Are there better ways to quantify the value of superfast broadband?
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | May 26, 2011
Few would argue that broadband hasn’t had a huge impact on the way we live our lives over the last decade and for many people it is self-evident that broadband is fundamental to the development of a modern knowledge economy. So it is a paradox that the review undertaken by brothers Rob and Charles Kenny of the evidence regularly put forward to support public intervention in superfast broadband has revealed a worrying lack of substance to some of the claims made about the public benefits of superfast broadband.
The Kenny and Kenny study highlights the various methodological failings that so often undermine attempts to quantify the incremental benefit that might accrue from the deployment and take-up of superfast broadband and deserves to be widely read. However, it also beggars an interesting question. Are there any better ways to quantify the benefit of superfast broadband and more specifically, is there something we could learn from the way that the benefits of transport projects are evaluated?
Brian Williamson of Plum Consulting touched on this issue in the BSG report A Framework for Evaluating the Value of Next Generation Broadband. Given that the language of both transport and telecoms is that of connectivity and the benefits are the value of better connectivity to users, then couldn’t similar methodologies be used? We thought we’d give it a try.
In the UK, the government is committed to High Speed 2 (HS2), a high speed rail line linking London with Birmingham and the North. The cost-benefit analysis for this project is based, as all transport projects are, on the time savings to users of the network – both business commuters and leisure use. Transport project analyses use a per hour value of people’s leisure time and their time at work (which is around four times as valuable as leisure time).
Given that the benefits here are based on time saving, this approach could give an indication of the value to users of a faster broadband network. So let’s apply the HS2 approach to the UK government’s investment in NGA in the final third.
First, to be clear, the premise is that a fibre-based superfast broadband network would allow users to do things faster than the copper network currently allows. While the access network is not the whole story in terms of speed and performance, it is certainly an important part, particularly for bandwidth-intensive activities. Accepting this, we can work out the value of time saved by users based on the HS2 cost-benefit approach, and compare this with the costs to government.
According to the Oxford Internet Institute, in 2007 Internet use by those aged 14 and over was 11 hours at home and 7 hours at work per week; tallying this up for the number of UK users over the course of a year gives approximately 13m hours online for UK Internet users.
In order to make a conservative estimate, we’ll assume that only leisure time is saved (60% of time online, valued at £5.50 per hour), and that 3% of users’ time is saved by moving to a fibre network (108 seconds for every hour spent online). We will apply the same timescales (60 years) and approach to the future value of money (3.5% discount for first 30 years; 3% thereafter) as applied to HS2.
For the final third in the UK, we assume:
-
government support for fibre-based superfast broadband takes fibre from 66% of homes up to 90% of homes; this means government will invest in superfast broadband to 25% of homes in the UK;
-
over 60 years, we assume that around 35% of all homes on average switch to the new network from existing copper-based services (circa 50% of existing broadband households);
-
and that this take-up will be staggered over those 60 years, starting at 3%, reaching 30% after 10 years, 55% after 30 years, and 85% after 60 years.
Taking all of this into account, superfast broadband would produce over £33bn of benefits in terms of leisure time savings. Government’s proposed investment could be as high as £1.6bn, incorporating contingency funds and matched funding from local authorities; taking this figure to give a conservative estimate, every pound spent by government would deliver £20 of benefit.
If business users were included, the benefits would increase to almost £50bn; providing a return of £30 for every one pound spent. (For business services, we assume only SMEs would take the service, use the same take-up figures as for residential services, and assume that 20% of all users work for SMEs and so would see this benefit. In reality, in rural areas of the country, a higher proportion of workers are likely to be employed by SMEs than 20%, but we have taken a conservative view.) For comparison, the CBR for HS2 is 2:1.
There are, of course, issues with this approach. It is probably not, for example, appropriate to judge the value of this type of investment over 60 years, while others may debate the extent to which time can be saved – it is possible that users already undertake other activities while waiting for bandwidth-intensive activities to be completed. The approach also says nothing of other associated costs, such as the chilling impact of government investment in a private, competitive market, or the disruption caused by network build out.
However, it also says nothing of the value to those who are not online to date – the work of Race Online 2012 suggested all non-users online would be worth an additional £22bn to the economy, which could be increased with additional time savings – nor the benefits of doing more with the time that is saved, and the benefits of doing entirely new things with a capacity and capability users did not have before. The history of the Internet suggests that there will be considerable benefits brought about by innovations that have not yet been conceived of, particularly as online activity becomes ever more central to everyday living.
The time saved model is in many respects a crude approach, and this is very much our fag packet calculation. However, if time saved calculations can be used to justify multi-billion pound transport projects, one can ask why they are not used more often to assess the value of broadband projects?
Topics: Digital divide, NGA, Next generation broadband | No Comments »
Net neutrality – what’s behind the headlines
By pamela.learmonth@intellectuk.org | August 13, 2010
A few months back, the prospect of policy focus falling on net neutrality in the UK provoked some apprehension. The issue had failed to provoke the intensity of debate seen in other markets such as the U.S. and there was a sense from some that this was an “American disease we didn’t want to catch”.
Fast forward a couple of months with the publication of both the Ofcom discussion paper and the European Commission questionnaire and one could be forgiven for asking, what was all the fuss about?
Initial and public industry reaction to the Ofcom paper was largely “this looks about right” and with no sign of any immediate action likely to take place by way of mechanisms such as the imposition of a minimum quality of service requirement by Ofcom, perhaps there was nothing to be worried about after all.
However the public debate burst into life this week with the publication of a proposed legislative framework for net neutrality published by Google and Verizon.
Although pitched as a compromise deal and a practical suggestion of a way forward, the document provoked strong opinions from a variety of players and threw the issues at stake into sharp relief.
Should traffic over wireless networks be treated differently to that over fixed networks? How would you define “additional services online”? Where does the “open” internet begin and end? And who makes those decisions anyway?
The announcement opened a lid on a debate that has always been emotive in the States. Concerns about whether the nature of the broadband market provides operators with a clear incentive and ability to block or throttle traffic has led to political capital around net neutrality. Openness has been seen as crucial to prevent consumer harm and support innovation.
The debate has been more muted in the UK and EU where market structures have not led to the same level of concern about net neutrality and where there has been a greater level of consensus about the role traffic management can play in the operation of today’s internet.
However that is not to say that the issues thrown into the spotlight by the Google and Verizon announcement are irrelevant to the UK and EU debates.
There are still various open questions to discuss and debate:
· Would allowing deals that would deliver guaranteed quality of service benefit the consumer or would that damage consumer choice?
· How important is traffic management in ensuring access to good quality services?
· How can you explain traffic management to the consumer in a meaningful way that allows them to make informed choices about the types of service they wish to access?
· What is the best platform for innovation for all players, the big, the small and the new?
These questions are fundamentally about how today’s internet should evolve into that of tomorrow – and that is ultimately what the net neutrality debate should be all about.
We think there is a great opportunity to debate these issues and make real progress on building a view about the nature of the internet of the future.
The BSG conference on the impact of net neutrality takes this very approach. Our agenda goes beyond the rhetoric and looks at the issue in a pragmatic way with the consumer front and centre to debate.
We’ll be looking at consumer and business demand for quality, the correlation between better quality and innovation, technical bottlenecks and solutions, commercial collaboration as well as what regulators and policy maker should or shouldn’t be doing.
We’d love to hear your views on this issue and hope to see you there.
Topics: Next generation broadband, Uncategorized, content regulation | No Comments »
Will a shift to gesture based computing via tablets and apps help get the final third online? A guest blog
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | May 28, 2010
On the day the iPad is launched in the UK, a guest blog from Brian Williamson of Plum Consulting considers what impact a shift to this type of device, with simpler, more intuitive interfaces and utilising mobile connectivity, could have on internet adoption.
“A report by Plum Consulting for Vodafone examines internet use and barriers to use, market changes and policy possible approach to get more people online. In terms of use the report finds that education, workforce participation and age are key considerations in explaining internet use.
Older US citizens are significantly more likely to use the internet than those in Korea or Europe, whilst those in Northern European Countries are significantly more likely to use the internet than their Southern European counterparts (consistent with the level of economic development and education at the time they were at school).
The following shows that internet adoption in the UK is not too far behind that in Sweden - which has the highest adoption in Europe alongside Denmark.
Evidence of success in relation to existing interventions by government is limited – though the million housewives programme in Korea and efforts to increase internet adoption by young people in Portugal do appear to have had an impact.
On the face of it this evidence, combined with the fact that the rate of adoption growth amongst less educated older people is lower and accounted for to a significant extent by the ageing of younger existing internet users, suggest that getting the final third online may be slow and difficult.
Plum’s research also point to skills, affordability, perceived relevance and fear as factors inhibiting internet and broadband adoption. Whilst different considerations will matter more for different target groups, changes now underway may go a long way to reducing barriers. The emerging combination of touch and gesture based interfaces, ‘apps’ for specific services (complemented by cloud computing), simpler operating systems and more flexible and affordable wireless broadband access packages may help reduce exiting barriers including skill, relevance, fear and cost.
This shift is exemplified by, but will not be limited to, the Apple iPad (pictured below) and associated more flexible wireless tariff plans (which include per MB, daily, weekly and monthly packages without a contract) available in the UK from 28 May 2010. Available data plans will include a five pence per megabyte plan with no contractual commitment – potentially lowering ongoing costs significantly for some.
Over time, more spectrum and next generation mobile technology will lower the cost per megabyte - perhaps five-fold. Tablet devices can also be expected to fall in price (for example the One Laptop per Child initiative plans a $100 tablet by 2012). To be effective interventions designed to get people online should work with the grain of these changes, rather than continuing to focus on teaching the final-third to use PCs and on fixed broadband only initiatives.
Computer scientist Bran Ferren defined technology as ‘stuff that doesn’t work yet’. Perhaps, at last, we are getting beyond technology.”
Brian Williamson is a consultant with Plum Consulting and author of numerous reports, including the BSG’s ‘A Framework for Evaluating the Value of Next Generation Broadband‘.
Topics: Digital divide, convergence | 1 Comment »
BSG and Value Partners publish new white paper on broadband infrastructure
By pamela.learmonth@intellectuk.org | March 23, 2010
Today the BSG has published a new White Paper with Value Partners, Broadband Infrastructure: The Service and Application Providers’ View.
Looking at the views of the broadband infrastructure from those who provide services over the internet today, the report find 3 main conclusions:
- Few respondents considered current broadband as a significant barrier to innovation today. Instead they suggested that it was just one of a series of end to end issues that needed to be considered when thinking about how to improve services for consumers. Few believed that simply addressing the bandwidth issue alone would be enough to deliver the quality of service that consumers are increasingly expected to demand.
- Consumer expectations of quality are increasing as ever-richer data services, such as internet TV and cloud based applications continue to be brought to market. As a result service and application providers are starting to think about how they can manage end-to-end quality of service in the medium term (18-24 months). This raises issues surrounding net neutrality and suggests this debate now needs to be tackled in the UK.
- The major players believe that next generation broadband will spur innovation and growth in new services and applications. However an upgrade in bandwidth alone will not cancel out the need to manage the multiple pinch points across the network, to guarantee good quality-assured end to end delivery.
The BSG is hosting a launch event tonight to debate the report with stakeholders.
You can access the report here.
Topics: Broadband speeds, Next generation broadband | No Comments »
AT&T propose PSTN phase out
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | January 15, 2010
A guest post from Brian Williamson of Plum Consulting.
The June 2008 report by Plum Consulting and the BSG set out a “Framework for evaluating the value of next generation broadband”. One of the six recommendations of the report was that,
“Realising the full value of next generation broadband depends on the extent of transformation of other markets. In considering the private and wider value of next generation broadband, and potential regulatory and public policy barriers to next generation broadband, other platforms and markets should be considered including spectrum, broadcasting, mobile and copper networks.
In particular, the costs and benefits of copper network retirement alongside fibre rollout, and the policy and regulatory environment required, should be considered.”
Both next generation mobile (LTE) and fibre will ultimately displace copper, yet obligations and expectations in relation to universality of voice (and potentially broadband), competition based on local loop unbundling and emergency calls over a powered network are currently structured around the legacy copper network. Uncoupling this dependency will not only ultimately be necessary, but clarifying the position early could see relatively more resources invested in next generation broadband relative to legacy circuit switched networks.
In the US the need to address this issue now has some prominence with market analysts questioning the ongoing viability of a copper network based business model, see for example the New York Times on 8 May 2009 “Will the phone industry need a bailout too?” On 21 December 2009 AT&T submitted a comment to the FCC proposing a transition from the legacy circuit-based network to broadband and comparing the transition to analogue TV switch off.
AT&T propose that the FCC set a deadline for phase-out. In contrast, both the European Commission and the UK government in relation to Digital Britain have so far failed to address this issue. Is it time to rethink our priorities?
Topics: Next generation broadband | No Comments »
COTS issues coming to the fore
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | November 20, 2009
I spent Monday and Tuesday at CBN’s NextGen 09 conference in Leeds. The conference was well worth the trip, with a series of interesting presentations from excellent speakers interspersed with useful and relevant workshops.
What I found particularly interesting, however, was the number of speakers that referenced issues that the COTS Project is seeking to address. In the Digital Region workshop on Monday Graeme Dent discussed the engagement that South Yorkshire had been having with ISPs to date; this was followed on Tuesday by Stephen Timms talking about the importance of local projects, but also the need to ensure that these investments do not lead to stranded assets, and directly referencing the COTS project and the role of INCA.
During the day, further reference was made to COTS issues by Amy Chalfen of Openreach, and Gabrielle Gauthey’s excellent presentation, which would have been the highlight of the event for many, in part discussed what in essence was France’s approach to COTS. These issues were also discussed throughout the infrastructure-focused breakouts, with presentations from Quintain, Redstone and Rutland Telecom in particular highlighting the challenges facing local networks.
COTS issues are also becoming increasingly apparent in other markets. James Enck over at Eurotelcoblog has highlighted the buyout by Danish incumbent TDC of municipal fibre provider DONG Energy. According to their own press release, DONG have had difficulty engaging with service providers and have consequently struggled to generate a customer base sufficient to ensure a sustainable network. The Swedish approach to COTS issues has been widely discussed and examined here in the UK.
COTS challenges are going to be facing an increasing number of stakeholders as we move forward, and the issues will become more pressing the closer new access networks get to offering services to consumers. While the issues may be technical in nature, at the heart of the challenge are fundamental questions about the nature of the next generation broadband business model, of the relationship between network operators and ISPs, and of the relationship between end users and ISPs.
We are continuing to make progress on the COTS Project through our discussions with stakeholders. As we move forward with our process, we continue to encourage anyone who wishes to be engaged in the work, or who wants to know more about the work, to get in touch.
Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG
Topics: Digital divide, Next generation broadband | No Comments »
Additional COTS kick-off meeting in Hull
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | August 25, 2009
Due to the high levels of interest in the COTS Project, we have decided to run an additional kick-off meeting.
This meeting, in Hull on 03 September, will provide those stakeholders that were unable to participate at the first meeting an opportunity to give their views on COTS. It will also be possible to participate remotely: for more information please contact us.
We have had considerable feedback from stakeholders since the kick-off meeting in July, but remain keen to hear further from anyone with an interest in the work. To give us your thoughts, either drop us an email or comment on this blog.
Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG
Topics: Digital divide, Next generation broadband | No Comments »
The COTS Project launch
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | August 7, 2009
We recently launched the COTS Project, short-hand for Commercial, Operational and Technical Standards for Independent Local Open Access Networks.
The objective of the project is:
“to work with representatives of independent local and community–led broadband projects, national network operators and major ISPs to develop a low cost standardised approach to enable a wide range of service providers to offer retail services over local or community-led open networks to end users.
As a result of this initiative consumers and small businesses should be able to access a wide choice of service providers, regardless of how the underlying infrastructure is either provisioned or owned. It should be in the interests of all local or community-led projects to be compliant with this approach, as more service providers should mean higher take-up and greater revenue.”
Essentially, we have described this as making open access a reality for consumers, who often face a limited choice of service provider on independent networks. For more on the detail of the work, why we are undertaking it, and how we plan to do it, there is a briefing paper on the BSG website.
The project was launched at a kick-off meeting last Wednesday 29 July (getting the work off the ground in part explains our absence on this blog for the last couple of months). The kick-off meeting demonstrated the high degree of interest in this issue: a full house of over 50 industry representatives participated in a lively exchange, with more unfortunately not able to attend owing to the capacity of the venue. The notes from the kick off meeting are also available on our website.
The meeting highlighted three points for us. First, there is a clear agreement across the full scope of industry players that this issue needs to be addressed. No-one present felt that this wasn’t something we should be looking at; feedback before, during and after has re-iterated that this is a challenge affecting all stakeholders in this field, and that an independent body is required to address it.
Second is that, while there is consensus about the problem, there is more uncertainty about what the potential solution could be. Industry consensus will be difficult to achieve: some are already developing solutions; others have yet to consider what type of solution would work for them. There are many potential requirements, so compromise will be essential.
Despite this, however, the meeting also demonstrated a real willingness to engage and participate in the work, again from stakeholders across the industry. Building on this we intend to establish a steering group to drive the project forward that will be drawn from industry volunteers.
Since the meeting we have had a range of feedback, and we’d like to address two particular issues that have been raised. First, a number have asked about the level of engagement from national ISPs. Although they were generally in listening mode on the day, most of the major communications providers were represented at the meeting and have indicated a strong willingness to engage in the process.
The second issue is that of how we communicate and consult with the wider industry. We are keen to ensure that this is an open and transparent process - we hope that the project will achieve an industry consensus, which can’t happen without the whole industry. We are aware that we did not do as well as we could have with the kick-off event: a lack of live streaming and capacity issues meant that many who wished to take part in the meeting were unable to do so.
We will also improve our efforts to make the project more accessible. We are committed to running a second meeting for those who couldn’t participate in the first meeting (details to be announced shortly), and will make all documentation available online. We will also ensure that we build in to the process regular consultations and a feedback loop with the wider industry, to ensure that the process considers the views of all stakeholders.
Additionally, as part of our next steps we are also continuing to meet with companies and organisations, to gather feedback and thoughts on the work and how to take it forward. We are still gathering views, and are keen to hear from those whom we haven’t yet engaged. If any organisation would like the opportunity to discuss the COTS Project with us, we would encourage you to get in touch.
Over the summer we will also be pulling together a steering group, drawn from across the industry, to take this work forward, as well as appointing an independent chair. Membership of the steering group is open to anyone; again, any organisation that wishes to have representation on the group should get in touch with us.
We will continue to provide regular updates on this project as it develops.
Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG
Topics: Digital divide, Next generation broadband | No Comments »
Digital Confusion
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | June 18, 2009
The Digital Britain Report was finally released on Tuesday, and despite the build up, reactions to it have been mixed and, particularly where the broadband measures are concerned, somewhat confused. (Although given that few journalists would have had time to read the 240 page report before filing their copy, this level of confusion is perhaps excusable.)
The national media have been critical of a ‘broadband tax’ and questioned the logic of whether broadband for all is an appropriate policy goal; the public are confused about what exactly the proposals are; and even rural fibre advocates appear displeased.
Here we will attempt to unravel the ideas set out by Lord Carter. The report sets out two strands to government’s approach to broadband infrastructure.
First, the universal service commitment will ensure that every household has access to a 2Mbps service by 2012. This will be paid for using funds left over from the Digital Switchover Help Scheme, a contribution from the government’s Strategic Investment Fund, and contributions from the private sector and other public organisations.
This will be delivered by a range of solutions: in some cases a simple improvement in home wiring will be sufficient; others may require wireless technologies such as satellite; and others may require new fibre infrastructure.
Second, the Final Third Project aims to ensure next generation broadband coverage to at least 90% of households by 2017. It is called the Final Third Project as cost modelling suggests that the market should deliver next generation broadband to two-thirds of UK households, mainly in the most densely populated areas of the UK. The project would support rollout to the final third of homes unserved by the market.
It seeks to do this by providing a subsidy in those areas where the high costs of deployment make commercial investment difficult. The subsidy should bring the cost of deployment down to the cost in urban areas, at which point the investment should be commercially viable. This will be paid for by a 50p a month levy on all fixed lines (including DSL and cable) that will go into a Next Generation Fund, which would raise around £150m per year. The BSG response to the idea of the Fund is available here.
These two policies (the universal service commitment and the Final Third Project) will work together to ensure that the most appropriate solutions are developed in each case. For example, in the report the government sets out that the universal service commitment may have to use a fibre to the cabinet solution as the most cost-effective and efficient solution for around 420,000 homes - delivering on both the universal service and Final Third goals.
The benefits of ensuring everyone has access to superfast broadband will be substantial: supporting rural businesses, particularly SMEs; strengthening communities; and enabling genuine transformation of public services in areas where it could make the most impact. A failure to act risks leaving behind remote, rural and even some suburban communities as the UK moves into a 21st century global digital economy.
It is important to emphasise that this is not simply about providing next generation broadband in deep rural areas, however. As the map below demonstrates, the benefits would be felt across the UK (the areas in green will likely see investment by the market; those areas in yellow and red are likely to require support from the proposed Next Generation Fund).
This is a challenge that governments around the world are attempting to address, and a variety of solutions have been proposed, usually involving large scale government funding. We feel that this approach is a forward-looking solution in that it is targeted, proportionate, and smart.
It is targeted as the subsidies are aimed at those areas that require them because they are currently unattractive to investors. Blanket subsidies end up subsidising deployments that the market would have made anyway, wasting valuable public resource.
At the same time, the subsidy itself is proportionate, in that it is at the right level to be able to tip the balance in favour of investment in many areas, without crowding out private investment.
Finally, payment through a levy is smart in that it places no further burden on the UK’s already-strained public finances, and the level of the levy, at the price of a cinema ticket a year, is comparatively cheap compared to the level of taxpayer funding found in other markets.
As with all of these ideas, however, the devil will be in the detail. There will be a need to ensure that the proposal doesn’t favour any one operator; that it leads to open access networks; that it is technology neutral; that it is properly targeted at areas that genuinely need subsidy; that it has no negative impact on broadband take-up; and that an appropriate role and remit is set out for the design group charged with structuring the and delivering both the Final Third Project and the universal service commitment. Government will consult on these and other issues in the autumn.
It is perhaps worth considering that ultimately consumers will pay for this investment one way or the other, whether through higher prices for current broadband, through general taxation, or through the proposed levy, which is perhaps more transparent than funding from general taxation.
Many governments have committed to expansive public projects, using significant levels of public funding.
- The Australian government is committed to a A$43bn (£21bn) fibre to the home project to 90% of the population, with 12Mbps to the remaining 10%.
- New Zealand are spending NZ$1.5bn (£0.6bn) of public money on fibre to the home to 75% of the population.
- Singapore have committed public funds of $0.75bn (£0.46bn) to their fibre to the home project.
- In the EU, Finland and Greece have both recently proposed spending significant levels of public money on superfast broadband.
On a per home basis, the UK’s commitment is one of the cheapest of those made across the world, demonstrated below.
During the height of the economic stimulus discussions late last year superfast broadband networks were touted by many commentators as one of the best infrastructure investments to make - the Keynesian solution for the 21st century.
Now that government has accepted its importance and made a commitment to ensuring coverage of superfast broadband for at least 90% of households, ire has turned towards how it is to be funded.
However, it is not possible to have our cake and it eat it. Funding and investment will ultimately come from us as consumers in one way or another if we are to deliver this critical enabling infrastructure for the entire UK.
Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG
Topics: Digital divide, Next generation broadband | 3 Comments »
Attitudes divide
By peter.shearman@intellectuk.org | June 12, 2009
Last week the Communications Consumer Panel published research that found that public support for broadband is strong, with over 80% of respondents believing that it should be everyone’s right to have access to broadband, regardless of where they live. 42% of those questioned who do not have broadband believe access is essential.
This would appear to be an impressive level of support, and reflects UK citizens’ position as the most active broadband population in Europe. However, this week Ofcom offered a slightly different version of events.
According to their research, 30% of adults do not have Internet access at home; 43% of those felt they had no need for it, or felt that Internet access held no interest for them.
Of course, these results are not incompatible, and allowing for questioning bias and other factors support what previous studies have found - digital exclusion is found in those without means and those who feel they have no need (the self-excluded).
There was a renewed emphasis in the Digital Britain Interim Report (iDBR) on increasing take-up of broadband, as part of the government’s commitment to a broadband universal service. So, as the publication of Digital Britain draws ever nearer, what do these studies tell us?
The Ofcom study in particular shows the challenge that lies ahead. When given options for policies that would encourage take-up, such as cheap computers and discounted Internet connections, a third of those with no access said none of the ideas appealed. Broadband simply held no interest for them.
Amongst the remainder, no particular idea stood out, reflecting the broad range of reasons why some don’t have broadband (financial concerns, lack of skills, lack of available infrastructure, no need and so on).
Providing the infrastructure through delivering the broadband universal service commitment is only part of the equation for government. They must also, with the help of other stakeholders, drive usage and take-up of the infrastructure. We wait to see what the final Digital Britain Report has to offer to this debate.
Peter Shearman, Policy Manager, BSG
Topics: Digital divide | No Comments »
« Previous Entries