WITH fresh revelations on the wi-fi project coming thick and fast, from missed deadlines to more investors needed, Swindon resident Des Morgan gives his view on what should by now have been a town-wide, cutting edge scheme.

My ‘interest’ in the wi-fi project was not borne out of a desire to attack any political party or politician. I had a number of concerns about the project which I raised with leading councillors.

Apart from being sceptical at the implementation timetable, given the scale and scope of the installation; I questioned whether Digital City’s partnership with SBC was the correct one on the most basic business level, I asked: “Why has the council entered into a partnership with a company which has absolutely no track record of success or involvement in wi-fi service provision?”

Following the failure of Digital City to progress the wi-fi project, which was due to funding issues, I wait with interest to hear from where Digital City has secured new investment, and look forward to seeing the council loan of £400k repaid.

These announcements should be cause for celebration but, as always with council statements, the words are open to interpretation.

Coun Garry Perkins made it clear that new investors have been found, but that the new investors haven’t actually signed a contract and the money isn’t actually in the bank.

One couldn’t help wondering, what is the political angle behind this announcement? For be sure there is political embarrassment attaching to this debacle; the issues will not simply ‘go away’ and the administration is aware of the need to pull something out of the bag.

Having formally announced that planned sales have failed to meet target and that coverage is no where near what was expected, it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than the wi-fi project has stalled in its tracks.

The council clearly doesn’t want the distraction of a failed project to dog its footsteps as it embarks on new initiatives such as One Swindon. It needs to untie the Gordian knot and divest itself of the mill stone which is Digital City.

Coun Perkins maintains the fiction the project was hindered by scrutiny. This claim has one purpose, to detract attention from the management of the project by Digital City and oversight by the council. To understand how inept both were one need only ask, what happened to the marketing strategy which was so integral to the success of the Highworth phase?

Why were key positions, identified as critical to success, never filled and why important measures of performance were ignored? Even worse, why were key elements diluted in order to facilitate the granting of the second part of the loan?

I hope they find a businessman to invest in a venture which has clearly failed to achieve its primary objectives, a business which even its CEO admits has failed to meet any of its target deadlines. A business which promised to achieve £700k net profits after two years of trading and has only managed to produce Highworth sales revenues of less than £5k per year after 12 months?

In March of last year officers reported the private sector saw no compelling reason to invest.

The result being that Digital City could not attract inward investment interest to the value of £20k, compared today where whoever invests in Digital City will start with a buy-in price of £400k, for that is the amount of the loan which Coun Perkins assured us will be repaid ‘within weeks’.

The new investors will then have to put up more money to continue the roll out process, financing a project born hyperbole and which died with hardly a whimper.

Only a few short months ago Coun Perkins, who sits on the board of Digital City as a representative of the council, maintained that all was OK with the company and that the reasons for the delays in progress were to do with the economy.

No mention of any financial worries which might require additional investment or that would result in the company being unable to meet its £1k per month interest payments.

Coun Perkins, in his capacity as a director of the company, has a duty in law to know whether or not Digital City was solvent and able to meet its liabilities and it is wrong of him to abrogate responsibility on the flimsy pretext that ‘he never got involved in the day to day management’.

What will change is public belief in future claims made by Swindon’s politicians.

Coun Bluh – who a year ago proclaimed, “This truly groundbreaking partnership will have real benefits for everyone living in Swindon” – will have to find some other cause to endorse.

I imagine, many will take with a pinch of salt his latest offering of a new internet forum which, according to the council, will ensure greater public awareness and transparency in its decision making.

Coun Bluh claimed the people of Swindon would enjoy free internet access from Ingelsham to Barbury by April 2010, that the wi-fi project would provide the council with a unique funding stream of needed income and the scheme would reduce council operating costs.

In other words it would save the council money. But not one promise has come to fruition.

The question now is will the new investors feel bound to promises made by politicians or will they take a commercial view of what should be provided.

Social inclusion and bridging the digital divide are not for businessmen seeking a profit.

No one should accept at face value the word of a politician that any deal is in the best interests of the people of Swindon as that card has already been played.

I wait with interest to hear of the future plans for wi-fi in Swindon.

Deputy council leader Garry Perkins said:“We have nothing further to add to the comprehensive answers that have been provided to the Swindon Advertiser correspondent's numerous questions over the last 18 months, during which time Cabinet, Council, Scrutiny (on six occasions) and the District Auditor have ensured that this is one of the most heavily scrutinised projects ever undertaken by this Council. "We are certainly not inclined to respond directly to comments made in the correspondent's opinion piece that are clearly trying to imply impropriety on the part of officers and elected members of the Council in relation to this project. These comments are without foundation and only serve to demonstrate the highly personal and subjective nature of the correspondent's contributions to the debate”