Broadband News

Scotland steps closer to complete broadband coverage with £3.3m contract

The Scottish Government have taken a step closer to iron out the last 1% of users who cannot get broadband at all. Following a request to register in January for those who cannot get service, a contract has been awarded worth £3.3million to Avanti Communications to deploy services to these 3,800 users.

Avanti are looking to start deploying services from July and the complete roll out will be finished within a year. Different technologies based on Satellite and Wireless networks will be used to reach the different communities of users who are spread out across different areas of the country. The distinction on how you will connect is based on the number of people in an area who want access. If there are less than 4 subscribers, a direct individual satellite dish will be used for each user. For between 4 and 29 subscribers, a Wi-Fi based wireless antenna will be used to link users to a satellite connection. For 30 or more users, wireless radio antennae will be used to link to a network that uses a DSL based connection.

Users will get 512Kbps downstream, 256Kbps upstream for £23.50 with no setup fee, or 2Mbps down / 512Kbps up for £47. More details about the complete range of packages, including those for Business, can be found on the Avanti Broadband Reach project (Scotland) webpages along with some frequently asked questions and the terms & conditions.

It is refreshing to see the commitment of the Scottish Government to ensure that no one is left out, even securing service to single users by deploying one-to-one satellite based systems where no other viable solution exists.

Comments

£3.3m / 3800 = £870 each!

  • Somerset
  • over 9 years ago

I was just thinking the same, allowing for the time to rollout and install the equipment required, that's going to be a long time before break even point! It's just a pitty the same investment in broadband (per customer) isn't happoning in the rest of the UK.

  • Foggy_UK
  • over 9 years ago

there isn't a breakeven point, this is the government throwing money into the marketplace in time-honoured fashion. Always plenty of takers available.

  • herdwick
  • over 9 years ago

quote"It is refreshing to see the commitment of the Scottish Government to ensure that no one is left out, even securing service to single users by deploying one-to-one satellite based systems where no other viable solution exists."

Well done to the Scottish Government in taking broadband seriously...... A big not so well done to the regular culprits who should of gave those people access to begin with.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

How much is satellite broadband though? I knew it was expensive but is there really a need to spend £870 on one broadband connection? (And I assume that doesnt include the £47 a month cost)

  • callum9999
  • over 9 years ago

Hang on CARPETBURN - If BT had spent thousands on getting these users in remote areas connectivity, then other users would of faced increased costs (or these users would of had the full burden themselves) and you'd be the first person on here complaining, "Why should others pay for them, they don't have to live where they do, if they want broadband, they should move" - Because you've said the same thing in other recent comments.

  • KarlAustin
  • over 9 years ago

Are the 'English' Taxpayers paying for this?
Good old Brown Bear, looking after his own.

  • mikeupd
  • over 9 years ago

"didnt take long for the i live in the middle of nowhere its not fair harp to play its tune again" - I believe that was one of your recent comments.

  • KarlAustin
  • over 9 years ago

Are the 'English' Taxpayers paying for this?

No.. Its the SCOTTISH taxpayers thats paying it you bigot >:(

  • _TRIaXOR_
  • over 9 years ago

"Its the SCOTTISH taxpayers thats paying it you bigot"
Using money allocated to Scotland by the BRITISH/UK parliament at Westminster using the Barnett formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula)which allocates more £s per head to Scotland than it does for England.

  • MCM999
  • over 9 years ago

Dude, I'm sick of the We're English and always paying for you, we have an SNP Government not Scottish NuLabour and thier westminister cronies who we cant stand as much as you lot, the amount of Anti Scottish tripe should be kept off these boards..

Dont get me started on the Oil Tax revenue we in Scotland are losing thanks to HM Treasury which cover's ALL of the UK..

So in effect.. WE'RE PAYING IT..

  • _TRIaXOR_
  • over 9 years ago

Maybe we should moan about how much we pay these idiots..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7477222.stm

  • _TRIaXOR_
  • over 9 years ago

Perhaps you should post your political ravings to a more appropriate forum where you might even find someone interested in reading them! <g>

Not only the royals but also all politicians, regardles of party or legislature, are vastly overpaid.

  • MCM999
  • over 9 years ago

if that was directed at me.. maybe you should look above my comments, I didn't start this..

"Not only the royals but also all politicians, regardles of party or legislature, are vastly overpaid. "

I Agree entirely..

  • _TRIaXOR_
  • over 9 years ago

quote"Hang on CARPETBURN - If BT had spent thousands on getting these users in remote areas connectivity, then other users would of faced increased costs..."
Indeed that statement when looking at it logically makes perfect sense, however the ebbsfleet project which also cost a considerable sum has just had a proposal to reduce line rental costs, this demonstrates spending a large sum doesnt always mean price rises.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

quote""didnt take long for the i live in the middle of nowhere its not fair harp to play its tune again" - I believe that was one of your recent comments."
Indeed it was, however that was in regards to service SPEEDS, not having or not having a service like what this is about. If a company charges people the same monthly sum they should be able to have the same choice of services. People have a right to complain if they are paying the same as fred a few miles away but not the same range of services.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

They dont have a right to rant they deserve the same speed as someone else, when using an identical provided service as that somebody else as it just isnt technically possible even if the company spent millions (Or in simple terms live millions of miles from an exchange and ADSL and ADSL2+ speeds in your home will be slower than someone close to the exchange, thats not BTs fault even if they spent millions the country bumkins still with a like for like technical service like ADSL still wouldnt get the speeds someone close to an exchange would).

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

When the inner city starts to get fibre they will still complain, i imagine they will neglect to think those with the fibre service will be paying a different monthly rate.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

_TRIaXOR_, the Royals may cost £40 million but consider that the total tax income of the UK is over £450 billion. I think spending ~0.02% of taxpayers money is worth preserving our heritage that we've had for hundreds of years. Also think about how much money the royals bring in for tourism and certain calendar events.

  • TheLlamaman
  • over 9 years ago

Ahahaha £870 per customer? Try £8.5k for a scheme nobody wants :

http://www.stornowaygazette.co.uk/news/85k-per-customer--for.4226812.jp

Sadly this is what happens once councils get involved - everything takes forever and costs 10 times what it should.

  • rizla
  • over 9 years ago

the winner of today's adult literacy prize goes to "who should of gave those people access to begin with."

  • herdwick
  • over 9 years ago

"I think spending ~0.02% of taxpayers money is worth preserving our heritage that we've had for hundreds of years"

Sorry mate, but to me, they, and all thier whole toffee nosed family are just a waste of space..

But lets get this thread back on topic eh :)

  • _TRIaXOR_
  • over 9 years ago

Access to Broadband should be the right of every Citizen should they want it. After all,just because a person works in agriculture or forestry, should their children be denied the same educational advantages as an urban worker?

  • Ian32
  • over 9 years ago

For cost comparison purposes, folks might want to look at BT's Exchange Activate scheme.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/1059.html

For the first thirty customers on an exchange, BT want(ed) £45,000 for the first three years service. Additional blocks of thirty (only) cost £30,000 each. Or as the article puts it, "around £41/month per user".

Total that over the three years, and guess what, BT were/are even MORE expensive per user than Avanti (if I've done my sums right).

  • c_j_
  • over 9 years ago

"Access to Broadband should be the right of every Citizen should they want it." ROTFLMAO, Like that going to happon here in England. Well if that's the case, I want my Broadband at 100Mbps with 1:1 contension for £5 a month, so does that mean I'm going to get it ? and oh yes... I'm miles from the exchange too boot !!!

  • Foggy_UK
  • over 9 years ago

quote""Access to Broadband should be the right of every Citizen should they want it." ROTFLMAO, Like that going to happon here in England. Well if that's the case, I want my Broadband at 100Mbps with 1:1 contension for £5 a month"
Like so many you FAIL to comprehend the difference between everyone being equal and wanting more than whats possible... Ian32s point is perfectly valid... CONT....

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

Everyone should be allowed access to broadband, their line rental costs the same so the services available on through that line should be the same... If you want 100Mb go away and pay for it, cos you wont get it over a phone line as a standard.. As to herdwick keep banging the BT drum, thats your only use here. You may want to hand out "adult literacy" prizes to people, but in an official capcity your earned the BT brown tongue award long ago. So anything you have to say is contaminated with BT smelly brown stuff.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

@c_j_:So what you're implying is that BT's pricing was such as to allow and maybe even encourage competition. That's what Ofcom is supposed to be ensuring and what a lot of people think is a good idea.

Or was LLU a huge mistake and should we all be living in a BT exclusive country after all?

  • AndrueC
  • over 9 years ago

Everyone should be entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want it. However this should be subject to two limitations:

1.It must not be at the expense of someone else.
2.People should be prepared to pay for it.

Everyone in this country /without exception/ already has the right to uncontended, 100Mb broadband. You just need to be able to write a bloody big cheque.

  • AndrueC
  • over 9 years ago

"Access to Broadband should be the right of every Citizen should they want it."

Why should it be a right ? It's not a basic necessity of life that you have to have broadband. Like most other services it's provided by a business and most businesses are created to make money.

  • darkmast2
  • over 9 years ago

"CARPETBURN", If so, then why are the LLU operators allowed to cherrypick the biggest and most proffitable exchanges with no requirement to roll out to smaller exchanges ? This is no different than BTw. This is the issue which Ofcom need to address. Line length and speed have no relivance in this issue.

  • Foggy_UK
  • over 9 years ago

"... Ofcom ... ensuring ... good idea."

A good idea, *if* Ofcon had ever had a clue. Sadly for us punters, they've not had a clue since Pipex Classic invented affordable broadband.

Same for LLU - fine in principle, in practice its largely-unregulated rollout will be a disaster for the UK broadband market in both LLU and non-LLU areas.

Just watch what happens to geographic pricing once BT's much-overhyped 21CN rolls out WBC to replace IPstream, and ISPs from AAISP to Zen and many in between vanish in much of the country.

http://community.plus.net/blog/2007/10/01/21cn-and-regional-pricing/

  • c_j_
  • over 9 years ago

quote""CARPETBURN", If so, then why are the LLU operators allowed to...."
You still dont quite get the idea between having a ADSL service and NOT having one do you? You pay line rental and broadband is available on your line... doesnt matter if its 2Mb, 8Mb or 24Mb you have a service.These people the story refers to had NO ADSL SERVICE. My god whats so hard to comprehend there? This is nothing to do with speed or various services up and down the country its about a select few that had no access. If you want speed which is better than everyone else go pay for it.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

As to cherry picking i think you will find ofcom have guidelines laid down to both BT and LLU operators about exchanges which can be unbundled... Stop being so dumb, if you were an LLU provider and an organisation said you must or are allowed to unbundle 100 exchanges, which ones would you unbundle?? I spose you would take the least profitable ones first and kill your business in the first month... Honestly the whinging here cos someone can get faster speed than someone else is pathetic and that is nothing to do with this story... This is about NO SERVICE being available to some people

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

'and an organisation said you must or are allowed to unbundle 100 exchanges'

must?

  • Somerset
  • over 9 years ago

I think you have mis read what I typed, I aggreed with you and you still shot me down, I can't win. If it isn't already the case, Ofcom should make ALL operators (BTw and LLU) rollout their broadband networks to all exchanges by way of a USO in the contract with time limits for doing so, just as the GSM operators have. There will always still be holes in the coverage provided but this and higher speeds are issues for sub-loop unbundling, wireless and fibre etc.

  • Foggy_UK
  • over 9 years ago

cont... My own personal requirements of broadband were in gest, with note of sacasium and tounge in cheak in reference to the "Access to Broadband should be the right of every Citizen should they want it." An USO (at the exchange level) is a posible way forward.

  • Foggy_UK
  • over 9 years ago

quote"must?"
Indeed somerset believe it or not that has happened before, i read it straight from the ofcom website. They told BT they had to allow a certain amount of exchanges and also told LLU suppliers (i dont think it quoted which company)a figure they had to enable. The document is by memory about a year old but i imagine its still on there somewhere.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

Foggy - And after doing that, you'd be left with only BT and one LLU player. Maybe.

Quite simply, it's not economical to wire up the exchanges which only serve tiny numbers of people, and those people would be better served with wireless links.

  • Dawn_Falcon
  • over 9 years ago

I do hope the Scottish Government keeps the same attitude of total inclusion right through the inevitable role-out of fibre. Seems a bit like Councils/Government who place big green signs beside the roads so as to include every passing driver whether any one driver needs or wants to look at it. They think the road system works better by complete inclusion for all drivers. So the Scottish economy/society is deemed to work better with complete inclusion for up-to-date(ish) telecoms.

  • muymalestado
  • over 9 years ago

Cant they just give them a vodafone mobile dongle?

  • jb66
  • over 9 years ago

herdwick its how it should be done, anything unprofiteble like that should be subsidised by government/council or no rollout at all. I disagree with you foggyuk, a USO to force LLU to rollout everywhere WITHOUT subsidies be disastrous, LLU would then be like ipstream very expensive traffic as city dwellers subsidise villagers.

  • chrysalis
  • over 9 years ago

regional pricing is long overdue anyway, in a unregulated environment like in usa they already have regional markets where its more favourable in denser populated areas, like in many walks of life there is upsides and downsides in living in certian areas. The downside for rural areas should be more expensive broadband but has been subsidised by urban areas due to strange pricing policies.

  • chrysalis
  • over 9 years ago

Well said chrysalis, those still living up a mountain though will still want 100Mb fibre to home connections though... Who said fresh air was good for the mind anyway?

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

What happens if I live up a mountain and want gas, electic and water? Do I have to pay extra?

  • Somerset
  • over 9 years ago

quote"What happens if I live up a mountain and want gas, electic and water? Do I have to pay extra?"

If you live that remote you wouldnt have the choice in alot of cases between gas and electric, it would be one or the other, maybe none at all if you are really that remote you would have to live of bottled gas, just like a caravan.
Same goes for water, if you are that remote you would have to have a tank for it rather than conventional plumbing. If you want luxury, you cant want the rural life that bad.

  • CARPETBURN
  • over 9 years ago

Post a comment

Login Register