RAB’s were intended to be ‘independent’ with boards / members from all public sector parties, who sign up to the Constitution, and were not intended to have funding responsibility or liability.

The prime objectives of the RAB’s are:

1.      Value for money for public sector spend through scale negotiation and economies.

2.      To ‘push’ broadband availability and affordability for all, using co-operation of cross-departmental public sector IT spending power. This means involving community, private, public, commercial etc. (In other words, the RAB’s were meant to have teeth!)

3.      To be a self-sustaining government-owned agency with full cost recovery

The original name suggests that the idea was to aggregate need for broadband ‘bandwidth’ across all sectors ie buy the fattest pipe from the supplier most able to sell best value ‘middle and/or first mile products’, and to get it at the best price for everyone (suppliers, public sector, communities etc), with economies of scale through fat pipes. The ‘real’ role then should perhaps better be defined as that of ‘mediator’, ‘champion’, and ‘broker’.

A substantial amount of money is due to be spent through the RAB’s on the aggregation and procurement process for public sector broadband eg to satisfy the needs of DfES, NHS, local gov etc.  At least £1bn is to be spent over 2-3 years from UK money, in order to save an estimated £200million for the public sector.  Additionally, the RABs can act as neutral procurement agents on behalf of SPV’s (Special Purpose Vehicles) if chosen to provide such a service to the SPV, which would allow the RAB’s to generate commission on such deals to contribute towards the self-sustainability model and the repayment of the start-up costs.

However, even though the RABs have only been operational mere months, it already seems that there are clouds gathering on the horizon. The latest brand name, ADIT, actually means “a horizontal mineshaft” and one can only wonder whether we are heading into or out of that mine ……….
 
Firstly, getting the appropriate bodies round a table, communicating with each other, and agreeing to follow a certain path has to be an unenviable task for the RABs. Secondly, there have been problems within certain RABs where the RDA’s – supposed to nurture the RABs into existence - appear to have taken control, which wasn’t the plan[ii].   And thirdly, the N3 (NHS) project appears to have already been separated from the rest of public sector needs and has been awarded to BT without the involvement of the RABs or the aggregation process.
 
This last point is perhaps the most concerning. The NHS project is arguably the biggest project of all the public sector projects, and therefore should have the most significant effect on the aggregation process, cost-savings and connections for UK Plc, with the potential for proof that the RABs are/were working in the way intended.[iii] It already seems that they are not.  When N3, the Health IT Project, was given to BT, the RABs became ‘worthless’ and were bypassed. This made the base case for the RAB’s unsustainable and this short term delivery gain ruins the chances of future-proofing and getting lifetime value.

Many of us have been cynical about the potential success of the RAB’s. Not just because we are natural cynics (we may be!) but because large-scale Government IT projects seem to suffer failure far too often. The biggest problem for all RABs is that unless they can secure significant contracts (such as N3)they cannot become viable. The original business case was devised by A. T Kearny at great expense, and many thought that it was never going to be viable. The situation now has even been recognised by central Government and on 16^th June, ministers (including John Hutton and Charles Clark of Health & Education) met with Stephen Timms to discuss a different core formula, needed for the RABs to survive & be credible.  So, it’s not just us who think the RABs are in difficulty.

Also, whilst the Government says that it will allow the market to develop in order to achieve the 2005 targets to make Britain the most competitive broadband nation, it seems to be using the ADITs and public money and the procurement process to skew the market towards only 17 suppliers, thereby jeopardising edge of the network innovation, new market entrants and competition, precisely what they say they are trying to encourage to develop.

Do Government need the fattest pipes?

I have dealt with public sector bodies who have made assumptions such as “We have an enormous database therefore we need broadband.” The fact that the data held within that database need not actually be transferred anywhere, and cannot be made available as an online database because of the Data Protection Act shows the flawed thinking.  I believe that there are many other public sector bodies who do not require a broadband Internet connection but rather a VPN type set up, and that the greatest need for broadband Internet is not within the public sector. Therefore, the procurement process using public money has the potential to fail by not benefiting UK plc with the right products at the right time. Mainly because it does not understand its own or its citizens’ needs.
 
Many public sector employees, even at the very highest level, do not have devices which require mobile access to the network or, in some cases, even laptops or mobile phones.  (Often this is for security reasons after some high profile losses of laptops etc.) It is therefore difficult to understand how public sector will achieve the usage that is being exhibited by mobile WLAN/wi-fi/GPRS and even static users in the private sector already. We discovered recently on a BSG jolly to the House of Commons that we couldn’t get access to the Net wirelessly or by any other means even in the heart of Government. And we needed access in order to share docs and info with our BSG contemporaries, and as reference whilst talking to them. Don’t MP’s have the same needs as us mere citizens and business people?
 
And therein lies the rub.  The true value of broadband can be measured by its usage.  Once people start to ‘use’ the network, then we accrue the benefits – social and economic. Currently, there is little or no attempt to measure usage of the network and compare that usage with other countries to see how well we are doing. I believe that this would be the most valuable metric, and if we were to assess that in this country, we would find ourselves a factor of magnitude below countries such as Korea, Canada, Sweden, Japan etc where 10Mbps connections at affordable, mass market level are norm. [iv]

UK broadband development is yet further restricted by throttling usage through low-level connections such as ADSL, through capped usage, and by purchasing products with public money which are not available for public usage eg Learning Stream connections into schools which cannot be shared for the most ludicrous reasons (just swap one contract for another, guys, it really is that simple).  Should this type of methodology continue through N3 and other public sector aggregation, and it appears to be, it means we will increasingly be behind other nations. And therefore, we cannot achieve the Broadband Britain target of being the most competitive nation because there will be many others in front of us, as there are now.
 
Public sector initiatives have a long-term ROI whereas what UK Plc needs is to play catch up with other nations who can give their citizens mass market 100Mbps connections next year (Korea), and those who plan to give 1Gb connections to any user by 2010 (California – Gigabit or Bust). We are almost 10 years behind, judging by BT’s IP network (21CN) announcement this week, and likely to remain so unless the ADIT’s change direction and purchase the products that are needed by this nation now with a view to the future needs. Is that change of direction likely now N3 has been dealt with separately, and set the precedent?
 
Recent conferences and reports have indicated that a public spend of around £3/4 billion would give FTTH to a large percentage of this population right now or at least Fibre To The Market Town/Village, using existing infrastructure which is unused (up to 90% of the fibre laid in the ground in this country remains dark). The first mile via wireless is now inherently cheap and social enterprises/community networks are providing that, and could provide that far more extensively with a minimal spend. This is of particular importance of areas of market failure, not just rural but some urban areas too.
 
I believe that the ADITs may prove to be a comprehensive waste of public money, and ‘av adit because:

1. The ADIT’s should be independent bodies which work with the regional and national agencies, and are not controlled by them – they are not.
2.  The assumption that public sector ‘needs’ broadband more urgently than private sector and citizens is flawed. Future-proofed broadband is needed all round now for UK Plc benefits, and the public money being made available should be spent on lighting existing fibre, sharing existing infrastructure, and using existing connections to create a best network – most data moved at least cost – for all citizens, businesses and organisations in this country. State Aid guidelines may be an issue, but broadband is viewed by many as a utility, including the EU, who are linking ICT and broadband with GDP per capita.  Would State Aid guidelines apply if this were water or electricity infrastructure?
3.  The misunderstanding at even the very highest level of Government about what broadband is flows down into the ADITs. Broadband is not about numbers, it is about what it enables, today and tomorrow.
   
   Gartner state [v] in their report for Gigabit or Bust: There is now much confusion regarding the definition of broadband. The commonly accepted characteristics are its “high”­ - at least compared to a modem -­downstream speed (the speed in which information is sent to a user) and its “always on” connectivity attributes. We do not find broadband defined by its upstream speed, performance capabilities or the capabilities it enables. We believe these glaring omissions render the current definition irrelevant.[v]
   
   Further data available from Gartner shows that 50Mbps is required to deliver HDTV, and it is likely that by 2020, 20Gbps will be the required connection speed. The ADITs are not applying this thinking to the current or future procurement process. 
4.  The failure to release existing infrastructure for the benefit of all TODAY, and hence begin the ROI process.
   
   

The ADITs are there to enable many not-yet-existent public sector applications – e-government etc of interest and use to a few, whereas many private sector and community applications are already available, of interest and use to many eg VoIP, video on demand, BBC archives etc.  These could be generating the usage of the network which gives the necessary returns to the carriers/suppliers to improve and extend the network, through the market development which the Government so wishes to see.

Around £4billion of self-financing debt would be enough to bring UK 10 years forward, to give us 10Mbps now, leading to 100Mbps plus. The ADITs could be the lead agencies for this, but it seems that they are already proving themselves to be an unsuccessful vehicle for the big thinking required to achieve this. For all the above reasons, and particularly the failure to "consider" this last need, I think they have ‘adit. 

Prove me wrong (or right), comment below.............

Further Links

http://del.icio.us/access2broadband