Skip to main content

Labour's bold solution for super-fast broadband

The Telecommunications industry has only itself to blame for the appallingly slow roll-out of fast broadband to the nation.   The 'market' has failed to deliver.  That isn't merely the verdict of politicians or the Labour Party. That is the verdict of the telecommunications sector.

So what is the problem?

One of the problems was highlighted just three years ago in an Ofcom report, but it failed to take the bull by the horns and propose radical solutions.

Openreach is the division of BT that owns the fibre and copper wires that run from the local telephone exchange to homes and businesses.    The 76 million miles of cables underpins all our telecom and broadband services.   

Whether or not you change your service provider, it is the same cabling.   

One option is to split Openreach off from BT, and it has been an option called for by other providers such as Sky.   They say that BT has failed to invest significantly in the network and they have criticised BT for their failure to ultra-fast broadband quickly enough.  

So, this isn't a problem invented by the Labour party.   Their solution is to hive off Openreach from BT by taking it into public ownership so that the appropriate investment and roll-out can be achieved.   But they also address another problem: fairness and opportunity.  

Labour's is a bold strategy to make access to superfast broadband equal to all.  Yes, it is costly.  There will be cries from the industry about that.  But it is an investment worth making if we want a green revolution, a revolution underpinned by new technology, and if we want to open up new ways of working.  

Labour needs now to make a case for the cost-effectiveness of its proposals.   The Tory press will go into shark attack mode.   But public ownership of the network should be considered as an appropriate option for sound economic and social reasons.  

Our broadband access is now as vital as our access to roads. Our businesses depend on it, and increasingly we rely on it.



Comments

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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau