Broadband for all: but at what price?
30 April 2009
Following the interim Digital Britain report and now the Budget announcement on universal service in broadband, a consensus appears to be emerging in support of a new universal service ‘commitment' to ensure that all can enjoy basic broadband. Universal service in super-fast broadband is a long way off, but Government is actively considering what it needs to do to ensure that provision reaches those areas and segments of the population that will find it difficult to access faster services. These initiatives, on basic broadband and faster broadband, promise significant benefits for UK consumers.
Part of the challenge for Digital Britain is to achieve a new deal for these network operators to ensure that the business model for this new network adds up and they can generate the revenues necessary to invest. In this context, those concerned with the interests of citizens and consumers should also be interested in what the new regulatory settlement entails for those providers and their relationships with consumers. Three issues loom large:
First, Net Neutrality. One way network operators could benefit from investing in network upgrades is if they are able to ‘manage' traffic on their networks - potentially charging content providers for distribution. This might sound fine in principle, but many argue that this would fundamentally impact competition, the consumer experience and the development of the internet in the long term. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Communications (APComms) has recently announced a wide ranging Inquiry asking: Who should be paying for the transmission of Internet traffic? Would it be appropriate to enshrine any of the various notions of Network Neutrality in statute?
Second: Privacy and security, which recent Consumer Panel research confirmed is a key barrier to taking up broadband services, in relation both to public and private use of personal data. Clearly, again here, and particularly where government is more actively involved in deploying the technology, there are a range of new potential consumer issues. APComms asks: Should the Government be intervening over behavioural advertising services, either to encourage or discourage their deployment; or is this entirely a matter for individual users, ISPs and websites?
Finally copyright, and dealing with illegal downloading. Whilst it is clear that the law is ineffective in this area and reform is necessary, developing a framework for protection that balances the rights holders' interests with those of consumers is tricky. Using technology and private enforcement to protect IP impacts what consumers are able to do with cultural content and leads to new challenges in terms of interoperability and usability. And this is leading to widespread caution about reform in this area. In a move that could block planned French anti-piracy measures, The European Parliament only recently voted through a paragraph in the new Telecoms Directive Package that makes clear that "No restrictions may be imposed on fundamental rights and freedoms of [telecom], users without a prior judicial determination". What this implies is that any decision that may effect the fundamental rights of consumers - such as their speech rights including the right to receive ideas - should be taken by judges, not ISPs, with full legal due process.
The debate on these broader issues appears to be hotting up. I hope long and careful consideration will be given to these broader issues and the correct balance reached.