Another shining example from the DCMNR

bealtine

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single7307

Group Broadband Scheme labelled an ‘abject failure’


06.11.2006 - Documents sent by the Department of Communications to the Public Accounts Committee reveal that only 6,000 people out of an envisaged 90,460 subscribers in rural areas of Ireland are receiving broadband under the Group Broadband Scheme.
Siliconrepublc.com has learned that out of a total amount of €5.9m in grants for 162 approved projects under the County and Group Broadband Scheme, a mere €785,755 has been drawn down by applicants.

Critics of the scheme’s performance blame “bureaucratic red tape” and “foot dragging” for the poor take-up of the scheme.

The Group Broadband Scheme was setup in 2004 as a means of getting broadband to small towns and regions where, because of low populations and expensive set-up costs, provider weren’t targeting the areas. It was to be modeled on the Group Water Scheme.

The scheme aimed to contribute grant aid of up to 55pc of the infrastructure cost of establishing broadband in a rural area.

A number of phases of the Group Broadband Scheme were earmarked to cover 575 communities covering a population of 420,000 people. Of these communities, the projects had targeted a maximum number of subscribers of 90,460 subscribers who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get broadband. Under the process, various groups in the regions were to form consortiums and win funding for their proposed projects.

The projects were to be funded out of a total multi-annual budget of €25m that was set aside for the purpose. The project was co-funded by the E-commerce and Communications Measures of the Border, Midlands and Western and Southern and Eastern Regional Operational Programmes of the National Development Plan 2000-2006.

According to a summary of progress so far submitted to the Dáil Public Accounts Committee by the Department of Communications and dated 6th October last, a total of €5.9m in grants were awarded by the Department to cover 162 projects.

The documents reveal that the Department had earmarked a capital expenditure of €15.9m for the first two phases. However, to date only €785,755 has actually been drawn down by the community schemes.

Out of the 162 approved projects, some 121 are actually operational. Out of the maximum number of subscribers targeted of 90,460 people, a mere 6,000 subscribers — 6.6pc of the target population — are currently served with broadband under the scheme.

“This to my mind suggests that the Group Broadband Scheme as been a total and abject failure,” said Brendan Boulter, a resident of Oranmore, Co Galway, who had been a founding member of the Athenry-Craughwell Group Broadband Scheme.

Boulter and six others established the scheme as part of the second phase of the Group Broadband Scheme in 2005 after up to 40 people in his area had signalled an interest in getting broadband under the scheme.

Boulter and his six colleagues received loans of around €5,000 apiece from their local Credit Union to pay for the €30,000-plus in initial infrastructure equipment and backhaul needed to set up broadband in his area.

In total, he told siliconrepublic.com, his scheme envisaged that the total grant funding of the project would have amounted to €35,000. In the end, however, following much correspondence the Athenry-Craughwell Group Broadband Scheme only received €8,000 to cover the infrastructure costs.

Boulter says he corresponded not only with the broadband coordinator for the Western region but also the Minister for Communications Noel Dempsey TD, the Minister for European Affairs Noel Treacy TD as well as MEPs Jim Higgins and Mairead McGuinness.

Boulter has since terminated his involvement in the scheme but is still liable to his local Credit Union for the €5,000 loan he borrowed.

“This was a case where a pot of money was made available by the European Union and was not spent,” says Boulter. “There was a lot of foot dragging and quibbling. It was badly handled and planned and the whole thing was based on the Group Water Scheme, which I believe was a wholly inappropriate model. Unlike broadband there is no competition in the water market. In the water scheme the resource is just under your feet.”

Boulter added: “I don’t really think that the troubles of one particular Group Broadband Scheme tell the whole story. In terms of broadband the whole country is lagging behind even the European accession states.

“The Group Broadband Scheme had a pot of money available but was an abject failure. To my mind it is an example of the lack of joined-up thinking and pointless red tape encountered by people who wanted to do something for their community,” Boulter said.

At the time of writing the Department of Communications had yet to respond to siliconrepublic.com’s queries on the matter.

By John Kennedy

thegills

There was also a lot of carriers who promised schemes but failed to deliver - Ildana for example.
I was invlolved in a GBS scheme which went well but to be honest the govt. funding was mimimal and not worth the hassle.

Niall_Stevenson

It's worth stating the figures again: out of a target population group of over 300,000 people, a mere 6000 have been connected by the DCMNR-funded Group Broadband Scheme. Out of a European Regional Development Fund budget of EUR 25 million, a mere EUR 0.75 million has actually been drawn down.

The GBS has been running since 2004. The success rate appears to be about 2000 per year over the last three years.

At this rate, it will take 150 years for the GBS to connect up the 300,000 people outside DSL land.

This is absolutely shocking. No wonder the DCMNR wanted to keep these numbers to themselves.

Niall

viking

Disappointing figures indeed.

However, while the figures should be better its not as if this was a monumental waste of money. €131 of tax-payers money was actually spent to get each of those 6,000 users online and I'm quite sure those who did get BB through the GBS are very happy that this money was spent on them.

I wonder were many potential broadband providers put off by the fact that if they did go ahead and invest in an area that eircom would come in 6 months later and suddenly enable the 'financially unviable' exchange?

I'm finding it difficult to understand though how the guys in Athenry-Craughwell thought they were going to get €35,000 in grants to cover initial infrastructural costs when those costs were "€30,000-plus"! Is that 100% funding?. The maximum amount of funding for a GBS was only ever 55% and there was a upper limit on the grant amount as well of €100,000. Either I'm reading it wrong [I'm open to correction] or someone in Athenry-Craughwell made a serious cock-up in researching the GBS.

Putting aside the praise these guys deserve for getting off their backsides and trying to do something about the lack of broadband in their area, I can't believe that they were also so silly as to take on "€30,000-plus" worth of liabilty between 7 of them to get this up and running and assume all their costs were going to be covered! I mean if it was that easy we'd all have done it....

Blaster99

I bet you the administrative overhead of GBS exceeded the monies paid out.

It's not entirely clear from that article what the problem is. Is it too difficult to set up a scheme or is the government support poor? Probably both.

watty

1) It is hard to set up a buisiness. Most (75%?) new ventures fail in 1st year. Of course most are food or clothes related retail.
* Marketing
* Management
* Financial skills
* Project management

2) Good Comms/RF/Computer expertise are in VERY short supply. MCSE don't cut it out side of the world of MS Partner Marketing. 2.4GHz experience is not the same as professional RF expertise.

3) Venture capital is traditionally non-existant in Ireland.

4) The DMCR seems to be a problem.

But realistically most outfits can't do enough of the items in (1). MS Project or any other SW doesn't do Project management, only people can do that.

Blaster99

The thing is probably dead now so this doesn't matter all that much but I thought the deal with a GBS was that the locals drum up support and find an ISP to deliver the service. I don't think anyone expects a bunch of BB hungry guys down the country to setup and manage a wireless ISP. The GBS money was/is there to subsidise an otherwise uneconomical service.

bealtine

Blaster99 wrote:

The thing is probably dead now so this doesn't matter all

It may well be dead but was it killed or did it just die?
If it was "killed" who killed it and why did they kill it?

watty

Blaster99 wrote:

The thing is probably dead now so this doesn't matter all that much but I thought the deal with a GBS was that the locals drum up support and find an ISP to deliver the service. I don't think anyone expects a bunch of BB hungry guys down the country to setup and manage a wireless ISP. The GBS money was/is there to subsidise an otherwise uneconomical service.

Most of the decent WISPs are running flat out on rollouts. So for most GBS areas the only option is/was DIY, with perhaps backhauling by wireless to the nearest WISP or DSL or fibre.

I think indeed some WISPs have done best to help GBS folks connect their local network to the Internet.

oscarBravo

bealtine wrote:

It may well be dead but was it killed or did it just die?
If it was "killed" who killed it and why did they kill it?

I think it's more accurate to describe it as "missing, presumed dead". Several communities missed the deadline for the second round of funding in April 2005. Wasn't a problem: word on the street was there'd be a third call for proposals closing in September 2005. Now, 14 months later...?

If you ask me what the single biggest problem with GBS was: this idea of "rounds" and "deadlines". The money was available - why not allow a proposal to be evaluated when it was ready, instead of waiting for a "call" that never came?

oscarBravo

watty wrote:

I think indeed some WISPs have done best to help GBS folks connect their local network to the Internet.

We provide backhaul for three community-run GBS and one other commercial operator.

Blaster99

watty wrote:

Most of the decent WISPs are running flat out on rollouts.

So they wouldn't be interested in the GBS money eircom is fishing for then...

damien

€785,755 gave 6000 people broadband. 6000 people eircom told to go to hell. Now that they have it eircom are enabling another 100 exchanges. 7.85k to enable an exchange isn't bad. GBS was terribly run by the DCMNR but I do think the idea was a success.

croo

a GBS doesn't make poltical donations ... Eircom does.

lucernarian

croo wrote:

a GBS doesn't make poltical donations ... Eircom does.

Do you have a source for that info?

croo

Yeah that's the typical retort you would hear in the 80's when you spoke of brown paper bags ...

Things have not changed ... they are just less "in your face"
I thought this article interesting even though I wouldn't share the authors view or conclusion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-2046593_2,00.html

bealtine

To_be_confirmed wrote:

Do you have a source for that info?

Two words : Peter Lynch

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/7407154?view=Eircomnet
(for instance)

Are they donations...no that is unlikely.
As one of FF's chief fund raisers one has to ask the pertinent questions...