Labour's solution to universal broadband access

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.’

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/rebuild-our-public-services

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.