Comments on: Rural Digital Economy is a Real Digital Economy

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:21:45 +0000

Darren, there is a working business model for rural fibre, proving that it will generate an income and be sustainable. It will be presented at the colloquium on feb 26th. Granted it won’t make big bucks fast like in an urban setting, but it will create jobs, keep more of the blue pound in the community and provide a far superior service to any that a telco would ever deliver. I don’t know all the details yet, but I do know it is a profitable enterprise and the ROI is for the people, not the telcos.

By: Darren Brown

Darren Brown — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:38:26 +0000

I think you underestimate the amount fibre around a rural community costs, when residential customers only wish to pay < £20 per month you will not make a profit for many many years. This is exactly why the Telco's have not done it. It does not make commercial sense.

I dont think councils should be involved in running fibre networks, why should public money be used to compete with private sectors ? Community funded networks however are a good idea but will still cost more to run that the income will cover.

Best Regards
Darren

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:40:01 +0000

wifi is fine, but it isn’t the end game, its just another way of getting a connection that is better than BT are currently offering. Yes we could get it done countrywide eventually, but then what? At some point we have to bite the bullet and get fibre to the home, and as a previous poster pointed out, if the telcos won’t do it then the existing infrastructure (pipes, ducts, poles and wayleaves) should be handed over to someone who will do it. It isn’t rocket science. It would provide employment to those currently sat twiddling their thumbs and drawing dole. It would give them their self respect back, and that saving alone would pay for an awful lorra fibre, and build a next gen network that will help rural economies and everyone will benefit.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:08:35 +0000

Yes fibre is great if you have FTTH no limit to what you can do. Very few of us and definitely few in rural areas will get that. BT I know are rolling out FTTC which still relies on copper wire to take it from the cabinet to the home. All of this is slow to happen and for BT unviable in lots of cases. Unfortunately some people seem wedded to havering copper cable come into their house as the only way to receive broadband. People seem happy at the idea of receiving digital TV via an Ariel or maybe a small dish. Wireless broadband is no different a principal. Now Kent is a big county and the way that Kent is being covered by wireless is astonishing. And even more so is the step change in speeds with 25mb in both directions becoming the norm with even speeds of 100mb. This is not being done through a community scheme but by a commercial company who see the potential. This is allowing people and businesses across Kent to get fast speeds now not having to wait for some upgrade or other. At the end of the day if you have 25mb in both directions would you notice a faster speed as I am sure that would more than cope with the needs of most households.
Come on lets give wireless the recognition it deserves and stop banging on about cables.

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:43:24 +0000

http://www.webpr.co.uk/digitaldales/colloquium/agenda.html
Just found link to the next gen colloquium agenda, this is a good place to meet all the JFDI movers and shakers, and find out how a community can just do it without funding.

By: unitybridge

unitybridge — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 12:40:04 +0000

The striking point you raise of the impact of tactical solutions on removing the drive (commercial and politcal) from strategic solutions stands alongside the funding/ownership question to illustrate why the current state appears very negative.

WIFI/Wimax zones are quick easy ways of getting around an infrastrcuture that is not fit for purpose but gets the absolute majority of all telecoms funding. By putting them in you take the egde of an issue and server small groups in small localities. BT are happy because none of this can ever compete or threaten their monoploy of services. Even the need for BT share the final mile services to other providers create a wholesale alternative that removes the drive for other fibre providers to put in FTTH. So we have providers either reselling BT connectivity and urban pockets of Virgin/CW fibre services controlling content as well as access.

Is Swindon an example of alternative – time will tell.

For rural – or can we say none-metropolitan services – lets have some political will behind removing BTs monoploy and encouirgae local mutuals/co-ops to buy-back the BT infrastrcuture in their area to re-sell and develop. Why give start-ups the biggest capital challenge of making money just out of isolated communities.

This is the kind of community asset return programme that woudl kick start change. But don’t give it to the beaurocrats in local authorities at present they are part of the monoploy supporting problem – create genuinely customer controlled mutuals and coops that communities can buy into by choice. If East Texas can operate successfully for over 50 years as a mutual servicing 17,000 member customers with 83 staff covering 750 sq miles then scale does not need to be big nor public sector. Having the revenue and assets from a rnage of services is key to raising finance for infrastrcuture investment. Similar models work effectively in Italy and Germany.

At the moment we have yet another privatised profit, nationalised risk – the telcos can avoid the problem but have the economic means to address it. If they won’t serve the community then pass them back to the community. But don’t let this be another centrally driven excersise (London or Cardiff) let communities reclaim it themselves on scales that make sence for their geography.

Off the soap box now!

Compare this

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:38:32 +0000

Re-reading Podnosh’s comment I think I missed the real point of it. Sorry for being a fibreranter…
The ownership model for Swindon is fantastic. More councils and local orgs should get involved with Comms access, there is no reason why local communities can’t be responsible and make a profit from new technology. The telcos are hell bent on holding this country to ransom and milking the golden goose that was copper. It will come back to haunt them when the new golden goose of community networks starts to lay golden eggs. The faster councils realise the solution is in their hands the better. Even in urban areas the service received from BT is proving to be unable to cope with the demands being made on it. Working together the councils and suppliers can rectify this, as Swindon is proving.
chris

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:30:34 +0000

The Swindon model is great. Dunno what will happen to it if mad mandy’s bill gets through, but is a quick fire solution to digitalengagement. Kudos to Swindon for providing it.
We are starting to find in rural areas that people are already prepared to pay, and would value a service, and so it makes more sense to lay fibre, it may take a bit longer to do, but it well worth the effort, because laying it in a rural environment is actually easier than in an urban one. Far fewer utilities to watch out for, easier access, willing wayleaves, help from parish councils and less trouble with highways…
… cos we ain’t got any.
It isn’t the laying of fibre that’s the problem, its the obstacles created by bureaucracy that adds to the cost and the time, and that is why wifi/wimax is starting to be used in more areas. We do it that way ourselves, but are migrating to fibre when possible, simply cos it is better and once it is done we don’t have to upgrade in another few years, and we will Never Be Left Behind Again.

By: Nick Booth

Nick Booth — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:09:09 +0000

Is the Swindon model any help. A company set up which is owned by both the supplier and the council which delivers up to 20mbs fast wi-fi across the borough (including in most fields). Anyone can use it for 2hrs for free each day – want to use it more then you subscribe.

It allows the excluded access, put them on the first rung of the ladder into wider use, makes connectivity universally available for public service delivery etc and has built in an assumption that people will pay for something they value.

By: cyberdoyle

cyberdoyle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:49:05 +0000

oops, never meant to upset those men of grit providing community wireless, we are actually doing the same here, and I am part of such a network. Without it we wouldn’t have had access to the internet, and wifi/wimax has undoubtedly helped areas of market failure, we are living proof of that.
Currently many wifi networks like the ones who posted above and others around here are TONS better than ADSL or even 21st century BT copper rubbish.
Also as mentioned above, wifi is cheaper and easier to deploy, but the future is fibre. Wifi, mobile, satellite all have their uses. While an ‘up to 50 meg’ wifi connection is brilliant now, it isn’t futureproof, and kit has to be replaced and updated, with fibre we would be sorted for future generations as it will deliver gigs.
As a hands on JFDI community networker I have given people connections with wifi, I have also given them connections via fibre. Not a fibre fatpipe, just a fibre link. It is so EASY, and it Just Works.
With fibre there is no noise. You don’t need to turn it off and on again. You don’t have end user issues.
Community wifi/wimax networks are far superior to anything the incumbent can deliver. No dispute.
Community fibre will blow your mind. It is possible. It is affordable.
chris