Tag: wifi

Well, well. Swindon Borough Council’s Scrutiny Committee have finally done the honourable thing and stood up to Mr Bluh, referring back to cabinet their recent decision to greatly relax the loan conditions on Digital City (UK) Ltd. Tho’ given recent revelations, it would have been very remiss of them to have done anything less.

komadori is disappointed not to have been able to attend this evening’s meeting of the Scrutiny Committee. Reports suggest it was an interesting event.

Update, 08:39, Tuesday, 16 March 2010: Mr Wakefield has an interesting and informative perspective of last night’s ‘scrutiny’ meeting over on his blog.

Mr Bluh has repeatedly maintained that the process by which Swindon Borough Council made a decision to invest in Digital City (UK) Ltd — for the purpose of providing boroughwide wireless internet for Swindon — was totally above board. Even as late as the meeting of the council’s cabinet last Wednesday, Mr Bluh said that ‘Process is a red herring’. It seems that Mr Bluh has difficulty distinguishing red herrings from great white sharks.

The meeting of Swindon Borough Council’s Scrutiny Committee last December was provided with evidence that the decision to invest in Digital City (UK) Ltd was made in October of that year, 20 October 2009 to be precise. At last week’s cabinet meeting, it was stated that Mr Patel was not a director of the company, that no appointment had been made, he was just ‘an observer’. Not so.

Evidence from Companies House shows that not only was Swindon Borough Council allotted shares in Digital City (UK) Ltd (at that time still known as DM 56 Ltd) on 15 September 2009, but Mr Patel also became a director of the company on that date. His directorship has only just been terminated.

Mr Bluh would like us to believe that there are no problems with the process by which the decision was made to invest in Digital City (UK) Ltd. He thinks — as he said last week — that it’s time to move on. If he weren’t so confused about not just what the process was but also when it happened, perhaps his pleading would be a little more convincing.

Hat-tip: TalkSwindon

Update, 01:43, Monday, 15 March 2010: Seems Mr Patel is trying to rewrite his recent past so his LinkedIn profile now describes him as having been an ‘SBC observer on Board of Digital City’ where twelve hours earlier it said he was a ‘Board Director’. Either Mr Patel didn’t understand what he was doing last September when he signed the Companies House form declaring himself to be a director of the company, or he regards the public as rather naïve. Either way, perhaps it’s time he found himself a less onerous job to do.

Swindon’s wi-fi scheme is to be debated, albeit briefly, in parliament.

End of Day Adjournments Debates

Despite what some would like us to believe, there’s certainly plenty of concerns that still require a thorough, open debate.

Hat-tip: Geoff Reid.

At tonight’s meeting of Swindon Borough Council’s cabinet Mr Bluh complained at length about the ‘negativity’ of some commentators on the decision to spend almost £½M of Swindon taxpayers’ money of wifi. According to Mr Bluh and Mr Edwards it is ‘offensive’ for anyone to raise concerns about the process by which they made their decision to spend our money. On that basis, Messrs Bluh and Edwards clearly find at least two of their own cabinet colleagues offensive.

Mr Perkins said that if it was up to him, Digital City (UK) Ltd’s business case would have been published. It remains a secret, accessible to only a few and only under strict conditions. Mr Greenhalgh said he had ‘concerns about the legality’ of the earlier decision. It was notable that when Mr Bluh tried to say that the external auditor had investigated the process and had no concerns, the borough solicitor felt the need to intervene and correct that statement. Both Mr Bluh and Mr Hunt seem eager to move on and end the discussion about the legitimacy of the council’s funding of this project. Perhaps that’s because the questions are both persistent and difficult for them to answer.

Mr Bluh also seems to be trying to rewrite history. He now claims that the decision made by three council officers on the advice of just himself and Mr Edwards was ‘a cabinet decision’. Again, the borough solicitor felt the need to intervene and correct that statement. For any that might be inclined to believe Mr Bluh when he says this was a cabinet decision, here is a reminder of what was said by the council in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Decision Makers – these are the three authors of the briefing note.

Those authors were the Director of Finance (Mr McKellar), the Director of Law and Democratic Services (Mr Taylor) and the Group Director Business Transformation (Mr Patel). That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a cabinet decision.

There are some other discrepancies. Mr Greenhalgh raised concerns about whether it was appropriate for Mr Patel to have been a director of Digital City (UK) Ltd and to have written the briefing note to Messrs Bluh and Edwards and to be one of those conducting a risk assessment the company’s plans. According to the borough solicitor, Mr Patel is just an observer on the company’s board, not formally appointed. That is not how it appears in the records of Companies House.

When his own cabinet colleauges have serious concerns, when a former council leader from his own party, Mr Bawden, was shaking his head through much of what Mr Bluh had to say, surely even the most arrogant and vain of council leaders would realise they had made a mistake? In the case of Mr Bluh it would seem not.

Update, 01:17, Sunday, 14 March 2010: Mr Patel’s directorship of Digital City (UK) Ltd has now been terminated, on Friday 12 March 2010.

In a puff for himself in the Adver, Mr Hunt makes grand claims for the historical importance of the wi-fi project he’s running at our expense.

It’s as ground breaking and significant today as the introduction of the Penny Post or the motor car or the aeroplane were to our fore-fathers…. Daniel Gooch identified Swindon as the ideal location for the Brunel’s Great Western Railway works. The decision turned a small market town into a transport, communications and economic power house. A century later, Swindon was still at the forefront of national innovation and social inclusion. Aneurin Bevan MP, determined to create a National Health Service offering every member of society cradle-to-grave healthcare, visited Swindon to see how Gooch’s GWR Medical Fund, paid for by employees’ contributions, worked in practice…. A complete health service, and all we had to do was to expand it to embrace the whole country.

Of course, Mr Hunt cannot know whether this new service will be as trailblazing as those he compares it with; only history will tell. What we do know is that some of Mr Hunt’s claims are, at the least, exaggerated.

Yes, this is new, and it’s brave. But that’s the beauty and the strength of it.

A quick internet search for ‘free city wide wifi’ shows it’s far from new and the only bravery is in the risk being taken with almost £½M of Swindon taxpayers’ money.

[S]mall and medium enterprises, who instead of having to maintain their own networks will be able to rely on Signal

An internet service provider that plans a break of service in the middle of the working day is not one I’d wish to rely on.

Down the line, costs of sending and receiving texts and emails when abroad will plummet with Signal.

For a company that already seems to be short of cash, that’s a very long way down the line, unless Mr Hunt thinks his competitors are going to give his company cheap access to their networks. From the evidence of the internet deals being offered in Swindon by the companies of Messrs Branson and Murdoch, their main aim at the moment seems to be to price Mr Hunt out of business.

It will even allow more efficient energy distribution throughout the national grid.

That assumes that National Grid would want to sign up for an account: as a company that have themselves been an internet service provider with past experience in wireless communications, that seems unlikely.

I understand there are those that doubt the benefits that wi-fi can bring to our whole town, and the wisdom of the council’s partnership with Digital City. But I am also sure there were those who doubted Gooch and Bevan at the time.

No Mr Hunt, that shows you don’t understand the concerns at all. Those are concerns about the secrecy surrounding this decision and whether due process was followed.

If Mr Hunt wishes to be compared to Messrs Gooch and Bevan, he first needs to prove that he can match their achievements. From the evidence available at the moment, £150,000 of Swindon taxpayers’ money has bought just 5 paying customers when the target at this stage was 125. As a record of achievement, that’s hardly a stunning start.

It seem that the wi-fi company to which Swindon Borough Council has loaned almost £½M of our money may be running a little short of cash. At a meeting of the council’s cabinet this coming Wednesday, there is a request to significantly relax some of the conditions of the loan.

Whilst fifteen out of the original nineteen Highworth progress measures have been considered to have been met, four have not been fully met to date…. These four measures, however, do not represent a significant enough risk to justify placing constraints on generating revenue by slowing down the roll-out of the Wi-Fi network across the rest of Swindon. All four measures are still expected to be achieved, however, variations are requested on the timing and scale of these.

Four out of 19 measures failed is not good, especially as they are some of the more measurable measures. And the failure to fulfil them indicates that the business case was significantly less robust than the likes of Mr Bluh would have us believe.

Measure 1: Originally stated: “Highworth network installed, working and accessible.”
Proposed variation: Highworth network installed, working and accessible to 90% of households and a commitment made that the two remaining router installations that enable consistent coverage for the outstanding 10% of Highworth will be completed within a week of planning consent being granted.

That’s not too significant of itself: 100% coverage is never a sensible measure. That it’s a consequence of the company not noticing that there are hills in Highworth, is rather more worrying. One would hope that they have learnt from this.

Measure 2: Originally stated: “Private sector sponsorship or commitment to future funding, to the value of at least £20,000, secured by end of Quarter 1.”
Proposed Variation: Expressions of interest received from the private and or public sector for investment once a Borough wide network is available.

So that’s replacing private sector money with a vague promise of more tax-payers’ money.

Measure 3: Originally stated: “Sold – at least 100 private use packages by the end of Quarter 1.”
Measure 4: Originally stated: “Sold – at least 25 business packages by the end of Quarter 1.”
Proposed Variation: The measures 3 and 4 be combined and changed into a single measure : “Sold – some business and private packages by end March”.

That’s a clear, easily measurable sales target being replaced by something vague and far less stringent. Just how many less than 125 packages is ‘some’? The council paper states the number of ‘packages’ sold:

as of Monday the 2nd March 5 packages were sold.

5 out of a planned 100. That’s not just poor, that’s pathetic. Just how badly does the company need to fail to meet its sales targets for Mr Bluh to recognise a commercial disaster?

Mr Montaut has expressed some concerns about these changes.

I understand that the Conservative administration are eager to get wi-fi rolled out throughout the borough. However, there is an investigation into the wi-fi deal being undertaken by the council’s Internal Audit and there have been enquiries made by the district auditor into the deal…. The council and Digital City stand to be in a much worse financial position if the auditors find the wi-fi deal to be contemptuous.

As has become all too familiar, the response from Mr Bluh to those expressing concern, rather than addressing those concerns, is just dismissive.

I am deeply disappointed that the opposition party should be so desperate to score political points that they are willing to sabotage and undermine private sector investment in Swindon.

Just how stupid does Mr Bluh think we are? Since when has £½M of taxpayers’ money been regarded as private sector investment?

The Labour opposition is being contemptuous of the residents of the borough by failing to support this investment. The Labour opposition is jeopardising the borough’s economic future by trying to bring down Digital City.

The only contempt I can see is from Mr Bluh, who seems to behave as those this is his own private investment, rather than taxpayers’ money. Has Mr Bluh ever asked the residents of the borough if they wanted this investment?

Mr Hunt also appears either naïve or to take his funders — Swindon council tax payers — as fools.

First of all the investment is a contract — the council pull out of this, they break the contract and face penalties.

Err… remind me, who is it that has failed to meet 4 of 19 contractual obligations under the loan agreement?

This political scrap is 100 per cent damaging our business plan.

The plan seems rather damaged even without any political problems. And if you don’t like politics, you shouldn’t go begging for public sector money. And if Mr Hunt doesn’t like politics, he shouldn’t be making political comments himself.

It has been very, very frustrating and what stuns me is that the Labour group are preventing us getting on with rolling out free wi-fi, which is something that will increase social inclusion – something I thought was at the heart of their group.

Let’s also be clear that concern on this isn’t just political. If the decision to spend almost £½M of our money had been made openly, there would be far less concern. It was not. The basis on which the decision was made remains a secret. Whilst that secrecy remains, the scrutiny will continue. Investigation by the Audit Commission would be more than welcome.

On Monday night, for the first time, I went to observe a meeting of Swindon Borough Council. This was the budget setting full council meeting. Even allowing for the poor reputation of politicians, one might expect that for an important issue like this the debate would be serious and behaviour respectable. Instead, there was a display of infantile posturing and bad temper.

The meeting started with a minute’s silence to mark the death of Ms Fowles, chief executive of the local NHS who died of cancer at the weekend. In tribute, Mr Bluh suggested that councillors should try and have a reasoned debate. It was advice that few — including Mr Bluh and his own cabinet — chose to follow.

During the first item on the agenda — confirmation of the minutes of the last meeting — Mr Perkins delivered the first of many ranting political lectures. Indeed, one of the three consistent features of the evening — the others being the number 21 bus and Mr Bluh’s now infamous smug arrogance — was Mr Perkins’ aggressive contempt for all those he disagreed with.

Next up were questions from the public. In response to one question Mr Young admitted that the £2M benefits to the local economy claimed for the Radio 1 Big Weekend were ‘partly speculative’. In response to another question, Mr Bluh claimed that ‘due process was followed’ when investing almost £½M in Digital City (UK) Ltd. He also said

As far as I am aware there is no Audit Commission investigation.

Awareness may not be one of Mr Bluh’s strong points.

Next were general questions from the councillors, during which Mr Wright got very hot and bothered over the matter of naming streets and announced he was referring the matter to the borough solicitor. The names of streets seemed to worry Mr Wright more than how the council spends our money.

After ¾ hour it was on to the main item for the evening: the council budget. According to Mr Edwards his budget was ‘brilliant’. Naturally, Mr Montaut disagreed and proposed an amended budget, for the same cost but different services. Much knockabout political squabbling then followed, with Mr Perkins and Ms Foley in rather a lot of words accusing the opposition of being stupid and Mr Bluh taking the ‘nice try but should have done better; much better’ approach, and the red nest trying to make up for lack of numbers by shouting all their speeches.

Most bizarre moments of the evening for me were Mr Bawden making a speech opposing a budget needing a higher council tax, even though that wasn’t what the opposition had proposed, and Mr Ali delivering a political speech that made almost no mention of budget plans but wouldn’t have been out of place in a general election hustings for his candidature in Devizes.

However, perhaps the most telling point was when Mr Wright observed that an essential element of civic pride is ensuring that basic things, like keeping the streets clean, are done and done well. To this Mr Bluh responded

The Tabernacle stones and canal are about the bigger picture and Swindon moving forward.

For Mr Bluh running a council during a financial crisis is clearly more about vain legacy projects than serving the basic needs of Swindon.

Mr Hunt — talking about the wireless internet service being built by his company with a loan of almost £½M from the people of Swindon via Swindon Borough Council — says he’s

very very disappointing that it’s been politicised.

I too am disappointed. The attempt by Mr Wills to compare concerns over the wifi deal with the traditional and long-running political squabble about how much of our money Swindon receives from central government is blatant politicisation.

For years, Swindon borough councillors have misled residents about government funding but there is growing evidence that this forms part of a pattern…. I believe there is evidence of systemic secrecy in Swindon Borough Council about money and this represents a failure of governance. I call now on Swindon Borough Council to reveal the truth about Oakhurst School and the wi-fi scheme and do the survey on bus travel residents want.

The links between that little lot are tenuous to say the least.

However, if Mr Hunt is so concerned about politicisation, then why did he choose to be pictured at the launch of the wifi service in Highworth, alongside an all-blue line-up of Mr Bluh and parliamentary shadow cabinet member Ms Spelman? If Mr Hunt doesn’t like politicisation, he shouldn’t make such a habit of appearing with politicians.

For myself and seemingly for others, this is not a party political matter: it’s about whether due process was followed when spending local taxpayers’ money. The pursuit of the truth behind how and when the decision to spend almost £½M of local taxpayers’ money on this particular company would be just as determined, regardless of the party of the politicians involved.

With so little known about the companies behind the wireless internet scheme that Swindon Borough Council has put almost £½M of our money into, I’ve been doing a little investigation into the companies and the people running them. This isn’t going to be the most thrilling read, but there’s some information here that’s relevant to understanding the wisdom — or lack thereof — in spending public money on this wi-fi adventure.

Avidity Consulting Limited (registered no. 06990825) and Digital City (UK) Limited (registered no. 06990831) were both incorporated 14 August 2009 as DM 55 Limited and DM 56 Limited respectively, apparently as ‘off the shelf’ companies. Both changed to their current names on 18 September 2009 and one John Richard Hunt became a director on 21 September 2009 and 22 September 2009 respectively. Hitesh Kumar Patel became a director of Digital City (UK) Ltd on 26 September 2009. You may recognise that last named person as one of the authors of the Cabinet Member Briefing Note dated 12 October 2009 that recommended that Swindon Borough Council provide a loan of £450k to the company. There’s little to add about the facts of Mr Hunt’s record that he hasn’t said in public himself, though there are a few that seem to have slipped his memory.

The history of aQovia UK Limited (registered no. 06846037) is a little harder to follow. According to the company’s website it was founded in January 2008, which is the month after their internet address was registered. Companies House shows the company as having been incorporated on 13 March 2009 and that it has yet to file accounts. The company states that its managing director and founder is Muhammad Malik. Doug Berman is described as ‘a key member of the aQovia advisory committee’ though it seems less key to him as aQovia is without mention on his own recently updated profile. He appears to have experience of the wireless networking industry going back to 2002.

Mr Mustafa Arif became a director of aQovia UK Ltd on 16 September 2009 and has, apparently, also been a director of Digital City (UK) Ltd since September 2009. According to aQovia’s website he ‘has ten years experience of the telecoms and IT industries.’ However, for much of the last ten years — 1999 to 2003 and 2005 to 2007 — Mr Arif was a student. Whilst his studies were in topics (Information Systems Engineering, and Spacecraft Technology & Satellite Communications) of some relevance to his current role, time as a student is probably not what most people have in mind as ‘experience’ when reading the profile of a director. In the intervening two years Mr Arif was president of Imperial College students union or, as Mr Arif modestly describes it, ‘effective CEO of a £6 m+ turnover organisation.’ It seems that until 2007 Mr Arif’s ‘experience of the telecoms and IT industries’ was limited to his studies and a string of vacation jobs.

It is in such… err… experienced hands that almost £½M of Swindon tax-payers money has been entrusted.

If I were someone who’d chosen, on the basis on minimal consultation, to stump-up almost £½M of local taxpayers’ money to the company intending to install wireless internet boroughwide across Swindon, I’d be feeling a little worried reading that company’s February update.

Things aren’t going according to plan. Just six weeks ago installation in Highworth was expected to be complete by mid-January. It’s now early February and work is still in progress.

[T]he installation in Highworth has not gone to plan. There are several reasons for this – topography, approvals and snow to name a few…. We have also had areas where there were no suitable lampposts and no public buildings to substitute. We have in the High Street spoken to retail businesses and begun to cover our black spots and hope to complete around the 15th.

Now I’m not aware of the approvals process for radio transmitters having changed in recent months. Nor have I seen reports of a mountain suddenly springing up in the middle of Highworth, nor of buildings and lampposts disappearing overnight. None of these could be regarded as unpredictable, and cold weather in winter is not a total surprise either.

Not only is the hardware side a bit awry, the marketing seems to have been off-target too.

Customer response in the main remains positive but we know we have frustrated many because we went live with the PR before we were ready, as a result are always playing catch up…. The following is our initial plan. In Highworth, from the end of February, we will carry out a leaflet drop, display window posters and place an advertisement in a community magazine. We will also be placing adverts for the free service (not yet designed) in as many public places as we will be allowed.

If they don’t know what the adverts will be nor where they will go, that’s more an initial guess than an ‘initial plan’.

To be fair, no start-up company will be anywhere near perfect: start-ups make mistakes… lots of them. And the openness with which the company is now talking about its progress is welcome. If this was all being done with private capital, whilst I might have a little fun at the company apparently being caught unawares by the presence of hills in the landscape, I wouldn’t be overly concerned. But this isn’t being done just with private capital.

There’s almost £½M of local taxpayers’ money invested in this. Taxpayers money invested in secret. Taxpayers money invested on the basis of a business case only a select few in the council have seen. A business for which the briefing to two councillors said marketing was key. If the business case was truly robust enough to warrant stumping up £450k of local taxpayers’ money, I wouldn’t expect things to be so far off plan as they are now.