, and are being, fixed. Its latency – a basic law of physics which no scientist or engineer can ever overcome.

Satellite broadband typically uses geostationary satellites which hover 35,863 km above the equator where objects spin at the same rate as the earth so they appear to be stationary in the sky. As we aren’t anywhere near the equator the actual distance is somewhat further, and since the ground station is probably in continental Europe, the return path is also likely to be somewhat further – we live at the end of the hypotenuse of a vast right-angled triangle so its Pythagoras to blame in the first instance.

Even at 300,000,000 metres per second, the speed of light, it will take at least 468ms – half a second – for a single packet of information to be send from a computer to a satellite, back to down earth and for the acknowledgement to be sent back. This is an unbreakable barrier that no amount of engineering or scientific research will be able to break. Blame Einstein for this one.

Why is half a second such a big deal?

  • Interacting at anything less than “natural speed” disrupts interactive creativity. Studies show latency in communications of greater than 100ms disrupt mental agility (Peter Cochrane, “The Delay in Delay”/”Tips for Time Travellers”, 1997)
  • Any application which requires interaction will suffer – games, video conferencing, telephony, office systems like accounting applications, secure systems exchanging encryption keys like VPN’s and e-commerce.

So we can blame the biology of our brains for this final point.

Finding real solutions to the UK’s broadband investment problems isn’t going to go away if we persuade ourselves that satellite technology is really an solution.

There may be a few locations where the right mix of commercial, public and investment for a real solution is hard to find immediately, so it should be a mark of our collective failure if we have to fall back on satellite services to offer a respite for more than a tiny handful of communities. Lets not fool ourselves, it isn’t here to stay.

50p gone – so what next?


Today (7 April), in the wash-up leading to the , the scrapped plans for the 50p levy on all phone lines designed to help fund next generation in the “final third” – those areas of the UK least likely to see traditional commercial investment in telecommunications. I’ve struggled with this for a long time, in two minds about whether it was the right approach – top down centralist model versus more local models.

One thing is clear though – the broadband issue has not gone away. In a recent industry forum it was suggested by experiences gained across Europe that the UK is at least 5 years behind Europe in investing in next generation broadband – this hasn’t changed in a week. And the cause for the Final Third First campaign hasn’t weakened overnight. There is still a very real and urgent need to see investment in telecommunications infrastructure in the UK – and not just in the most difficult to reach areas.

I don’t accept that its realistic to simply wait for the market to wake up to the opportunity – the Caio Review laid out a long list of reasons why this wasn’t likely to happen organically in the UK, and few of these barriers have been overcome since its publication.

While there are clear differences in the approaches of the main political parties leading up to the election, the need for strategic leadership (above public cash) is more important than ever if the UK is to begin to catch up with the European economies we compete with.

If public money isn’t going to be used to see investment unlocked (which I have no issue with) what is going to replace it?

In much of Europe, progress can be put down to strategic leadership. Where public money has been used, its typically invested based on a solid business case – improvement in public services, doing more for less. This was very much the message Sir Peter Gershon championed when he studied the efficiency of public spending. Now he’s as much a Conservative asset the existing Government’s perhaps we may see some movement here from both parties but it would be good to know what we might expect – broadband investment is a long, slow process which needs stability and vision over hype and vagueness.

In the build up to the 2010 Election there is a much needed opportunity to demonstrate the kind of strategic leadership which has seen investment unlocked in many parts of Europe, that a future government understands what is needed to get the UK back on the road to technology leadership – a path we lost some time ago.

Both the Labour Party and the Conservatives have respected senior people who understand this space – Stephen Timms was writing about broadband before most of us had heard of it, and the team of and together understand the impact not investing will have on the creative industries and our rural economies. (Ed and a newly elected David Cameron helped broadband efforts in Oxfordshire the first time around).

The scrapping of the 50p levy isn’t worrying in itself - the lack of a clear vision for the technological future of Britain is. Its not often we get politicians who understand this sector, so please let them tell us what they think that future looks like.

Another day, another snipe


Its become an almost daily event recently to wake up and find another blog entry taking a snipe at the work being done by myself and some of the people I work with.  Until now I’d taken a view that I’d prefer to just get on with things but the regularity and persistence of the two bloggers justifies a response.

Finding ways to deliver next generation to UK homes and businesses is hard and it needs the widest possible support and interaction. That means people who haven’t been natural parters in the past are now actively seeking ways to work together to find uncommon solutions to a common problem.

The constant sniping and rumour mongering by what is increasingly being seen as a militant fringe is unhelpful and is more likely to set back the UK’s chances of  seeing widespread investment in next generation broadband services. So long as the voice of communities is seen as a negative attack on others rather than a positive move to find solutions then why would anyone take broadband seriously?

Ghandi once said something along the lines of  ”be the change you want to see in the world” – prove me and my colleagues wrong by doing something better through positive action but please stop the sniping.

Ask JON to fund it


After a series of blog articles on how the move to a Thinking Cloud may impact the way the telecommunications market might be structured I wanted to start to consider how the market might be used to unlock investments and start to build some momentum in the UK so we might realistically consider target inclusion in the 2010/1 to the Home League tables recently posted.

Given the newness of the market idea for telecommunications I fully accept that what follows may be an expression of hope over expectation but it is, I hope, a flow of thought which begins to demonstrate that alternative ways of doing what we’ve always done can begin to unlock new potential. My own philosophy is that when you meet a blockage, first try to remove it; if that’s not possible work around it – never try to work with an obstacle as you’re more likely to compound the problem.

If the traditional operators can’t find a case for investing at a level required by society and the economy then we need to remove the blockages or work around them. What would be damaging would be to accept the blockage as a fact of life and to invest in it. As was deployed the first time around there were local interventions that tried to build confidence in a new market, removing the blocks to investment, and there were others which simply accepted the problem and subsidised network builds. In the former examples, the business case was ultimately made and the long-term cost to the public purse was marginal. The latter, however, tied public funds into sometimes unsustainable projects which only continued as long as the lifeline existed.

The funding requirement for next generation broadband is of an order of magnitude more – its simply not possible to provide small scale funding to prop up a marginal business case and expect high-speed broadband of the kind seen in other countries to appear across the UK. The problem won’t go away by plastering over it and the impact of doing so could make the collapse of the telecoms bubble a decade ago look like a sneeze.

One way of working around the blockage, of finding a new way of doing things, is to use the power of the markets. I first wrote a briefing document on this almost 4 years ago with my colleague Brian Condon but since then we have seen too much turmoil in the financial markets for the similes used then to make it happy reading – but the principles remain true.

When we first considered the shape of a wholesale market for telecommunications the output seemed strange – by simply replacing the occurrences of words like “ducts” with items available in other markets the document made sense. After more time in a dark room with cold towels wrapped around our heads we came to obvious conclusion that it was the structure of the telecoms industry which was wrong and not the concept of an open wholesale market; we’re just so accustomed to a single way of doing things where an incumbent operator and an interventionist regulator dominate the market. But it needn’t be like that.

So how could a wholesale market solve the broadband investment dilemma?

Let’s take the public money currently available for broadband investment. Setting aside any views on whether the 50p tax on phone lines is helpful, I’m assuming for this article its a reality and it will raise something like £150m to 175m each year for the term of the next – total fund of up to £1bn. If its spent as a direct injection into broadband infrastructure programmes then the money will achieve very little and the funding will come on stream too slowly to build any momentum  - and perhaps most damagingly there is a real risk that it won’t remove or by-pass the investment obstacles so it may become the prop for a broken business case.

In contrast,  offering the cash to the nascent market as a “future guaranteed order” for access to homes and businesses for the delivery of government services then the fund is being used to help transform the delivery of public services while also providing the telecommunications industry with the certainty it needs to invest. Rather than releasing £150m of funding each year to prop up projects, offer on the new wholesale market an order for VLAN connections to 1,000,000 homes at £10 per month for the next five years in the geographies demanded by public services and which the markets won’t automatically deliver.

By doing this through the marketplace, the funding is targeted to where its needed, with a public audit trail of delivery, and it mandates standards since membership of the market necessitates them. In taking a contract, a network operator will have a guaranteed demand over and above what they might expect from simply offering faster connections; something European projects have been able to take to the bank to secure funding. Anchor tenants in the form of housing associations are not unusual in The Netherlands, for example, but this mechanism allows any public services, central or local, to fulfil the same role. The use of the levy in this way is no more than transition funding to provide network builders with a guaranteed tenant and public services like the NHS with access to infrastructure  beyond their current funding streams.

Taking the NHS as the example, they would be able to start offering secure and reliable tele-medicine and independent living technologies enabling people to stay in their homes longer through a nationally agreed framework without additional pressure to them. Imagine adding to the “choose and book” system an option to pick your convalescence after an operation, and opting for “home-based care” automatically provisions a VLAN to your home in parallel to any other services you may have, and by the time you get home the technology is installed and working to help you recover in a more friendly environment and at a lower cost to the public purse.

Similarly in education, enabling the current learning platforms to reach the homes of children through an eGovernment VLAN ensures that that the social impacts of the digital divide are side-stepped while underpinning the safety of our children.

During the transition, public services would need to be remoulded around more flexible delivery of services so that their finances and organisations will be sufficiently restructured  they can pick up the on-going (and reduced) cost of delivering tailored services directly to people.

This kind of approach can’t happen without the existence of a wholesale market for telecommunications with its points allowing widespread delivery of services over a fragmented patchwork of network infrastructures - but I hope it also begins to shine some light on the benefits of such a fundamental change in the way we do things.

My fibre tax manifesto


It seems the Queen’s Speech ushered in the  build-up to the general , so its open season for manifestos. I blogged previously on the two main parties very different approaches to the UK’s woes, and plan to leave it here for now at least. But one area which wasn’t covered by either speech at the NextGen09 conference was any detailed proposals surrounding business rates on telecoms ducts – so I’m offering all parties my suggestion of what they could have said.

Today all telecoms ducts are rated as if they were offices by the Valuations Office Agency (VOA), essentially levying a per metre tax on network operators which will eventually be passed on to customers in the form of higher costs. BT is alone in that it is sufficiently large to be able to negotiate a discount on its rates – a discount which many other operators feel is at the very least unfair and possibly constitutes an illegal state aid (court ruling pending). Aiden Paul, CEO of Vtesse, told the BIS Select Committee hearing on that the discount amounted to around £190m annually. So any proposal for rates reform needs to lay this issue to bed.

Secondly, the tax means that rural areas pay more per customer than their urban counter parts – homes and businesses are farther apart so a per metre tax will generate more income for the . Since the focus of any broadband policy will need to consider the “final third” – the mostly rural homes and businesses that are deemed uneconomic by traditional network operators – any reform will need to consider if the rates rules are contributing to the digital divide between urban and rural areas.

In the work CBN carried out with Samknows for Commission for Rural Communities (CRC) report “Mind the Gap”, I produced a map of the Ofcom Market classifications – the model Ofcom uses to measure infrastructure competition. The map clearly demonstrated the industry has no appetite for England’s leafy lanes, preferring to focus on urban areas. So the reform needs to at least understand this division.

Ofcom Market Classifications

Ofcom Market Classifications

The easy answer is to simply scrap the rates rules on telecoms ducts but in this economic climate that is unlikely to be smiled upon by a Chancellor of any political persuasion in the coming years.So the final constraint is that the reform should cost nothing or very close to it.

So my suggestion:

  • Offer 100% rates discount to any network operator that invests in Ofcom Market 1 areas – those areas where deregulation of broadband is yet to arrive.
  • Since this may be considered a form of state aid, the discount should only apply to open wholesale networks in accordance with European rulings, which means duct and dark should be made easily available.
  • Where a network is mutually owned by a as a social enterprise, and they have demonstrated reasonable attempts to offer open wholesale services but the market failed to respond, they should also be  afforded the same discount as recognition of market failure, even if that means they are essentially a localised vertically integrated operator. This could be based on the existing charity and social enterprise rules.

Since no-one is investing in rural areas, this reform will not cost anything but it will remove a barrier to investment. While there is no suggestion that the floodgates will open and every farmhouse will have a Gigabit connection by next Christmas, it is, I hope, a reasonable measure that attempts to rebalance a broken marketplace.

NextGen09 and the politics of broadband


It was interesting to hear quite contrasting speeches at the NextGen09 conference in Leeds this week from , Shadow Culture Minister, and Stephen Timms, the Treasury and Minister. Both are men who demonstrated an understanding of the issues and the urgency of finding a solution to the UK’s lack of investment in the future of .

Perhaps the clearest difference between the two was surrounding funding and the role of the public bodies:

  • The current approach, as laid out in the Digital Britain report, is to provide £200m of the Digital TV switch-over fund to ensuring a universal service commitment of 2Mbps, and then to apply a 50p levy on all fixed-line telephone contracts to raise up to £175m per year to fund next generation developments in what have become known as the “final third” – the areas of the country which the and the mainstream industry deem commercially non-viable for broadband investments. These funds will be allocated by a new body – the Network Design and Procurement Group” which it was announced will now be formed in the new year rather than this Autumn as recommended in the Digital Britain report. So although we know how much money will be allocated to broadband, it will not be known until at least the new year how the money will be spent.
  • Ed Vaizey described a rather different approach should the Conservatives be elected next year. It is clear they don’t support the 50p tax but as we get ever closer to the simply opposing government policy needs to be contrasted with the alternatives. Instead of a more top-down solution, Conservative plans centre on reforming local authority powers. In terms of broadband, central to this are plans to give councils more freedom to spend their income on local priorities, and to give them access to the bond markets so they can raise finance to invest locally. Where councils feel strongly enough that poor broadband is affecting their local economy, for example, a council could issue bonds and invest funds in a local -optic broadband infrastructure.

It was interesting to consider what might have happened had Digital Britain taken this approach when the Bank of England announced the process of Quantitative Easing. Estimates for providing universal fibre-optic broadband vary but even the highest is in the order to £25-30bn – a small fraction of the total made available to the bond market by the Bank of England. Perhaps the UK would now be facing a new universal next generation broadband roll-out with massive new employment for everyone from civil engineers digging the road to photonics researchers. Sadly we will never find out; while the Conservatives support the idea of using bonds to raise finance for local infrastructure, they are less likely to support further QE should they be elected.

Without the new Network Design and Procurement Group in place, its impossible to contrast the two approaches sensibly, apart from saying that a Labour Government is taking a top-down centralist approach while a future Conservative Government would take a more market-led, local approach – hardly very surprising. If this new quango simply takes the money and hands it back to BT then it might have been more efficient to have simply told Ofcom to force BT to raise the cost of line rental by 50p and not introduce two public bodies to launder the proceeds. If, however, the funds are channelled to local projects then the differences between the two parties are more nuanced.

Its frustrating that despite the massive work that went into Digital Britain, we appear to have at least as clear a view of what a Conservative Government might do than of what the current Government has said it is doing.



Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin