Meeting documents
- Meeting of Bucks Strategic Partnership Board, Tuesday 4th May 2010 2.30 pm (Item 6.)
Decisions to be taken:
· Reaffirm commitment to the Broadband programme through the support requested
· Comment on the delivery models proposed to provide the infrastructure required to satisfy rural and ‘not-spot’ areas
· Enter into dialogue to share existing infrastructure and network solutions to service residential and business locations
Contributors:
Ian Flexer, Broadband Manager, Buckinghamshire Economic and Learning Partnership (BELP)
Andrew Grant, Chief Executive, Aylesbury Vale District Council
Graham Grover, Chief Executive, BELP
Minutes:
Andrew Grant (Chief Executive, Aylesbury Vale District Council) introduced this item.
Ian Flexer (BELP) then gave a presentation to members, which contained several proposals for Broadband provision in Buckinghamshire. During the presentation, Ian Flexer made the following points:
· BELP believed that the data available greatly understated the number of small businesses working from home.
· Any undertaking regarding broadband provision would have to consider several issues, including whether any financial return was required.
Members then asked questions. The questions and answers are summarised below.
A target of 40 mbps (mega bits per second) by 2015 seems a huge increase on the current provision. Is it going to be achievable?
It will definitely be possible. Every year the technology improves. If anything, we should aim for an even higher level of provision by 2015.
How will you secure the networks? Security of the networks needs to be prioritised.
Security of the networks is a priority issue, as is traffic control.
Why don’t you open up the provision to all areas and ‘seed-fund’ those areas which most want it?
We use the statistics as our starting point, but also use feedback from each area.
How does BT prioritise areas for provision?
Networks tend to work best commercially at a growth of clusters. Clusters can be extended to fill in ‘not spots’ (e.g. in Sittingbourne in Kent).
A member noted that Buckinghamshire Hospitals Trust and OBMH each had their own networks, and that this was not noted in the presentation.
Concerns were raised about the security issues of any shared networks, and this was noted but it was emphasised that the issue was around traffic segregation.
A member noted that SEEDA was working on a Broadband Strategy, with the aim of bringing local voices together.
It was also noted that BT had met with SEEDA recently and had agreed to hold two educational events. BT’s main advice was to choose provision on an open network.
Members then split into five tables and discussed the three questions at the end of the presentation. The three questions and the comments given are summarised below.
Peter Cowen (BT) was in attendance at the meeting as a supporting expert.
Question 1 - Is there sufficient information available to inform this support? Any gaps?
· Board members emphatic on need for clarity on the funding of the business case and clarity on the strategy – is it a strategy primarily around supporting business, or is a social cohesion focus? The business case, and funding, will differ.
· Awareness-raising is needed re: why 2mgps is not a sufficient level of provision.
· We need to explain to residents why different levels of provision are necessary.
· Are we aware of existing gaps in provision?
· What provision will be required in the future by large users (e.g. hospitals)?
· What is the main aim of increased provision – are we aiming to support big businesses, entrepreneurs or personal use?
· What advantages are there to the public sector in funding increased provision?
· Increased provision can encourage good neighbours (self-help).
· The pattern of areas which have low or no provision is surprising. Is there public demand for increased provision?
· Other needs which will increase include Telecare.
· How much will residents be prepared to pay for Broadband?
· There is no other option except to increase Broadband provision for the future.
· The need for increased provision is there and will grow in the future.
· Investment – how much, and where from?
· A ‘quick win’ could be achieved through ensuring fibre provision in all new dwellings.
Question 2 - Are the options for potential models of delivery clear to Members?
What are their respective advantages/disadvantages?
What are members’ views in informing the way forward?
· There needs to be a balance between providing SMEs (small and medium enterprises) with Broadband, and community wellbeing.
· More information on what is going on elsewhere in the UK is needed.
· If there is a demand, why is a commercial company not already addressing this?
· A lot of work is already going on re: Broadband in schools etc. More scoping work is needed.
· Inviting bids from a specialist provider is the best use of time.
· Is this a public sector or a private sector responsibility?
· Is this core business for local authorities/public sector organisations?
· How would funding work – would residents with increased provision be charged?
· Plans are needed for how any profit would be used.
· Scope for involvement of social enterprise.
· Open networks are desirable.
Question 3 - What is the potential for shared networks?
Which partners could be involved?
What are members’ views on opportunities/challenges in developing shared networks?
· There is a potential for sharing networks (with commercial firms too).
· The negative perception of data sharing is a large challenge and should not be minimised.
· Other partners needs to be involved (e.g. universities, Job centre Plus etc.)
· What are the existing contractual arrangements for Broadband in Buckinghamshire, and can they be amended?
· Decision-making in some organisations may be at national level, which could be a stumbling-block.
· There is the possibility of some negative press.
· It should be cheaper to have a network solution for the whole of Buckinghamshire than for partners to operate their own.
· It is essential for all partners to be involved.
· Sharing networks is part of a mixed economy. We need to ensure that minor providers are not priced out.
· Capacity needs to be looked at – e.g. personal use should not take capacity away from hospitals.
Ian Flexer thanked members for their input and said that it seemed that in principle the BSP Board supported the proposals, with a number of caveats. A not-for-profit model seemed to be most popular, but with some involvement from the private sector. More information was required on security, pricing and clarity on the focus of the strategy around which the business case will be developed.
Action: Each organisation to identify an individual to work with BELP regarding Broadband.
RESOLVED
The BSP Board:
· Reaffirmed commitment to the Broadband programme through the support requested.
· Commented on the delivery models proposed to provide the infrastructure required to satisfy rural and ‘not-spot’ areas.
· Entered into dialogue to share existing infrastructure and network solutions to service residential and business locations.
Supporting documents: