How can we bring high speed connections to rural areas?
There is a lot of debate in the UK especially about whether urban dwellers should 'subsidise' the rollout of 'superfast' broadband to rural areas.
UK Government has made funding available through the Digital Switchover fund and BDUK to help counties put in some infrastructure to help the final third.
It is now looking like this funding is going to be used to bring slightly faster speeds to those who already have a connection.
What does everyone think about this? What can Europe do to help everyone get NGA and not let the incumbents cherrypick the densely populated areas and ignore the hard bits?
The UK USC (universal service commitment) is currently 2Mbps which is not adequate for today's needs, let alone tomorrows, and implementing this with copper will cost as much as doing it properly with fibre.
Group audience:
Comments
Thanks for reminding us about
Thanks for reminding us about satellite, we use satellites here in the rural uplands of the UK, but at best its a stop gap, we find it very expensive to run due to data transfer, and it can't be classed as 'high speed'. It has saved many a business and provided access to the internet over the years in areas where the telcos fear to tread. The latest ones are a lot better than the older ones, but the majority have to turn them off when the kids are around or their daily allowance is soon used up and excess charges or throttling kick in. In a small country like the UK it is possible to get the fibre to the communities, but its interesting to discuss solutions for wide open spaces like the USA. Is there anyone reading this from the US? what do you think is the solution for your country?
There are some interesting
There are some interesting things happening in Shetland with fibre broadband:
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/01/19/ditch-witch-carves-out-future-...
They are laying the fibre in shallow trenches which is cheaper and easier than digging deep trenches. I wonder if this could be used elsewhere? The roll out is just to the main populations centres of Shetland and not to the remote islands which means there is still a digital divide.
Gosh Lizzy, that's brill news
Gosh Lizzy, that's brill news. Go Shetland. Maybe they can help the remoter islands once they have the core network in and earning revenue.
It is cool and may provide
It is cool and may provide inspiration to other areas to try similar initiatives. One of the really interesting things about Shetland is that they have aspirations for using the better connectivity to encourage hi tech economic developments like the creation of a data centre in Lerwick. If the new economic opportunities like this can be realised it will hopefully provide inspiration for other areas too.
Shetland has fairly unique characteristics, however, not least the oil fund which means that they have had lots more money for infrastructure than other remote areas.
Personally I think the only
Personally I think the only way fast broadband in rural areas can be achieved is to use a businessmodel by and for the community.
The current situation across Europe is that everybody relies on major companies to invest large amounts of money. In fact, that isn't necessary any more. The B4RN initiatieve in Yorkshire comes from the community, private investments.
Personally, I work with the Swedish OpenNet model. At this moment we are progressing with rural communities in the Netherlands to come to open networks, where the benefits remain in the communities. Not just when it comes to speed, but also economy and stimulating local services on health and education.
The focus of the European Union should remain the stimulating of local communities in strategic processes to form open broadband networks. No money should flow into telco boardrooms, but into local economies.
I have a blogpost in English on this matter you might find interesting: http://www.iipen.nl/en/242
May I be the first to correct
May I be the first to correct you! B4RN is not in Yorkshire, it's across the border in Lancashire.
just as a matter of interest,
just as a matter of interest, bits of b4rn are in Yorkshire, because broadband knows no boundaries. Think there's a bit in Cumbria too. Just depends on how close people are to the phase 1 map.
JANET includes a provision
JANET includes a provision for public use in the right circumstances and as highlighted on the Twitter feed #da12bb, here is another example of rural access to the Public Service Network via schools.
Rural Hampshire UK Village Gets 40Mb Broadband via a Public Service Network http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/04/rural-hampshire-uk-village-...
We as a community have been
We as a community have been trying to get a feed from Janet and from the local authority education network since 2004. It is not easy, it is virtually impossible to break through the silos.
Three of us managed it in the early days, but further applications or upgrades have never been possible. Yorkshire has been opening up, Lancashire and Cumbria are still shut down, but Hampshire gives us fresh hope of forward thinking by councils.
There is a link on this page
There is a link on this page to the pdf consultation:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_cons...
Deadline: Friday 20 July 2012
High-speed Internet underpins all sectors of the economy and will be the backbone of the Digital Single Market. For every 10% increase in the broadband penetration the economy grows by 1 to 1.5%.
In this context the European Commission is seeking views on how to cut the costs of setting up new networks for high speed internet in the EU. In particular, the Commission wants to explore how to reduce the costs associated with civil engineering, such as the digging up of roads to lay down fibre, and which can account for as much as 80% of the total cost. The Commission believes it could cut the cost of broadband investments by a quarter. Input is sought from all interested public and private parties including telecoms and utility companies for instance, investors, public authorities and consumers.
One way to reduce the cost is
One way to reduce the cost is to lay the ducting in the farm land at the sides of the roads. Like B4RN is doing in Lancashire.
That works for B4RN but how
That works for B4RN but how feasible is it for a commercial telco?
It could be feasible for a
It could be feasible for a commercial telco who paid the people in shares? I don't think they would be eligible for EIS funding though, and that is a great attraction for people investing in B4RN. Its really up to the telcos to find their own model which works for them. There must be one. Government could encourage with VOA tax reduction and other incentives? Its amazing how people will help if they feel part of something and not just getting ripped off by a big service provider. Collaboration is the answer, and a lot of joined up thinking.
Back in the mid 1990s I was
Back in the mid 1990s I was involved in a four year project for the European Commission looking at how the then emerging Internet technologiers coulkd benefit the "geographically disadvantaged." Back then there was a lot of government bullshit and bluster about how essential it was for rural areas to have superfast communications. All these years later my village's broadband is little faster than dial up and I have to rely on a through the air signal for my 2mb broadband!
In the UK the big drawback is BT - it should be re-nationalised, the senior managers sacked and a new innovative managemet satructure put in place. As a private company it has no incentive to provide broadband if there is no financial benefit. The only time it comes crawling out of the woodwork is when subsidies are mentioned.
@ KevinCumbria,
@ KevinCumbria,
Couldn't agree more. Just have a look at Jersey's progress down a sensible fibre approach. They used to have a BT like structure which has been transformed.
Jersey looks amazing, it
Jersey looks amazing, it could end up as the UK silicon valley at this rate.
Jersey - monopoly supplier?
Jersey - monopoly supplier?
The Conservative government
The Conservative government stopped BT installing fibre in the 1980's and only recently allowed them to roll out FTTC.
Any examples of nationalised technology companies?
I can feel your pain Kevin.
I can feel your pain Kevin. We have been trying to help people since 2003 and its very hard going with no help or support from governments, global, national or local. They say plenty but do little. This is why we're here on this blog, because they are listening... they need to hear the truth. We are being held back by the incumbent, who makes sure innovative projects get knocked back by convincing funders and councils that they will provide a service. Then they don't. Remember project access?
In my opinion the governments
In my opinion the governments Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) framework needs to be adjusted so as give smaller local altnet network operators a fairer chance of being able to benefit from public funding.
There are many areas where niche wifi solutions or local fixed line broadband providers can build both faster and more effective services at a lower cost than the big incumbents, yet at present they cannot easily compete on a level playing field for public money.
Short of being forced into a complicated consortium, which doesn't exist, smaller ISPs don't have the scale to even be included into BDUK's framework. I fear it may be too late to change now, given that the tenders are going out, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Allowing the vast majority of money to go BT's way does have some benefits but the system must be fair, BT doesn't have the best solution for everywhere and by excluding better options we could risk failure later on; especially when it comes to that "last 10%" of rural areas.
Agree Mark, the whole process
Agree Mark, the whole process has been wrong for what it has been trying to do. I don't know the answers, but I do know if they had started at the outside and worked inwards instead of allowing this patch up of the phone network we might have got somewhere. The idea they had at first for 'innovative pilots' didn't seem to materialise did it?
When does public funding of a
When does public funding of a private company not equate to public funding of a private company?
BDUK
When civil servants don't
When civil servants don't understand physics? yes Minister.
Cumbria and North Yorkshire
Cumbria and North Yorkshire Council's are workign together to put a 'preferred supplier list' in place for smaller operators who we anticipate and expect will be able to add to the main pan-county implementations, 'topping up' or extending where communities want further provision. This is part of the way that we're wanting to get provision at different levels in the market.
That is really good news Jim.
That is really good news Jim.
It will provide competition and keep everyone on their toes. Just as a matter of interest, does Cumbria include Farms as 'businesses' in their plan?
http://delimiter.com.au/2012
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/#c... This comment on a post about high speed broadband says it all...
Latvia has one of the fastest
Latvia has one of the fastest Internet connections in a EU (and also in a world), but our rural regions still live with 256 Kbps-2 Mbps MAX speed. To achieve ambitious Digital Agenda 2020 goals of 100% "more than 30 Mbps per user" coverage and 50% connected "more than 100 Mbps"clients, Latvia must help ISPs to develope fiber network in rural areas, because for now there are no business plans from ISP side. So we started "middle-mile" project to get optical fiber from big cities to small towns and villages. It's an open-access network, which it will be owned by neutral organization, and on the same technological and financial conditions it will be used by every interested ISP. Each ISP can use by a very reasonable price "dark fiber" solution. So it means there will be by 2018 optical fiber in each region of Latvia.
But the main problem for now is "last-mile" solutions and we have had a lot of discussions about this issue. The main idea for now is that possible ""last-mile" support" money will be given not to a ISP, but to end user, who will choose ISP.
Well done in Latvia! it
Well done in Latvia! it sounds like you are getting what we call 'digital parish pumps' ie affordable backhaul via a fat fibre pipe into the rural areas.
Last mile solutions will be possible if the feed is there. If there is support money available then communities should get together and build their own network, or use a local ISP they trust to build it for them. If the funding is watered down like jam spread too thin it will not be a solution, there is power in numbers and power in people. Working together it is possible to get a futureproof connection to all areas, rural or urban. Good luck!
Here in the UK they are digging it themselves, and my guess is that Latvia has men of grit too, so if you have the fat pipe your farmers can soon dig to meet it? http://b4rn.org.uk/our-first-b4rn-highlight-video
The whole debate on cost
The whole debate on cost reduction is missing the point if we focus on the technical aspects of laying fibre. Sure they are relevant but if we look at the cost to the public purse with the right business model we can reduce the total cost to government to zero (or even better).
A separation of the civil works from the services elements should be undertaken where the market cannot meet the needs of the local community (services and infrastructure demand totally different business models and by doing this you separate 80% of the capital cost from the equation)). The role of civil works provider can be undertaken by a municipality or a region, outsourcing this element via an open competitive tender to a civil works company - not a service provider. Funding would be provided by the private sector, government or a mix of both via a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). Restrictions should apply on ownership of the SPV thus avoiding conflicts of interest and the argument that a monopoly provider is being established.
Any service provider, for a wholesale fee charged by the SPV, would then get access to the fibre. The service provider in turn charges a retail fee to the end consumer.
Benefits
There are numerous benefits in employing this strategy, for consumers, businesses and for the governments involved.
• Consumers
o Consumers will have a wider choice of supplier and applications, which will produce more competitive pricing.
o There will be more scope for high-end services such as HD-TV, 3D TV, video on demand and other applications which require larger bandwidths.
o Symetric services delivered at high speed will transform the way we interact as a society and within communities. Every person has the potential of becoming a service provider.
o It is likely that health and education services to the individual will be transformed
o Rural communities will survive and innovative lifestyle companies will be generated
• Service providers
o Providers will have access to nearly 100% of the market instead of the restricted market they have at the moment.
o A substantial proportion of their fixed costs would be removed and their business model would be based mainly on variable costs.
o Providers would be able to concentrate on the most profitable areas of their business, namely the high-end services that the new infrastructure can provide.
o More cash will be available to invest in service oriented businesses.
• Government
o By charging retailers a wholesale price the SPV gains revenue and therefore the projects should be self financing. Existing projects indicate a ROCE sufficient to attract private investors. The net cost to the public purse would therefore be zero or in some cases positive.
o Delivering key services such as health and education can benefit from lower costs and improved quality of service
o Applications that connect government to society will have a positive outcome for the environment, social well-being, security and citizenship.
o Risk can be shared with the private finance sector who are looking for long term predictable ROCE
This model is not only beneficial to the citizen, government and businesses, but it is scalable, tested and can be applied to municipalities, regions or even nations as a whole.While we get wrapped round the axle on cost, places such as Singapore are asking a different question i.e. what are the social and economic benefits or what would be the cost if we DONT roll out fibre!
Finally, in the current vertically integrated mindset, I keep asking the question - have you ever heard of a taxi company owning the road!?
Could someone please correct
Could someone please correct me.
My understanding is that the UK government is currently proposing to invest in fibre through a ´gap funding´mechanism. This was chosen on the basis that it reduced risk (over the PPP model). So a municipality lets say offers to invest ´x´million GBP and the winning supplier invests ´y´. Does the municipality get anything in return such as a share in the infrastructure or in the infrastructure company? If the answer is no surely this is a direct subsidy to the supplier, is contrary to State Aid and is the ultimate form of risk i.e. you are guaranteed to lose your investment. In a PPP model at least you have a chance of getting some of your investment back, it can attract private finance etc (see previous posting)
We could maybe bring BDUK
We could maybe bring BDUK into this debate, they have been invited as have some county councils who are dealing with procurement. Then you can get it from the horses' mouth?
I will send a few reminders out that this debate is ongoing. Thanks Charles.
My understanding is that the BDUK funding was for the rural areas, the 'final third' where 1st generation broadband is demonstrating market failure, but it seems to have morphed into a 'superfast' way of enabling street cabinets and bonding copper to deliver the UK USC of 2 megabits. But I am happy to be proved wrong.
The funding is for areas
The funding is for areas where there is market failure - aka no commercial provision. The USC is part of the funding terms - aka that has to be achieved in these areas as a minimuim, albeit that the ambition and expectation is for sfbb for as much of these areas as possible.
It is a gap funding model
It is a gap funding model that we are being required to use by BDUK. The infrastructure that will result from the investment will be owned by the successful bidder; the role of the local authority is to act as accountable body for the funding from government, to carry out the procurement, and contract manage delivery of the contract. In terms of risk then the procurement & contract reflect the funding terms as defined by govrnment, and therefore what they want to see from the strategy. What the area gets is super-fast broadband provision, which without the intervention it would not otherwise have. State Aid is approached in terms of the market failure to date - aka no effective market/provision.
Hi all. Chris has asked me
Hi all. Chris has asked me to repost something from a linkedin discussion originating state-side (as in des États-Unis) on our own peculiar rural issues. Elsewhere I have already posted related comments, but here goes: "Great topic and good points all around. There were 3 prior "waves of digitization" since 1983: The WAN, data, and mobile wireless. The 4th and final wave of mid and last mile digitization has been held up by the web 1.0 bust and remonopolization of the sector in the US, which was arguably the most competitive telecoms market in the 80s and 90s. Technology exists today to achieve our goals via competition and assurance by regulators that effective interconnection exists. As the mid and final miles get "digitized" bandwidth pricing will drop 99% (yes this happened in every previous wave) and then 3 types of demand elasticity kick in: private to public shift (the marginal high-volume customer returns), normal price elasticity, and application elasticity as new uses are found by 3rd parties (ie video security, HD conferencing, etc...). Contrary to conventional thought rural can actually be easier to accomplish this as the incumbent is most vulnerable to disruption due to extreme price/cost discrepancy and the failure of the vertically integrated model in the new paradigm. Lastly, rural and urban are related via Metcalfe's law (the network effect), so rural could be the tail wagging the dog. http://bit.ly/z64U3A Anybody looking for a sustainable solution in the rural market should contact me. The solution is within reach..." Cheers from NYC, Michael.
Thanks Michael, its good to
Thanks Michael, its good to have input from across the pond. Could you in brief answer one question, how can Europe facilitate the roll out of high speed broadband to rural areas?
"Moving away from copper
"Moving away from copper lines is an example of abandoning obsolete technology and embracing technology that is faster, better, cheaper and more convenient," said Rob Frieden, Pioneers Chair in Cable Television and professor of telecommunications and law. "But the risk is that we may be creating a digital divide -- not necessarily a divide between the rich and poor, but between the information rich and information poor." http://phys.org/news/2012-05-technology-convergence-widen-digital.html
The risk is, as cities lose their old copper phone lines that rural areas will be ignored and left to the mercy of mobile. Currently in the UK the incumbent is still using the copper, but what is going to happen when it is forced onto fibre with the competition now starting? Who is going to make sure 90% of the land mass isn't left on the wrong side of the divide?
We need to get investment and innovation started now. Before it is too late. I think that is where we should concentrate our efforts. Start at the hardest to reach places where take up will be greater and work inwards.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/how
http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-telecom-convergence-may-widen-the-digital-...? that's another article about it which seems to be generating a rather poor debate.
I would just like to butt in
I would just like to butt in here and mention that I live in a major city in the UK and have tried a few ISPs and had engineer visits and a new box installed in my house, and I can still only get half a megabit on my connection. All my neighbours are the same. It is not just a rural issue.
Thanks.
Thanks Louise, it is
Thanks Louise, it is something we hear a lot, there are long lines even in urban areas. That is why cabinets are not the answer and are only a stop gap solution.
Its the same in many urban
Its the same in many urban areas. I can confirm it is the same in mine, and also my family/associates in other cities in the UK have the same issues.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/05/labour-mp-claims-uk-superfa...
Just seen this article, and that in a nutshell is what we are up against in the UK. MPs who get their emails on dead trees.
Pages