Gov Publishes Evaluation of the UK Fibre in Water Broadband Project
The UK Government (DSIT) has published an evaluation report into the c.£6.2 million “Fibre in Water” trial (Project TAWCO), which tested the deployment of fibre optic (FTTP) cables through a live water mains (used for drinking water) but, as we previously reported (here), ended up being stalled due to several issues.
Just to recap. The FiW project consisted of three phases (phase two was the physical build and phase three would have been live operation), with phase one – supported by a consortium led by Yorkshire Water – being broadly focused on researching the legal and safety aspects of the plan, as well as some survey work.
Phase One developed a potentially workable commercial model between the two industries, which sought to deploy a direct route using 8km of Fibre in Water and predicted that around 7,000 rural premises could benefit. But this was less than the original proposal (17km and 8,500 premises) because survey work revealed that a high number of private landowners along the route needed to be negotiated with and compensated for access.
Advertisement
However, the previous report noted that the decision to stop the trial before Phase 2 (build) mainly centred around three key issues – uncertainty around the best commercial model to adopt, the financial risk that only one small start-up has the capability of installing the cables and the somewhat crucial lack of Reg 31 (regulatory) approval from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI). Some conflicts with the Project Gigabit contract for South Yorkshire also impacted their plan.
The final gov evaluation report, which was published on Friday, isn’t as detailed as the project’s own report from earlier in the year. But it does note that testing, done as part of the regulatory approval process, identified that the chosen installation method can “disturb the water flow, unsettling sediment at the base of the water mains causing it to be introduced into the drinking water supply … This could create significant risks to water quality.”
The report also notes that there existed a sole provider of the key technology needed to complete the project. For fairness of competition, the technology provider was excluded from consortia at the bid stage. However, the report notes that its government sponsors could have considered a greater emphasis on the risks, and associated mitigations, that a monopoly provider introduces to the technical feasibility of the project delivery. The delivery timeline was also viewed as being too ambitious and likely to have discouraged some bidders.
Summary of Lessons Learnt
Business case supporting Phase 1
For innovative projects that are considered to have a high risk of delivery, we recommend structuring the business case to identify the value for money of the independent phases of the project. If the project does not pass the gateway review at the end of Phase 1, then the realised benefits still return value for money to the funder. In part due to the uniqueness of FiW, there is no ready example of this approach successfully being implemented in a similarly complex project.
Understanding the requirements and barriers of building a competitive consortium
FiW received two applications, one of which did not meet the bid requirements by not including a water company within the consortium. The successful consortium required changes at the project start that included replacing key members of the consortium. Providing enough time and market engagement can aid applicants to build a competitive consortium and compile a winning bid. However, a greater consideration of the potential barriers to building a competitive consortium could offer more effective support to applicants and ultimately enhance the number of quality bids received.
Inclusion of a sole technology provider, if such a monopoly exists
For future projects that have a sole technology provider, allowing their inclusion within the project consortium post competition, could mitigate potential communication issues between the project team and the technology provider. This could also aid the alignment of incentives with the project outcomes.
More adaptive project structure
A majority of the project consortium noted that they would have liked a more adaptive project structure, to allow for adjustments to be made more efficiently during delivery. This reflects the innovative nature of the project, where flexibility was important in order to allocate resources to meet the desired outcomes. As partners learned more about the environment the project was operating within, particularly with respect to understanding the regulatory landscape, being able to reallocate resources more effectively may have helped overcome some of the challenges the consortium faced.
Early and clear communication during project inception with all key government departments
The project could have benefited from stronger communication links between departments in the early stages of the project to provide clear indication of responsibilities and level of involvement of project members. A clear delegation of responsibilities can be identified and agreed using a Ways of Working document.
Trial the technical solution in a closed system
Introduce a pilot of the solution that is not within the live drinking water mains but in a closed water system. Using the Innovation Fund, Ofwat have constructed the National Leakage and Test Research Centre, which is a 5km closed water system. This process could have gathered data on water leakage detection, cost of installation, and the durability of the technology without requiring immediate access to drinking water mains.
Separation of technical and commercial feasibility studies
Phase 1 of FiW included a feasibility study which covered technical and commercial concerns. We recommend structuring the project to require first a technical assessment followed by a gateway decision which, if passed, leads to a commercial feasibility study. This should allow for more focus and resources to be directed towards each element in turn and allow more accountability within the project delivery team, across both the consortium and government sponsors.
Include regulatory expertise in the consortium or commissioning team:
The consortium had a vested interest in understanding the details of Regulation 31 and the requirements for approval. Including regulatory expertise within the consortium, for projects involving regulation of drinking water infrastructure, would help navigate the regulatory landscape and mitigate some of the risks surrounding technical feasibility.
At the end of the day this was an interesting project, albeit one that doesn’t seem as if it will be going any further and, even if it did, then a solution would likely end up arriving too late to have much of a positive impact upon the government’s gigabit broadband targets.
Advertisement
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Progress Update on CityFibre’s UK Rollout of 10Gbps XGS-PON Broadband
Landowners needing “compensating” for owning a bit of grass are going to kill infrastructure projects in this country – especially in a case like this where it’s a bit of plastic running through a pipe that already exists under the land, affecting nobody.
Yeah this is really nuts, it doesn’t matter one jot if the pipe has water or water and fibre in to the landowner. The fibre could (and arguably should) be used by the water company to monitor the cable. Imagine being able to odtr the fibre to find the source of a break, or passive monitoring to detect pressure loss.
I wonder if you structured this so that the water company owned the fibre and then simply leased it (even IRUs don’t require wayleaves) to the provider if that would avoid this issue?
The same argument came about around 1990 when National Grid started building their fibre network by running cables along the top of their high voltage transmission networks. That project became Energis but they faced the same issue of landowners demanding new wayleaves/payments as the existing ones only covered power lines and not communications cables.
This idea first appeared years ago. It sounds like someone has a bee in their bonnet and won’t take “no” for an answer.
It would of been a great idea 20 years ago. Bit late now frankly.
@N: not necessarily, especially in places where the only altnets are those who prefer erecting poles, and potential customers won’t accept poles at all. But yeah, the total number of potential obstacles could be even bigger to do it that way regardless.
Water companies already monitor consumption 24/7 (I check mine on-line) and warn customers when unusual consumption indicates a suspected leak. Presumably the meter at my property boundary must be powered somehow in order to transmit this information in real time.
Gas pipework will be redundant over the next few decades but maybe for next generation fibre deployments it might make decent conduit!
Visions of the London hydraulic power network.
Assuming hydrogen isn’t pumped down them instead!
Good luck using some of Cadent’s pipework for anything in a few decades time.
One of the issues with the trial this article is about was the poor state of the water pipes in the chosen test area and if you think those are bad you should see the state of some of Cadent’s gas network. Just down the road from the area the water trial was to be in Cadent’s main along the A6102 is knackered. I don’t think there is a week when it isn’t being repaired or leaking. A quick check today shows two sets of roadworks planned to fix it and once again there are Openreach chambers open with no-smoking signs on the barriers to let the leaking gas out.
An ISP in the North of Scotland (Cloudnet) has recently delivered FTTP using the water network and as a backhaul through a private water supply. Over 7km of fibre delivered through this water network.
It can be done, and for the benefit of the community.
Ignoring the particular project. Reading the reported government comments is indicative of all that is wrong with how competitive tendering, value for money and government sloth and red tape get in the ‘expensive’ way of innovation in the uk
As the chair of a charity these attitudes by local authorities and government departments are dragging down ourselves and are driven by high paid civil and authority people who couldn’t themselves produce beer in the proverbial brewery but always think they know best
There is congestion on the network;
I can’t take a shower and my netflix is down.
Etc etc.
Just do the freaking job properly and stop messing around.