Written evidence submitted by David Ashe

[RBB 0088]

Written submission to the Environment, food and rural affairs select committee on rural broadband

 

  1. I am a parish councillor in Upham, a village of approximately 250 houses in Southern Hampshire. I am submitting evidence about the situation in our own village as I believe that the problems and frustrations we face are in many ways typical and illustrative of the issues facing rural communities. I am writing this on my own account rather than on behalf of the Parish as the very short deadline for submissions has not enabled me to circulate it for approval.

 

  1. Upham is a community spread along a single road (Upham Street) with clusters of houses at each end. The distance between the two clusters (known by the ordnance survey as Upham and Lower Upham) is approximately 1.5 km . It is largely surrounded by the countryside of the South Downs National Park. It is made up of a population largely of commuters, but an increasing number of small enterprises based at home. The local post office counter survives on the parcels brought to it for dispatch by local back bedroom internet businesses. Both these and regular commuters who work one or more days from home (at a significant carbon saving), rely on the internet for their livelihood.

 

  1. Upham is by no means isolated. It is situated 10km from the centre of Southampton, within easy reach of Winchester and Portsmouth and is 1km from the edge of Bishops Waltham, a community of around 8,000 served by an excellent broadband connection. In Fair oak, 1.5 km in the other direction, broadband speeds of 75Mb/s are attainable. However Upham is served by a small and old exchange and broadband speeds vary from around 6mB (in Lower Upham, closer to the exchange) to typical 0.5mB (in Upham). These very low broadband speeds also affect the farms and outlying hamlets of the parish. In a survey of the whole parish in October 2013 68% of those who knew their broadband speed (42% of the total)  gave it as less than 2mB.

 

  1. The results will be well known to you, and become increasingly dire as a good broadband speed becomes the norm for 90% of the country.

4.1.   For farmers routine paper work such as cow passports cannot be completed online.

4.2.   Students are unable to complete their homework at home.              

4.3.   Working from home generally presents an increasing problem.

4.4.   Local businesses (most of which are IT based) have to contemplate leaving as they are unable to provide an adequate service to their clients.

4.5.   A widespread inability to use basic download or streaming facilities such as i player, napster  or youview.

 

  1. Upham is a lively community, generally reckoned a good place to live. However in the survey for our parish plan last October  85% of respondents said that a good broadband was very important (67%)or quite important (18%) to them. 63% said that their broadband was unsatisfactory(20%) or very unsatisfactory (43%).

 

  1. In common with many villages in the south of England Upham is relatively affluent. House prices in general well exceed the average for the south of England, and there are few houses available for under £500,000. We are aware of studies that suggest that broadband speed is now one of the top five factors in house purchase, with an appreciable effect on value. For the 200 houses along the spine of the village a spend of even £200,000 on a decent broadband connection would represent less than 0.2% of the overall asset value of the houses affected.

 

  1. We have been aware of the BDUK programme from its outset. We have been several times advised that we were on the margins of acceptance onto Hampshire's better broadband programme but have not quite made it. We are currently waiting for the results of the next rollout.

 

  1. For those without effective broadband to hear the CEO of BDUK trumpetting the success of 90% rollout is a frustrating experience. To put the current 95% target into context. 18% of all UK residents live in rural areas (defined as outside towns of 10,000 or more). If we assume that all of the 5% of homes without SF broadband will be rural, then 28% of all rural homes will be left out of the programme, many on speeds of 2mB or less. (this assumes number of residents per home is consistent between urban and rural).  This is a very high proportion.

 

  1. Those affected become increasingly disadvantaged as the rest of society gets more attuned to higher broadband speeds. As a trivial example our local 'blockbuster' closed several years ago as a result of falling demand. The impulse evening in with a DVD is no longer a possibility, as we cannot stream film here. Much less trivial is the anticipated change within Hampshire's ambulance services to require high speed broadband connection to the hospital from any house called upon in order to recover patient data etc.

 

  1. Our experience of the BT programme is that it is driven by the desire to pass as many front doors as possible. This naturally leads to it tackling the 'low hanging fruit'. However this does not take account of the fact that many of the doors it passes already have a reasonable broadband speed. As a result actual takeup of Superfast broadband in Hampshire is we understand around 15%, considerably below the 26% average quoted by Mr Townsend yesterday. This is borne out by the recent information provided to Hampshire parishes by BT that in 2013 only 20% of households felt that they needed a  speed of more than 10 mB (national research). This figure is set to rise over time with 50% needing more than 20mB by 2023.

 

  1. On the other hand, were superfast broadband to be offered to residents of Upham as the alternative to current speeds a straw poll suggests that takeup would be in the region of 60-70% (borne out by the survey results quoted earlier).

 

  1. The other aspect of the BDUK programme guarantees a minimum 2Mb to all. For many of us this would be good news, but no alternative to satellite (expensive and with a long time lag) is yet being offered to us.

 

  1. Our concern with the BT approach at least within Hampshire is that it appears to be driven by the engineering and not by any intelligent consideration of routes to funding.

 

  1. last year Hampshire made much publicity of Rotherwick, a village that raised, within a fortnight, the £24,000 required as top up funding for a cabinet in the village. As a result speeds moved from 2mB to 35mB plus. Our instant response, as a Parish, was to ask BT for a quote for a similar top up funding.

 

  1. We were advised that BT were unable to provide any quotes as they are unable to meet demand. After 15 months this remains the case. We were advised in May that a community funding model was being tested and would be available for discussion within a month. This has again been postponed.

 

  1. This is clearly a very unfortunate situation. As a village we are prepared to consider ways levering in some of the considerable capital (and financial expertise) available within the village to bring us into the 21st century but are unable to find a way to even start this process with Hampshire's chosen provider. We imagine this is a common dilemma.

 

  1. By comparison we have had discussions with Gigaclear from whom you will no doubt be hearing. Their offer to us is that if we can demonstrate that 30% of the community will take up a subscription (at a rate comparable to a standard superfast broadband package) they will provide a Fibre into the home network for around £1400 per house. The funding for this would need to be raised locally as a bond which would be repaid over 7 years with 7% interest on any outstanding funds. This is plainly a very good investment even without the broadband benefit and no problem is anticipated in raising the £300,000 or so required from within the village. Gigaclear have every appearance of being a successful company and their financial model is presumably therefore  a sound one.

 

  1. The question we would ask is why BT have not been able or persuadable to come up with an equivalent financial vehicle, and why the opportunity to bring in private funding to the programme is not being taken up. Instead we are forced to rely on overstretched public funds and an under-resourced monopoly delivery organisation.

 

  1. You will ask why we have not given up and gone with Gigaclear in any event. The answer is twofold.

19.1.                      We have some concerns about the ongoing issues of maintenance on a system not               under the overall BT 'umbrella'.

19.2.                      The costs of individual connection to Gigaclear's fibre are appreciable and may be               out of reach of some. if we are successful in the next phase of Hampshire's rollout               we would rather have a good system accessible to all than an excellent system some               cannot afford to get onto.

 

  1. Also frustrating is the fact that, more than 10 years ago. Hampshire installed a ducted fibre into the school which lies close to the top of Upham Street (ie furthest from the exchange). We are advised that there are legal obstacles which prevent the sharing of this duct to provide a low-cost route for fibre up the spine, as the duct (paid for by Hampshire and installed by BT) is controlled by Virgin. Again there appears to be considerable application of technical expertise to the problem but little attempt to deal with legal matters.

 

  1. IN CONCLUSION. Upham makes no special pleading to be moved up the queue. All we suggest is that the BDUK programme is reviewed to ensure that concentration on providing a 25mB capability to most, rather than a working capability for all, is the right approach. Also that considerably more financial creativity is applied to this challenge which is critical to the rural economy. There are existing working alternatives to a purely state funded programme which need to be explored and more widely applied in order to make best use of the limited public funds available.

 

November 2014