Competition and public Funding of Broadband provision

Dear Department for Culture, Media and Sport,

I am aware that Public funding towards commercial providers with
respect to Broadband Infrastructure should only occur if the market
is shown to have failed in the location to be funded.

Q1: Could you confirm this is the case?

I have heard Jeremy Hunt MP stating that competition is a good
thing in the Broadband industry and yet he has expressed concern
that in areas where a single commercial company (Not Openreach /
Virgin Media) have made a viable business model to provide a high
speed or "Super Fast" Broadband service , at market comparable
pricing, that these areas are "lacking in competition" and
therefore need to have such competition funded.

Q2: Is it your policy to Publicly fund commercial "competition" in
an area that already has a successful business in place?

Q3: Is Public money ok to be used to add competition from another
source that had previously declared that it was unviable for them
to provide a service using their technology / business model?
(Openreach)

There are Three "ADSL" Market 1 "BT" exchanges in West Sussex that
Openreach have long declared as unviable for upgrade for their
basic ADSL service. These areas all have a commercial alternative
to the ADSL Broadband method providing Download Speeds of 2 to 6
times faster (16 to 48 Mbps) and Upload speeds from 4 to 20 times
faster (2 , 10 Mbps) than the fastest "Market 1" exchange speeds
available and with the same speeds available to all, regardless of
distance.

Q4: Knowing that the market has not failed in these areas and that
High speed and "super fast" capability is already present, then can
you explain how it is Public funds are being used to distort the
market on Market 1 Openreach 'monopoly' exchanges? (Plaistow,
Sutton and East Marden Exchanges)

Effectively the money is being used to provide an "up to 8 Mbps"
competitive service whereby over 70% of one exchange area would
receive under "2 Mbps" download from this distortion if they chose
to migrate to it. Many would be out of range altogether.

Surely any Public funding is only meant to be targeted at solutions
that comfortably provide service speeds that meet or exceed the
DCMS / Central Gov minimum service speeds and also be capable of
"Super Fast"?

Q5: could you confirm this is the case please?

Q6: Could you also provide detail on what information County
Councils are provided with respect to how they are to spend public
money allocated to them? Especially with respect to the policy on
independent Providers/Tenderers who do not meet the extremely high
DCMS value threshold but are otherwise shown as a proven and cost
effective solution, especially in rural/low density areas.

Yours faithfully,

Bill Lewis

Dear FOI,

The information was requested via this channel as it was not in the
public domain as far as my research has uncovered and when asking
county council members/leaders I receive the silent treatment.

so from this I hope you can see why this information needs to be
public as it affects homes/businesses and suppliers in this
industry alike.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Lewis

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your response.

You state that the procuring authority has to declare the need for
intervention and detail the existing commercial solutions. West
Sussex County council have refused to discuss the service provided
by a commercial provider of over 7 years in the county.

Is an authority allowed to intentionally hide the existence of a
commercial service provider when applying for funding in order that
they can receive maximum funds? Seemingly with the intention of
giving this to another commercial provider who otherwise had
declared the areas unviable for their technology and commercial
business model for over 12 years? . the funding will also be to
provide a "2 Mbps" service where a 30 Mbps+ service already exists
in the area.

If not then this is the case for the West Sussex County Council who
continue to declare broadband "not spots" in areas that have a high
speed and super fast service. Officers of the council continue to
announce this on radio shows and via other media including their
official website.

The net effect is , homes in these areas are being stigmatised
without reason, property values will fall. Businesses will not move
into these areas.

A county council and its officers should surely not be allowed to
do this to communities, just because they do not consider the
commercial service provider in the are as existent.

We have it in writing from a WSCC "broadband" officer that although
the service in these areas is fast and cost comparable, they still
consider these areas as "not spots" as ultimately they do not have
a "BT openreach" service.

They refuse to acknowledge the existence of this service based on
the "open access" argument. However they do recognise and consider
the coverage of Virgin Media, Another closed access provider.

As we see it BDUK and some County Councils are working to destroy
genuine commercial markets and competition in favour of the
disguised monopoly of "openreach"

From the state aid rules you quote, it seems this particular
council may have questions to answer with relation to fraud/deceit
and to anti-competitive practices at least.

I requested a clear answer to this situation as it is damaging a
long term business, the communities and businesses it serves . It
is only a matter of time before legal claims are made for damages
and losses by one or more of these parties.

I do not believe I have seen the answer to this from your response.
Sending what "should happen" to me is not going to resolve what "is
happening" in reality.

The sooner a resolution is found, the sooner the damage can be
limited and the uncertainty removed.

Yours sincerely,

Bill Lewis