The Labour Party has come under
critical attack for its proposal to take over part of BT and deliver nationwide
free broadband access.
‘Digital and
technological advancements bring challenges, but also huge opportunities. In
the age of AI and automation, digital connectivity will underpin our future
economy. We will need world-class digital infrastructure in which everyone can
share.
Labour will deliver free
full-fibre broadband to all by 2030.
We will establish
British Broadband, with two arms: British Digital Infrastructure (BDI) and the
British Broadband Service (BBS). We will bring the broadband-relevant parts of
BT into public ownership, with a jobs guarantee for all workers in existing
broadband infrastructure and retail broadband work.’
Given that Issues about universal access to telephony and then internet have been with us for over 35 years. Labour's proposed policy makes absolute sense.
Labour and Cable 1983
Cable and satellite TV were expanding at the time the Labour Party
issued its Programme in 1983. It discussed
concerns about the how technological developments ‘pose urgent new problems for broadcasting policy.’ It opposed Pay TV because ‘we believe that
all citizens should receive an equal service regardless of wealth and
geographical location. The satisfaction of a wide audience must take priority
over the public service broadcasting time than to the introduction of new and
competing cable TV. We will re-establish
public control of any national cable system .’
Cable was being developed on the
basis of local franchises, which then either failed or were taken over by
Virgin which became a cable monopoly.
Local authorities in mid-1990s
By the mid-1990s there were still problems with basic telephony access, especially for low income groups. In work on local authority
economic development I was arguing that Councils should include telephone
provision in estate and neighbourhood action projects which have a community
safety and crime prevention dimension; negotiate utility funding towards local
authority telephone provision initiatives.; discuss with local cable companies ways
in which they could wire up estates with low telephone ownership, and offer its customers a free call facility into the authority's office; and Install telephones as part of entry-call
systems. Ironically over 20 years and in
the new world of mobile phones and broadband Croydon Council has been providing
broadband access into its estates.
Access to Bandwidth 1999
The issue of broadband access
has been on the agenda for over 20 years. When I was Secretary of the Public
Utilities Access Forum it was discussed as part of what Universal Services
Obligations should operate in telecoms in a consultation by the then regulator
(Oftel) Access to Bandwidth:
Proposals for Action.
PUAF submitted the
following comments:
• Government
Policy. The Government needs to decide how it can achieve its goal of wanting
the UK to be at the front edge of the Information Society. If the Government
wants broadband to be available to all then it can choose amongst other options
to wait for market roll-out to reach say 95% and then require BT under USO to
provide the remaining 5%, or have a contractual roll-out (like cable).
• Internet
Growth. Internet penetration could be large, but at present in terms of the
standard penetration for domestic goods and services such as appliances the
Internet is at the bottom of the list. If Internet is to be part of USO then
the small % of the population currently subscribing to it will be expected to
subsidise the large % who are not.
• Internet
Access Providers. BT and Kingston Communications are not the only
potential providers of Internet USO, cable could be expected to be providers as
well. If provision is limited to BT and Kingston it could be a significant
distortion of competition.
• E-Commerce
Growth. If the Government wants to have 25% of transactions
electronically
undertaken by 2002 then it needs to have the infrastructure. It needs to define
what the basic level of service for Internet needs to be.
• Free Access. Internet service has
universal flat rate access, and free access is being developed. Dixons free
Internet access offer did more to stimulate competition and Internet
access. It came from nowhere. It
provides a product meeting needs. But Dixons could withdraw the free access
later.
• Timing of
USO Internet. Is it appropriate to make it an obligation to
provide Internet access in the next few years? Some take the view that it will
be entirely inappropriate, but that in 20 years time the arguments for and
against will be different if a small % of the population remain excluded from
the service.
• How
Important Will Internet Be? Is the Internet just another add on? Is there
enough evidence to suggest that it is becoming fundamental as a means of
information communication? Will people be denied access to jobs in the next
century if universal Internet access is not provided? What are the benefits and
disbenefits of Internet?
• Public
Access. Is access through public places the parallel of public telephone boxes
50 years ago? If there is a strong economic benefit to the country for public
access, it can be argued that the Government should pay for access in public
facilities. Public access can be regarded as a substitute to access in the
home. Schools and libraries are bridging points for access. Primary schools
could be the basis for city based provision. Internet provision is fast being
put in place in schools. e.g. as a result of the National Grid for Learning
scheme. However there are problems. In some schools there are only telephone
lines in the Head Teacher or School Administrative Officer's offices. There are
financial aspects to whether there can be access. e.g. the cost of terminals,
the cost of phone calls.
• Digital TV. Digital TV boxes enabling
interactive TV will enable viewers to browse the web. While Internet access
will be available through TVs they will have to be plugged into a telephone
line. Once the analogue signal is switched off (10-15 years), the population
will have access through digital TV; only a minority will have it through a PC.
There is a serious problem with regard to use of digital TV for Internet use.
It is possible that households will need two TVs. Should everyone be given
digital TV access? What other technologies might come along that will enable
Internet access?
Communications Workers Views
The joint response to Oftel by the Communications Workers Union (CWU) and the Society of Telecom Executives
(STE) contained the following key points.
• While there
is no proven evidence of unmet demand, it is important to develop the country's
communications capability to ensure the UK's competitive edge in the world
market.
• Development
of a successful technology to deliver higher broadband access to all consumers
will be crucial to the UK's success to the information society.
• Investment in
the full range of technological solutions to deliver broadband access is
essential if the UK is to avoid misjudging the market.
• BT's roll out
of ADSL technology is a very significant development which fundamentally
transforms the provision of broadband access.
Consumer
Views in the USA
In 1999 USA Consumer Action and the Consumer Federation of America
(CFA) argued that open access to the high‑speed "broadband" Internet ‘is
essential to preserve the Internet as a vibrant medium for communications and
commerce.’ ‘The effort to impose private regulation on the Internet in the form
of exclusive, discriminatory access is a dagger pointed at the heart of the
Internet, which has thrived by allowing all content providers to have equal
access to the wires that connect people to the network.’
Their report Transforming the Information Highway into
a Private Toll Road, explained the
harm to consumers inherent in efforts to close the on‑ramps to the nation's
information superhighway, including:
• preventing competition for
cable TV programming;
• reducing competition for
broadband Internet services;
• abusive pricing and bundling
of cable TV and Internet services;
• restriction of universal
service.
AT&T Monopoly
"AT&T has set out to amass a monopoly over U.S. cable TV
systems and to extend the cable TV
business model to the Internet," said Dr. Mark Cooper, CFA's Director of Research, and principal
author of the study. "That model
includes price increases over three times the rate of inflation, denial of
consumer choice through forced bundling of programming, and restriction of innovation through preferential treatment of
affiliated programming."
The report notes that local cable TV franchising
authorities in Portland, Oregon, and
Broward County, Florida, had ordered non-discriminatory access to the cable
network as a condition of the transfer
of cable TV licenses to AT&T, and that scores of others currently are
taking up the issue.
• "The
local governments that have been insisting on open access have stepped up to defend consumer interests by filling a
void left by federal regulators," McEldowney says "Congress
and federal regulators have been promising the American people for years that
competition will break the monopoly power of cable TV and local telephone
companies ‑ and they have been wrong."
• "Our
report shows that the Federal Communications Commission has erred again, by not
imposing an open access requirement, especially with one company dominating so
much of the infrastructure and programming for both cable TV and broadband
Internet service."
The report detailed the technological and economic mechanisms that already are being used to
restrict competition in a closed, discriminatory cable network.
- To maintain a vibrant Internet, ISP access to consumers must be open and non‑discriminatory, regardless of whether the connection is made via a cable or telephone company's network.
• Consumers and
the country cannot afford the development of private networks for broadband
Internet service.
• A small
number of private networks will not provide adequate competition to prevent the
abuse of economic power in the commercial market, or to ensure the free flow of
information in the marketplace of political ideas.