Skip to main content

A revolution in broadband?

The Labour Party have announced that a Labour government would take into public ownership the 'final mile' of broadband cable, currently controlled as a monopoly by BT Openreach and invest in the rollout of superfast connections for every home.

This bold move was greeted with the cry of "communism!" by Boris Johnson and the Tory media.

But what is happening in other countries?  Is Labour's proposal so off the rails? The answer is no.

The UK is not alone in having difficulty with the rollout of broadband connections to create what is now termed the Gigabyte society.

Germany's business community is concerned at the lack of progress in broadband connectivity.   Vodafone even called for the 'last mile' of cabling to be 'state-supported'.

Germany also has been slow to expand its fibre-optic network, and the business community warn it will lose competitiveness because slow internet speeds as it risks holding back advances in computer-based manufacturing.   Germany's Vodafone director said last year:

“It is enormously expensive to rip the road on your own, It would be better to do it like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for example. The state lays empty pipes, just as it builds highways - i.e. state investment in infrastructure."
And there is the key: the state invests in infrastructure.

A report prepared by CERRE (Center on Regulation in Europe) whose members are big names like ComCom, Orange and Vodafone, also called for EU rules on state aid to be relaxed to facilitate the provision.   

If the rollout requires state aid, then it would be right that there is sufficient accountability for that involvement, and particularly that all citizens should have the opportunity to benefit from that investment.  

One way for doing this is to have the network under some form of public ownership.  

The Victorians realised that major infrastructure needed for the public good required community and public input.  The market has failed to deliver on broadband, and the consumer has very little way of expressing needs. Markets work through supply and demand, yet there is little change in supply and no way a customer can be effective in their demand for better access.

Changing provider does nothing to the outmoded infrastructure.  It simply transfers the problem.

Superfast broadband requires a radical approach.  










Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more