Slashdot Mirror


UK Broadband Plan Set To Clear EU Approval

judgecorp writes "The British government's plan to subsidize rural broadband in the UK is about to get approval from the European Union, even though every contract so far has been awarded to BT, according to sources. The Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) project has been examined under EU state aid rules, but apparently has passed despite all the money going to one dominant telecom operator"

27 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. As long as it isn't News International by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    The seem to be all fine and dandy with it ... as if there's nobody else out there who would dream of having extremely poor business practices.

    Actually, BT is probably in bed with the current government

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:As long as it isn't News International by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Someone feel free to correct me, but from memory the only other company bidding on the rural broadband contracts was Siemens, and they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.

    2. Re:As long as it isn't News International by Shimbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Someone feel free to correct me, but from memory the only other company bidding on the rural broadband contracts was Siemens, and they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.

      Fujitsu. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/fujitsu-blacklisted-government-92249

    3. Re:As long as it isn't News International by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      they've hit the government's blacklist due to repeated failures to deliver.

      When did they change the procurement practices? Traditionally, repeated failure to deliver means lots of experience with government contracts, move to the top of the list.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:As long as it isn't News International by Jaruzel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fujitsu. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/fujitsu-blacklisted-government-92249

      Same company. They just dropped the Siemens suffix in 2009 when they finalised the takeover.

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    5. Re:As long as it isn't News International by philipmather · · Score: 2

      "Actually, BT is probably in bed with the people who actually run the country"

      TFTFY.

      On an only sightly less cynical note, you have to wonder if "the current government" are (as a conceptual entity rather than the specific case we have at the moment) any better at administering such a large/long project than a benign coperate monopoly (if such a thing exists)?

      --
      Regards, Phil
    6. Re:As long as it isn't News International by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      That would be in the US. Here in Europe we have a long tradition of punishing poor performing companies or workers.

    7. Re:As long as it isn't News International by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, that would be the UK. See: EDS.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. If you're a crack dealer by pspahn · · Score: 1

    Let's say you live on a block. You have crack. You would like to sell this crack to people who really want to buy crack. If nobody is selling crack, and you have crack willing to sell, why would this be a problem?

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    1. Re:If you're a crack dealer by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 1

      It would be a problem because it is morally wrong and if you ignored your morals telling you not to sell crack please know it is illegal and if I knew you had crack I would rat on you so you would be punished.
      What is happening here is wrong these people have no morals and they should be punished.
      You sir have no point to make other than a silly one for fools such as yourself. But its probably not your fault 'cause all the crack you smoked made you do it.

    2. Re:If you're a crack dealer by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Let's say you live on a block and you are a crack distributor. You've got a bunch of dealers working for you around town. You make sure to not supply too much crack to your 'customers' in order to keep prices up.

      Now, you know that you've got the major cities covered by your network of dealers, but how to get all the customers in the boondocks, say hamlets of only 10 or 20 thousand people. It's too much trouble for a dealer to keep commuting back and forth, so the obvious solution is:

      1) all the dealers get together and decide who will be the sole supplier to the boondocks. Please, no knives. This will be a gun-only event.
      2) raise prices for everybody in the big city, necessary to subsidize the boondocks. gas ain't free.
      3) cut your product by half for the boondocks, as then you don't transport as much. Oh, wait, no, that's wrong. You make twice as much money
      4) charge more in the boondocks, "because it's so far away". Oops, you make more than twice as much money.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. Important by busyqth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's very important to spread the dosh around, because everywhere else that this has been done, governments have relied on robust competition between scrappy telecoms companies to provide rural broadband service...

    Well except in Korea, where it was all done by Korea Telecom, but then again, they finished their 100 Mbps rollout 5 years ago and are now providing 1000 Mbps service to rural areas, so what do they know about this stuff?

  4. Terrible summary by byornski · · Score: 5, Informative

    The real story here is that the UK govt isnt giving money to communal rural broadband programs. That is what this story is about. BT(wholesale) owns the vast majority of the UK's phone lines and internet access(with the exception of cable where you can get it). The systems in place only seem to acknowledge broadband extension programmes from big companies so as apparently to avoid communities setting up their own broadband networks etc. This is pretty disgraceful (but old) news from the British govt. It was on radio 4 about a month ago...

  5. Re:An Modest Proposal by Shemmie · · Score: 1

    I already pay £23 for 300 gig peak rate, completely unlimited off peak. As tempting as your offer is - no. As for pay-for services traffic, do you mean you'd charge extra for that traffic?

  6. The real problem is the lack of choise by luvirini · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I understand the situation, the councils that want to get part of the rural broadband money have to use "approved suppliers" and there are only two of them.

    There is really not that much competition with only two companies available, though I am sure other companies could also do some of the projects.

    The problem is thus that because it is a national program with only central authorization of suppliers with pretty high barrier of entry given the types of documentation and other things required to "prove" that you are capable to doing such on national level, this leads to companies that have only a regional presence not really being able to be suppliers...

    1. Re:The real problem is the lack of choise by Inda · · Score: 1

      The real problem is the rural community thinking the British population owes them a broadband connection.

      I have a big fat pipe. 30mbit, soon to be 60mbit.

      I grew up in a lovely rural farmland village.

      After leaving school, there was no work in the area, and the house prices were inflated by high-earning commuters, so I moved to the concrete jungle with its vast infrastructure. I sacrificed the green fields, smell of cow shit and huge gardens for the chance to work and live in a house. I also gained a big fat pipe.

      Cake and eat it.

      If people in the villages want broadband, they should move. Or they should buy me a field full of cows and cow shit.

      Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:The real problem is the lack of choise by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Replace "broadband" with "telephony", move the year back around 50 units, does your view still seem reasonable? This is progress, and progress should be possible by all.

  7. Sovereignty? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If I were British, I would be annoyed that my country doesn't have the sovereignty to handle its own internal affairs, but that's just me.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:Sovereignty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The EU are providing funding for this. It's only fair they get a say.

    2. Re:Sovereignty? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      If I were American there's a lot of things I'd be annoyed about; if the UN offered to help fund decent rural broadband, but on the condition that the provider needed to be selected fairly and openly, and the government said yes it certainly wouldn't be added to the list.

    3. Re:Sovereignty? by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      You know that we get to vote for our European MPs, right?

    4. Re:Sovereignty? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You know that we get to vote for our European MPs, right?

      But we don't get to vote in or out Herman Van Rompuy, Jose Manuel Barroso or Martin Schulz - Who happen to be the European presidents.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Sovereignty? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Technically people in the US don't get to vote for Obama or Romney either. They vote for people who meet to decide who the next president should be. It works the same way in the EU, except that they really do meet to consider who the best candidate is.

    6. Re:Sovereignty? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Where did they get those funds from?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  8. Re:An Modest Proposal by pointyhat · · Score: 1

    I pay £9.50 a month for my O2 unlimited connection. I can pull 250Gb over that fine and I run mail and web services off it as well.

  9. Quid Pro Quo by andersh · · Score: 1

    This isn't a case of gaining the EU's permission simply for show, it's all about keeping the European Union's inner market open and competitive. This is the core mission of the EU(!) Free and unhindered trade amongst the members. It's a two-way street.

    If the British government(s) want to spend their money on rural broadband, that's just great, but they can't simply hand the money to their own preferred partners (BT). That would be illegal state subsidies. There has to be free and open competition for the contracts!

    That's all there is to this case. All the other EU member states have the exact same scrutiny from Brussels, where equally eager British representatives are watching out for their own interests.

    The real issue however is the fact that such subsidies would be illegal even without the EU. I'm pretty sure it would run afoul of the World Trade Organization (WTO). I will just mention the Boeing and Airbus cases.

  10. Re:Some other facts about BT by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    AND :-

    > They charge an "Admin fee" to pay your own bill.