Skip Navigation

Fixed wireless heading towards Arun Valley in West Sussex
Monday 27 July 2015 15:55:32 by Andrew Ferguson

Those people in places like West Chiltington and Amberley may if Blaze Wireless can get its network built quickly will soon have access to up to 50 Mbps or up to 100 Mbps fixed wireless services.

Blaze intends to light up parts of the Arun Valley in West Sussex which already has some fixed wireless coverage via Kijoma and there are a good number of fibre cabinets appearing under the West Sussex BDUK project, though as the FTTC (and a small amount of FTTP) is not delivering superfast speeds to everyone there is the situation where providers like Blaze can step in and fill the gaps.

The Blaze website has a map showing expected coverage from masts where agreements in principle exist for locating their masts so it will be a case of keeping an eye on their website to see how things develop.

Pricing wise a one-off connection fee of £25 applies and for £29 per month you get 35GB of data at a nominal symmetric 15 Mbps, 110GB of data at 30 Mbps increases the price to £58 per month, but of course there is no requirement to retain copper voice line rental product. The DIY aerial package is around £80 or Blaze will fit this for around £65 and you are free to source your own router.


Posted by chilting about 1 year ago
This is excellent news for those of us on long lines and will go a long way to extending superfast coverage in this part of West Sussex.
Their mast is in a different location to the Kijoma mast therefore their coverage area will be quite different to Kijoma. With Kijoma also extending their coverage and BDUK hard at work things are certainly looking up in West Sussex
Posted by MaryHinge about 1 year ago
This is an example of why solutions like fixed wireless are not suitable on the long term for not-spots. As a family of five with three teenagers we regularly use around 250GB / month via FTTC.
Posted by RandomJointer about 1 year ago
Great news if West Sussex NotSpots can free themselves from the Kijoma monopoly.
Posted by chilting about 1 year ago
With the FTTC roll out nearly finished in West Sussex it is now time for the fixed wireless providers to fill in the gaps. No commercial operator could be expected to expand their network while the state aided roll out was in progress.
Posted by ian72 about 1 year ago
@Random doesn't really change the "monopoly" if the 2 networks don't overlap - customers will still only have a single supplier they can buy from.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
Maps suggest there will be overlaps

Once live will add blaze to coverage
Posted by gerarda about 1 year ago

The notspots are of course caused by Openreach's monopoly
Posted by kijoma about 1 year ago
heh "the kijoma monopoly" , i think somebody needs to look up what a monopoly is. If 1 company manages to make a viable business model in an area and does not exclude any other company by whatever practice then that is not a monopoly. A monopoly is like Openreach, receiving state aid to over build other company service areas in preference to supplying service where it is needed. good luck to Blaze in their quest, we welcome their input to fill in the areas we don't consider viable.
Posted by ian72 about 1 year ago
@Andrew was taking Chilting's comment about mast positions as meaning there was unlikely to be overlap. Be interesting to see what happens with competition on the wireless networks
Posted by kijoma about 1 year ago
competition is usually a good thing. the maps on their website show considerable coverage overlap. i am confused about the articles pricing tho. the blaze website for this proposal says >

One off costs for installation, set up and commissioning are as follows:

Client aerial equipment £80
Aerial equipment installation £95
Connection charge £25
Commissioning charge £25

they need to be consistent with pricing, else they come over as making it up as they go along.
Posted by chilting about 1 year ago
It is certainly the case that BDUK have encouraged Openreach to go to extreme lengths to provide superfast broadband in Amberley. In a project that has so far lasted over a year we have seen 2km of replacement ducting from the exchange at Bury, another 3km of blocked ducts and and two new fibre cabinets plus the associated rearrangement of the copper network.
All this for a small village that already has wireless coverage. Not all customers will benefit, those living in Rackham will still be to far from the new cabinet.
Posted by chilting about 1 year ago
Obviously there will be some overlap on the coverage maps but in reality with the masts so far apart and with line of sight issues it is likely that both companies will be offering actual coverage to different communities. The presence of the two operators will mean that line of sight coverage will be greatly increased and less booster masts will be needed. Also off course there is extra backhaul available.
Posted by Blackmamba about 1 year ago
Hi Chi.
By the end of August Cab 5 Bury should be taking orders see proposed work on Elgin see works order BDUK thus bringing more compertition to the area.
Posted by chilting about 1 year ago
Cabinet 5 is brand new, it is located in Amberley village and will shortly have a fibre twin. The original cabinet is located 3km away in Houghton, it also has a fibre twin but only serves about 25 properties
Posted by Blackmamba about 1 year ago
Hi Chi.
Thanks for information checked coverage on the fixed wireless and it overlaps into Surrey and a small part of the Old group switching area 01428 Northchaple exchange fibre is being pushed towards this exchange Cabs with long lines.
This should help other sections in Surrey with the clawback money to get the result of 99.7 having 15 meg.
Posted by kijoma about 1 year ago
"By the end of August Cab 5 Bury should be taking orders see proposed work on Elgin see works order BDUK thus bringing more competition to the area."

I didn't realise the BDUK state aid money was to fund competition... oh silly me, of course it was all along :)

Posted by Blackmamba about 1 year ago
Hi Kijoma.
I was against state money being used at all locations let the market take its cause.I do not know the rules on BDUK on the above Cab/Area and the rules in the Surrey Hill 9k mtres where I think you have a customer. All I am interested in is that the customer gets a good service at a price.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
State aid cannot fund overbuild of a commercial, superfast network ... except as incidental overspill from legitimate build (and overspill is actually allowed when a competing network "only" covers 90% or less of an area).

Of course, overbuild is, naturally, also allowed when a competing network doesn't declare itself to the LA.

This appears to apply to Kijoma, but some sympathy may apply, as the LA doesn't appear to have been easy to work with.
Posted by chilting about 1 year ago
In this case the wireless network actually covers a larger area than the cabinet will serve at superfast speeds. It also covers the whole area that the cabinet serves at superfast speeds. The only area that the wireless network doesn't cover that the cabinet covers is to far away from the cabinet to get superfast speeds.
The LA did know of the presence of the competing network because it has been using its presence as an excuse not to overbuild in other parts of the locality.
Posted by Blackmamba about 1 year ago
Hi Chi
I think you may see know why I keep on about the 15 meg download (99.7%) at the post code (1 mile) in the Surrey area from the remarked above this also puts pressure on G/fast so this is very inportant to get the data showing on Thinkbroadband maps correct. I would have thought that the wireless systems would have used the old Hindhead Cell net position.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.