By: MarkJ - 16 August, 2011 (8:26 AM) - Score: 5855 - Fixed Line Broadband, Satellite, Wi-Fi, Mobile Broadband
The government's Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) office, which has an initial budget of £530m to ensure that 90% of "people in each local authority area" can access a superfast broadband (25Mbps+) ISP service by 2015 (the remaining 10% will only get a minimum speed of 2Mbps), has today allocated its remaining money to councils across England (£294.8m) and Scotland (£68.8m - Scottish Government "will need to consider how best to use the funds").The DCMS Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, said:
"I am absolutely determined that the UK will have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015 – one that we all benefit from. Fast broadband is absolutely vital to our economic growth, to delivering public services effectively, and to conducting our everyday lives.
But some areas of the UK are missing out, with many rural and hard-to-reach communities suffering painfully slow internet connections or no coverage at all. We are not prepared to let some parts of our country get left behind in the digital age.
The Government is investing £530 million of public money to help bring broadband to every home and business in the UK. We are doing our part – it is now up to local authorities and the Scottish Government to do their bit, to get on board and work with us to secure the social and economic future of their communities.
I urge all those suffering the frustration of slow internet connections to make it clear to your local elected representatives that you expect them to do what is needed to access this investment and to deliver broadband to your community."
"I am absolutely determined that the UK will have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015 – one that we all benefit from. Fast broadband is absolutely vital to our economic growth, to delivering public services effectively, and to conducting our everyday lives.
But some areas of the UK are missing out, with many rural and hard-to-reach communities suffering painfully slow internet connections or no coverage at all. We are not prepared to let some parts of our country get left behind in the digital age.
The Government is investing £530 million of public money to help bring broadband to every home and business in the UK. We are doing our part – it is now up to local authorities and the Scottish Government to do their bit, to get on board and work with us to secure the social and economic future of their communities.
I urge all those suffering the frustration of slow internet connections to make it clear to your local elected representatives that you expect them to do what is needed to access this investment and to deliver broadband to your community."
The BDUK allocation is calculated based on the modelled scale of "the problem" in each area (i.e. the number of state aid "white premises" that are eligible for subsidy because they cannot currently get a good broadband connection). Today's move is in addition to the £56.9 Million that was recently allocated to Wales (here) and the £4.4 Million for Northern Ireland (here). But not everybody thinks that the money will be enough.
Malcolm Corbett, CEO of the Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA), warned:
"Government funding to help meet the challenges of broadband deployment is welcome. However on it’s own the funding available can't solve the broadband notspots and deliver universal next generation broadband. BDUK has indicated that its funding amounts to £60-£70 per premise in those 'final third' areas beyond the reach of commercial deployment. So Cumbria gets £17m to cover 240,000 premises. This compares to an average cost nationally of about £1000 per premise for a fully future-proofed job - i.e. fibre to the premise.
In the absence of a national next gen roll-out plan, channelling the funding locally is a good thing. Local authorities, working with their local communities and the private sector, are in a good position to work out how best to deal with their broadband problems. Many have been thinking hard about these issues for some time and have been developing innovative schemes - in both rural and urban areas. However BDUK is insisting that local authorities adopt a common 'gap funding' approach which tends to work against broadband 'localism' - i.e. examining the local issues then coming up with funding and technology solutions that can best serve local needs. The BDUK framework could end up being a straitjacket that stifles innovation.
Many of INCA’s private sector members share these concerns, not least some of the smaller, innovative companies that are building next generation broadband networks, often in the most challenging areas. They face being excluded from the funding programme except as sub-contractors to the big players.
Arguably these are perhaps inevitable consequences of the government’s target to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. It’s a great target that everyone has got behind, but the timescale becomes very challenging when public procurement, tendering and project development enter the frame."
"Government funding to help meet the challenges of broadband deployment is welcome. However on it’s own the funding available can't solve the broadband notspots and deliver universal next generation broadband. BDUK has indicated that its funding amounts to £60-£70 per premise in those 'final third' areas beyond the reach of commercial deployment. So Cumbria gets £17m to cover 240,000 premises. This compares to an average cost nationally of about £1000 per premise for a fully future-proofed job - i.e. fibre to the premise.
In the absence of a national next gen roll-out plan, channelling the funding locally is a good thing. Local authorities, working with their local communities and the private sector, are in a good position to work out how best to deal with their broadband problems. Many have been thinking hard about these issues for some time and have been developing innovative schemes - in both rural and urban areas. However BDUK is insisting that local authorities adopt a common 'gap funding' approach which tends to work against broadband 'localism' - i.e. examining the local issues then coming up with funding and technology solutions that can best serve local needs. The BDUK framework could end up being a straitjacket that stifles innovation.
Many of INCA’s private sector members share these concerns, not least some of the smaller, innovative companies that are building next generation broadband networks, often in the most challenging areas. They face being excluded from the funding programme except as sub-contractors to the big players.
Arguably these are perhaps inevitable consequences of the government’s target to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015. It’s a great target that everyone has got behind, but the timescale becomes very challenging when public procurement, tendering and project development enter the frame."
The government also expects councils, which have now effectively taken over responsibility for administering the money from BDUK, to adopt a match-funding approach (i.e. a 50/50 split with private sector investment) that could effectively double the size of their pot.
BDUK has previously indicated that it could still claw an additional £300m out of the BBC's 3.5% (TV Licence fee) Digital Switchover Budget (i.e. a total BDUK budget of £830m), which would run between 2015 and 2017, if it felt that more would be needed to complete the task properly.
ISPreview.co.uk has also put together a clearer list of today's allocations, which took a long time to complete so we hope you appreciate the effort
(note: as better information becomes available from the pilot procurements then model assumptions and allocations could still be "refined") .BDUK Funding Distribution in EnglandUPDATE 1:00pm
1. Bedfordshire
Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton
White Premises: 34,865 (13.4% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £1,060,000
2. Berkshire
Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead, Wokingham
White Premises: 29,027 (8.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £1,430,000
3. Buckinghamshire
Buckinghamshire, Milton Keynes
White Premises: 54,703 (17.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £2,100,000
4. Cambridgeshire
Cambridgeshire, Peterborough
White Premises: 140,956 (40.5% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £6,750,000
5. Cheshire
Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, Warrington
White Premises: 100,613 (21.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £3,240,000
6. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
Cornwall, Isles of Scilly
White Premises: 232,361 (89.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £0 (presumed covered by major on-going BT broadband project)
7. Cumbria
Cumbria
White Premises: 240,683 (96.2% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £17,130,000
8. Derbyshire
Derbyshire, Derby
White Premises: 188,043 (40.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £7,390,000
9. Devon and Somerset
Devon, Plymouth, Torbay, Somerset, North Somerset
White Premises: 563,022 (64.2% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £31,320,000
10. Dorset
Dorset, Bournemouth, Poole
White Premises: 172,670 (48.3% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £9,440,000
11. Durham
County Durham, Gateshead
White Premises: 144,692 (42.8% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £7,790,000
12. East Sussex
East Sussex, Brighton and Hove
White Premises: 226,530 (62.5% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £10,640,000
13. Essex
Essex, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock
White Premises: 219,525 (28.4% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £6,460,000
14. Gloucestershire
Gloucestershire
White Premises: 150,405 (54.3% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £8,070,000
15. Greater London
Greater London
White Premises: 34,877 (1.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £0 (presumed covered by private sector)
16. Greater Manchester
Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan
White Premises: 71,171 (5.8% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £990,000
17. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight
Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth, Southampton
White Premises: 227,592 (26.9% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £8,420,000
18. Herefordshire
County Of Herefordshire
White Premises: 83,962 (99.8% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £6,350,000
19. Hertfordshire
Hertfordshire
White Premises: 39,126 (8.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £1,110,000
20. Humber
City Of Kingston upon Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire
White Premises: No KCOM DATA (? of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £8,540,000 (subject to revision)
21. Kent
Kent, Medway
White Premises: 279,001 (36.7% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £9,870,000
22. Lancashire
Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool
White Premises: 260,716 (38.7% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £10,830,000
23. Leicestershire and Rutland
Leicestershire, Leicester, Rutland
White Premises: 109,190 (25.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £3,880,000
24. Lincolnshire
Lincolnshire
White Premises: 230,963 (69.6% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £14,310,000
25. Merseyside
Knowsley, Liverpool, St. Helens, Sefton, Wirral
White Premises: 105,884 (16.6% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £5,460,000
26. Norfolk
Norfolk
White Premises: 274,175 (66.8% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £15,440,000
27. Northamptonshire
Northamptonshire
White Premises: 74,118 (23.9% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,080,000
28. Northumberland
Northumberland
White Premises: 108,508 (71.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £7,030,000
29. North Yorkshire
North Yorkshire, York
White Premises: 247,864 (66.6% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £17,840,000
30. Nottinghamshire
Nottinghamshire, Nottingham
White Premises: 117,650 (23.7% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,250,000
31. Oxfordshire
Oxfordshire
White Premises: 83,570 (29.8% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £3,860,000
32. Shropshire
Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin
White Premises: 101,413 (48.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £8,210,000
33. South Yorkshire
Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield
White Premises: 227,635 (37.6% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £0 (presumed covered by Digital Region Ltd.)
34. Staffordshire
Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent
White Premises: 178,158 (36.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £7,440,000
35. Suffolk
Suffolk
White Premises: 226,184 (66.5% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £11,680,000
36. Surrey
Surrey
White Premises: 52,822 (10.7% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £1,310,000
37. Tees Valley
Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees
White Premises: 26,550 (8.7% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £770,000
38. Tyne and Wear
Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland
White Premises: 119,004 (28.0% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £3,420,000
39. Warwickshire
Warwickshire, Coventry, Solihull
White Premises: 119,757 (25.1% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,070,000
40. West of England
Bath and North East Somerset, City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire
White Premises: 54,560 (14.4% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £1,430,000
41. West Midlands
Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton
White Premises: 95,611 (10.2% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £630,000
42. West Sussex
West Sussex
White Premises: 175,526 (47.3% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £6,260,000
43. West Yorkshire
Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds, Wakefield
White Premises: 212,336 (21.2% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £6,340,000
44. Wiltshire
Wiltshire, Swindon
White Premises: 104,145 (34.5% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £4,900,000
45. Worcestershire
Worcestershire
White Premises: 63,280 (24.7% of total premises) | BDUK Cash: £3,350,000
The UK Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which claim to have been calling for public sector money to provide superfast broadband in the countryside since 2003, welcomed today's news.
CLA President, William Worsley, said:
"I am delighted the Government recognises that rural areas are missing out on all the benefits broadband brings and that the countryside should not be overlooked. Rural areas are woefully underserved by even an adequate broadband service let alone superfast.
The CLA has argued for eight years that a Public Private Partnership (PPP) should be created to provide the correct level of investment for a superfast broadband infrastructure and today’s announcement by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt supports this.
The Government has now handed the baton to local authorities so rural residents and businesses must tell their local councils if they are suffering from poor access or no broadband at all and make sure their concerns are listened to.
Broadband is the key to unlocking the potential of the rural economy and these areas now have the opportunity to grasp the same advantages enjoyed by their urban counterparts."
"I am delighted the Government recognises that rural areas are missing out on all the benefits broadband brings and that the countryside should not be overlooked. Rural areas are woefully underserved by even an adequate broadband service let alone superfast.
The CLA has argued for eight years that a Public Private Partnership (PPP) should be created to provide the correct level of investment for a superfast broadband infrastructure and today’s announcement by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt supports this.
The Government has now handed the baton to local authorities so rural residents and businesses must tell their local councils if they are suffering from poor access or no broadband at all and make sure their concerns are listened to.
Broadband is the key to unlocking the potential of the rural economy and these areas now have the opportunity to grasp the same advantages enjoyed by their urban counterparts."
Tweet
Comments: 21
PhilTPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 9:53 AM
Link to comment
Spreadsheet at http://j.mp/qFJbDX includes previous announcements.
Average subsidy <£50 per premise.
BDUK say "The market is expecting ~40 procurements covering contiguous areas of between 100k – 300k premises scale. Suppliers will have insufficient capacity and commercial
interest in bidding for a greater number of smaller procurements, therefore successful delivery of the programme requires aggregation (e.g. by counties or LEPs) of tier1
local authority plans into a ‘joint’ local broadband plan and project to achieve the necessary scale."
ConfusedPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 10:06 AM
Link to comment
RE: BDUK Funding Distribution in England and Scotland UK
Um, where is the funding in Scotland exactly? Can't see any reference to it in the list...
MarkJPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 10:11 AM
Link to comment
In Scotland the Scottish Government will need to consider how best to use the funds and I've corrected that in the article to make it clear.
SledgehammerPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 11:41 AM
Link to comment
All nice words and good intentions, which will fail for the last 10 percent, we've run out of cash. You will have to wait.
Innovative schemes, technology solutions to best serve local needs, there is only ONE solution to serve all of us, that is FTTH. It will give everybody a level playing field.
It is what everyone wants and are being denied by the government and BT who pull all the strings.
New_LondonerPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 1:29 PM
Link to comment
@Sledgehammer
I presume you can spot the contradiction between "we've run out of cash" and "is only ONE solution to serve all of us, that is FTTH"?
The obvious questions to all the people that keep banging on that FTTH is the only answer are:
1. Why do you need more than the 30Mbps from FTTC (the current average speed according to Ofcom), bearing in mind this should double next year?
2. What is your business case? No doubt it includes evidence that people are prepared to pay for these speeds despite moaning at the current pricing for ADSL?
3. How much funding have you lined up to pay for this, given it is way beyond the money availble from the public purse?
Without credible answers to the above it is difficult to see large-scale FTTH deployment.
New_LondonerPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 1:38 PM
Link to comment
PS Before anyone mentions South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong etc, note that the average download speeds in these countries (according to Akamai) is less than 14Mbps. Even the average peak connection speeds were in the range 30-40Mbps. These speeds do not require FTTH!
MaxPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 2:40 PM
Link to comment
I want to know more about how this is calculated. For example, Merseyside has 5000 less white premises than Leicestershire & Rutland, yet has been allocated over £1m more.
BTSUCKSPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 3:37 PM
Link to comment
QUOTE"PS Before anyone mentions South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong etc, note that the average download speeds in these countries (according to Akamai) is less than 14Mbps. Even the average peak connection speeds were in the range 30-40Mbps. These speeds do not require FTTH!"
Indeed you are correct on that, however the first line quote by Mr Jeremy Hunt of "I am absolutely determined that the UK will have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015"
Is once again a load of waffle.
The Q3 2010 Akamai report didnt even see us in the top 10...
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2011/01/25/akamai-reveals-q3-2010-uk-average-broadband-internet-speed-topped-4mbp
s.html I doubt suddenly we are going to go from the position we are to the best in Europe looking at that chart. Especially when some of those countries do have FTTH in some areas.
MarkJPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 3:40 PM
Link to comment
Max,
I doubt they'll release that. Every area will be very different, so it's not an easy apple to apples comparison. There are so many different variables and technologies to consider, such as distance between homes and their cabinets/exchanges, that it wouldn't be easy to simplify.
Also every county will have its own plan and methodology based around this.
wtfPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 3:52 PM
Link to comment
Seriously, wtf does race have to do with it? What are they trying to say? White people are the only ones who can afford internet? wtf
SledgehammerPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 5:42 PM
Link to comment
@ NEW_LONDONER
Ok lets go with your idea that we all don't need FTTH. We can all put up with say 30Mbps. It will still mean that 10% of people will still not get anywhere near 30Mbps. Also it's going to take a fair few years just to complete FTTC.
Maybe a better idea is to do a survey on what speed we think we need (i.e. FTTC or FTTH)
Then lets see where that takes us.
P.S. by the time FTTC or FTTH arrives new ideas for the use of the internet will mean we again have to change our thinking on the whole issue.
HillPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 5:46 PM
Link to comment
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/BDUK-Funding-Allocation-16-08-11.pdf
Note 1
A ‘white area’ is an area with poor broadband provision which is eligible for State support to receive quality broadband.
Sledgehammer FTTH is the future but the simple problem is that there is not the funding avaliable to rollout nationally.
Prehaps once the FTTC/FTTP roll out has finished area's that need FTTH will be enabled as the fibre is part of the way there.
New_LondonerPosted: 16 August, 2011 - 7:51 PM
Link to comment
Sledgehammer
By all means go with the idea of a survey but please make sure that the questions include an indication of the cost of the various options. Let's squash the idea of a free lunch here, make it clear how many hospitals / police etc will be sacrificed for the purists to have their way of FTTH everywhere - I'm assuming substantial public funding as there is no busines case.
A couple of other points. I've no problem with deploying FTTH (or other opions) selectively where FTTC can't deliver the required speed to to line length. FTTC deployment is far faster than FTTH, so more people can see a substantial improvement much more quickly.
BTSUCKSPosted: 17 August, 2011 - 1:04 AM
Link to comment
I personally dont think the government should be funding any roll out be it FTTH or FTTC.
They just do not understand how the internet works in any sense. In this article we have Mr Hunt thinking we will have the best internet speeds in Europe come 2015. When the reality is the aim is for BARE MINIMUM speed to provide 2Mbps by 2015. FTTH or FTTC we aint gonna be the best in Europe. I also had to giggle at this evenings news and how the government and police were apparently just going to turn off facebook, twitter, Blackberry Messenger and more when the rioting was going on.... They must have a magic big off switch for the worlds internet and country wide mobile phone masts ;) They need to stay away from things they have no clue about.
MarkPosted: 17 August, 2011 - 1:26 AM
Link to comment
A broadband network is a fibre network. A telephone network is a telephone network.
While pragmatic to try and adapt some of the things we already have, such as utility ducting, some poles and bits and pieces, just shoving in some fibre as far as the phone cabinets in some random selected locations chosen by a sort-of-private infrastructural semi-monopoly and without re-amplifying that signal somehow to overcome the inherent speed issues is not going to bring NGA. That is really current gen for half the country; it's nothing new for them.
But then, as you say, BT could do FTTP for the lines that are poor quality or too long. Too long for 25Mbps is perhaps about 1km depending on the quality of the last bit of phone wiring. I don't know how many cabs are > 1km from the properties, but we're not talking a few dozen.
I don't see that in BT's rollout plans.
MarkPosted: 17 August, 2011 - 1:27 AM
Link to comment
.. I'm sure they'd prefer to carry on with this "up to" nonsense focusing on headline speeds (I await the day when we start getting posts about people getting 5Mbps on their 'up to 80Mbps BT fibre' connections).
If you run fibre to every single cabinet in the country I wonder what the average BT based FTTC speed would be across all lines. I'm betting it would be well short of 25Mbps. The cabinets could be moved about and lots more put in (and all the DACS boxes taken out), but this is just trying to make something unsuitable, suitable. We could actually just do this properly.
The project is not about "a substantial improvement". In 2011, just about anything would be a substantial improvement. This is about NGA. BT can always come to that party if they care to.
New_LondonerPosted: 17 August, 2011 - 7:21 AM
Link to comment
@Mark
Why the apparent fixation on FTTP? ADSL (ie the phone network) certainly delivers broadband, as does cable and wireless, unless you have your own personal definition of broadband?
FTTC should be delivering up to 80Mbps next year, cable is delivering 100Mbps. Very few people need more than those speeds, even fewer are willing to pay. Difficult to see a private sector investor funding a country-wide FTTP network anytime soon, even more difficult to see public sector funding at anything close to the level to make such a network economic.
MarkPosted: 17 August, 2011 - 11:39 AM
Link to comment
We're talking NGA which earlier in the thread was defined as 25Mbps+, not "somewehere between 135kbps and 40Mbps".
ADSL is not broadband. ADSL is capable of delivering anything from 135kbps upwards. ADSL might be able to deliver a broadband service, though even with a miserably poor 4Mbps goal it can only achieve even that on about half the phone lines.
You do rather make my point for me.
"FTTC should be delivering up to 80Mbps next year, cable is delivering 100Mbps".
Well, about 95Mbps according to the stats. BT could achieve similar, as I said - but for them, they would have to move cabs about and install new ones. We don't need the 100Mbps, no. But to guarantee FTTC being an NGA 25Mbps+ solution every house would need the cab to be perhaps 1.5km away or less.
Lots of cabs. Don't see that in BT's plans. So I think local bodies will need to draft tenders carefully.
BTSUCKSPosted: 17 August, 2011 - 3:52 PM
Link to comment
The main problem with the 80Mb lark they plan to boost current and future FTTC speeds to is even less will get that full rate.
VDSL2 no matter who it is from (This isnt just BT bashing) loses massive amounts of speed over relatively short distances.
UPTO speeds on it for many are a complete and utter pipedream. Once the cab to home distance (IE the copper bit) goes 1km or more speeds drop from a theoretical (approx) 100Mb all the way down to 30Mb or less. Of course thats fine for now with the service being rated UPTO 40Mb, same wont be said when its rated *cough* as an UPTO 80Mb service.
BobPosted: 20 August, 2011 - 11:03 AM
Link to comment
Voice & data have pretty much converged so the Telephone network is perfectly ok with FTTC for over 98% of the UK. THe other 2% would be unlikly to get FFTH even if it were rolled out widely a the cost would be through the roof.
For residential use 25Mbs is far more than needed at present
The techonolgy of the FTTC approach is still being developed and no doubt speeds will improve.
If the requirement for phones to operate without power were dropped it would become sensible for BT to put fibre into new developments
BTSUCKSPosted: 21 August, 2011 - 3:21 PM
Link to comment
Too bad the last time i checked the guaranteed speed on Infinity FTTC is a pathetic 5Mb.
Generated in 0.36288 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).