Fibre to the home UK - Fibrevolution

No! No! No! No! No! Someone stop BT right NOW!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:12:00 +0000

We didn't christen it OpenRetch for nothing. This latest is sickening.

You cannot possibly put BET on the same website, same press release or in the same sentence as the words "Next Generation Access" without the word NOT featuring prominently.

BT OpenReach have launched a website about -new acronym coming up folks - SFFA (Super Fast Fibre Access) and BET appears not only on the website but also in the press releases.

The front page of the site says:

We're using a substantial part of the £1.5 billion committed to Next Generation Access, by the BT Group, to enable 40% of homes in Britain to take advantage of Super-fast Broadband Access by 2012.

We are supportive of the ambitions of the Government’s Digital Britain initiative and are committed to work to help deliver a truly Digital Britain. Our Broadband Enabling Technology (BET) is one solution which will help us do just that. It's designed to deliver broadband speeds over long distances, where people are either unable to access the internet or can only do so now at very low speeds.

1Mbps, oh dearest BT OpenReach, IS a very low speed. It is below the proposed USO and hence not part of delivering a truly Digital Britain, IS IT?????

This is outrageous misleading of the general public and press and probably politicians, quangos, RDAs, funders, investors, shareholders etc.

Check out the URL of the website - /superfast.

Give me a break. This is precisely the type of atrocious behaviour by marketing departments and telcos which has led to the utter confusion of consumers etc that currently exists in this country.

Next generation access is vital to our current and future economic and social well-being. If a private company is allowed to start at the very beginning by LYING to the public about what NGA is, there is no bloody chance that we are going to get, as a nation, to where we need to.

And if anyone funds BET, they need putting on dial up at home and work for the rest of their given days.

If Ofcom will not lay down the law on this one, or at least issue some guidelines or a Code of Practice about NGA marketing to stop this in its tracks, I will personally pay a bunch of very cheap workers to spend as long as it takes out on the Internet making sure that as many websites as possible have either a forum post, blog comment, banner ad or similar on it saying something along the lines of "BT's BET is NOT next generation broadband. Complain now. Boycott BT." (Feel free to make suggestions for alternative wording).

Believe me, there are thousands of very, very cheap workers who do this stuff day in and day out (I have to deal with the results of their activities in my day job) - that will be one helluva lot of websites.

BT, be warned. This is unforgiveable behaviour. Your shareholders should be ashamed.

Light Up My Street & Boost My House Price

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:41:00 +0000

It isn't that long since I posted about broadband and estate agents. Now ISPreview have conducted a survey on the impact that lack of broadband has on house prices, particularly relevant at a time when house prices are on the rise......

The ISPReview monthly survey is, of course, a somewhat self-chosen audience to be asking these particular questions to. But it does clearly show that broadband now affects, as shown in my post, the purchase decision of MANY, MANY people.

If you re-phrased the ISPreview questions so that Joe Public didn't get flustered when asked about broadband speeds (eg "would you buy a house with a broadband connection where iPlayer didn't play properly?" might be more user-friendly!) and ran a survey on, say, the BBC website, you would probably find the figures even more illustrative of the reality of the situation in the UK.

Let's just consider for a moment...

If any of us had known for sure when we bought our homes that we would not get a decent broadband connection by, say, 2009/2010 (as many haven't), AND known then how important that connection would be to our daily lives, leisure, families, kids' education etc etc in 2009/10, would we have moved to the house we did? More interestingly, how many would have set to and done something about it earlier eg built a community network, aggregated demand and shared a fat pipe, if we had realised the telcos, govt etc were not exactly telling us the truth about when true broadband would arrive?

Sadly, some of us did know when we bought our homes because we had already been stuck in the broadband campaigning lark for far too long at that point, and we do know that decent broadband ain't going to get here in a hurry unless we do something about it, but there are thousands and thousands of people in the UK who are NOT aware of the reality of the situation and keep believing the hype.

Alston Cybermoor did some work on broadband and its effect on house prices and as I recall the average house price in the area had risen to over £15,000 more than expected because of the presence of the community network.

If I was planning to sell my house, I think I would investigate which of my neighbours might also be planning the same over the next few years and invest with them in setting to and increasing the value of all the houses in the neighbourhood. After all, putting in a pukka broadband connection is really not that different from building a conservatory or following the advice of those weird daytime house improvement programmes which have ruined our mornings for so long.

Aha, I can see a commissioning editor reading this and seeing the massive potential for a programme showing just how much you can add to your house value by putting in true next generation access.......C'mon Channel 4, this should be right up your street. You could call it "Light Up My Street"....

You read it here first....!

Open Access is good for the market

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:19:00 +0000

During a post-COTS steering group discussion this week, one of the matters under discussion was Virgin Media's network and its closed status. The existence of a closed network within the UK at a time when many are pushing for open networks as we move to NGA is a problem. But is the problem for Virgin or for the rest of the country? This paper....

argues that open access networks are not only good for consumers and nation's economies, but also for operators. Although, it also states that more evidence and data is required to assess the situation fully.

Capacity utilisation is one issue which leads to profitability, and by Virgin's closed nature, the network can only be used by the number of customers Virgin can win - unless wholesale access is made readily available to others. Back in May, Virgin denied plans to offer wholesale access to its network, but one has to wonder why it should refuse to do that? Surely, it is better to be selling capacity on an existing network as more usage means that bit transport costs tend to zero? Additionally, revenue coming from outside the family is a good thing, mitigating maintenance etc costs to other businesses rather than just the VM Group.

Virgin Media seem to run a tight-lipped ship, with little word from them yet on COTS, Digital Britain etc, nor do they seem to be leaping up and down to speak at nor sponsor the plethora of interesting events in the coming months.

It will be interesting to see whether the Hatt/Cornwall trials are part of the decision-making process on this issue. If Virgin believe they can corner a substantial proportion of the rural market ie our First Third (telcos' and policitians' Final Third) with VDSL2, this could see a significant uplift to revenues as well as a land grab, meaning that wholesale open access to their cable network would be less inviting. For Virgin. What it may mean in SMP terms though is open to further debate.

What the Conservatives are saying

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:04:00 +0000

The Shadow Dept of Culture, Media and Sport seem to have got it.

Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Minister of Culture, was the person who stood up in Parliament on the Digital Britain Report day and made more than a few of us sit up with the fibre broadband beginning to his speech. Now Ed Vaizey, Shadow Minister of the Arts, has delivered a fibre speech to take note of.

Watch this space. (There surely has to be a comment about light and shadows here in our fibre optic space?!)

And to the Shadow Ministers, (now that we know you are reading this blog!) how about you get in on the Broadband Manifesto discussion on Fibrevolution and add your 2p?!

Fibre bandwidth coming to a mast near you?

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:13:00 +0000

Some years ago at an event at DTI about community networks, there was an out-of-session discussion between O2, OpenReach and myself about sharing excess bandwidth from mobile masts for backhaul to rural and remote community networks.

The fact that there might even be spare capacity, or that many masts are fed by fibre seemed to come as a surprise to the O2 rep. Now, it seems that in the light of a huge ramp up in consumption of mobile bandwidth (smartphones, dongles, mobile advertising etc), over the Pond there are moves afoot to increasingly feed mobile masts with fibre.

It is likely that similar is happening or will happen soon here. The need to broker that bandwidth between the different occupiers of a mast should surely be a job for COTS? It makes sense to run one fat pipe to each mast to provide for the aggregated bandwidth requirements of each operator. However, it also adds an ideal opportunity to consider the bandwidth needs of others in the locale of that mast and to cater for that as well, thereby reducing the costs for all involved.

Whilst it would clearly trespass on the plans of mobile operators to provide broadband via dongle etc to those in the vicinity, and would require (finally) deals to be struck about the currently ludicrous costs of siting equipment on and access to masts, it could bring next generation broadband much closer to many, many people in the UK. Whether delivered by wireless (eg Wimax etc) or as a closer break out point for fibre backhaul to a community, the opportunities would seem too good to ignore from this approach.

Mobile broadband, as we have said before, has its place. But NOT as the primary mechanism for delivering next generation access. This can be delivered far more efficiently and effectively by bringing fibre as close as possible to the punters and communities, and then using wireless to cover the first mile or inch.

This is FiWi, a term we have been banging on about for ages and are still waiting to see adopted by the masses!

There is also a "FiWi Pie" side of it too i.e. there are potentially win-wins all round with this approach: Those flogging fibre backhaul stand to see more capacity required at each mast thereby generating more revenue, the mobile operators get cheaper backhaul for all their offerings, the mast owners get a cut from additional equipment sited on masts, and communities get affordable backhaul that is not being priced per inch.

Or, we can keep trying to rip each other off and go nowhere fast. I prefer the FiWi Pie approach!

Life without wires

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:59:00 +0000

In a world where FiWi in increasingly becoming an integral solution for true broadband connectivity, it's vital to have females involved....here's Wireless Woman's series on wireless visionaries.....

Yes, here - Wireless Visionaries

New series of blog posts

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:29:00 +0000

In the run-up to the election and following the Digital Britain report, this blog will be hosting a series of guest posts from a wide variety of those involved in broadband.

Invites are currently being issued and we hope that if you have any suggestions for contributors and contributions, you will let us know. The intention is to stick with the format we have pursued since day 1 for events - a mix of consumers, community, industry, public and private sector. This time though we are adding in MPs!

We hope to bring to you a wide selection of views on broadband in the UK, in our endeavours to see the eNdGAme realised. Some of our contributors are looking at the issues from an international viewpoint, or from beyond our shores, and we welcome their differing viewpoints on what is happening here.

Trains, canals and wayleaves

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:26:00 +0000

Thanks to MB94128 and his comments, this post is ever more timely, which I guess is more than can be said for our trains! It is about railways and FTTx. One particular railway at this moment, who don't get broadband....but it's bigger than that.

As some may be aware, I have an unhealthy interest in railways and canals. (Blame the parents). F'rinstance, Wensleydale Railway PLC is about moving people in rural areas, I want to move data in rural areas.

Technological revolution compared to industrial. The railways often cropped up in our first Access to Broadband Conferences, with many likening the new fibre and outdated copper networks with the advent of the railways leaving the canals to die off. (Luckily, just as the canals have found new life with the leisure trade, so copper can be similarly re-used....as jewellery, kettles etc!).

The railways stand to play an important part in the next generation network, being obvious and logical conduits to connect up the country with longhaul. More so than that though, when you look at where railways run, even those which Beeching closed, many of which Sustrans have breathed new life into (leisure again), there are correlations between the rail network and notspots and / or the digitally excluded. Railways and fibre go together remarkably well, seeking to go as straight as possible to work properly.

Ditto canals, so let's not exclude them from this picture too. When I lived in London, I discovered canals in the most unexpected of places on the numerous occasions I missed the bus. For those with time to spare and a chance to get out of the city, there are canals galore in this fair land of ours, wending their way through the countryside, past otherwise disconnected homes, farms and businesses.

So, not just longhaul, but backhaul and first inch connectivity too.

However, as we all keep alluding to, there is still a major lack of co-operation between the required players for the next generation game. (Nick that phrase and I'll sue you! I have plans for it!) Perhaps it is purely that so many people still haven't got it.....and cannot grasp just what broadband can do to lives, businesses, communities, etc?

This week's tale comes from a deeply rural area, where it has to be said, some of the necessary players really have got it eg councils, communities etc. Running through this rural area is an heritage railway line. When approached about laying fibre up the line to reach a couple of distant parishes, enthusiasm was expressed, in particular because the benefits of the existence of this fibre along their line were clearly laid out to them - future signalling requirements, superfast wi-fi hotspots in stations, PR, corporate & social responsibility angle, etc etc. As Churchill says, "Oh yes."

Over the intervening period since the initial approach though, things have taken a turn for the worse. It now appears that, having sought advice, the original wayleave offer is insufficient and the railway want more. The amount being asked by said railway per metre for wayleave actually equates to more per person in one of the parishes to be connected than the CPE!

It is easy to see where the advice has come from - those who run railways between major urban centres eg London and Edinburgh, as the figure is similar - negotiable between £2-3 per metre. However, this amount would mean the project hits an instant stalemate and could not proceed to connect people over the coming 3-6 months as intended.

In essence, and particularly considering the additional revenue this heritage railway could make from station hotspots etc, the wayleave being asked is either greedy or ill-informed.

I could go further, and point out the negatives. Those in the affected parishes will have to be informed about the railway's response - it affects the scope and complexity of the project, and the community have been involved from the outset. This can only be negative PR for the railway. Blimey, you know us English, we can hold grudges for years. There may be grandchildren of the 'afflicted' who never ever use the railway, even though the detail of "Why" is lost in the annals of time.

Lost revenue - not just from the grandchildren, but this is a heritage railway. It relies on tourists and visitors. It needs to add value to its services at every turn. Being able to upload your photos from the train over a £1 day pass for wi-fi could be a winner. Love where you are? Want to stay? Want to find a hotel or B&B for the night? Hey, just check it out as you travel between A and B on the train.

Virgin want to provide HD TV etc to the communities the train passes? Let's start talking about you using our fibre, Mr B. If that fibre starts to generate further revenue, it can only be good for the railway, who would be within their rights to up the wayleave.

What is going to happen though is that the fibre won't be laid because it is not COMMERCIALLY VIABLE at that rate. Hence, the railway gets a big fat zero. No revenue, no benefits, no added value services, no future exciting developments.

This needs to be a reminder also to all those of you who insist on charging by the metre for rural back and longhaul. You are currently getting the same big fat zero income. We cannot buy backhaul from you if it is so expensive that it is beyond our pockets.

Work together. With us, the users, the communities, the consumers - at the end of your network but the beginning of ours. OK, it may not seem much now in revenue, but we all know what happens when you build it. The users do come, they do use it (or there wouldn't be a single FUP in place in this country), and they do pay.

For any other railway, BWB, landowner, telco, etc, it's be nice to think this may be a salutory lesson for you too. "Better summat than nowt"

Why 2Mbps simply is not enough

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:58:00 +0000

We have got to come back to this AGAIN.

If we bang on about it enough, those responsible for sorting out this country's infrastructure have got to sit up and take notice. After all, if you are an ISP, these are potential customers you are missing out on and if you are government, these are taxes and revenue you are losing. If you are an RDA, a local council, an MP - can you really ignore your constituents forever on this issue?

Back in June, according to the FSB, their research showed that a third of small businesses already have 2Mbps. Here's the important bit though....

...yet struggle to do core, day-to-day business activities

FSB goes on to state...

By 2012, £1 in every £5 will come from online commerce

The USC or USO, whichever side of that particular fence you sit on, of 2Mbps is going to hit our economy HARD if businesses are unable to conduct business online to their maximum capabilities. The reality though is that it is hitting us hard, NOW.

I know that my broadband has been insufficient to run my business since the exchange was enabled. Because I run a digital business, until I get fibre (at the very least to the street cab), the poverty of the broadband will restrict the earning potential of my business. I need symmetry and SPEED, as do thousands and thousands of other small, rural businesses.

We are not ignorant muppets leaping on a bandwagon and claiming we need the equivalent of other countries because it seems to be the done thing to do. We KNOW we need far better broadband to run our businesses. We know HOW it needs to be delivered, and, in some cases, we know WHAT actually needs doing, physically and financially.

We are often ignored. Too few of us to speak out and get the reality of this situation through to those who can solve the problems. Well, the numbers are growing and growing. How long can you ignore these voices??

The telcos keep telling us there is no economic case, but come put FTTH to my home office and see how much I'm willing to pay. In all these years, none of you have ever actually asked me, so I can guess you haven't asked others who are crying out for decent broadband. BT just announced out of the blue there was no call for SDSL but who was asked??! The shareholders p'raps? Telcos have said for years there is no demand for super high speed all singing all dancing broadband, but that is blatantly untrue when so many column inches of the press are currently taken up with articles and comments from the public on the subject. Ditto Twitter, conferences, pub conversations, websites, fora, etc etc etc.

The government seems to be ignoring everyone on the USO issue and fibre - why? Do they really think this country can operate effectively with a mere 2Mbps asymmetrical connection? Which in many cases won't even be that if the mobile operators are brought in to deliver rural and remote, and no effort is made to set up a reasonable mapping system that actually finds out the truth about what is available to every property in the UK. If we keep relying on the telcos to tell us what speeds are available and where, we will continue in the misinformation era we are currently in.

Who advised Carter that 2Mbps would be sufficient? No wonder he has done a runner TBH. And why is Timms, who previously seemed to be exhibiting signs of getting it, still stating that 2Mbps is the Government aim?

Back in January, Computer Weekly reported that "the long term future of the British economy may hinge on...[the Digital Britain report]"

Further....

The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta), a government quango, extrapolated South Korea's experience to suggest universal UK access to high speed broadband would create 600,000 jobs in information and communications technologies in four years, and boost GDP by £18bn.

How much evidence do the government and telcos need to get it? 2Mbps is not high speed. The copper can't deliver next gen broadband anywhere, let alone across the country - IT IS THE WRONG TOOL FOR THE JOB. Mobile wireless is not the right tool either for first choice broadband provision. We need fibre, we need a much higher bar for the USO, and we need informed thinking so those jobs are created and our GDP increased.

Seems to me that if we continue like this, the economy is going to lose phenomenal amounts of money and suffer more than it need to as the recession passes. We as a nation can only be yet further digitally excluded and I don't envy Martha Lane-Fox the task of sorting all of us out, but someone will need to.

View from an ISP on Special Faults Investigation.

noreply@blogger.com (Helen A) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Good article from Andrews and Arnold - an ISP view on SFI charges

http://www.aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-sfi-isp.html

I am also pretty fed up today having yet again fight against unfair high Openreach engineer costs that were not made clear to an end user with a PSTN fault.

Does anyone else wonder how strange it is sometimes when no fault is found, end user gets billed, not because it's his/her wiring or equipment but because no fault is found only then to find the fault mysteriously dissappears?

Special dispensation from VOA on wireless tax etc

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:41:00 +0000

Some people seem to have missed the point of the post about property tax on wireless. Yes, we all know that ducts, poles and masts have _always_ fallen under the property rating rules, but the point is that no wireless (wi-fi etc rather than mobile) or community network has to date been required to pay it, until now.

Yes, it was undoubtedly an oversight by VOA, and it certainly hasn't been flagged up in the last decade since community networks etc started to be deployed. Luckily, the lack of this tax has allowed 'many flowers to bloom', lessons to be learnt, awards to be won across the EU, innovation to have flourished, and standards to be set that are now expected within that sector. However, the enactment of the tax at this stage can only have negative effects on those who are most likely to deliver and receive the "Final/First Third" connectivity required.

We are about to pour a toxic solution onto our beautiful and potentially to be envied community and co-operative, open and wireless networks flowerbed. The Rochdale Pioneers, responsible for so much of the phenomenally successful global co-operative movement, would be equally as aghast at this short-term and greedy thinking from within our own shores as many of us are.

The reason why the First Third is receiving the attention it is is primarily because of the fact it is the hardest to make an economic case for and therefore the commercial operators have it last on their list to provide connectivity to. Ergo, there is much talk of the intervention required in order to ensure that it happens, sooner rather than later.

What government needs to do is to think of **ALL** the ways in which they can positively encourage that First Third to be attractive to investors and those involved in deployment. Adding additional financial burdens and further weakening the business case is not going to encourage the First Third investment and must be seen for the lunacy it is. Whilst it may well fill up the VOA (and hence Treasury coffers) with a pitiful sum of money, it will be the death knell for much that has been proven to be great over the years and has led to so much innovation in the wireless and rural broadband sectors.

So, for instance, the creation of the levy to help that investment happen ought to be part of that joined up thinking. Sadly, though, it seems the initial proposal was to tax ALL telecoms, including mobiles, and hence raise far higher revenues but this has been dumbed down to just landlines. However, all of us know that the administration of that fund and ensuring it reaches the parts other broadband operators won't, is going to cost too much of the fund and will therefore reduce the available capital to an amount that will achieve little of what is actually required.

So, to strengthen the economic case for sustainable networks in the First Third, it is imperative that all the areas where there are currently issues and hence associated costs are addressed and, where possible, removed. For instance:

*Those who are involved with planning issues need to be engaged in reducing the stresses and costs on those seeking to install ducts, poles and masts in order to deliver to the First Third. Currently, it can take months or even years to negotiate the location of a street cab, duct or mast - all of which costs money and eats into the schedule for deployment, unnecessarily.
*Those who are endeavouring to deliver open networks through co-operative or not for profit mechanisms need to be considered and encouraged through reduced financial burdens eg tax relief, special dispensation from rates etc. The long-term benefits of these approaches seem to be ignored in favour of hardnosed, greedy, commercial practises that benefit a very small minority. It needs to be the other way round.
*The property rating on both of the essential elements of FiWi Next Gen Access - Fibre and Wireless - needs to be carefully considered with a long-term view to the harm it may cause to UK PLC economy if it is applied to all ducts, poles, masts and network models at this stage.
* Aggregation of telecoms within regions for public, private and community sectors needs to be given much more thought than it has been to date. Why pay with public money to connect a school if the pupils and parents are then restricted from using the same backhaul when it is dormant? Ditto councils. Fat pipes that do nothing over weekends and after hours when the citizens the council serves could be using those very same pipes is an idiocy. And a terrible, immoral waste of public money.

Unless a lead is taken in ensuring that joined up thinking happens across all sectors involved, all departments, all agencies, all organisations, all of the COMMUNITY, we are heading for an expensive fall that will leave many in this country with substandard connectivity far into the future. This country is in more than enough financial trouble without exacerbating that further in the broadband arena.

What we are up against

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:26:00 +0000

Sometimes I think we all forget how much we know about broadband......

If I could get over crying over what it says about UK internet users, I think I would laugh at the following question - "How do I transfer my broadband to the laptop?", and toggles! Classic. And we think the Parliamentary Committee don't get it?!!

Roads and Broadband

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:53:00 +0000

Each year, we go up to Scotland for a quick razz around on the motorbikes. Part of our route is to Cape Wrath, over Laxford Bridge. Just over a month ago, that bridge suffered major structural damage when an Army transporter fell off it, leaving those who live nearby, deliver goods, go to school etc via that bridge were faced with a 60-100 mile detour. And what, you may ask, has that to do with broadband?

Imagine that Laxford Bridge is a telephone exchange. The closure or 'throttling of traffic' at Laxford Bridge will have caused unnecessary expense, time delays and isolation for the haulage companies, businesses and citizens who use that bridge, including impacting the school kids. There will have been no compensation by the Army to those affected, nor seemingly did the Highlands Council pull their finger out and get the bridge repaired as quickly as possible to limit the impact.

UK broadband is facing similar problems. Some people are finding 'road closed' signs, many others are finding there is only one lane of one way traffic. Far too many are spending countless hours, days and even months attempting to get throttled or broken connections repaired. Those in rural areas are the most heavily affected, because of course, there are less people using those 'routes' to make enough noise to get those whose responsibility it is to solve the problems quickly.

Those who make decisions about the capacity available through an exchange, about the number of customers to put on each tail (often hundreds, increasing the contention massively and slowing down connectivity speeds), where to put investment, deploying fibre etc etc etc, are often incapable of seeing the consequences of their actions to the bigger picture.

Whilst you at BT or Virgin may be thinking purely about your bottom line and shareholders, those who are impacted by your decisions are having their bottom lines threatened, their daily lives disrupted, and their choices reduced. This also affects UK Plc, rendering many incapable of achieving what they could to put this country back in a position of economic fortune, and competing on the global stage in regards to the knowledge and information economy.

For those in government, often far removed in their shiny civil service offices from the reality that their decisions mean for everyday people, it is often seemingly impossible for you to realise how widespread the effects of and potentially devastating some of your ill-informed policies can be. For those of us outside of those offices, we look, often in horror, at the cost of implementing many of these policies, the lack of return on investment from our taxes, and the failure to achieve what is required. (Get Online Day seems to be a prime example of that failure.)

In this country, we seem to be very good at NOT looking at anything holistically. How the actions of one person, department or company have a knock on effect on other, seemingly unrelated people, departments or companies. Those two gunners are probably unaware of the personal lives and businesses they have disrupted, but you can guarantee that their actions have had a negative impact on many of those who live, work and play up at that end of the country. It may have been one diesel bill too many for a haulage company, a loss of footfall too far for shops, cafes, B&Bs etc on that route.

We know that road closure and roadworks adds huge strains to our business community, as well as stress to commuters etc. We know it costs the economy millions and millions of pounds each year through waiting in traffic jams at roadworks and the disruption on our road network. We should be applying similar thinking to just how much the low level of broadband and the jams on the network in this country are costing the economy, not just in pounds sterling lost but also the social capital.

Where there are broadband Laxford Bridges, it is in the interest of all those involved in opening them and keeping two way traffic flowing over them at peak rate to do so. That includes councils and government, telecoms companies, investors, and communities working together to do so. It means thinking holistically about where our money would be best spent and which boxes we are actually trying to tick.

All very well saying how wonderful the Internet is, but not much use if most people can't use it as others can in other countries. And zero point spending oodles of dosh trying to persuade the digitally reluctant to get online if, when they do so, the connectivity is so poor they can't actually do even half of what they have heard about.

Oh, and apparently being grumpy is good for you so I intend to continue as I am - about broadband, anyway!

Why FiWi matters in the UK

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:15:00 +0000

There are no two ways about it, and little argument from industry, government or consumers and community. In order to deliver Digital Britain, we need FiWi. That is, fibre as close to every home and business as possible, and wireless in the few places where that is not physically possible.

On such an issue as the fourth utility, finances do not come into it. However, there are always going to be places where fibre is just too difficult to provision and where wireless actually makes far more sense as being the right technology for that job.

There needs to be a Universal Service Obligation that applies to broadband exactly as it does water and electricity. Not "Best effort" depending on what your books look like and your shareholders think, but an OBLIGATION to get that utility to EVERYONE.

And not some half-hearted attempt that suits the world of commerce eg 2Mbps asymmetrical. That is NOT broadband and there is plenty to show now that asymmetry is not what people seek.

Broadband goes way beyond who is making money out of it. It is a UTILITY. There are some who still don't get it. Fine, they will, worry not. You can't escape the pervasive incursion of the internet into our daily lives, and as the public sector eg health and education realise the massive advantages, improved services and cost-savings that can be made by using broadband technology, it will become ever more pervasive and inescapable in every aspect of our world.

FiWi is key to bringing Britain into the digital age, engaging this country into the digital economy, creating 'digital citizens'. It is not some airy fairy pie in the sky notion, although I have been saying FiWi Pie for years to illustrate that there is a piece of this pie for everyone.

However, if we set the bar so low that a huge swathe of the country is reliant on wireless rather than fibre, we are doing ourselves no favours, now or in the future. The reality is that the future is FIBRE, and ignoring that fact, or shoving it under the carpet, won't make it go away.

The FiWi mix needs to be heavily skewed towards fibre, with wireless giving us the opportunity to connect the remaining few, as well as providing a wireless cloud so that everyone everywhere can connect using their wireless device. I'll say it again - wireless should not be the core technology used as the primary connection mechanism, except in a very few and exceptional places in this country.

This country needs to work together to deliver what is required, not just by our generation but by the NEXT GENERATION. It means thinking and working together to find the right solutions. Not allowing commerce to take the lead or set a glass ceiling for its own ends. Not allowing government to stymie innovation whilst it pads out the very depleted coffers. Not allowing communities to suffer at the expense of either of the aforementioned. Not ignoring the very real grassroots and industry expertise available in this country, purely to win votes or cash in.

What we need in this country is CO-OPERATION between all the stakeholders to get on with fibre and JFDI. Anyone who thinks 2Mbps is sufficient now, in 2012 or beyond, will either need to sit on the sidelines and watch, or change their thinking, fast.

Britain needs people who get IT. Who understand the scale of the task we need to undertake to firstly catch up with other countries and then, hopefully, to compete or surpass them. And who realise the time for meetings, quangos and conferences, talking about and extolling the virtues of 'true broadband' but resulting in little action, is over.

Work together and we could have a world class infrastructure our children will be proud of. Ignore the issues and continue with each party selfishly pursuing its own ends and agendas, and we will end up with a nationwide disaster that impacts every single sector of our country.

Wireless networks to be taxed

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:17:00 +0000

Rumours abound about the fast-tracking and retrospective introduction of property tax for wireless networks in the UK. This can only have disastrous consequences for Digital Britain, and community networks and rural areas in particular.

As regular readers of this blog are aware, property tax on fibre has been a major bugbear, not just for those of us who constantly battle for grassroots' views to be heard and understood, but also within the industry. It has been one of the major contributory factors in the lack of investment in FTTH in this country. Where other countries have scrapped or substantially reduced the tax to aid the deployment of fibre infrastructure, this government has seen fit to continue to treat fibre optics as properties and tax accordingly, thereby hindering the roll-out of fibre for years.

Now, in a seemingly as yet unreported move, it appears the Valuations Office Agency has decided, in its infinite wisdom, to also apply the property tax (rates) to wireless networks, including metronets and in-building networks. Not only could it be introduced before the end of this year, it could also be applied retrospectively to existing wireless networks. As I understand it, it will be £100 per access point per year. And it can be applied back to the inception of a project.

Let us consider the consequences of this decision.

Firstly, whilst much noise has been made about using wireless to cover the shortfall in fibre deployment to ensure ubiquitous broadband is available to all, it would now appear that the soft and fluffy noises about community broadband initiatives delivering on that need, particularly in rural areas, were precisely that - white noise, clouding the reality. The economics of community, rural wireless deployment are always going to be tight, particularly without any central intervention promised yet to those who can actually deliver what consumers need. Adding £100 per year per access point will stretch that business case, potentially to inviability, and discourage many from taking up the challenge to innovate and connect the disconnecteds.

A community network can over-deliver to those within its 'manor', becoming sustainable whilst still offering more than any commercial operator ever can because of knowledge of that community and what it requires. Customisation of the services, bespoke services relevant and unique to that community or region, community ownership, personalised and valuable customer understanding, and so on, often leads to far higher engagement and hence more positive outcomes than a commercial operator can manage. This has been clearly and unequivocably demonstrated in spades, both here and abroad.

Not only that, but the allocation of free spectrum in the 2.4Ghz range has seen some of the most astounding innovation in technology to the masses in the last decade. It is the work of community wireless pioneers across the world that has seen:

* the Everest Base Camp and surrounding areas connected by Dave Hughes and Tsering Gyaltsen Sherpa, which has brought much-needed income into the area, as well as bringing vital education and safety aspects with it.
* Rural and remote communities operating wireless networks in Bolivia, Cambodia, and all corners of the world, including using motorbikes instead of IP transit
* Community networks such as Wray, Wennington, Withernsea, South Witham etc leading the way since 2004 in the UK in reaching the notspots.

I could list thousands more such projects that have all directly impacted communities that had they a) been left to governments or industry or b) been taxed would never have happened. These projects, started by those at grassroots and who care for their communities, have led to fast-track development of wi-fi until it is now included in every laptop and most mobile devices.

Secondly, once again, this seems to be a play into the major operators' hands - in this instance, the mobile operators. One can only wonder who exactly has been lobbying hardest over summer since the Digital Britain report. Much of the mast infrastructure for these operators to supposedly deliver mobile broadband is in place, and is taxed according to the existing property rating system. There will be little requirement for them to take on extra cost, leaving them in a prime position to deliver broadband via wireless in direct competition to the community networks and smaller operators and new entrants without existing infrastructure.

WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE and it does NOT work. This is exactly what happened with BT and fibre optics. BT are dealt with in an entirely different manner to new entrants and therefore many, including Vtesse etc, have had to fight (and continue to do so) in the Courts of Law to have the playing field levelled so that we have open and fair competition in the fibre marketplace. This proposal will repeat the mistakes yet again, and further stymie investment.

However, with mobile broadband, the issue that has consistently been raised, and seems to go unheard in Westminster and within the ivory towers of the operators is that mobile broadband is not fit for the purpose that broadband was intended to be used for, not now nor in the future.

It's fab as a cloud, giving ubiquitous access to those on the move, but as the core means of connecting to broadband? Absolutely not. Our aim has to be 1Gbps for everyone as soon as possible and mobile broadband is a very, very long way from that. Rural areas will NOT be happy, thank you very much, with being told that all we can have is what is available over an already patchy and at times non-functional mobile network. It is time some of those in Westminster came out to try and use mobile phones in the sticks. THEY DO NOT WORK. No matter the operators tell you they have 99% coverage. BT tell you precisely the same thing about ADSL. It is not true and you need to listen to the consumers, or get burnt.

Furthermore, and in contrary to everything we in this country know needs to be done to regenerate the economy, this taxation will hit not just commercial operators such as The Cloud and Open Zone, in shopping centres and other commercial spaces eg large business premises, but also educational networks which have been put in specifically to allow kids to access school networks from home. Our schools are already in difficult budgetary times, and retrospectively charging them (or those supplying, operating and maintaining their networks) can only be seen as a stealth tax on our hard-hit and struggling schools. Apparently, hospitals are currently exempt but don't count on that to last long.

Those offering free or low cost wi-fi, which has been acknowledged worldwide as bringing major cost-savings to business travellers as well as opportunities to citizens and communities, will be placed under very major threat. If your Starbucks has 3 or 4 access points, you will now need to make at least £1 a day to cover that cost. In reality, this means generating a revenue of at least £6-10 from sales in your premises to make the set-up worthwhile. Or you start charging, thereby driving customers away from your premises at a time when every business needs them more than ever. Or you cut your losses and it therefore impacts on your bottom line, and hence profitability as a business.

Talk about killing the golden goose.

If this proposal goes ahead, this country will once again have failed its people. Worse, it will have done so to protect private, commercial interests in favour of the citizens. Far worse, it will have taken money in taxes that will actually cause yet further problems to our struggling business, education and rural sectors, when that money could far more easily come from encouraging the build of the essential infrastructure required for the next 20+ years and hence encouraging economic growth and social well-being.

The fact that Stephen Timms MP is in charge of HMRC, of which the Valuations Office Agency is an executive agency, and also in charge of delivering Digital Britain must now surely be looked at carefully. There is a clear conflict of interest between what the Treasury coffers are seeking and what this country needs in the way of true, workable, future-proofed broadband. Taxing the hell out of wireless and fibre is not the way for a Digital Britain and Mr Timms must surely be aware of that. Can he sleep at night? I hope not, because with these constant idiocies going on to the detriment of this nation, I know I can't.

You heard it here first.

UK Broadband speedtest - if only!

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:36:00 +0000

Just been playing around with the broadband speedtest on Top 10 broadband after reading the BBC article and....

I'm sorry but I think these guys need to open up about how they are measuring speed because there are some very major inconsistencies showing up and if this site is used to even approximate what Broadband Britain looks like, there are many who will get completely the wrong idea.

The tech behind speed tests has long been the subject of arguments, as we saw last year when Virgin tried to pre-empt false speedtest data just before the launch of their new 50Mbps service, and the reality is that the only halfway accurate speed test is like that which, for instance, SamKnows used to produce their recent report with Ofcom.

The point is that if false measurements are pinned to a map such as this which is publicly available, there are going to be uninformed journalists, MPs, quangos and who knows who else leaping onto the data saying, "We told you it wasn't as bad as you thought," or individuals, journalists, MPs etc getting lost in pointless discussions and arguments about the inconsistencies between one house and next door/the rest of the street etc. It's a red herring 'cos the stats are wrong and hence misleading.

Unless the Laws of Physics have just become very elastic, there is no way that the figure shown for my connection (4.6Mbps) is possible this far from the exchange (5 km according to BT exchange checker though I'm not sure that even a crow could manage to physically get it to that short a distance!) Whilst I am sure there are few other insomniacs online between myself and the exchange right now, something doesn't quite ring true! In another rural area that I know down in Lincolnshire, one of my friends' neighbours is showing at 56.8Mbps. Ho hum. See the problem?!

The real point here though is that whilst we have numpties in government and elsewhere who believe 2Mbps will be sufficient in 2012, this type of data can only mislead them and lead to aggregated and averaged speeds for the UK which are used to make people feel warm and fluffy. The point is that even if the average speed across the UK was 10Mbps, that would mean that there are a) many people who fall below the median line eg in rural areas where the economy desperately needs better broadband and b) everyone would still be on asymmetric connections. It isn't sufficient for Internet use in the 21st century and the sooner this key message reaches those in charge of purse strings, be they industry or public pursestrings, the better.

Speed tests such as the one on Top 10 broadband do little to help matters if the data they reveal is based on inaccuracies in measurement and then further adds to The Big Lie that we live in a Digitally Enabled Britain.

Finland, Twitter, Dead Trees.

noreply@blogger.com (Cyberdoyle) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:37:00 +0000

It was interesting to watch this story break on twitter yesterday. Finland to get broadband as a legal right.
Many websites carried the story and tweeted the link throughout the day. It was actually 6 hours down the line before the journos got it on the newspaper sites, (presumably because they would have to check and verify) and a further day would pass before it appeared on dead trees. A month will pass before it appears in a magazine. The power of twitter, the power of the web, and another example of why everyone needs access to this utility, broadband and all its tools. Without reliable internet access how can a rural business keep up with competition? Many are still on dial up.

UK TV advert

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:15:00 +0000

Apparently, this is what happens when you accidentally hit the broadband network in the UK......

If we could lay a fibre network that worked, that outpouring of squids is probably about right. But for UK Plc rather than some bingo company.

It is time for the truth (and spades) to out

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:23:00 +0000

BT have announced that re-use of existing ducts, poles and masts means that the cost to FTTH is substantially less than they previously thought. Has this really just dawned on them? What have the guys at Martlesham been doing since Peter left if it didn't even occur to them that existing ducts could have fibre fed through them?!

There needs to be a major press release given to idle journalists announcing that the figure commonly used (from the Analysys Mason report) as the cost to FTTH this whole country has just been officially slashed. It needs to be rammed home to MPs too, as well as RDAs, telcos, citizens and so on.

For far too long, many of us have been saying the figure is wrong, and that it is being used by the telcos as an excuse (the BIG LIE) to prevent work going ahead to get this country on track with fibre. It has been used to mislead government, as well as writers of reports such as the Digital Britain report, who have made false assumptions based purely on commercial "interests".

The economics of deploying fibre (with that £28Bn figure at the core of the argument) have been commonly cited as the reason why this country is lagging behind. "Too big a risk" "Wrong financial climate" "No return on investment" etc are all excuses we hear punted out, time after time.

However, there is now substantial evidence that not only are the costs of deployment far lower than has been published, the maintenance, running and environmental costs of FTTH are far lower than for other technologies such as ADSL. Even more than that though is the hard and irrefutable evidence of the social and economic impact that FTTH offers any nation.

Even if FTTH were to cost £28Bn, which we all now know it won't because BT have openly admitted their 'closer to actuality' costs, then the benefits to the citizens and businesses, to government services, to health, education and so on are undeniable. As are the cost savings for these public services.

In a country struggling to get back to a position of world class business and improve citizens' social and economic well being, we need to work together AS A NATION, to get FTTH rolled out as fast as possible. There is no other single issue or spend which would galvanise this nation, economically and socially, as FTTH will.

BT should be forced to work in partnership with local communities, ISPs, RDAs, businesses and citizens so the UK can roll out a world class FTTH infrastructure nationwide. BT should not be permitted to build 'open networks' where there is limited regulation over how much is charged for access to those networks. We need open networks which are open to ALL, be that a community ISP/CIC or the likes of Virgin et al.

Where BT and other telcos fear to tread eg in rural areas, the first mile needs to be opened up now to those who are prepared to connect the digitally disconnected with FTTH. The digitally reluctant cannot be persuaded to come online until they see that the infrastructure DELIVERS. (Right now, as we saw this weekend with the Ukraine footie match, it isn't designed to)

NextGenUs pushes "Together we are the network" and the truth is that we all need to work together, co-operatively, to get the infrastructure in place and FAST. That has to start in rural areas to revitalise and regenerate the rural economy before that goes entirely and irrecoverably down the tubes.

Stuff getting the 50p levy through parliament before the election. Put through a First Mile Act and open up the ducts to all of us, who undoubtedly can do it cheaper and far sooner than BT. That would see some very serious activity from the JFDI camp at minimum cost to the country. BT would benefit as much of the core network over which data will be transported belongs to BT. New, community-led ISPs would come into being who would be feeding profits back into their local communities. Existing ISPs could offer competitive products. There is a slice of the FiWi Pie for everyone.

This country needs to dig into its coffers, and then start digging in fibre. Not in 2017 and beyond, nor to aim for 2Mbps by 2012, but to get seriously fat pipes to every home in the UK as fast as we possibly can.

Prince Charles gets IT

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:42:00 +0000

At last. We are seeing more and more people who realise that broadband is an integral part of life, that rural sustainability is key to much of our economy, and that it is only by removing the digital chasm which has been permitted to evolve in this country by a short-sighted government and greedy corporates that we can save much that is vital to our survival.

Prince Charles' article on rural broadband and farmers today in The Telegraph, states many of the concerns that so many of us have been voicing for over a decade.

It is a relief that some, who do have access to funding that doesn't require acts of parliament or some sense in Westminster to provision for solutions, are now speaking out in public. For those of us who do not have famous names or access to pots of gold, it has been a long uphill struggle to reach today.

And today is when the real truth about the poverty of the UK telecommunications network will be seen for real. The furore over the coming days about 22 blokes kicking a lump of leather and air about a lawn will grow; it is inevitable. Because we have allowed a single company to "lead the way" to a broadband Britain that isn't.

BT's announcement this week that they will be deploying FTTH (or FTTP) was also inevitable. It is round about now when Vtesse and Virgin announce rural broadband developments in Cornwall that BT shareholders must finally be wondering if the company they hold shares in has left it all too late. The investment required to play catch up and keep market share may prove more expensive now having sat on the fence for so long decrying the risk and the unknown economics of FTTH deployment.

What I think we will see now is a rapid game of catch up by a multitude of players, small and large. And for me, and others who have given our all to get to this point, I am hoping and praying that this comes to rural communities such as mine and that we can go back to doing our jobs which pay into the UK economy instead of campaigning to be heard. As a volunteer broadband campaigner, my business has been rundown to a point where it contributes very little into the UK economy, and that helps no-one, in particular my community where I have been unable to spend what I would like to support local economic activity because my money has been spent instead on trying to get the wider picture to the point I feel it may finally have reached today.

All we need now is for the funds from the likes of HRH and BITC to go to those communities where the socio-economic return for those communities will be highest, and not where it lines the pockets of the telcos. The decisions about where to invest in rural FTTH must be made on 'blue pound' lines and regeneration for those communities. It should have nothing to do with profits for private companies and telcos. Here's hoping..............

Broadband not fit for (Sat)today's needs

noreply@blogger.com (Cyberdoyle) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:21:00 +0000

Please excuse the misspelling of "Saturday" but the fact of the matter is that the recent Cisco/Oxford University report stating that the UK has broadband fit for today's needs has just been proved utter rubbish in under a week.
For years we have been saying that the Victorian Phone network cannot cope with the demands broadband access places on it, and many rural areas can't get a connection and are still on dial up or on very impoverished connections that other countries would not call 'broadband'. We have JFDI ourselves and built wifi networks to reach remote areas. We have used microwave links and satellites to provide access to the digitally disadvantaged. Now we are laying and lighting fibre. Everyone has called us yoghurt knitters or fibreheads and believed the quangos and telcos who have assured the country and the government that the infrastructure can cope.

Even now Ofcom tells the press that over 99% of the country is connected to DSL enabled exchanges. The reporters are too lazy to check the facts and believe the media spokesperson or just quote press releases. The may be connected for phone access but it can't deliver broadband over distances greater than 7km.

The tables are now turning thanks to a football game. The first IPtv match between Ukraine and England is to be screened exclusively online. The ISPs and telcos are scared. They know their networks can't possibly cope if too many people watch, nor can the company providing the service deliver decent quality to more than a million subscribers. The sad thing is that many fans will pay to watch the game but it won't work. Unless you have a good connection it will buffer, so it won't be real-time and vital goals will be missed. Not a satisfactory experience, and the failure of the telcos to deliver will be exposed.

This fact has become more apparent these last few days since the announcement, and the tone on blogs, forums and twitter has changed. Whereas before everyone was saying the problems were caused by people choosing cheap ISPs, or having faulty equipment and broadband was capable of delivering Egov, now the realisation is dawning that the network can't even deliver a low definition football game. This isn't even an important match. When we host the Olympics the athletes and their entourages will be expecting the nation to have 'Next Generation Superfast Broadband' which is what Gordon Brown professed at TED, on the news and in the papers. There is no way this will be delivered, as the telcos have little intention of replacing the obsolete copper with fibre except where they can make it pay during the event eg the Olympic Village. Meanwhile the rest of the country will be left to struggle with obsolete and ancient technology.

The telco plans to get a connection to the rural areas are by means of BET. Broadband Enabling Technology. This means bonding two or three copper pairs together to send the adsl further. At the most this will deliver a contended 2 meg service. Totally inadequate for next gen access. It will also mean laying further copper cables, as rural areas often have line sharing technology DACs to share a pair for two phone lines. This is not next gen, it is a telco milking revenue from consumer and government ignorance. It appears they also also expect government funding to pay for this meagre and purposeless upgrade to their network.

It is time for the naysayers to be heard. The current network cannot cope with TODAY's demands, and as more and more sporting events are moved online to seek revenue, the deficiencies in the UK network will become ever more obvious. BT will once again seek to grab the low hanging fruit by upgrading to fibre in places where there are multiple subscribers, leaving rural areas ever further behind. We need a network that can not only cater for today's needs eg a single football match, but for every day's needs far into the future

For me, the saddest part of the furore this game has caused is the fact that it has highlighted how digitally backward this country's citizens are, as many seem unaware that they can plug their PC into the TV. Surely this highlights how important the Internet has become for business, sport, government, leisure, etc and how it is essential to educate Britons in the basics of digital citizenship so they can use the network to its full potential?

I personally don't like football so it had never occurred to me that it might be a football match that breaks the network but this Saturday I will be cheering loudly for football, knowing that at long last those of us who have been campaigning for over a decade for Fibre To Every Home will finally be proven to have been talking sense. Three cheers for football!!

Said Business School Report

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:34:00 +0000

Just worked my way through this report about Broadband Quality released yesterday

I wish I hadn't now. It so clearly states how very far behind Britain is, and yet the spin is already beginning to appear on the news about how it shows we are doing just fine in the broadband stakes.

No, we are not. The definition of what today's apps are, and which we are therefore "meeting the needs of" (but not comfortably) are what many of those reading this blog were doing years ago, and are NOT what we would expect to be doing today. Those apps defined as tomorrow's apps are what we would very much like to be able to do today but are unable to.

And THAT is how bad broadband is in Britain.

And once again, the definition of what is required for today's apps eg 3.5Mbps down and 1.5Mbps up shows why the USC (which should be an obligation not a commitment) is utterly out of touch. Wait till the 2010 report shows that the USC is even more of a joke. Our BQS is around the 30% mark, it simply isn't good enough folks.

It is definitely time to start the Broadband Manifesto machine rolling because on this issue alone Labour are completely clueless, and on many more are equally as bad. Grrrr!

Facebook and BT and Virgin

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:29:00 +0000

For most of yesterday, UK users of Facebook were inundating the Net with howls of despair as the site was almost impossible to log into or use as it went into a unresolvable redirect loop.

Rumour has it that those on Virgin's network were unaffected and that for some reason, Facebook had decided it would block anyone attempting to access the site from BT's network. Whilst this may have been an 'intern cock-up', or the problem actually may have been caused by a rather more fundamental server config issue, it does rather beg the question about (reverse) net neutrality and resilience.

There has been much discussion about ISPs blocking certain sites in favour of their revenue generating partners, and it is quite right that there should be very lengthy discussions about this type of action. However, in this instance, and who knows for what reason, it appears that a site 'decided' to block an ISP! Well, more an incumbent actually, but of course because the majority of telcos are just reselling BTW products, that is a fairly hefty lump of Britain who couldn't access FB.

Now, whilst many are anti-Facebook, there are an extraordinary number of companies who are using FB as an integral part of their online marketing strategy. Should a company take a unilateral decision to block an ISP, those companies who are relying on that site for income generation can wave goodbye to revenue until such time as the problem is resolved.

It does rather make you wonder about DOS attacks on specific servers that could leave a country such as the UK without access to lots of different websites if you just blocked the incumbent's access to those servers.......

All eggs in one basket seems a dangerous manoeuvre if it affects commerce, as well as citizens looking for their daily fix of social networking. In order to operate in the next gen world, we in this country are going to need a redundant and resilient network if we are to avoid such potential disasters.

In other news, much of Virgin Media's network was down in London and the south yesterday following a power hiccup.

Fibre optics in the first inch

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:33:00 +0000

Intel and others are pushing hard to bring fibre as close to the home as you could ever hope for....right to your PC through the ubiquitous USB dongle.

Got 'flu so someone else can fill in thoughts on this story please, but my 2p is that if we can have it that close to the edge of the network (my 'centre' but the operators' "edge"), we'd better start putting some to connect that first inch to the rest of the world, non?....

Oh, and please, make sure that every single one of these USB connectors is standard, guys. The multitude of non-standard adapters, cables and so on which now litter our homes, offices and landfills is obscene.

What should the UK be in terms of data transport?

noreply@blogger.com (Cybersavvy UK) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:19:00 +0000

I am reproducing Erol Ziya's article from the ABC site because I hope it will stimulate next gen debate...

(First published approx 4-5 years ago)

Light that Fibre! – effecting change in the UK

by Erol Ziya
ABC’s core objective is to effect change. So far we have not effected as much change as I would have liked. From my past experience of effecting change, with the campaign for unmetered telecomms (CUT), to effect meaningful change, you need to find a single core issue that you can line up as much support behind as possible. With CUT we were able to combine the support of major corporations like AOL and Intel with a grassroots user voice, all focused clearly on a single issue. This is what I believe ABC now needs to do.

What’s the issue?

For me the simple clear cut issue, that almost everyone should be able to line up behind, is the cost of moving around data within the UK. It is now middle mile costs (moving data from a local aggregation point to say Telehouse or some other point) that are the core problem. Historically there has been much talk and focus on the issue of the first/last mile, and rightly so.

There are now new exciting ways to deal with local distribution, from community based wifi solutions to commercial LLU solutions. In both terms of technical advancements (wifi, low-cost mini DSLAMs and others) and in terms of regulation (LLU and others) there has been much improvement in first / last mile options. However all of these options, community and commercial, are now being hampered by the cost of getting data from a local aggregation point outwards and onwards. I believe that this does not need to be the case.

Look at the massive amounts of unused fibre in the ground within the UK (some estimates are as high as 98% of all the fibre in the ground in the UK is just unlit and unused) and if you look at the cost of ‘middle mile’ connectivity in other countries, then the only reasonable conclusion is it could be and should be cheaper in the UK. To the argument that it cost billions to put this fibre in, I would simply say it’s better to get something from this investment than the nothing that is currently being accrued from it.

What’s the target?

The UK government, via the Broadband Stakeholders Group, is currently in the process of defining the targets for Broadband Britain 2010. I think the single target that, if achieved, would place the UK in forefront of the digital revolution, is to aim to make the UK the cheapest place in the world within which to move data. If we could achieve this one single target (and given the amount of network resource already in the ground in the UK I believe we can) then we would see an explosion of usage and uses for modern digital networks that would lead the world.

We need to create a ‘wired commons’ throughout the UK. We need to take the benefit accrued by ISPs, through the non profit Linx Exchange organisation, of near zero cost interchange of data and extend this benefit down to every local aggregation point in the UK and ultimately every user in the UK. We need to aggregate every piece of data in the UK onto a single unified dumb IP transport system.

What’s the how?

How could we do this? This objective will not be easy to achieve and it will need much thought and discussion from people far cleverer than me. In the hope of starting this process of debate here are some thoughts of mine:

We need to create a dumb IP overlay network

This network should initially extend to every DSL enabled BT telephony exchange in the UK.
It should offer at least 10Mbps ethernet connections to anyone who wants to connect to them that should be able to route traffic to any other point in the UK.
It should be based on a single flat fee for end users. The revenue from these end users connections should then be divided out to those that carry the traffic.
This idea has serious benefits and can make money. As an infrastructure provider the more traffic you carry on this ‘UK IP overlay network’ the greater the proportion of end user fees you would accrue. Any ‘data transport’ company or entity should be able to interconnect into this network at any point. Whenever there is a choice of routes the data will always route to the carrier that has the most unused capacity at that time. Thus, the way to make more money, if you have infrastructure, would be to make it available.

The idea is to create a commercial incentive to deliver abundance (that already exists and is currently unused) as opposed to the existing drives to maintain a false scarcity.

What’s the who?

The government is the crucial ‘pump primer’ that could create the initial density to make an IP data commons in the UK a reality. If any and all government expenditure on Broadband networks in the UK was spent on generic dumb IP overlay network elements, that could be used by anyone and interconnected into by any carrier, instead of 1000’s and 1000’s of separate and ‘rationed out’ exclusive links, I believe the vision of a UK data commons could be achieved.

The benefits of aggregation belong as much to those that create the data being aggregated as those that carry the aggregated data. We must find ways to maximise these benefits of aggregation, by aggregating all data within the UK. We must find ways of delivering these benefits of aggregation to as many people as possible. Getting everyone behind this aim is the way to effect significant change.