Skip Navigation

Councils invest in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire broadband pilot
Tuesday 18 January 2011 12:22:34 by John Hunt

£600,000 is to be invested by councils in a super-fast broadband trial as part of a Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) pilot announced last year. Gloucestershire County Council and Herefordshire County Council will each invest £300,000 to help get the scheme going which is expected to see further investment of up to £12 million split between government and commercial broadband providers.

Parts of Herefordshire, 80% of the Forest of Dean, parts of Gloucester and Tewkesbury will be included in this broadband trial which could be extended across all of rural Gloucestershire, ensuring that those within the final-third are reached. Further funding from the EU is being sought to help with funding of this roll out across the county.

"Accessible fast broadband is seen as an increasingly important element of infrastructure for both business and the wider community.

Indeed, many experts say next generation broadband will be a key contribution to local business success, both to support existing firms and help attract new enterprises as well as giving a general boost to local economies.

We set up the Recession Fund specifically to help projects like this and in these difficult times, I believe it is all the more important to focus on creating a stronger, more secure economy in Gloucestershire.”

Councillor Chas Fellows, Cabinet member for economy and environment

Further details about the trial including what kind of service customers will receive and technologies will be used are yet to be released.


Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Lets just hope the councils do a good tender process and don't fall for the infinity hype like Lancashire and Cumbria may still do...
Hopefully the BDUK money will go on a futureproof solution for the final third which will drive market forces to provide NGA in the urban areas rather than protecting the copper phone lines.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"Operators should reconsider costly plans for fibre to the home (FTTH) and focus on copper-based technologies, according to global telecoms, media and IT adviser Analysys Mason’s latest report FTTx roll-out and capex in developed economies: forecasts 2010–2015."
Posted by zyborg47 over 6 years ago
They will do it to make them look good, They had no interest, or our council at least had no interest in letter people know about the Bt infinity vote, even our local paper only had a tiny bit about it. Investing in broadband makes the council look like they care, when in fact they don't give a monkeys. typical politicians
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - if the BDUK money is enough to FTTP every property I'm sure there will be no problem.

Nobody is 'protecting copper'.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
This is the crux of the matter, meet the needs of the 1/3rd not getting the commercial solutions, or meet the needs of a smaller proportion with something future proof.

I suspect money available will be such that a stop gap, good enough for 10 years solution will be done, in the hope that more money will be available again in ten years time.

Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
yer, i love cd's solution, samll overpriced local monopolies that leave the customers in the area stuck wiht no choice of service provider, and stuck if their service provider goes bust
Posted by wirelesspacman over 6 years ago
Well I am most definitely with cd on this one HulaHoop. If BT get their way there will be naff all difference between the service providers anyway.
1) there is absolutely no reason why the local initiatives should be "overpriced"
2)local de facto monopolies are not in and of themselves a bad thing. Plus there would be nothing to stop BT entering the market if it chose to later, especially if said local monopolies were as bad as you claim they have to be.
Posted by wirelesspacman over 6 years ago
3) If it is a local FTTH infrastructure then the infrastructure will survive the provider going bust. Afterall, how many times did the cable tv industry go bust in this country?!?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
As covered numerous times before, local infrastructure is all very well but there should be no public money without wholesale options. Oh, and useful to understand the costs of service providers connecting to these small systems - probably explians why so few bother to connect to the ones already in operation.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
If FTTC is sufficient for 10 years then please explain the justification for spending x times more for FTTP, especially if public money is involved.

Bear in mind you may well be seeing around 100Mbps on FTTC in the next couple of years - already in the labs, so who really needs fibre except to solve isolated reach issues?
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"local de facto monopolies are not in and of themselves a bad thing" - strange how lots of law has been enacted to prevent them then ! Perhaps not the majority view.
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
So what happens if one of these local monopolies goes bankrupt... and the service ends? It's not a straight forward MAC and new provider. All you need is one small cash flow blip and small entities go tits up just like that.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
"local de facto monopolies are not in and of themselves a bad thing"

Quite. So long as it works OK and is decent vfm, who cares about competition?

"the infrastructure will survive the provider going bust ... how many times did cable tv go bust in this country?!?"

Quite (again). Is "lots" an accurate enough answer?

"what happens if one of these local monopolies goes bankrupt."

See above.

Posted by alwall over 6 years ago
As a Gloucestershire resident I consider this a disgusting waste of money by a County Council that is shedding jobs, and closing services that are important to rural communities. The recession fund would be better employed helping local victims of the recession.
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
Yes, but these were large companies with decent turnover (albeit with stupidly big debt piles).

A small entity is not going to be picked up by another business in the same way.

The cable companies could be operated as going concerns, which may not be the case with a small monopoly which has missed a payment or two and had its link to backhaul cut. At which point the administrators are called in and that is already to late for all the customers.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Small businesses are even more vulnerable especially in the "current climate" small pockets on non-wholesaled one choice only ISPs? Nightmare
Posted by Michael_Chare over 6 years ago
I would like to see BT publish a plan showing how far they intend to take FTTC. There are lists of exchanges to be enabled, but no information about what they may do in the future for other exchanges, and for those who live in outlying areas.

I am pleased to see that Kent are taking an interest in BDUK.

what they
Posted by wirelesspacman over 6 years ago
There is already a history of small ISPs going bust and getting picked up by others, so you are wrong there.
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
True, but for these small ISPs customers could simply get a MAC and change supplier. It would not be the case for these small monopolies.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, but simply if one fails it won't be a simple MAC to get their service going again.
Posted by wirelesspacman over 6 years ago
I was not talking about small adsl-based ISPs, I was talking about small FWA-based ones.

If we wish to innovate we have to accept risk and inconvenience! :-)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Local community controlled digital pumps locked in to two bit ISP's is hardly innovation
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
i shall use fibrecity or whatever they called as my example
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.