Universal services really aren't safe in their hands

Tweet

There are those for whom the words ‘communist’ and ‘Marxist’ are words which have no meaning other than as insults to be hurled against political opponents in the belief that they will spark all sorts of associations with the old Soviet Union.  So when Boris Johnson refers to Labour’s plans for a full fibre internet service to every home as a “crazed communist scheme”, it’s more than possible that he is giving little thought to the detail and is just seizing on another opportunity to paint Corbyn as an unreconstructed pro-Soviet socialist from the past.

It’s also possible, though, that even if that was the limit of his intention, the use of the word does reveal the way he thinks, because he’s far from being the only person on the political ‘right’ who believes that all services should be provided by private companies in a free market, and that universal provision by the state is indeed a step towards communism.  It’s a belief which underlies health politics in the US – a standard element of opposition to all attempts to extend public health care is that a universal service is a ‘socialist’ idea, and therefore inherently bad.  His comments on Labour’s broadband plans suggest that Johnson and his followers hold a similar belief that universal provision is ‘socialist’, and the only reason that they are reluctant to apply the same criterion to health care is that they know it would be a step too far for public opinion.

The basic idea behind Labour’s proposal – that a broadband service of a particular standard should be seen as something available to all – is one which makes a lot of sense in the world as it stands today; digital exclusion is an increasingly serious divide in society.  Whether the best way of achieving that is by nationalising the provider is another question entirely, and had the Tories come forward with an alternative proposal for achieving the same thing, one might be able to believe that they want to do something about that divide.  Dismissing the end because they oppose the means serves only to suggest that they are basically happy with the increasing divide.

Paying for Broadband

Tweet Dylan Jones Evans returned to the subject of the Welsh Government’s roll-out of high speed broadband in Saturday’s Western Mail (I can’t find the article on the WM site, and, unusually for Dylan, it hasn’t appeared on his blog yet). His core theme – and I hope that I’m not misunderstanding him on this – isn’t so much about whether high speed broadband should be delivered or not, but about the cost of delivering it – and the other things which will not get funded as a result.

I have no doubt that the proposal to ensure that all parts of Wales have access to high-speed broadband will be a popular one with the population at large. And it has surprised me to discover the extent to which businesses which one wouldn’t think would be particularly dependent on high speed connectivity do actually feel that they are constrained by the lack of that connectivity. So the core proposal put forward by the government is certainly one which I’d support.

That doesn’t deal with Dylan’s points though, and they cannot and should not be dismissed as easily as that. The cost being talked about is enormous, and I share Dylan’s concern as to whether cheaper options are being properly examined, or whether the government isn’t being too easily led by the largest supplier into paying over the odds for the service.

(There’s an interesting parallel in today’s paper, with the story about Arriva Trains Wales increasing services in England, but telling the Assembly Government that it can only increase services in Wales if the Welsh Government provides a subsidy. I start to wonder whether some of the large companies aren’t seeing the Welsh Government as something of a ‘soft touch’ at times, which can enable them to extract money for things in which they should be investing themselves.)

The relationship looks far too cosy for me. I’m aware of other companies operating in South West Wales which claim that they can provide an alternative service at a fraction of the cost being quoted by BT, and I share Dylan’s concern about whether the alternatives are getting the consideration they deserve. I’ve argued before that I have a preference for increasing the universal service obligation rather than using taxpayers’ money to provide subsidies, although I accept that is currently outwith the powers of the Welsh Government.

The second point is about whether it is right to divert money from business support to pay for this piece of infrastructure. I’m less convinced about Dylan’s points on this aspect. In principle, a move away from providing direct grant aid to businesses to a greater emphasis on building infrastructure seems to me to be the right way to go. (Although I think Dylan has been very helpful in highlighting the fact that this change seems only to apply to indigenous companies, whilst inward investors can still qualify for grant. That strikes me as being curious, to say the least.)

One thing which does deserve a bit more consideration, though, is who is benefitting. Although being presented as infrastructure which will benefit jobs, it will also have a huge and very welcome benefit for domestic customers in rural Wales. There is surely some scope for arguing that the whole cost should not therefore be met from the economic development budget.

Update: Thanks to Anon, who is clearly mroe adept than I at finding things on Wales Online, here is the link to Dylan's piece.

Universal Service Obligations

Tweet Some months ago, I supported the idea that the Universal Service Obligation (USO) on BT should be extended from being simply an obligation to provide a basic telephone service to incorporate a broad band service as well. I had quite a debate with one of my anonymous readers as to whether it was fair and reasonable to put such an obligation on BT, or whether this was an issue where the market should provide the basic service, with public subsidy filling the gaps. (S)he made some very good points, but I was not convinced.

I was pleased last week when the government came down very firmly on the side of the argument that broadband access is now a basic service, and are planning to extend the USO so that every home in the UK has at least a 2Mb service by 2012. The timescale is a bit lengthy for my liking, given the rate at which broadband has become the 'norm', but it's a significant step forward.

The response by the Tories was interesting, to say the least. Their main objection seemed to be that the proposed requirement was not onerous enough. For the party which normally objects to any attempt to place obligations or regulations (always dismissed as 'red tape') on business, it was an unusual response. They argued that 2Mb was simply not good enough when the average speed available these days is more like 3.6Mb.

For once, I agree to some extent with the basic point which the Tories ar making (or, perhaps, for once, they are agreeing with me?). My colleague, Adam Price said much the same as they did, drawing attention to Obama's commitment to a 5Mb service for rural America. The problem, I feel, is that the technology, and what is considered 'normal', is moving faster than any legislative process. If we are talking solely about what the USO should be today, then a requirement to provide a basic 2Mb service might well be the right level at which to set things.

But the government are talking about 2012 - for how long would 2Mb minimum still look like the right answer? By the time any USO is imposed, things will have moved further on again, and the result may well be that we are imposing only an obligation to implement obsolete technology.

Perhaps what we really need is a more flexible approach to setting the USO – one that does not need new legislation every time we need to change it. Having to revise the law every time we wish to improve the USO simply means that the minimum will always lag way behind the average or norm.

Superfast Broadband

Tweet It would be very good, of course, to have the new superfast broadband which BT's Chief Executive has been touting this week. But there is likely to be some cynicism in these parts. In Llanpumsaint, for instance, BT has so far failed not only to deliver the ordinary broadband service which most people are now taking for granted – they don't even provide a reliable telephone service. And they seem to have no intention of doing so, unless 'the government' or somebody else – anybody – pays.

The thought that they are ready to start ploughing their money into an investment which will leave rural areas such as this even further behind is not likely to be well-received around here. And there will be a great deal of scepticism as to whether they will be willing to roll out the new facilities to the rest of Wales once they have provided the facility to all the areas where they can make the most profit.

And that's the nub of the issue. Wales should not refuse the opportunity to lead on this new technology – that would be plain silly. But we should be seeking a clear agreement that all of Wales will be treated equally, and that BT will not simply cherry-pick in the interests of its own profits and shareholders.

The hots and the nots

Tweet Whilst much of the UK is looking forward to the creation of more and more broadband hotspots, extending the usability of boadband services, here in rural Wales we are more concerned about dealing with the notspots – the areas where no service at all is available. The problem is a widespread one, and there is a particular problem in my own village of Llanpumsaint, extending down to Bronwydd as well, where hundreds of people are without the service.

The One Wales Government is working to resolve the issues, and the Deputy First Minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, visited the area himself this week to hear the concerns at first hand. Despite the short notice, and the fact that the meeting was held in an afternoon rather than an evening, the hall was packed, and residents made their frustrations very clear.

Given the numbers of people across the whole of Wales who are suffering from these problems, and the cost of putting them right, it’s hardly surprising that expectations are not being met if the delivery of the service is dependent on Government funding.

That’s an important ‘if’, however. I am not going to argue against the government stepping in and sorting the issue – of course not. We want action, and we want it now, and I'm pleased that Ieuan is working to address the problem. But having spoken to other broadband suppliers locally, who make commercial decisions about whether to invest in new capacity or not, and who have been supplying broadband to some of the people who BT have not helped, there is surely a valid question to be asked about the use of government funding.

In the short term, it seems we have no option but to ask the government to pay BT to provide a service. But shouldn’t a company which is making billions of pounds’ profit each year be expected to fund this sort of investment itself, rather than receive government subsidies? There is a ‘public service obligation’ on BT to provide telephone services; in an age where broadband should be the norm, shouldn’t we extend the legislation to make provision of a full service part of that obligation?