Skip Navigation

Digital Region does not pick BT as preferred bidder
Thursday 07 February 2013 15:12:37 by Andrew Ferguson

The search for a new operator to run and expand the Digital Region FTTC network in South Yorkshire is a major step closer to its conclusion with Bouygues Energies and Services (BYES) being selected as the preferred bidder, beating BT Wholesale Managed Services who were also in the running.

"The Board were impressed by the high quality of the submissions and are grateful for the diligent and comprehensive approach of both bidders.

The process is still ongoing and DRL will continue to negotiate with BYES to agree a contract ready for execution in the first quarter of 2013."

David Cowell, Chief Operating Officer for Digital Region

BYES, formerly ETDE SA, is the Energy and Services Division of the Bouygues Construction Group, who operate in the energy, industry, the service sector, transport, the environment and telecom sectors.


Posted by zyborg47 over 4 years ago
wow, I never thought I would see the day. Well done, seems like people in South Yorkshire got more sense than the rest of the country
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
This is a very different situation to all the other bidding for BDUK. Here, there is a substantial network in place that needs management and expansion. The "advantages" that BT has in the BDUK are not present and any company with the correct background with a good business plan can do the job.
Posted by ddean83 over 4 years ago
Hopefully they will finish the roll out as they only completed 80% . BTO have laid fibre in most of the areas covered by DRL but again left out the areas that have no fibre option. No fibre her on finningley exchange
Posted by New_Londoner over 4 years ago
Interesting comment given recent experience in the Digital Region, remind us all how the previous "independent thinking" went with this rediculous vanity project. How much money has it cost per actual customer so far? How does its performance to date compare with say Cornwall or Northern Ireland?

Perhaps the "rest of the country" has a point!
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
Hopefully TALKTALK or Sky will see fit to begin retailing their services. Their lack of tangible retail support for Fujitsu made the risk for LA's too great.

INfrastructure sharing, although not in the proposed Ofcom work plan for 2013 nor is it referenced in the WLA/WBA consultations may again become prominent.

Openreach qouting a £100k a VDSL cabinet and a £1m per exchange on national radio (DEC 13th) for rural is abusing their monopoly poisition
Posted by New_Londoner over 4 years ago
And you know this how? Based on what data and analysis? Common sense would tell you that others would rush in and invest if there were real rather than imagined excessive profits on offer. The evidence so far suggests the opposite is in fact true.
Posted by camieabz over 4 years ago
It will be great, right up until the French farmers park their tractors in the way of the wireless signals.

Posted by Swampster over 4 years ago
Well it's a French company (Thales) that currently manages it.. looks a bit iffy to me!
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
New_Londoner - KN Network Services case study for Northern provides a benchmark for state aid for c£15k subsidy a path to get toc90%. VDSL cabs list price at £15k - industry discount takes it £4-£6k a unit.

INflation of costs will scare off additional investment in a fibre transition plan - bad for customers, bad for BT shareholders.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
VFM, does that mean the study looks at how much state aid is contribution is allocated?

Because, if you look at the exclusions bit of the study, the match funding is not included in the analysis. Which means that all the other costs bourne by BT are not included.

So that would suggest that the £15k is the state aid component of cab cost.

Lyddingtons cab cost was >£30k install by Rutland telecom.
Posted by herdwick over 4 years ago
" VDSL cabs list price at £15k - industry discount takes it £4-£6k a unit. " - is that a wild assumption or something backed by evidence ? I'm sure BDUK could get a quote for 10,000 cabs to work from.
Posted by mikejp over 4 years ago
I recommend all those involved in 'procurement' study Mike Kiely's 'whistle blowing' on what was thought to be BT's over-egging of costs for these contracts (for which he lost his job).

He is involved now in a site set up to help procurers 'deal' with BT at
Posted by herdwick over 4 years ago suggests $40 per port for the DSLAM in the cabinet, which is pushing £4k for the DSLAM not the cabinet.

Other benchmarks like 250€ to 350€ per household for vectored FTTC whole project cost.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago

The bitcommons FTTC calculator spreadsheet is the one I've been looking at. It's very important to read all the NOTES at the beginning of the spreadsheet to fully understand what costings is being looking at.

The spreadsheet allows the calculation of how much state aid contribution is required for in-fill and final 10%.

It does not represent full costings of deployment.
Posted by KarlAustin over 4 years ago
I'm with @New_Londoner - going for a name non of us here would associate with broadband or networks (Thales) is what got us in the situation we are in now.

A massively expensive network that doesn't pass places with proven demand. For the £100m it has cost, large areas should have had FFTH/FTTB from the project.

I sincerely hope they can turn it round, but I still don't hold out much hope.
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
New-Londoner - 1) Fully support NGA investment and 2) no objections to BT winning it all £1.4bn as long as it is spent well in rural.

I love ISLIP Parish Council c £11k for a 6k fibre run,+cab+power+plyth+tie cabling. Existing duct perhaps with a couple of repairs. Rutland quotes includes all the PIA /ESScharges - their Zhone Malc will be £12-£15k. If you add 4K to Islip as a contribution to establishing a handover point - how can you find Openreach £100k unless all of the last 30% is new duct.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
ISLIP parish council contributed £11k to the costs of having a cab fitted. It's not full deployment costs...
Posted by fastman over 4 years ago
its was a gap funding model and the fibre was actually a lot closer to community than expected i can assure you that that if that had been a 6k run it would have been a fundamentally different discussion (its about how far it is from existing infrastructure

Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
themanstan.. It does not say what BT contributed. How much would BT contribute to village of c90 homes?
Fastman.. how close? Kiddington exchange c6km? I am assuming handover point is in Oxford.
The subsidy in Wales is £200m covering 3,000 Cabs + FTTP -mostly on demand.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago

These are the real costs, the village of Lyddigton needed to contribute £37k to get them connected with Rutland Telecom, using Zhone Tech.

I'd like you to provide real evidence to the contrary.
Posted by fastman over 4 years ago
value it was close isplip was an unenabled cab of the enabled kdlington exchange - (taht was bespoke cost as are all the private funded opportunites (only in enabled exchanges) those costs bear no relevence to any other cab let alone exchnage or bid area
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
themanstand- Needs to teased out. Lyddington includes all the BT ESS and PIA charge and backhaul + zhone malc hence £37k.

Fastman, unenabled cab - correct, but Kiddlinton glassed through to Oxford handover point. Gap funding as in Highland and Island could be 5%.

Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
It's a contribution, so Rutland Telecom had costs on top, estimated £45k total just for capital items. Below is the best you'll see anywhere outside a self build like B4RN which will publish full itemised costs.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
Capital costs won't include upfront running costs.. And the link being to BT Openreach not the cheapest.
Posted by fastman over 4 years ago
value -- in this case its only kidlongton that matters as kidlington is already an live enabled enabled NGA exchange the Highalds and lislands seem to have no relevane as most of the exchnage in that regions there will nver be commerially enabled which is why it was a bduk plit
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
Fastman - Openreachs £100k per Cab/path abd £1millions per exchange claim on BBC is the stuff of Emperor's cloths. Rutland £45k is less than the subsidy BT is seeking in each of their £100k cabs. Proof is emerging and will continue to do so.

£1millions per exchange is not so when glassing through some 4 out of 5 exchanges, and MSAN performs layer 2 capability as per the 21C architecture.
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
Fastman - of that £45k - £20k (slide 11) was Extra Construction Charges to BT, a cab 2Km from the PCP. Ofcom in August have sliced ECC. State aid is supposed to be based on incermental costs.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
VFM cost depends, Lyddington was a part filled 144cab (50 so say a third filled), so they didn't need to splash for all the DSLAMS or as much backhaul.

A full 144 or 288 cab will be considerably more with the extra DSLAMs/backhaul.

Also the 2km from PCP(the new cab) was for Stoke Dry speedtrial not Lyddington's distance. Lyddington cab is ~4km from Uppingham exchange.
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
themanstan - I will furnish you the Huawei quotes once the sources are legitimate, but you have already earned a knighthood, if you multiply the £100k Openreach claimed x the circa 20k paths needed versus any reasonable itemisation of cost. The fact that Rutlands cost can be shown to be less than Openreach's claimed costs for cab path is a real shame. This is before you get on to itemising costs of the access nodes.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
The ECC is an estimated cost remember, it can be higher or lower depending on the state of the ducting.

Also, your BT radio quote for £100k, is that a 288 cab or the half size? I'm fairly certain there was a piece last year when the discussion showed that more expensive euro countries are looking at ~E100k for large cabinet installs by incumbents.

Incubents are not as agile (able to choose equipment) as smaller companies for bespoke builds.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
Openreach may only have the option (for overall simplicity) of putting in a 144 or 288 cab which is fully populated. Which would make their costs expensive in comparison to entities like Rutland, which simply buys to order based on the actual needs of a community. Big companies are simply not designed for that service level, the market is too small (which is where SME comes in).
Posted by ValueforMoney over 4 years ago
Thanks - I assume the ECI and the HUAWEI MA5616T 96 UNE C are fully equipped but support c96 users. Fully equipped 288's is what I am most familiar with. If for every 100k rural users you can order c600, (3,000 in Wales) then BT supplier management have a fun time wth vendors.
Posted by themanstan over 4 years ago
My fluff, small cabsfor Huawei and ECI are 128 ports.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.