All that is is a unit af rateing assessment, RV is the annual value of the hereditament

Valuation date – 2 years before a list goes live – 1 April 2008 for 1 April 2010 list

Rateable Occupier – seems to be the problem area – person able to occupy the hereditament – this is a matter of fact  – can’t contract out of being a rate payer although you can of course contract out of paying the bill.

Main difference between central list and local list – local must be contiguous so if you have eg London and Manchester networks that are connected by your own fibre then treated as one hereditament else two separate H (Hereditament)

Control of use is rate payer definition e.g. lessee of Dark Fibre (local loop unbundling is exception here)

Rateable to Wall Socket in Domestic Premises ditto Business Premises – infrastructure beyond that point is included in assessment of eg Office Block

VOA produces the valuations and these can be challenged on evidence basis – methodology of rating, so can quantum of the valuation.

Case Law – recent challenges, EU Commission, Appeals Court has upheld

The present Fibre Tone is designed around long haul backhaul not First Mile Access

VOA is looking to Cable TV – £7.50 per homes passed, looking at  a rateable value  – starting point based on 38% penetration around £20 per home connected

SME treated similarly for Access purposes – point to point links treated as regular H as they are perceived to have greater value.

NGA Operators have ultimate control of RV – VOA follow what we do…

More specifics to follow.

It seems that VOA valuing BT assets is put into the too-hard basket (might take 6 months with BT cooperation to derive the actual RV of Fibre)

What does the market expect to pay? is a key VOA valuation question

Another key test is capability to be used and this has significant scope for interpretation by VOA – such action being warranted as it is recognised that rates are designed for property not telecoms and with the caveat that operators should not rock the boat…

It is recognised by VOA that rates are best suited to matured, established steady state networks and that the rapid growth (we hope!) phase of FttH deployment is not well suited to revenue and earnings (R&E) assessment, hence the analogy to cable TV for assessment purposes.

Assumed Altnet will be connecting many First Mile connections as if there were single or few First Mile connections then these are assumed by VOA  to be high value… therefore point to point route-Km charged.

Worth noting that BT copper loop even if unbundled is still treated as BT Cumulo Central List i.e. not Altnet responsibility (though Altnet will pick up that cost from BT no doubt!)

Interesting point that empty telecoms ducts are non rateable.

FttH P2P case is also worthy of note – same treatment as GPON – RV based on willingness to pay by end-user (thanks AntonyW) and is assumed at present to be broadly similar.

Bottom line seems to be, based on £20 RV per home/SME connected gives roughly £1 per month incl VAT FttH surcharge.

Scots response – basic principles are mirrored in Scotland aspects of who is rateable are the same – change in Scotland, Renfrewshire assessor – network in more than one county then will appear in Renfrewshire listing…

Material change aspects in Scotland, legislation allows only 1 year and no further back, this is difference from England & Wales.

And cached here – letter-CBN-June09

There follows an open letter to one of the original project promoters regarding how best to ensure that INCA delivers Digital Britain.

Shaun,

Several key points and actions came out of the INCA ad-hoc pre-board meeting in Leeds on Monday that you very kindly invited myself and Saul Marchant to attend on behalf of the wider Third Sector and Community constituencies, alongside private sector suppliers of NGA build, carriers and operational services e.g. Red-M, LN Comms, FibreStream, Beeline BB with Andy Carter and the team at BIS.

Having discussed that meeting and the teleconference at length with other stakeholders, we have summarised the situation as we understand it as follows:

See here also http://www.fibrevolution.com/index.php/topic,72.msg220.html#msg220

1 – BIS is considering funding INCA

2 – CBN has expressed its desire to separate from INCA at the earliest opportunity

For clarity, we believe that this should be extended to exclude CBN Directors from the steerage of INCA (including the Initial Board) for an appropriate period until INCA is formally and legally established. Thereafter, we would hope that the membership criteria decided upon by the Interim Board would see CBN’s re-involvement in the organisation through democratic process or simply as members. With a suitably balanced interim board there may be advantage in having a single CBN member, based on their experience in setting up INCA so far.

2a. The responsibilities of the Interim Board (which require clear and transparent definition and discussion) would also include drawing up an initial business plan to ensure sustainability for INCA beyond the seed funding from BIS. It was stated on Monday by CBN that a figure of £40,000 had been “spent” by CBN during the preliminary work to establish INCA.

It is only reasonable that CBN is given the opportunity to present to the Interim Board any receipts for costs incurred. The Interim Board, Scrutiny Panel, Formal Board and BIS should all consider whether any or all of these costs are reimbursable or could be considered speculative risk, or even a generous donation. (It should be noted that £40,000 would be greater than 25% of the initial round of funding and payment of such a sum would restrict INCA’s activities from the outset.)

Allowing CBN to submit accounts for its costs to be considered for repayment would therefore reiterate the need to separate CBN Directors from due process in the setting up of INCA. This will then permit the Interim Board and BIS to make a fair and just decision without vested interest.

3 – JON is a CBN proposal that is not funded by BIS and is separate from INCA

4 – LDS is a CBN proposal that is not funded by BIS and is separate from INCA

5 – INCA needs to direct its attention as a matter of urgency upon membership types and fees, respective criteria, exclusion policy and reasoning for such.

5a – The membership fee structure depends on defining the value proposition that INCA is to offer potential members, whilst demonstrating credible sustainability modelling. We understand this is currently missing/undeveloped from the INCA model/business plan

6. An Interim Board is to be formed as soon as possible from the wider forum of interested parties. A minimum of 6-7 persons has been envisaged.

6a. It has been recommended that the model for this is taken from BSG COTS (the Peter Shearman Plan). An Interim Board of a minimum of 10 self-elected members, across all stakeholder groups would seem admirable.

7. The Interim Board will complete all set up tasks to lay the foundations for the democratic election of the First Board and the launch of a legally established co-operative. This must include as an utmost priority the recruitment of members to the INCA co-op (or expressions of interest until the paperwork is completed) through marketing, widespread communications amongst the stakeholders, media and so on.

8. To ensure the right methods and vehicles are used, an independent scrutiny panel (not members of the Interim Board) should be established to monitor the actions of the IB on behalf of all stakeholders. The Interim Board must report in full to the Independent Scrutiny Panel all decisions proposed and/or taken.

The Independent Scrutiny Panel then continues to provide comfort and assurance to BIS that best value for Public Funding is maintained throughout its grant-enabled early life until INCA becomes fully self-sustaining from membership fees, revenue etc.

9. To date, there is open acceptance that INCA has failed in communicating clearly and comprehensively to stakeholders its purpose, agenda, structure and so on. This needs to be rectified, again using the Peter Shearman COTS model, by immediately making public the specific documents that Lindsey Annison requested from CBN prior to this week’s conference, namely:

a) List of current steering group members

b) Proposed Foundation Board members

c) List of INCA key objectives and funding milestones

d) Pre-Christmas meeting dates for steering group as the now wider INCA Forum

e) Minutes (or Powerpoints) from previous INCA steering group meetings

To this end, and acknowledging both CBN and INCA’s financial circumstances, a public area has been created at http://www.fibrevolution.com/index.php/topic,72.0.html for the upload of and access to the documents (see above section 9) required to move INCA forward.

In conclusion, the wider constituency polled feels that INCA has a useful role to play, dove-tailed into the BSG COTS process already underway, in helping to realise the BIS policy objectives of delivering upon the Digital Britain Report in the National Interest.

In order to achieve its aims, INCA needs to be established on an effective set of principles, scope and deliverables. It is hoped and intended that this can be achieved through the two safeguards of:

1. The Interim Board
2. The Independent Scrutiny Panel

Shaun, perhaps you would be so good as to circulate this message to the other participants from the Monday meeting in Leeds or alternatively provide their email addresses.

Kind Regards and Approved by:

G Jarvis

W Garrett

S Davison

S Marchant

M Purdom

L Annison

N Hall

A Waters

G Rewston

G Garrett

C Knowles

M Boswell

Something that was apparent as regards NGA is that we can see emerging a bipolarity between open access infrastructure with clear separation between access and services on the one hand and closed access infrastructure on the other hand, whereby the NGA proposition is delivered in a monolithic vertically integrated fashion.

Examples of the latter include satellite delivery eg. Avanti, mobile broadband via 3G and cable eg. Virgin Media in on-net areas.

An interesting question to pose is whether there is any particular technical reason why consumers should be obliged to take ISP services from their access provider at all.

Or put another way, why should consumers not be able to select their preferred ISP using cable, 3G or satellite connectivity as a dumb fat pipe, in the same way as is available for copper-based xDSL service today and via the work of COTS and NICC will be consistently available for ALA in the NGA near-term?

Certainly there are commercial and to some degree historical conventions at play here, however, fundamentally there seems to be no reason why, in a truly technology-neutral sense, consumers should have to take any further applications or content service from their baseline access connectivity provider.

The issue is important to consider in the context of possible public funding particularly for so-called White Areas aka NotSpots which are mostly found in the First Third of the UK, those mainly rural areas that are presently so poorly served for broadband and where arguably the need for reliable and capable connectivity exceeds that of urban areas.

If the consumer is to be assured of the maximum choice and best value proposition from NGA, regardless of where they live and by whatever means their connectivity is delivered then Open Access is surely a must.

First up, a 9 minute overview

Some early arrivals meet and greet – [20 Seconds]

More Convergence Conversations – [19 Seconds]

People Create Change – [25 Seconds]

NGA will be a Patchwork of diversely different and equally valid networks – [64 Seconds]

Funding Brickwall – [33 Seconds]

The Community Perspective – [153 Seconds]

Structural Separation of FttH Natural Monopoly – [239 Seconds]

Colloquium in Full Flow – [228 Seconds]

Great Thornton Street Estate Hull – a Case Study – [108 Seconds]

More videos to follow once uploads to Youtube completed – oh for symmetric NGA hey!

Full version of BSG COTS meeting courtesy Hull City Council here – [2 Hours]

A NextGenUs Open Source Consultancy Tool

Based on the success of the day and the overwhelmingly positive feedback received, we have decided to organise a rolling series of regular colloquia and would encourage communities and champions to get in touch as we are interested in working with local communities to host our unique flavour of practical, no-nonsense, jargon-free gatherings in your area.

Special thanks are due to:

Councillor John Robinson and Hull City Council for an amazing venue, great lunch and use of the facilities, and thank you to the Lord Mayor for taking time to talk to us and listen in to the debate.

Antony Walker and Peter Shearman from BSG for kindly bringing national NGA focus to Hull

Malcolm Taylor for effective chairing of the afternoon COTS meeting.

Please get involved in post-colloq discussion through the forum at http://www.fibrevolution.com.

The BSG COTS meeting webcast is available here courtesy of Hull City Council

Some blogsphere commentary:

Mark “Mr NGA-UK” Purdom

This thread on Fibrevolution goes to the heart of what NextGenUs Colloquium is all about -

Great Summary Link for 5ttH team here

This event is designed to bring together the broadest (sic) range of stakeholders who share a common interest and purpose in bringing about world-leading Next Gen Access for the whole UK.

Whether you are Community, Consumer, Public Sector, Investor, Supplier or Industry please be there and share your thoughts and questions with other like-minded folk.

See www.fibrevolution.com for pre-event discussions and as a way to feed in questions for the day.

More information from BSG here about Colloquium and COTS Meeting.

WHERE:   HULL GUILDHALL and COUNCIL CHAMBER

WHAT:     NextGenUs FttH Colloquium and BSG COTS Meeting, in partnership with FibreStream and Hull City Council

WHO:        People Like Us with an Interest in the Future of Next Gen Digital Britain -

Whether you are Community, Technology, Industry, Investor or Consumer

PUT THIS ONE IN YOUR DIARY and more information to follow mid week…..

Back in 1696, the taxing “powers that be” had a great idea or so they thought

- everyone with any money has windows in their homes so let’s tax that glass!!

- on the surface, the idea has merit (from a tax collectors point of view anyway) in that the wealthier the property owner then the bigger the home and the more windows they will have, hence the more they will be able to afford in Windows Tax

Simple huh?

What happened in response was somewhat different if not entirely beyond prediction

People often simply bricked up their windows and decided to make do without the benefit of daylight

This created a situation whereby State, Citizen (and Glazier) were all losers – eventually the Window Tax was repealed in 1851

Fast-forward to the present day UK and we have a closely parallel problem henceforth known as the Fibre Tax, again a tax on glass, only this time the glass concerned is finer than a human hair and carries light for the purposes of people telecommunicating.

Hmm….

Stepping back and considering the logic,  for something to be property there is a clear implication that it has immediate and often exclusive value eg you can live there, it offers shelter, comfort, a place to do business from

- now that’s an important distinction too – previous to NextGenUs Open Access FttH, all fibre networks were there for business or government only,  so it is important to recognise that the FibreStream/NextGenUs approach to Open Access FttH changes these dynamics entirely as the purpose of FttH is to provide ordinary people with these same technology tools as well.

VOA may well counter the arguments outlined here by taking the line that the Fibre Tax ensures that Open Access FttH network builders/operators have every incentive to get subscriber numbers up asap.

The FibreStream riposte is that all Open Access FttH builders have quite sufficient incentives to get people online and subscribing to recover their huge capex outlay without VOA imposing a totally disproportionate (relative to revenue) handicap from the outset.

The VOA may also bring out the 3G card and might point to the “success” of the £22B auction in this regard

The counter argument is that 3G is wireless and yes it requires many masts and the CAPEX costs to deploy are dwarfed by Open Access FttH.

- it is also worth recalling that the UK 3G auction was at the height of dot com mania in 2000 and we now live in a very different and deep financial recession, which NextGenUs Open Access FttH can help significantly to pull the country out from, so long as it is not stifled by Fibre Tax at birth of course!

- what needs to be at the forefront of our thinking is that the regressive nature of Fibre Tax results right now in a reduction of revenue to VOA/Treasury because the networks aren’t getting built because communities cannot afford the Fibre Tax!

It is vital to understand a key distinction between Bricks & Mortar and NextGenUs Open Access FttH:

Conventional property has immediate value as soon as built, fibre networks only have value when they are used and what matters from a Treasury perspective is that revenues are maximised overall and that means networks being built AND USED by as many people as possible.

Fibre Tax as it stands may well lead to the ridiculous situation of removing FttH when a household ceases to be a subscriber – now that really is like bricking up the windows!!!

NTL’s serial failures pre-Virgin has taught us that the infrastructure needs to go into one area one time – revisiting the same streets and neighbourhoods repeatedly is a sure-fire recipe for bankruptcy.

Smart NextGenUs Open Access FttH means deploying fibre to every fixed location (home business school hospital etc) in a single pass.

So with Fibre Tax everyone is a loser, the economy suffers, eGovernment engagement and the opportunity to transform the productivity of govt service delivery by slashing per transaction costs via NextGenUs Open Access FttH are lost too – and Treasury/VOA get 3/5ths of f*** all

Having hopefully demolished any rationale for the Fibre Tax, how might government seek to extract value instead?

Easy!

Its called VAT and Corporation Tax – NextGenUs Open Access FttH is simply a service that people value and pay for, it is not property!

FibreStream’s NextGenUs Open Access FttH paradigm means providing and encouraging access being made available to the local community by any and as many service providers, community, private and public sectors alike on RAND (reasonable and non discriminatory) terms.