john said “All secondary schools are on 10mb and no plans to increase this over the next few years was the last conversation on that I had, and tbh for the size of my establishment”
I wish we were on that much. Our secondary school is on 2meg and often capped out. What I find crazy and never really understood is why schools internet connection are so slow. I can get a 50meg download at home for a fraction of the price of what our school pays. Why can EMBC and others not offer schools similar packages to what you can get a home. I would love something like a 10, 20 or 50meg download and 2 or 5 meg upload at work.
Is it the upload speed that costs so much? Filtering software, something else? Why not cut the price down by only boosting download speeds. Do we really need upload speeds to match download for every school?
So ... no matter how you look at how the HT grant is used / has been used the running costs for many things is no longer there.
Cuts are what happens when a previous government spends shed loads of cash it does not have. :doh:
We are currently getting a BB throug our LEA at a cost of 18k rising to 24k next year, for 100mb to the LEA and then out through their 100mb pipe, which is shared with all schools. I can however get now from BT 100mb true 1:1 contention direct to internet pipe with free install and 100% uptime SLA for 20k, we are talkingabout it at the moment.
Can I ask how schools have managed to stop an LA top slicing broadband funding, as our LA used to make it a charge back system, they now top slice so that the school never sees the money. Never mind gets asked which sub services we actually want.
Is there an RBC that works in this way as I would be surprised if this is financially viable from the RBC point of view.
What you are talking about is more like a framework agreement. One or multiple suppliers produce a framework of services which can be mixed and matched by the RBC / LA / School. The services will range from the school connection to the WAN, The WAN itself, the central server farms, the kit in the exchanges, the kit in the CSF, the internet feeds in and out of the WAN (non-JANET feeds that is), email filtering, email hosting, web filtering, video conferencing, website hosting, online storage, DNS, IP Management, Firewall and security, authentication service (including LDAP, AD integration, UKAMF IdP - Shibboleth, etc) ...
The problem with framework agreements is that you tend to have a pricebook ... a fixed price for everything and it is done by unit (by user, by school or by LA) and because there is no guarantee of numbers for this the supplier will give a fixed price. There may be some scope for banded pricing ... ie the first 20 schools get x, the next get y and so on .. but this makes it a bit of a financial nightmare to reconcile ... especially if each school has to pay up front in the year and the 21st school comes online 3 months in ... do they get a lower price than the others?
The other problem is that once you start looking at the costs of services which some people may not want such as videoconferencing (not that expensive to be honest) is by the time you have paid for 20% of your schools to have it then it is actually the same price as making it available to all schools!
There are times when aggregated purchasing is clearly a big winner ... if you take email filtering (if you are not on an RBC line and running your own mail server then I presume you do have mail filtering) then the cost of the filter as an LA is far cheaper than buying it for each school individually.
The introduction of Public Sector Networks will mean that you will see more and more councils, police forces, Primary Care Trusts, etc share chunks of their network and if they do it over an existing WAN then all the better to drive down costs. It is a shame it is only just starting out ... if it had been pushed 3-4 years ago then we might be in a different picture.