BDUK – Q3 2019 Superfast Broadband Take-up by UK Region

Andrew Ferguson says:

The slow part is to be expected when rolling out in rural areas (FTTP is slower to build, has more people hours of labour involved), could be a lot faster in rural areas, but would require focus to be on an individual local authority at a time and then the battle would be those left authorities left to the end.

If there is £1 billion of public money (central + LA + devolved) recycling from the BDUK programme then it must be one of the most efficient state aid interventions ever. Or the flip side is why was it bothered with at all?

NGA for all says:

After 7 Select Committee inquiries +audit function reports + challenges to them, the attempts which amounted to a significant level of normalised deviancy to displace the monies were interrupted. The monies available are a matter of public record but a great deal of denial has meant it will take quite a bit of effort to convert those funds into coverage.

That battle is not won, the last two Junior Ministers demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the detail in front of select committees. Ed Vaizeys oral evidence in 2016 took a year before his successor said he had no record of Ed Vaizy’s claims in his evidence. This was all occurring at the expense of the rural user and the UK’s national infrastructure.

NGA for all says:

Facts. In signing the commercial confidentiality agreement, you become a co-signature to the BT Gambit. LA’s were unable to compare notes and one outcome was BT contributing different amounts in different areas. 9.g. much lower in Wales, H&I, early NI .. if there is a record of payment.

One you declare your have value for money, it becomes difficult to suggest that the project was subject to high levels of normalised deviancy. Joint press releases, photo opportunities… common language..

It can also be the case that BT may well be paying its capital contribution, (non-standard ie <£40 in places) and the LDP is deciding not to spend the upside on Broadband, while leaving service gaps in rural. This is confidentiality working against the customer for a second time.

There is an upside for Openreach if they have the courage to act separately from BT Group.

TheFacts says:

From elsewhere:

@NGA – please explain what you mean by ‘held to account’. What are you actually going to do?

CarlT says:

It was done to accelerate deployment to less economical areas, Andrew, as you know

No idea where ‘completing rural’ comes from but then I don’t have the level of fixation on this matter an anti-vaxxer does on vaccines.

Surprising that, with that level of fixation, basic facts seem elusive.

However I’ve wasted enough time on this. Regrettably whenever state aided programmes of any variety are even remotely involved in a news story on here, from broadband right down to local authority procurement and anchor tenancy for metro rings, Erin Broadbandovich appears.

New resolution for the year: a gentleman best avoided.

NGA for all says:

Carl T I have answered your points. The 98% is not in any of the B-USO or DCMS or Ofcom documentation in 2016-2017. I have not seen Matt’s comments. The £5bn will need to be evidence based. I did not see referenced in the autumn budget.

Simple facts I stand by and evidenced, sledge if you wish.

NGA for all says:

New_Londoner – the original state aid is clear, the gap funding mechanism is clear and given the costs, it would mean if properly applied the monies would end up in rural where needed. Your contention that it was not about a final third largely in rural is an unacceptable re-writing of events.

That BT commercial was less than 50% in BI and Wales and not marginally more in Scotland provides an indication of just how much BT Goup used the scheme to reduce its commercial footprint and abused the commercial confidentiality process to do so.

The outstanding information is on BT capital contribution to direct allowable costs.
For FTTC 4.7m premises (400k FTTP) (l+1.1 VM premises) x £80 = £464m for FTTC plus a further £120m for the ~400k FTTP, the latter excludes Cornwall. On top of the clawback balance of ~£660m, there is likely to be at least a further ~£300m to be found.

TheFacts says:

@NGA – does anyone else in the industry agree with your numbers?

Sunil Sood says:

@NGA “The £5bn will need to be evidence based. I did not see referenced in the autumn budget.”

The £5bn is for gigabit broadband and was a commitment first made when Boris was standing for election as Conservative leader and then repeated during the general election.

I’m surprised you reference an autumn budget – there hasn’t been one since Boris became PM.

In fact, 2019 is the first time in 251 years that there hasn’t been a budget in the year at all.

NGA for all says:

Sunil, I stand corrected on the autumn statement, it was slated twice. The preliminaries were not highlighting the £5bn, it went missing and subsequent wordngs is about the legislation to institionalise guidelines written in 2010-11 on changes to building reg to accommodate fibre roll-out.

It will need to be evidence bases.

NGA for all says:

Facts, .. who agrees? How bizarre! As long as 2+2 = 4 and is not permitted to be 2+2= whatever you want to be, then agreement is only at best delayed.

The truth has been emerging and will continue to emerge more fully from behind the mis-use of commercial confidentiality…it does not matter if anybody agrees. You only need 1 member of 1 SC to pose the question and keep posing it until it is answered. I think we about £300m short(unreconciled) and 500k more rural premises to be contracted for full fibre and thus short of the outcome possible.

Despite the dystopian nature of BT Group’s involvement in this project, it does not take much to highlight the mispresentations and disinformation. This is much easier than orchestrating 1571 in BT in a company that did not want to do it. Similarly, Communicator clients failed but SKype used BT’s sors, so the proposition was sound but BT could not change its approach. The failure to invest in fibre (2012-2016) shows a profound failure in foresight by those in charge at the time.

Your continual peculiar questions have played their full part. Happy New Year and Thank You!

NGA for all says:

New_Londoner Happy New Year to you.
The term Gambit was decided upon by a BT person on this forum. Documenting the BT ‘Gambit’ -inflated costs (accepted), – diversion of subsidy from urban to rural (accepted), and non-payment or very delayed payment of BT capital is not yet definitive but it is necessary if the UK rural economy is not to be denied the upgrades needed.

The termed Gambit offered by BT folk is useful. You need a lawyer when discussing a conspiracy to defraud, a sociologist to describe the impact of Normalised Deviancy and a Bishop to describe what he might describe as sin. Not all are defined contractual terms but essential to manage if the optimum outcome is to be achieved.

The latest version of evidence you malign is sponsored by the EFRA Select Committee here.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvfru/2223/2223.pdf Chapter 4 is relevant.

Can you point to a better public data source?

The most import bit is how the already available funds can be deployed to complete the task set out in 2011-12. Your perspective on how best to complete rural would be welcome.

Gadget says:

I’m not sure about the wording or source of the acceptance for:

Inflated costs – whilst bid costs will have had margin for contingency since only the validated and receipted build costs were eligible for refund so the choice of description IMHO implies a belief that there was an active premeditation to defraud which I do not believe. Perhaps caution application of contingency costing might be less polarising although still ultimately moot as only incurred costs can be claimed.

diversion of subsidy from urban to rural – while that may have been the intention with it’s supporting “sound-bites”, the tender and subsequent contractual requirements are not about rural over urban enablement but AFAIK a government requirement to achieve the largest number of premises. and it will be against contractual requirements that the rollout was proposed, discussed and agreed.

non-payment or very delayed payment of BT capital – I cannot find any specific mention of this in the cited report which does mention transparency of claw-back and the need for a national approach which is in the gift of the authorities (local and central) and not the successful bidder in any contract. But search as I might I’m struggling to link those sentiments above with anything in the EFRA document.

TheFacts says:

@NGA – so the ‘organisation’ is just you!

Presenting as evidence does not mean it is analysed and accepted as correct.

New_Londoner says:

@NGA
Quote: “The latest version of evidence you malign is sponsored by the EFRA Select Committee here.https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvfru/2223/2223.pdf Chapter 4 is relevant.

Can you point to a better public data source?”

Mike
This is not a public data source, this is simply a record of a committee hearing where you made a number of unsubstantiated statements – unsubstantiated in the sense that you offered no third party evidence, just referred to your own report which has had many inaccuracies highlighted on this site and others.

Restating an error does not magically turn it into a fact, even if you state it in the Palace of Westminster! I note that the report summary on page 3 makes no reference to any of your points.

In your comments to @TheFacts you suggest that your evidence was “it was commented upon by other experts”. It is not obvious from the report that any of the other witnesses passed comment on your report of other statements. In addition, the Country and Land Business Association, Rural Services Network and Action with Communities in Rural England are experts in the rural economy not broadband.

NGA for all says:

Facts & N-L the data quoted is referenced back to BT and other sources including earlier BT submissions which have proven unreliable.

If your dismissing Parliamentary efforts, then no individual or entity no matter how inconsequential will be permitted to question the abuse.

I would be relieved if 2+2 = 5 (4 +1) as the +1 would have made a sensible contingency. What was witnessed and reported was more like 2+2 = ~40. The scale of the latter meant the utilisation of BT capital was unlikely.

The use of ‘unit costs’ of £300 in Wales was particularly criminal in intent in my opinion and was at least not repeated in the Framework, ditto the capital contribution in North Yorks which was so very low.

Even the late Bill Murphy, someone who enjoyed bullying people, thought at least privately the gambit was OTT.

The matter is worth pursuing for Openreach and UK customers as it will allow a threshold to be passed in terms of coverage it will permit the notion of a ‘reasonable request’ for full fibre. Under no circumstances should 17% of SME’s (Ofcoms ‘Nations’) or indeed 17% of rural customers (EFRA) be denied upgrades because of the folly originating from individuals no longer in BT or Openreach.

New_Londoner says:

@NGA
I note that you’ve disregarded all of the points in my last post and instead launched into a disgraceful ad hominem attack on a deceased person. I hope that you will reflect on this and apologise publicly to his family.

In the meantime, to repeat my previous points and to address some of your diversionary ones:

1. You claimed that EFRA endorsed your report when it did not – the reality is that you referred to your own report and the EFRA notes simply documented that you had done so;
2. You claimed that experts at the hearing had endorsed your position when they did not – as far as I can see based on the EFRA report, none even referenced your comments let alone agreed with you;
3. You have subsequently claimed that “the data quoted is referenced back to BT and other sources including earlier BT submissions which have proven unreliable”, this is misleading as your report uses assumptions, guesswork and extrapolation in order to reach false conclusions about the data, something which has been drawn to your attention many times over the years and that you have ignored;
4. You now introduce new points to divert from your lack of response such as your views on the notion of ‘reasonable requests’ for full fibre, something of your own invention which does not address the shortcomings in your analysis in any way;
5. You continue to disregard the basic premise of the BDUK frameworks and the subsequent contracts let by the various local bodies, repeatedly suggesting that these should be set aside and money diverted exclusively to broadband in rural areas, irrespective of the wishes and priorities of the local authorities whose money it is.

Bottom line: your views are misinformed by poor technical understanding and faulty financial analysis and are completely undermined by your refusal to acknowledge the contractual realities of BDUK. This is your choice but please stop wasting the time of others, especially those funded by taxpayers, with what is no more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

I hope some of the real experts on here will reach out to the EFRA committee to correct the record by providing factual input to inform their thinking.

Don’t forget that apology!

NGA for all says:

N-L I look forward to the corrections and the evidence to support calendarised payments to allowable costs that you think are needed. They are seven years in the waiting. At present they are lacking.

You will get an apology if or when the evidence emerges of the above payments and investments to allowable costs. Show when those payments were made and how they supported the roll-out.

Bill enjoyed the fight, we can honour his memory by getting full disclosure of all payments by BT to these projects. It is took 18 months to raise the money, LDP stripping social services budgets to fund this work. The very least that should be done is show when BT’s contributions were made and how they were applied.

TheFacts says:

@NGA – a simple question – why are the LAs or BDUK not investigating this?

The Facts says:

@NGA – ‘Audit Scotland if asked would now suggest the payments are ‘expected’.’

That’s a weird set of words.

Gadget says:

@NGA – why are the number of cabs surprising? A quick trawl through Samknows or other public domain sources will show the additional cabs as completely reasonable given the size of the exchange, the population density and the number of EO only exchanges.