Cumbria Overbuild Questions Raised Over Fibrus and B4RN’s Broadband Networks
Residents in the rural Cumbria (England) villages of Kirkoswald and Great Salkeld, which previously worked with local ISP B4RN to build a new full fibre (FTTP) broadband network (partly funded by government vouchers), have been left puzzled after Fibrus started building a similar network in the same area under a publicly funded Project Gigabit contract.
A quick look at both of the Eden Valley villages shows that they appear to be well covered by B4RN’s network, which is a registered Community Benefit Society (i.e. they can’t be bought by a commercial operator and profits go back into the community) and one that often engages local volunteers to help fund and build their network. This often facilitates strong community engagement and a high take-up for B4RN’s fibre optic network.
In theory, this would normally mean that the vast majority of both villages would not have been eligible for public funding under the government’s regional Project Gigabit contract for Cumbria (Lot 28), which was awarded to Fibrus back in November 2022 (here and here). Under that contract, which is worth £108m (state aid), the provider is expected to extend their network to reach 60,000 hard-to-reach premises across rural parts of the county.
Advertisement
However, some residents within the aforementioned communities have recently reported (via CW Herald) receiving a letter from Fibrus, which states that street works aimed at deploying a new FTTP network are due to take place in the communities via Viberoptix (Fibrus’ civil engineering contractor). In fact, Fibrus has already started the work, with a new street cabinet recently appearing in Kirkoswald.
Beverley Pink, a villager who initiated the B4RN project, said:
“I couldn’t believe it when I learnt that some residents were in receipt of a letter saying works are to be carried out by a company called Viberoptix, working on behalf of internet provider Fibrus. The letter further states that this has been made possible by Building Digital UK (BDUK) government funding. I was surprised to hear this, since our parish already benefits from being part of a B4RN community broadband project and every household, no matter how remote, already has access to the network at very reasonable rates.
The B4RN project was only possible with the support of a government-funded voucher scheme, along with lots of local volunteer input. We have, therefore, already benefited from public funding, so I was shocked to find that BDUK are now paying for a second set of fibre cables to be laid. This work is expensive and it is a monumental waste of money for a second network to be laid, at vast public expense, when there are other areas in Cumbria with very poor connectivity who would benefit greatly from this spending.”
Similar clashes have occurred in the past, albeit between Openreach and B4RN, but those occurred under an older scheme and sometimes involved a mix of commercial builds, rather than ones that are supported by public funding.
By comparison, Project Gigabit was designed with a more robust Open Market Review (OMR) and Public Review (PR) process (i.e. used for identifying existing and future gigabit broadband coverage over the next 3 years, to avoid unnecessary overbuild), which should be helping to avoid such conflicts.
However, both Fibrus and the government have now suggested to ISPreview that local residents may have been given the wrong impression by the recent letters, with the operator being more focused on building through the area in order to reach premises outside those two communities (i.e. not to serve the villages themselves).
Advertisement
A DSIT spokesperson told ISPreview:
“Broadband provider Fibrus has installed a cabinet in Kirkoswald as part of their Project Gigabit rollout. The infrastructure is necessary for delivering faster broadband to hard-to-reach premises outside the village. It is not intended to serve any premises in the immediate area, which already has good coverage thanks to the government’s gigabit voucher scheme.”
A Fibrus spokesperson said:
“Fibrus is committed to adopting the most effective and least impactful network build solutions possible to connect premises in Cumbria. Therefore, we use existing infrastructure to minimise disruption wherever possible.
In this instance, the cabinet in Kirkoswald conforms to safety and planning requirements and is located on our backhaul route to maximise the use of existing infrastructure. The placement of this cabinet allows residents from 300 premises in villages nearby, who did not previously have access, to enjoy the benefits of Full Fibre broadband.”
Quite why some locals received the seemingly promotional letters is unclear, but we suspect they were probably just a generic build notifications that simply hadn’t been updated to reflect the unique nature of Fibrus’ plan to build through (rather than to) B4RN’s existing villages. The cabinet is only sited in Kirkoswald due to existing spine routes and for network performance reasons.
However, there are still cases where overbuild could still occur due to additionality in the future, which is where a contracted network operator goes beyond their intended coverage (i.e. the bit that takes places with public funded) as a result of the build making some previously unviable premises, viable. But such extensions, while facilitated by the contracted build, normally involve a separate commercial investment and so do not duplicate public investment. It remains to be seen whether this will also happen in Kirkoswald and Great Salkeld.
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.
« Openreach Expand Pilot to Help UK Telecare Users Switch to Digital Phones
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.
NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Latest UK ISP News
- FTTP (6097)
- BT (3669)
- Politics (2752)
- Business (2455)
- Openreach (2425)
- Building Digital UK (2351)
- Mobile Broadband (2174)
- FTTC (2089)
- Statistics (1930)
- 4G (1836)
- Virgin Media (1789)
- Ofcom Regulation (1599)
- Fibre Optic (1476)
- Wireless Internet (1471)
- 5G (1431)
This is happening frequently and unfortunately the Government schemes don’t seem to actually be verifying the data which is submitted to them and to Ofcom regarding availability. I am aware of a lot of smaller operators which are being overbuilt by the big operators under these lots when communities already have full fibre coverage which should render them out of scope (and this has been confirmed to be government funded, not commercial).
It is good for the consumer, but poor for the operators that have built into a market, done well and will now loose out. I wonder how many will survive this kind of thing.
Hmm, good for the consumer, possibly, but how is it good for taxpayer (who may also be a consumer). It seems tht it may be better for the CP’s and financiers etc. rather than the taxpayers?
As a resident of Kirkoswald with sight of this cabinet, I have written to BDUK expressing my concern that Fibrus is doubling up on funding with taxpayer’s money which is not allowed under Project Gigabit rules. Fibrus has not been in contact with any resident in the village and has not contacted the parish council. They have stated they are using Kirkoswald as a transit point to reach the villages of Ainstable and Armathwaite which are the the north. The cabinet is sited heading east.
As this is being done in conjunction with BT/Openreach, there is no need for the cabinet as Fibrus can use the existing chambers and conduits. If a light booster is needed, this can be installed in an existing chamber.
From talking to others outside the village with experience of Fibrus, this is typical behaviour. Ride roughshod over communities and try and get the job done before anyone realises what they are up to.
> As this is being done in conjunction with BT/Openreach, there is no need for the cabinet as Fibrus can use the existing chambers and conduits. If a light booster is needed, this can be installed in an existing chamber.
I didn’t think active equipment could be installed into BT chambers under PIA — could you share some more information? I tried a quick Google but obviously this is quite technical so I didn’t get many results.
This overbuild of infrastructure across the UK is RIFE unfortunately , most ,not done to reach the communities and individuals that have no access to gigabit capable FFTP. Much in Urban areas well served with this infrastructure . In these urban areas the infrastructure builders claim it is to provide affordable choice of ISPs , but in many cases infrastructure is already FFTP , digital and gigabit capable and should of been shared . In our area of East Yorkshire , hull and surrounding towns and villages we are blighted with telegraph poles. in some areas triplicate telegraph poles, duplicate telegraph poles , or even telegraph poles where all infrastructure was underground and accessible . It is not fully clear what government investment has been involved , but sharing of infrastructure should of been the way to provide choice of ISP in the most part . We have been campaigning since August last year against this over build of telecommunications infrastructure , which is repeated across the UK .
Kevin: a ‘light booster’ may not be installed in an existing chamber. This is potentially not just a ‘booster’ but something that does quite a lot more: that equipment does not live underground in any deployment.
Joyce: Fibrus used existing ducts and poles where possible. If you would show us how they could’ve avoided building a powered cabinet by using an existing one I would definitely welcome the education.
The statements on the campaign even in that small section there’s tons of inaccuracies and it’s frankly depressing that you’re still repeating them but I guess no-one learns much if they hide in an echo chamber. Just picking on two infrastructure was not accessible, companies have been trying to access it since the mid-late 2010s at least and only this year have trials started making it ‘accessible’, and it is well known how much government investment went into the overbuilds: none. You’re welcome.
Okay I didn’t really look at the picture.
Kevin: look at the size of that thing. Look at the vents on the top to release heat. It has active cooling and the equipment in it is not weatherproof. Note the sticker on it indicating it takes mains power. That’s at least an OLT and potentially more. Do you really think equipment that size in need of that much cooling can go underground? How about the uninterruptable power supply and the batteries connected to it? You okay with mains power going through Openreach ducts near copper cabling? They aren’t.
Fibrus get paid for the premises they cover that are within the boundaries of the contract. They don’t send the taxpayer the bills as they install equipment and get paid they have premises to cover and a budget to do it, they don’t get paid a penny for overbuilding. Using that cabinet to serve your village as well in the future they’ve still done nothing wrong even if they do.
I get that you aren’t happy about the cabinet but the paragraph about how it could go into existing Openreach ducts is entirely wrong and the basic premise of your concern to BDUK is also mistaken.
Cabinets need to go where there’s space, power and if at all possible existing ducts for fibre. They also need to go in places where they can be utilised as there are costs that stay the same whether the cabinet serves one property or a thousand.
Overbuilding is a pointless exercise, in my opinion. Fibre should be brought to 100% of properties before overbuild is even considered!
I assume you don’t have full fibre but that you don’t isn’t related to overbuild. Companies aren’t going to spend huge amounts covering small areas so that they can overbuild elsewhere. It would have resulted in less choice in overbuild areas and the taxpayer footing more of the bill where overbuild made covering unserved areas nearby viable.
Overbuild has gotten excessive in some areas however in others it’s sustainable. Preventing it until everywhere is covered is an easy answer to a complicated issue and those never work.
Fine, we get rid of Openreach where I live and just stick with the Altnet we have, since they started building first.
If there was no overbuild, people would complain about the lack of choice of network. Sure if there was a good network built and owned by the government, so no greedy large company like BT could make money from it, then fine. ISPs can use it like they do with Openreach network.
But that is not going to happen, so having a choice of networks is good after a lot of people had far too many years of just one choice.
Looks like a similar thing may be happening in Keswick as from the BDUK maps it looks like the Fibrus build there is BDUK rather than commercial and their are lots of fresh roadworks and Fibrus manholes etc.
Part of the town (bigger than shown on TBB) already has Wefibre, which from the limited info they have looks like they were making use of the voucher scheme for. The cabinet is on the A591 junction with Brundleholm Road and Wefibre are live as far out as around Penrith Road near Twa Dogs.
Most altnets and fibre companies will take opportunity to gain a foothold in areas they pass to get where the funded prems are… most do it with there own commercial money which isn’t part of the projects funding.. its just business sense weather you use PIA or place a cab which on reading this is a strategic placement to enable fibrus the ability to provide fibre in that area and build out should demand be enough..
Witcher, I was just going on what someone else said, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, they knew what they were talking about. An engineer working on the project says the cabinet is far too big to be a relay cabinet. Also, another resident has been communicating with Fibrus and has been told they are going through Kirkoswald to get to Armathwaite and Ainstable, which are north of ouir village. The cabit is leading to the east.
No-one is KO will adopt Fibrus because we have a superior service with B4RN. All fibre is underground and once last year, a farmer hit the fibre and cut off a selection of subscribers. On a sunny summer’s Sunday, two engineers turned up and the error was fixed in a matter of hours.
This other resident who has taken up the cudgel has been in contact with our MP. Apparently he is hacked off with Fibrus over a project in Keswick where the company has cherry picked properties and to hell with difficult to reach properties.
The MP can be hacked off all he wants. In my experience MPs don’t know their hindmost from their elbow when it comes to this sort of thing or, indeed, most things, are largely impotent and while they may justify their existence to their constituents by writing upset letters they tend to achieve very little. Their major value is getting the attention of senior people however if the issues are spurious they tend to get nowhere.
Force companies to cover everything any time they touch an area a lot of areas won’t get covered at all, especially the rural ones. Cover 200 properties out of a small village of 220 for a grand a pop say you’ve spent £200k. Have some random who knew the right people and, hence, was selected for a safe seat demand that if you do that you must also cover the other 20 really hard to reach premises that are £10k a pop and suddenly the project has doubled in price from expensive to likely never recovering that cost range.
They’ve done something commercially smart, they get paid for premises in hamlet a and b but construct a route that happens to pass a village and put the (bduk funded) cabinet in that main village.
Now they can cover the village as a “commercial deployment” using “spare” space in the cabinet and fibre trunk bduk paid for, so thier cost to cover these prems are almost nothing as the expensive bit they get for free and bduk can hand on heart say we’ve not funded these prems.
It’s common place in every single bduk contract, that suppliers have exploited the infrastructure to tack on commercial build practically for free while bduk paid for the cabinets, trunk fibre etc “for other prems”
The cost to reach the rest of a village is almost nothing? Doubt it. This isn’t FTTC, they aren’t sticking a cabinet in there and using existing copper.
The contract is to pass a number of premises for a certain price with the operator putting their own funds in as well. They knew the subsidy available and had to assess their own costs and whether they could make it work. Again they aren’t sending the government invoices, how they achieve the goals is their problem and if they have to spend more that’s also their problem.
The, very few, companies that bid on these likely did so with additional commercial deployment as part of the business case letting them make their bids. Without that extra commercial build the business case likely doesn’t make sense. The only areas that would end up being built to would be those where the bidder already had infrastructure nearby they could leverage spare capacity on. If the bidder had that they’d probably have these in their commercial plans already.
As I recall it was expected that this would unlock extra commercial build: it’s a feature not some exploitation.
Okay so £250/prem Vs £1000/prem.
So you think effectively government subsidy enabling semi-commercial overbuild of b4rn who themselves built with a government subsidy is a “good thing”?
I’m saying you’re still in gap funded territory here and are assuming the taxpayer picked up the cost of the fibre spine and OLT. Project Gigabit isn’t gap funding.
I’m fine with the voucher scheme getting overbuilt as long as the contracted premises from Gigabit are delivered in full, my only frustration being that the voucher scheme was evidently a waste if Project Gigabit paying for other premises was able to enable commercial deployment in those.
As long as it reduces the cost to the taxpayer of Project Gigabit all good for me. The voucher scheme is very flawed but no reason to engage in a sunk cost fallacy because of that.
Ah, how about a consolidated national infrastructure as opposed from a fragnet of oh so well co-ordinated ‘providers’ (who are working for the benifit of whom exactly, under what pretexts)?
They’re pretty much universally working for the benefit of their investors, this being how capitalism usually works. Investors put money into a business in the hope that the investment generates a financial return, people and plant are employed to try and make it happen ensuring people are employed directly and within the supply chain.
Fun as some conspiracy would be that’s about it: money.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
@Witcher says, And for those who hail ‘money’, yep just like water companies, where the investors etc. have been taking £s while allowing the companies to be run rather badly, for ‘customers’, the country and the environment alike, great ‘capitalism’ or that just rape the proffits and run from the liabilities so created. Hadly a decent example of goodnes of ‘capitalism’. But then Capitalism does allow the ‘purchase’ of legislation and democracy, another glowing recommendation for it.
As an Thatcherite allbeit with some reservations and failed trust (we do live and learn from history and mistakes) and sadly powers that be / human(oid) nature that hasn’t done anything about lessening the reservations, has failed the trust, hasn’t raised the bar for humanity, they’ve just got worse consolidated by greed of a few over the many, along with the erosion of real producers, manufacturers (of real tangibles and decency), and making a country that is more fragile and dependant on others for basic necessities e.g. food and energy.
It is sad anyone is so comfortable with all hail Capitalism, it’s just as bad as it’s opposite due to ‘people’, so who has is benifitted overall.