UK government tries to encourage 5G innovation rural areas

The UK government has set aside £30 million to fund a few winners of a competition to come up with bright ideas about exploiting 5G tech in the countryside.

This marks the latest minor trip to the well that is the National Productivity Investment Fund, a pot of £37 billion in public wedge that is being drip-fed to industry every time the government reckons a certain area of infrastructure could do with a prod in the right direction. 5G and fibre are core national infrastructure topics, as is the development of rural communities, so the government gets two PR wins for the price of one with this announcement – a bargain at £30 million.

“The British countryside has always been a hotbed of pioneering industries and we’re making sure our rural communities aren’t left behind in the digital age,” said Digital Secretary Nicky Morgan. “We’re investing millions so the whole country can grasp the opportunities and economic benefits of next generation 5G technology.

“In modern Britain people expect to be connected wherever they are. And so we’re committed to securing widespread mobile coverage and must make sure we have the right planning laws to give the UK the best infrastructure to stay ahead.”

That latter statement is a nod to ongoing work to give operators better access to places where they can stick their radio gear, which presumably resulted from persistent moaning on the matter from said operators. This could well be especially challenging in rural areas, where land owners are in a strong position to dictate the terms of business.

Among the changes under consideration in this area are:

  • changing the permitted height of new masts to deliver better mobile coverage, promote mast sharing and minimise the need to build more infrastructure;
  • allowing existing ground-based masts to be strengthened without prior approval to enable sites to be upgraded for 5G and for mast sharing;
  • deploying radio equipment cabinets on protected and unprotected land without prior approval, excluding sites of special scientific interest; and
  • allowing building-based masts nearer to roads to support 5G and increase mobile coverage.

“We’re committed to delivering the homes people across the country need, and that includes delivering the right infrastructure such as broadband connectivity and good mobile coverage,” said Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Esther McVey.

“There is nothing more frustrating than moving into your new home to find signal is poor. That’s why we are proposing to simplify planning rules for installing the latest mobile technology – helping to extend coverage and banish more of those signal blackspots, particularly for those living in rural areas.”

Slightly hyperbolic there, Esther, and it’s presumably part of any home-buyer’s due diligence to check the mobile signal when they inspect their prospective purchase, but we get your point. Whether land-owners, farmers, etc agree on the paramount importance of rural mobile connectivity is another matter, but one of the organizations claiming to represent them seems keen.

“The vast potential of the rural economy will only be fulfilled when everyone in the countryside has full mobile connectivity, and we welcome DCMS’s intent to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise of internet access for all,” said Mark Bridgeman, Deputy President of the Country Land and Business Association.

“The current situation, where only 67% of the country can access a decent signal, is unacceptable and government is right to focus on planning reform as a means to removing current barriers but there must also be a balance between the interests of landowners and mobile operators.”

Prospective rural 5G pioneers have a couple of months to apply for a piece of the 30 mil. This sort of thing seems fairly positive on the surface, but it’s debatable how much impact chucking a few mil at a small number of pet projects will have in the great scheme of things. On the flip side any state intervention in private business needs to be treated with caution as the ultimate arbiter of the viability of any business initiative should be the market.

FWA is starting to gather momentum in UK

The idea of Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) has been belittled in the past, but it is moving beyond ‘flash in the pan’ territory and becoming a genuine alternative across the UK.

Some have been harping on about the benefits of FWA for years, while others have snubbed the concept for more traditional means of broadband connectivity, but there is growing interest in the technology throughout 2019. The latest to join the hype is Macquarie Capital, yet another private investment company looking to capitalise on the sluggish telco segment. Here, the team is backing the rollout of FWA solutions in rural communities.

“The roll-out of superfast and ultrafast broadband has too often focused on the UK’s urban centres – leaving untapped investment requirements in the UK’s rural communities,” said Oliver Bradley of Macquarie Capital.

“We believe that using Macquarie Capital’s unique principal investment and development expertise there is a significant opportunity to work with Voneus to accelerate the deployment of UK rural broadband, this will help unlock significant economic and social benefits for the UK.”

Working alongside emerging ‘alt-net’ Voneus, Macquarie Capital will invest £10 million initially and an additional £30 million through various different build-out phases. FWA will be the tip of the spear, as Voneus looks to focus on 900,000 homes across the UK countryside who still don’t have access to Superfast broadband services.

“Macquarie Capital’s backing is a huge endorsement of Voneus’ business model and vision, as well as an indication of how much work still needs to be done to connect the many homes and business across the UK that still do not have access to decent broadband services,” said Steve Leighton, CEO of Voneus.

While the only option for genuine 100% future-proofed broadband connectivity is fibre, the FWA revolution does offer considerable benefits. Firstly, it is faster to deploy as last-mile connectivity is over-the-air, removing the complications of civil engineering. Secondly, it is cheaper to deploy raising the interests of the telcos. And finally, it satisfies the need for the moment.

FWA could be viewed as half-way house on the road to full-fibre deployment as it offers the connectivity speeds which are required today. Some Government targets for broadband infrastructure are non-sensical as they focus on technology not the desired outcome. If the immediate desire is to deliver relevant download speeds in the home, this can be done through FWA solutions. There is no reason why FWA can’t address the immediate challenge, assuming of course there are on-going plans to rollout fibre infrastructure over a reasonable period of time simultaneously.

This is what Voneus is proposing. It will deliver FWA connectivity in areas which have largely been ignored by the traditional providers, while also working the business case to deploy full-fibre broadband in the future.

This approach might irritate some of the traditional telcos in the UK, but there are cases around the world where it has been proven a success. Over in the US, Starry is a FWA ISP which is rapidly expanding. Although it is focused on multi-dwelling units in major cities, the theoretical business model, and customer appetite has been proven.

Closer to home, Three and Vodafone have also launched their own FWA propositions for 5G. It will be interesting to see how these convergence strategies play out, but Three already has 800,000 home broadband subscribers through its acquisition of UK Broadband. This is an area of great potential for these two broadband challengers, especially should the reliability of FWA be proven as 5G rolls out across the country.

The idea of a fibre spine and wireless wings is not a new one, but it is certainly one which has merit. Here, Voneus could certainly gain traction in areas which have been neglected by the traditional player because of the high-cost of deploying infrastructure. FWA can be a good idea, just as long as its not the final goal for the ISP in question.

Tory leadership favourite makes 2025 FTTH commitment

Former-Foreign Secretary and the favourite to be the UK’s next Prime Minister Boris Johnson has undercut DCMS and Ofcom commitment for full-fibre by eight-years.

Writing an op-ed piece for The Daily Telegraph, Johnson (BoJo) has suggested his government would commit to delivering fibre-to-the-home (FTT) broadband connectivity to 100% of the UK population by 2025, beating out current commitments by eight years.

“Think what we could achieve if the whole country had the same lightning access to this essential tool of progress,” BoJo stated. “If the Spanish can do it, why can’t we? Let’s say goodbye to the UK’s manana approach to broadband and unleash full fibre for all by 2025.”

As it stands in the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review (FTIR), the UK Government has targeted full-fibre broadband for all households by 2033. This might sound like a ludicrous amount of time, though it is the final 10% which is envisioned to be the most difficult. There has been progress in upgrading the UK from copper to fibre, though the UK does seem to be falling behind other European nations.

According to the latest statistics from the Fibre to the Home Council Europe, 1.5% of UK subscribers have adopted fibre services. The industry is suggesting 7% availability of fibre services, while the Government is targeting 15 million premises to be connected by 2025. Steps forward have been made, albeit smaller ones than the likes of Spain, Latvia, Lithuania and the Nordics.

The issue with connecting all of these homes is down to the commercial gain for the telcos. When you get to the rural regions of the UK, delivering FTTH, or even fibre-to-the-cabinet, is not commercially attractive. Not only do you have to worry about the raw materials, there is the complication of civil engineering and the difficulties of navigating the red-tape maze of local authority governance.

This is why the Government is not worried about the first 90% of UK premises, but it is the final 10% which everyone should be concerned over. To connect these final premises, the telcos would have to be encouraged with public funds, as the commercial gain is seemingly below-par.

“But when I mentioned another priority of mine – almost casually – those farmers smote their weatherbeaten hands together and roared their assent,” said BoJo. “They want better broadband. They are indignant at the current failure to provide it – and they are absolutely right.

“A fast internet connection is not some metropolitan luxury. It is an indispensable tool of modern life. You need it for your medical prescription, for paying your car tax, for keeping up with the news and with your family and friends. It is becoming the single giant ecosystem in which all economic activity takes place. It is the place you find bargains. It is the place you find customers.

“It is not only the place you can find a job. It is the means by which you can be interviewed, and your talents uncovered, without incurring the cost of a rail ticket. If your area has a truly fast broadband connection, that area will be a better place to live, to invest, to set up a business; and that area will have a better chance of retaining talented young people and allowing them to start-up businesses and bring up their families.”

Undercutting Government objectives is of course a good way for a leadership hopeful to gain column inches and woo party members, many of whom will live in the more affluent rural areas, but is it actually possible? BoJo has already faced criticism because of dubious claims, just think back to the £350 million a week savings which was emblazoned across the bus during the Brexit campaign.

Telcos can of course be coerced into getting on with their jobs faster than they would like to, but this is an arduous process; the telcos have become masters of stubbornness. And as you can imagine, BoJo has been light on details as to how this accelerated rollout would be achieved, simply stating it would require more government investment.

So here is the question; does BoJo genuinely believe he can speed-up the transition to a fibre diet, or is this another suspect claim which will lead to another member of the general public taking him to court?

BT’s rural position is nothing more than defensive strategy

BT has unveiled its own proposals to bridge the rural divide, but this strategy is just as much about protecting its own attractive position as it is connecting the unconnected.

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph earlier this week, BT’s consumer CEO Marc Allera outlined the vision for a digital society where everyone reaps the benefits. BT is proposing infrastructure tit-for-tat in the regions where there is coverage from at least one of the UK MNOs, and a more simplistic infrastructure sharing proposal in the genuine not-spots.

Both ideas are completely reasonable, and both are geared towards protecting a competitive edge for BT, created through years of mobile infrastructure expansion.

Although there are arguments that rural roaming or network sharing propositions would slow down investment and the rollout of mobile infrastructure, following the money is perhaps a better means to understand BT’s underlying strategy. With every change made in the telco landscape, there is financial gain and loss. When BT proposes an idea, you must question what the financial gain or loss is.

The reason Allera is making noise through the mainstream press right now is due to the negative PR the company attracted a couple of weeks back. O2, Vodafone and Three proposed an infrastructure sharing initiative, which was promptly rejected by BT, painting the picture of a spoilt child having a hissy fit because he has been told to share his favourite toy train. However, when you delve into the details, you see BT’s rejection was a sound commercial decision.

In short, the trio of competitors proposed opening-up current mobile infrastructure, forcing any mast owners to allow competitors to place radio equipment on the structure in areas which have been deemed underserved. This sounds fantastic for the consumer and the Government’s ambition of 95% geographical 4G coverage by 2022, but it effectively erodes the position BT/EE has spent years attempting to craft.

BT/EE has the best mobile coverage throughout the UK. This is not only average speed, but geographical spread. Some might dispute this point, but year after year test from the likes of Opensignal and Ookla crown EE the champion. This has allowed it to tell customers they will be able to get fantastic signal almost everywhere in the UK, an advantage over rival MNOs.

The cost when it comes to expanding 4G coverage is not necessarily anything to do with the radio equipment, but everything else. Acquiring the land, negotiating local planning laws, constructing the site, wiring it up with fibre and electricity, the raw materials and the man power, all add up to make an expensive proposition. It’s no wonder telcos want to open competitor’s masts as opposed to building it themselves. It’s much faster and significantly cheaper to simply pay an engineer to fix radio equipment to an existing mast.

Should the trio’s proposal of collaboration be accepted, this would effectively kill this advantage and completely undermine a long-term commercial strategy. No competent business person would agree to such an initiative, especially considering how much it would have cost.

Now take into consideration the BT alternative.

Firstly, in the areas where there is only one telco present, BT would allow one of its rivals to use its infrastructure, but only if the competitor opens one of its own masts to BT. This creates the collaborative framework legislators and regulators are keen to see but protects BT’s competitive edge, and prior investments, and allows it to enhance its own coverage footprint. Yes, it does help a rival, but the pros outweigh (or at least equal) the cons, and it doesn’t allow competitors to bypass the process BT/EE would have painfully gone through in the past.

This would be the idea for areas where there is a telco present, but for the genuine not spots, where none of the MNOs can provide service, a more straightforward infrastructure sharing agreement can be created. All four would contribute to a pot and all would be free to put whatever radio equipment on the mast.

This does not necessarily encourage competition, but these not spots offer very little commercial potential to anyone. Extending coverage to these areas is not about providing a service to customers but meeting the coverage expectations of the Government. Sheep don’t pay phone bills after all, but occasionally a rambler might want to Instagram said sheep.

While this might not sound like the ‘we’re all in this together’ rhetoric which has been banded around, realistically this very few people would think contrary to this position. These are commercial businesses which are in place to compete with rivals and make money. BT might be spinning their argument to suggest such collaborative schemes would slow down infrastructure rollout, but 99% of decisions in big business always come down to money.

Why would BT want to help its competitors compete in a market which is incredibly difficult to find profits in the first place?

T-Mobile uses FWA and digital divide as latest Sprint merger justification

T-Mobile US has announced the launch of an LTE Fixed Wireless Access service, which could address the connectivity needs of 50 million people, assuming the Sprint merger is approved of course.

It hasn’t been billed as an Uncarrier move from T-Mobile, however it has the potential to be quite disruptive. The team has pointed to statistics which suggest 61% of rural customers either have no or only one home broadband services available to them, offering a significant opportunity for CEO John Legere and his magenta army, if they can prove the concept works effectively.

In the first instance, T-Mobile plans to invite 50,000 customers to participate in the live trial, though should the bureaucrats approve the Sprint merger, the team would be able to open this up to 9.5 million customers by 2024. And thanks to 5G, T-Mobile is promising speeds “in excess” of 100 Mbps to 90% of the forecasted FWA footprint, also by 2024.

“Two weeks ago, I laid out our plans for home broadband with the New T-Mobile,” said Legere. “Now, we’re already hard at work building toward that future. We’re walking the walk and laying the foundation for a world where we can take the fight to Big Cable on behalf of consumers and offer real choice, competition and savings to Americans nationwide.”

Although FWA is not a long-term, realistic alternative to fibre, at least not on the current airwaves, T-Mobile could certainly craft a useful position here. Pricing the service at $50 per month, the team suggests customers could save $360 per year, assuming the average monthly cost of home broadband is $80.

For T-Mobile this is perfect timing to plug the benefits of the Sprint merger and gain the interest of influential politicians. With the 2020 Presidential Election machine beginning to crank into first gear, potential candidates and the President himself will be looking for soundbites to rollout to the Middle America rallies. The FWA service ticks two boxes here.

Firstly, with so many rural consumers (and potential voters) either unable to purchase a home broadband service, or only having a single option, T-Mobile is providing an answer. In most cases, the reason home broadband is not available is due to an inability for the telco to prove ROI or the geographical landscape makes it incredibly difficult. FWA addresses these problems.

Secondly, $360 is a lot of money. T-Mobile has a track record of undercutting rivals while delivering a service which is at least on par. This might well be an offering which will attract the interest of many.

Should any politician be involved in forcing the T-Mobile and Sprint merger through, it would be an excellent anecdote for the ambitious politicians to take to potential voters. Not only are they delivering Middle America the internet, they are doing it cheaper than what is available to everyone else around the country.

T-Mobile is promising the merged company will use a low-cost structure to aggressively capture market share by undercutting rivals. This strategy is not only a chance for Legere to further irritate AT&T and Verizon, but it is a massive plug for the merger. In an FCC document, T-Mobile suggests by “monetizing available spectrum and leveraging off of other deployed network assets, the in-home service will be profitable on its own”. The underlying message is quite clear; look what we can do once you greenlight the merger.

Interestingly enough, T-Mobile seems to be fighting the competition concerns in the wireless market, with the opportunity to enhance competition in the wireline market. Soon enough, the merger judges will have to decide what is more important; maintaining the four MNO balance or creating more competition in the home broadband arena.

“These pro-competitive and pro-consumer in-home broadband benefits are clearly merger-specific, verifiable, and compelling considerations to inform the Commission’s overall review of the merger’s effects on competition and the public interest,” the statement to the FCC reads.

Another point which will gain the attention of the pro-consumer politicians and bureaucrats is the promise of free hardware. T-Mobile is promising the LTE router will be provided and installed at no-cost to the consumer, and as soon as 5G is available in the area, the upgraded 5G router will be provided free of charge.

The merger is still hanging in the balance, but the promise of increased competition in the broadband world, especially with the prospect of a race to the bottom, might turn some heads. The pros and cons of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger are starting to become very interesting

BT shared rural network snub is not as it seems

Everyone agrees that there needs to be some sort of collaboration to meet the extra-ordinarily difficult coverage objectives of the Government, but BT is snubbing rivals’ latest plans?

According to The Times, O2, Vodafone and Three have tabled a plan which would see all four of the UK MNOs pool resources to tackle the digital divide. Shared infrastructure would reduce the financial burden of investing in geographical regions which offer little potential for ROI, due to the sparse or non-existent population.

At a breakfast briefing in London, Vodafone UK CTO Scott Petty laid out the concerns in a relatively simple fashion; sheep don’t pay phone bills. This is the challenge the telcos are currently facing; the vast majority of the UK’s population have coverage, but geographical demands of the government are a different kettle of fish (or herd of sheep). When no-one lives somewhere, what is the incentive to invest in infrastructure to provide coverage?

While this might seem like a reasonable approach, BT is reportedly taking issue with the plan, at least according to The Times.

“BT has already invested heavily to create the widest 4G coverage in the UK, and we are keen to collaborate with Government and industry to extend rural coverage into areas where there is none today,” BT said in a statement. “To this end, we have recently proposed a new model for consideration over the coming weeks.”

It has been widely reported BT is snapping the olive branch put on the table from rivals, but BT suggests this is just PR spin.

Reading into this statement, BT is not objecting to the idea of collaboration, the spin which has seemingly been played over the last few days, but suggesting a different approach. And from our perspective, it is a completely reasonable objection to make.

When you look at different coverage surveys and 4G connectivity analysis reports, EE is regularly crowned the best performer overall, and takes top-spot for most of the regional measurements as well. There is a simple reason for this; EE has spent more money improving its geographical coverage than its competitors.

While this is an achievement which should be applauded, the idea of rural roaming and generic shared infrastructure would erode this competitive advantage which it has been building towards. Don’t forget, EE has not been building out this 4G network because it is run by people who are just nice guys and want to help everyone in the UK. This investment has been made to give the team something to shout about and create an advantage when attempting to secure more customers.

EE wants to be able to go to potential customers and tell them they won’t only have better signal in all the normal places, but everywhere they could possible think of going. It’s a long-term strategic decision to put it in a stronger position than its rivals. Should there be any surprise EE does not want its rivals to benefit from the hard work, foresight and investments it has been making for its 4G networks?

Reading between the lines, this is what the objection is based around. BT is prepared to have discussions on collaboration to provide coverage in areas where there is none but allowing competitors to piggy back on its investments is a commercially idiotic idea. Why would it give away such a competitive edge in an industry where profits are so difficult to come by? It has made investments in commercially unattractive areas, so its rivals should have to as well.

From BT’s perspective, this is simply an attempt for rivals to increase connectivity coverage, but not having to pay for the achievement. Collaboration should be focused on areas where everyone is facing complications, not those where everyone aside from BT has an issue.

Another point to consider is whether a shared network would actually work from a differentiation perspective? The telcos are fighting for subscriptions, but if they are all using the same network in the rural markets, it becomes nothing more than a race to the bottom, eating away precious profits and marching towards utilitisation.

Finally, does such a broad-brush approach to geographical coverage actually work? Does the discussion about generic rural network sharing detract from the critical point, which should be focus on areas which have zero coverage, instead of those which have partial coverage? This is a six of one, half a dozen of the other argument, as while it sounds reasonable to concentrate on the areas which are complete data black spots, try telling that to Joe Bloggs who is potentially being screwed by only having a single provider to choose from.

This is an incredibly complicated argument, most of which has not been considered by the initial blame game which has been building over the last few days. When you take the nuances into consideration, there is no right answer, and neither are any of the suggestions wrong. In truth, something has to be prioritised, and not everyone is going to be happy with the final decision.

It might be easy to hurl blame towards BT/EE for its objection to a collaboration plan, but to do so without considering the commercial realities of the telco industry is incredibly lazy. BT/EE is objecting to this proposal, not to the idea of collaboration, but so would any other business which had built this position.

Infrastructure commission warns UK government over lacklustre ambition

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has issued a warning to the UK Government over its infrastructure ambitions, seemingly worried that Minister’s think the job is done.

“There is a real and exciting chance available to ensure the UK benefits from world-class infrastructure, particularly through the forthcoming National Infrastructure Strategy – a first for this country,” said Chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission Sir John Armitt.

“We cannot afford for Ministers to take their eye off the ball. With this issue at the heart of the Industrial Strategy, I would urge the Government to adopt the recommendations from our National Infrastructure Assessment, and use this to offer industry the long-term, fully-costed infrastructure plan they need.”

While various committees and departments have been readying the red-tape with reviews, assessments and consultations, Armitt fears the job is only part finished. The National Infrastructure Commission recommends infrastructure plans for the next three decades should be in place to ensure the UK is future-proofed for the digital economy, a much longer-term ambition than has been set forward by the government currently.

With the National Infrastructure Strategy set to be published over the next couple of months, we’ll get a clearer picture of the ambitions of the Government. This document has been pitched as a playbook to guarantee the economic prosperity of the UK, though it seems the NIC is worried momentum might be lost should the plans be limited to a shorter period of time.

Fibre connectivity is one area which has been mentioned by the NIC, as while there are targets from the government and Ofcom for the mid-2020s and 2033, these are relatively broad. The next stage of the plan, once 15 million homes have been ‘fibred up’, should be to extend the infrastructure into the rural communities. Unless the Government formalises this progression to the next stage, there is of course a risk of telcos going ‘off-piste’ and serving their own interests.

This scenario is perfectly understandable and perhaps the very reason the Government has to cast an eye onto the far-distant horizon. Telcos are commercial organizations after all, favouring upgrades in areas where there is a more immediate ROI. This is what created the digital divide in the first place, and without regulation to hold the telcos accountable, they will naturally favour investments in the more densely urbanised areas.

What is worth noting is that Armitt’s comments are not supposed to be a damning indictment of the progress made thus far. Steps forward to ensure UK infrastructure is in an appropriate position have been made, though the question is whether the momentum will be continued to ensure the continued success of the UK in the global economy beyond the documented stages.

To counter Armitt’s point, formulating plans for such long periods of time can create a rigid regime which does allow for reactionary measures. Who knows what the world will look like in a couple of years’ time; any plans will have to flexible enough to allow adaptability. It is a tricky equation to balance.

For anyone in the telecommunications and telco world, this is a bit of a recurring theme. Digital communications is a hot topic right now, such is the enthusiasm created by 5G, though the political interest peaks and troughs. The same political hype ramped up ahead of 3G and 4G before dying off. Soon enough another cause to champion will emerge, though should the NIC’s recommendations be taken on board, you would hope the regulatory framework has been put in place to ensure structured progression.

UK Gov releases another £95 million for local full-fibre diets

Over the last year, the UK Government has been proudly preaching of massive investments into digital infrastructure. It’s questionable how much has made its way into reality, but an additional £95 million has been released today.

The Local Full Fibre Networks (LFFN) Challenge Fund has announced £95 million has been made available to aid the roll-out of full fibre networks. Local authorities and public sector bodies around the UK can apply to the Local Full Fibre Networks Investment Panel to access the investment, which has been earmarked for rural areas, regions which have higher than average hurdles to 5G, the public sector and the development of local technology hubs. A plan to spend the money by March 2021 would have to be tabled to be applicable, with the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport believing £95 million should be enough to fund roughly 20 projects.

“We recently set out our ambition for a nationwide full-fibre broadband network by 2033, and initiatives like this will be instrumental in achieving that,” said Minister for Digital, Margot James. “We want to hear from any local authority interested in taking part, so we can work closely with them on their plans to help them secure funding.”

The first two rounds of grant funding released £105 million into the economy, while this £95 million will deplete the funds bank account. The cash itself is part of the government’s expanded £31 billion National Productivity Investment Fund, £740 million has been reserved for digital infrastructure. How many cheques have been signed so far is unknown, though questions still remain whether £740 million is a big enough commitment considering the lost ground on global leaders.

As it should be, emphasis will be placed on the proposals which plug the gaps from private sector investment. Rural regions are of course an area of interest here, as are regional technology hubs, potentially decreasing the reliance of the UK economy on London. The Midlands is an excellent example of this initiative, with the region targeting the development of electric cars and the components in creating its own hub of technical excellence.

For those interested in wrestling investment away from the fund, an email expressing interest would have to be sent by September 30 2018.

New York revokes approval for Charter’s Time Warner acquisition, two years on

The New York State Public Service Commission decided to revoke its approval for Charter Communications’ $55 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable in 2016, claiming the former’s failure to live up to its promises.

When it came in to snatch Time Warner Cable from Comcast’s failed acquisition bid, Charter Communications was creating the country’s second largest ISP. Although for deals like this, there are always strings attached. In Charter’s case, it won the approval from FCC stakeholders after promising, among other things, to extend high-speed broadband connections to the hitherto under-served areas in the states the new company would operate in.

In its announcement on July 27, the Commission claimed Charter has failed to add an additional 145,000 households and businesses in New York State’s rural areas to the internet network. Specifically, the Commission listed five areas where Charter has not fulfilled its promises:

  • The company’s repeated failures to meet deadlines;
  • Charter’s attempts to skirt obligations to serve rural communities;
  • Unsafe practices in the field;
  • Its failure to fully commit to its obligations under the 2016 merger agreement; and
  • The company’s purposeful obfuscation of its performance and compliance obligations to the Commission and its customers

As a result, the Commission is asking Charter to sell its Time Warner Cable assets, and to find a successor to carry out its obligations within 60 days. Charter said it would appeal.

If merging two businesses is complex and expensive, it is no less so to break a combined business that has been in operation for two years. The “Time Warner” brand is currently also involved in another, more expensive merger case with AT&T, which is also facing the danger of being forced to de-merge.

UK Gov turns to God to solve the rural connectivity problem

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has announced a new initiative which will see churches and other buildings used to improve broadband, mobile and WiFi connectivity for rural communities.

In fairness to Minister for Fun Matt Hancock and his DCMS cronies, this isn’t a bad idea. 65% of Anglican churches and 66% of parishes in England are in rural areas, and in most cases these buildings are located centrally in the community meaning they could be ideally located to address connectivity and coverage problems. The buildings could be used to host digital infrastructure to aid the government in meeting its commitment to deliver good quality mobile connectivity to everyone in the country irrelevant as to where they live, work and travel.

“Churches are central features and valued assets for local communities up and down the country,” said Hancock. “This agreement with the Church of England will mean that even a 15th century building can help make Britain fit for the future improving people’s lives by boosting connectivity in some of our hardest-to-reach areas.”

While it is not necessarily a new idea, rolling it out nationwide could have a very positive impact. Currently there are 120 examples of broadband and mobile services being delivered from parish churches across the country, from wireless transmitters in church spires and church towers, to aerials, satellite dishes, and more traditional fibre cables. But this is nothing more than a drop in the ocean compared to what could be achieved through the initiative. The Church of England has just over 16,000 church buildings in 12,500 parishes.

“I welcome this agreement,” said Rt Revd Graham James, Bishop of Norwich. “It builds on what we have been seeking to do in the Diocese of Norwich since 2011 with the creation of WiSpire, a company seeking to use church towers and spires to enable Wifi connectivity in communities, especially in rural locations. Our parish churches are a truly national network, and to use them creatively to create new forms of connectivity enhances their value for the communities they serve.”

The only thing which is more surprising than creative thinking from the government is the welcoming arms of the church in this example. There are some very unholy things on the internet and the church is now helping farmers access them.