By: MarkJ - 21 February, 2012 (7:18 AM) - Score: 2253 - Fixed Line Broadband
The NextGenUs project in Cumbria, which hopes to bring "county-wide" superfast broadband ISP services to the regions rural areas via a mix of fibre optic and wireless (FiWi) connections (here), has threatened Cumbria County Council (CCC) with legal action if it attempts to award taxpayers money from the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) office to BT .The council was last year awarded £17,130,000 to help it deploy broadband services into rural areas (BDUK Funding Allocations). The funding is supposed to help 90% of "people in each local authority area" gain access to a superfast internet service (25Mbps+) by 2015 (the last 10% will only get a minimum speed of 2Mbps).
NextGenUs claims that the market, without public subsidy, already has "firm plans" to deliver such services. Its own Cumbria FiWi project, which is supported by an investment of more than £1 Million, is currently connecting up the Eden District and plans to expand county-wide are already said to be "in place" (crucially we note that this will still depend upon "community demand").
Guy Jarvis, MD of NextGenUs, said (Br0kenTeleph0n3):
"I can confirm that NextGenUs will challenge any CCC (Cumbria County Council) award of taxpayers’ money to BT on the grounds that the market, without any public subsidy, is either delivering superfast service in Cumbria or has firm plans to so do."
"I can confirm that NextGenUs will challenge any CCC (Cumbria County Council) award of taxpayers’ money to BT on the grounds that the market, without any public subsidy, is either delivering superfast service in Cumbria or has firm plans to so do."
The stance has also picked up support from the MD of West Sussex focused wireless ISP Kijoma, Bill Lewis, whom has apparently "been challenging West Sussex County Council over their blatant pro-BT stance for years". Regular readers might recall that Kijoma's service was also absent from the WSCC's initial maps of rural broadband coverage, which incorrectly made the towns and villages that they serve show up as "Not Spots" (i.e. areas of poor or no broadband connectivity).
It's easy to see why some alternative network providers get so miffed. Thankfully those maps were eventually removed but the risk of market distortion remains.
Bill Lewis, MD of Kijoma, added:
"In this county we have the added stitch-up with the three non-ADSL exchanges. I am informed that they have gained permission from BDUK to spend some of the money to enable these exchanges for a '2Mbps service'.
As the commercial incumbent in these areas for ~7 years I am a bit miffed obviously as when we asked about funding (for) our networks back in 2003-2004 they snubbed it."
"In this county we have the added stitch-up with the three non-ADSL exchanges. I am informed that they have gained permission from BDUK to spend some of the money to enable these exchanges for a '2Mbps service'.
As the commercial incumbent in these areas for ~7 years I am a bit miffed obviously as when we asked about funding (for) our networks back in 2003-2004 they snubbed it."
Meanwhile the Cumbria County Council originally shortlisted three operators to help bring better broadband to the county, which included many of the usual big boys (i.e. BT, Cable & Wireless (C&W) and Fujitsu) and none of the small fry.
In fairness councils do face somewhat of a dilemma. Many smaller ISPs do not have a £20m minimum required turnover for the last two financial years and operate closed networks (no viable wholesale solutions), which appears to exclude them (BDUK Framework Rules) from public subsidy (we note that the Welsh Broadband Support Scheme, which offers grants to locals with poor connectivity instead of ISPs, found a way around this). At the same time councils often view smaller operators as more of a gamble.
At the time of writing CCC has yet to award any of the BDUK funding to a supplier, although so far the bulk appears to be pointed in BT's direction; nobody would be surprised if Cumbria followed that trend. NextGenUs are unlikely to launch a challenge until after the council has made its decision (supplier choice).
Tweet
Comments: 38
New_LondonerPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 9:09 AM
Link to comment
A case of sour grapes perhaps? Presumably NextGenUs could have bid itself, assuming it was prepared to offer a wholesale option, but either chose not to or was not short-listed? If it didn't bid then worth asking why not?
There is a world of difference between having a firm plan for deployment, with committed funding etc, and simply having an aspiration to do something in the future if there proves to be "community demand". And does this "plan" cover the whole county or just cherry pick the larger communities?
MarkJPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 9:16 AM
Link to comment
I don't think BDUK's framework would of allowed them to bid anyway as they're too small and there don't appear to be enough local alternatives to build a consortium of suitable size.
BobPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 9:26 AM
Link to comment
A lot of the problem is the very poor way that the BDUK funding has been allocated and is being used. It means in effect almost all the money goes to BT.
The WiFI operators generally do not operate at the wholesale lvel but in my view they have a key part to play in getting Broadband to Rural areas.
The big players show little interest in WiFi soltions for rural areas preferring to go down the far more expensive approach
WiFi is basically a residential solution. A lot more encouragement should be given to get WiFi roled out to rural areas as it is a good soltion for these areas
Contrary to what some will say it can compete on speed with FTTC. What some people do is confuse it with Open public WiFi hotspots which will be slow.
Billy LiarPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 9:28 AM
Link to comment
The BDUK tendering process would have excluded NextGenUs. To fast track through the state aid issue the UK deemed it within their powers to only allow the big guns to bid.
That said, if NextGenUs had published plans to roll out Next Gen broadband to a significant area of West Sussex before the tendering excercise then they may find that they have every right to complain to Brussels (and be successful).
NickPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 10:55 AM
Link to comment
we note that the Welsh Broadband Support Scheme, which offers grants to locals with poor connectivity, seems to get around this
That is because the grant is to the user not to the ISP. A group of users can club together to get one big pot, but it is still user focussed not a direct grant to the ISP.
NickPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 11:04 AM
Link to comment
There is a world of difference between having a firm plan for deployment, with committed funding etc,
NextGenUs is closer than BT to doing this in rural communities
and simply having an aspiration to do something in the future if there proves to be "community demand". And does this "plan" cover the whole county or just cherry pick the larger communities?
And this is actually the BT strategy
The "gap funded" model only works for BT and the politicians keep pushing it even though they know there is only one outcome.
Hopefully they will sue, as winning would bring the whole "corrupt" pack of BDUK cards down
Someone in the IndustryPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 11:23 AM
Link to comment
It has been a known fact for some time now, that BT views the BDUK grants as 'rightfully' theirs, expecting and behaving as if this is indeed the case. Local and Central government has, for obvious reasons, encouraged this attitude. The whole bidding exercise was a grand scheme to pull the wool over the eyes of the EU so that the eventual award of the money to the incumbent is not seen as a subsidy (which is what the government would like it to be). So nothing new to the story, and is good to see that someone is trying to stir up things (even though it will not go anywhere due to political pressure and eventual lack of support from the regulator)
Billy LiarPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 11:42 AM
Link to comment
@ Someone in the Industry "It has been a known fact for some time now, that BT views the BDUK grants as 'rightfully' theirs, expecting and behaving as if this is indeed the case"
Yip, it would be interesting to see the rate of support from BT before and after C&W and Fujitsu pulled out. I would imagine that BT would have offered high levels of support before and now they will have reduced it somewhat. Which of course means the Councils will have to find more money. I would imagine a lot of panic calls for EU and more BDUK money any day now.
dragoneastPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 12:56 PM
Link to comment
The BDUK process is imperfect, but I haven't found anyone suggesting a better affordable solution that works for the whole country. If you look at your own particular circumstances either as a customer or as an ISP then sure something else might work better for you, but that's not what government is about.
It's a commercial decision and I wouldn't expect the courts to interfere in the absence of a serious procedural irregularity in individual tenders.
DeductionPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 4:24 PM
Link to comment
Hope they challenge it and win, then finally we may get some real choice in this country and not be held to ransom by big nasty monopolies.
BobPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 6:52 PM
Link to comment
The small ISP's are best placed to do the last mile in rural areas. The big players are to expensive and most do not provide a WiFi solution
FibreFredPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 7:45 PM
Link to comment
So if Cable & Wireless or Fujitsu win they would take legal action against them as well? Or are they just targetting BT?
Surely the basis of their argument means they'd contest anyone winning public funds?
Telecom EngineerPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 7:59 PM
Link to comment
So take this to its conclusion and instead of "big nasty monopolies" (who actually wholesale) we would be left with little nasty monopolies instead? (who would go bust if wholesale).
Yeah. By this logic the BBC should be scrapped because SKY offer a free market solution to providing television. Trains should be scraped in villages where someone starts a taxi firm?
So rather than approach the council to get BDUK money in to install a digital pump (and then he could provide a commuinity platform for delivery) this guy believes threats of legal action will produce better returns?
Crazy.
New_LondonerPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 9:24 PM
Link to comment
@Telecom Engineer
Good point! Why is it that some automatically assume a small operator is by definition good whereas a big operator is bad? In particular a small operator proposing to build a local monopoly with no choice of broadband or telephony service provider on its network, no option for "LLU", no wholesale?
In some cases a small operator may be small because it is not very good, or because it has insufficient backing to grow.
Or look at this another way and to try and get the whole thing into perspective, would the combined investment of our two complainants across the whole of the UK be sufficient to fund infrastructure in even a single county? Cornwall for example as the total cost of providing "NGA" is in the public domain?
New_LondonerPosted: 21 February, 2012 - 9:25 PM
Link to comment
^^^^
And to be clear, Im not suggesting that either of our two complainants are either not very good or don't have sufficient backing to grow!
DeductionPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 12:10 AM
Link to comment
Oh dear back to talking to yourself again!
FibreFredPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 7:06 AM
Link to comment
Its just a nice bit of PR for NextGenUs, it will never go to court.
Remember they are taking the council to court not BT over a process not defined by the council.
If by some miracle they win and payout (to who?) would the council put any work NextGenUs way in the future? Own goal
GadgetPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 8:18 AM
Link to comment
The council should have defined the intervention areas in the tender documentation. If that included the areas where NextGenUS are already offering service then there probably is a council problem.
If its about plans for future areas then the only real winners will probably be the legal advisers on both sides.
GuyJPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 8:44 AM
Link to comment
NGU like Kijoma and other smaller innovators for superfast broadband is banned by BDUK rules from bidding for these funds, due to a pre qualification requirement of having a £20M minimum turnover for the last two financial years.
This move effectively stifles all start-up innovation and blocks SME from participating, a situation that flys in the face of Government recognition that it is precisely these types and scale of businesses that have a crucial role to play as regards UK economic recovery and job creation!
Jeremy Hunt needs to listen more carefully to George Osbourne and David Cameron in this regard, rather that continue to pay attention to the Nu-Lab era civil servants, fat cat consultants and RDA leftovers that populate BDUK?
The reality is that superfast broadband delivery is demand-driven and the Welsh Broadband Voucher approach is the proven level playing field alternative
RalphPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 8:50 AM
Link to comment
The point about all this is that the local WiFi providers can enable areas quickly and for less cost than the BTs etc. It is more that we are all stuck with this old fashioned idea of how broadband should be delivered. Lets mover on and see that the wireless solution actually might be better. For less money we could bring broadband to more people quickly. The providers can and in some cases do provide phone and other services. One interesting point from a consumer angle is that with the wireless solution and phones from the supplier (VOIP)you save on the line rental. Lets move our thinking on from fixed lines. One last thing have you ever tried to contact BT or any of these large companies when you have a problem well enough said.
NickPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 10:03 AM
Link to comment
So if Cable & Wireless or Fujitsu win they would take legal action against them as well?
The big issue here, is that not even companies of this size could make a business case work. The whole process was skewed towards organisations that have an installed customer base, and can offset existing revenues against a) removing future competition, and b) very long term payback periods.
In rural communities there are only three possibilities BT, BT and BT (OK so just the one
)BT has a monopoly and is being assisted in abusing that monopoly by a regulator with no cojones, and an incompetent BDUK.
All of the main competitors to BT in this process have stated that there was a way of structuring the process to provide real competition to BT and to provide fibre a lot further into the rural communities than BT will do, but were thwarted by the process
FibreFredPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 10:26 AM
Link to comment
So NextGenUs should be taking BDUK to court then if this process is as you say?
NickPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 2:36 PM
Link to comment
BDUK is allocating some of the money and building a procurement framework (although as BT is the only one left framework seems a bit of a grandiose title now), but the procurement entity will be the council
Suing BDUK would be like suing OFCOM, yes they are both incompetent, but they don't actually procure anything.
FibreFredPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 5:01 PM
Link to comment
But BDUK set up the process that ruled NextGenUs out, how can they sue the council for taking preference over someone that cannot bid in the first place?
BobPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 5:51 PM
Link to comment
I think using mobile for Broadband is not agood idea as speed would likely suffer even if you do avoid a line rental
My prefered solution would be fot the rural areras to hook into a FTTC cabinet and then either just a WiFi link. The simpletst and cheapest solution of where this is not possible a point to ppoinmt wirless link and then WiFi
The smaller ISP's etc are far more suited to this type of small local instalations. They have a lowwer cost base than the large incumbants and are more flexable
If an ISP went bust it is not a serious issue as another ISP takes over the services
FibreFredPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 7:30 PM
Link to comment
If an ISP went bust it is not a serious issue as another ISP takes over the services
That is a bit of a broad stroke statement Bob, what if they went bust because the area(s) they were serving were not profitable, would another ISP step in then?
watchingthemessPosted: 22 February, 2012 - 11:18 PM
Link to comment
Actually, NGU are not best placed to deliver in first mile rural because rumour has it that NGU are struggling to deliver on their home turf - Hull - and are facing imminent financial disaster within 40-60 days. (Check Facebook, Karoo forums, insider blogs etc)
Talk of asset locks, 'for the benefit of the community' etc are a thin veil hiding the reality - Guy Jarvis and his 3 cronies have seen a license to print money and are pursuing it without caring about such simple matters as QOS, customer service, VFM, technical excellence, or even a working network. As for all the money, that went a while ago when the backer, allegedly, ran a mile.
Many of the good people who were at NGU have now left. And this latest is to divert attention from NGU's problems by making public war on others eg BT, CCC and BDUK. GuyJ's MO is seemingly always the same - trouble at home, cause sh*t elsewhere.
TopTVPosted: 23 February, 2012 - 10:45 AM
Link to comment
Guy J and his band of 'Mousecateers' would do well to follow that saying - 'Walk your talk' - or get walking out of the professional arena
FibreFredPosted: 23 February, 2012 - 11:14 AM
Link to comment
Oh my talk about a laughing stock, this just gets better!
DeductionPosted: 26 February, 2012 - 12:47 PM
Link to comment
Not as funny as people that speak to there self every couple of hours.
FibreFredPosted: 27 February, 2012 - 9:09 PM
Link to comment
Is that aimed at me even when Mark has stated deduction is the main multiple I'd poster ? Based on that I thought you would have stopped banging that drum and stayed on topic
SherlockPosted: 12 March, 2012 - 2:10 AM
Link to comment
Guy J is the multiple ID owner and he is the one talking to his self.
NextGenUs is finished and Guy J is the main culprit, His greed got the better of him and he thinks he is untouchable.
Guy J. You're not untouchable and I know lots of people who are baying for your blood, Most are Customers or Ex Customers, As you love taking their cash but don't deliver the service you promise, Not to mention you unplug people and kick them from your FaceBook pages just for pointing out that you are breaking the law airing unlawfully recorded telephone calls. You know nothing of Privacy nor anything to do with the Data Protection act and are now being investigated by the Metropolitan Police Force. Please 'dear reader' for your own sake, Sanity and bank balance, Stay away from Guy Jarvis (Cockup) and anyone else he has in tow.
SherlockPosted: 12 March, 2012 - 10:00 PM
Link to comment
Well it would seem that things go from bad to worse for anyone doing business with NextGenUs CEO Guy Jarvis.
It would seem that the CiC NextGenUs is just a veil, A disguise of sorts.
You see the CiC's of the NGU networks actually own nothing, They have no assets.
The assets are owned by a company called Fibrestream Ltd and can be sold by the owner/s at will without having the 'Controls' of the CiC to stop them.
A name has been circulating the various Blogs, Forums and face book pages as well, The name is 'Quickline', They are 'Allegedly' in talk with Guy Jarvis with a view to 'Purchasing' the Firbrestream company and it's assets. This would of course leave the Customers of each of NextGenUs CiCs' high and dry, Without connections and for those customers who have paid up front for a year, As some of them have, Out of pocket in a major way. Nice one Guy J. Nice one, You really fooled us.
SherlockPosted: 13 March, 2012 - 12:35 AM
Link to comment
Simon Davison owns 27% of NextGenUs and 30% of Fibrestream.
He is now preparing to sue both NGU, FS and Guy Jarvis for Slander, Libel and Fraud.
Therefore anyone who is thinking of buying any part of these businesses had better check that Mr Guy Jarvis actually has anything to sell.
SherlockPosted: 13 March, 2012 - 12:38 AM
Link to comment
This is what the Slander, Libel and Fraud cases are over.
http://nextgenus.blogspot.com/2012/03/simon-davison-gross-misconduct.html
Van EllusPosted: 15 March, 2012 - 5:39 PM
Link to comment
Interesting how many people here are enthusiastic for WiFi rather than fibre. In the age of constant mobile phone use and 3G connectivity, there's probably not many of us left who have disquiet about turning an entire community into a house-by-house mobile phone tower. But we DO exist. That's why I want to see my broadband (currently 0.86 MB/s) improved through fibre and copper, rather than additional RF swamping our main street, village hall, church etc. If that realistically means BT, then so be it.
As a member of a community recently in conversation (no more) with NGU, I think that we may have had a lucky escape... and I don't JUST mean a financial one!
Generated in 0.7141 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).