Broadband News

Calls grow for action to be taken on the digital divide

Broadband is considered a utility by so many and for those who stay engaged with the market should only cost around £25 to £35 a month for something marketed as superfast.

Now that lockdown is easing now is the time to look at what can be done to help those who cannot afford the costs of broadband as an additional bill each month. For families and others living on their own prior to the pandemic accessing local authority resources or doing homework online was something done when visiting a friend, or at the local library (if one exists), community centre or another free Wi-Fi service, the lockdown has taken a lot of those options away. Combine this with the rise on online schooling, those children without their own devices and/or a reliable Internet connection will have missed out on lessons and almost more importantly the shared experience of classmates.

The Guardian has a raft of quotes and there is little point in repeating all of those, but we feel there are a few things that we can add.

The infrastructure exists for broadband access to be a lot better in the UK, we say this because it is not unusual for people to be complaining about broadband speeds when faster options are already available. There are numerous problems though; if you are in rental accomodation the only fast service might be a provider not already installed in a property and a landlord is refusing installation of the new cable, length of minimum terms for those who are on short term tennancy agreements, worries over committing to spending month every month on broadband when income is very variable and the list can go on.

Also the issue is not just the Internet connection itself, but equipping children with devices suitable for what they need for schooling.

The idea of using eligibility for free school meals as the targeting mechanism for devices and subsidsied or free broadband at home seems a good one. If this was combined with other changes like the introduction of more widely available social tariffs, increasing other benefits for vulnerable groups to cover the costs of broadband.

Some of the work from Ofcom has attempted to address some of the long term broadband cost problems, but the end of contract notifications are still too relatively young to know what effect they are having and we suspect that stories of people paying £50/m for years on a broadband service when new customers can be paying just £30 will continue for a long time. One developing trend seems to be people being sold add-ons to their service by call centre staff that they do not need, so while one hand the broadband cost is lower once you add the various extras the cost goes back to the old price.

The problem currently is that there is no single body in the UK with the resources or power to address the issues around digital inclusion for childran and adults, charities and community groups do deliver essential support and help but that can only go so far. Just throwing money at the problem is not the solution, it needs the support network in place so that after 12 months devices are not just wedged under a sofa with a cracked screen or lost charging lead and so that when people have support questions they can get trustworthy advice. 

Hanging out after school at the local library was never the cool thing to do and is never going to have the same appeal as going to the local burger/chicken chain store while killing time until a parent gets home from work. Time for some of the empty shops to be re-purposed for digital inclusion, think of a cross between after school club, community centre and tech support centre.

Comments

There have been numerous studies over the years that link child poverty with parental smoking. For the price of three packets of fags the family could have a broadband connection.

  • zhango
  • about 1 month ago

theres always one.nothing to do with unemployment or zero hour contracts blame the smokers.

  • amiable3
  • about 1 month ago

There has been an even longer history in this country of poor people being "stiffed" by the rich, making comments about lifestyle choices, does little to increase the prospects of those children living in deprived households gaining access to an infrastructure that deliberately aims itself at the more affluent. Everything is a "bolt on" and costs more. The pricing and plethora of alternatives can be confusing enough, add poor understanding on top and it can seem like it is only viable to people with enough disposable income to warrant affording.

  • Necroscope445
  • 30 days ago

The problem with the report is that it conflates several different issues:
- the price of broadband
- access to suitable equipment (laptop etc.)
- the availability of superfast broadband (in some council areas 14% of households cannot get superfast fixed line broadband at any price)
Each problem needs a different solution, and all three need to be resolved to solve the problem.

  • sheephouse
  • 29 days ago

Any thoughts on mesh-networking? I was reading about the NYC Mesh project recently which is a community network that provides free Internet access without any intermediary (supernodes provide backhaul graciously donated by Internet Exchanges and every other node connects to eachother). In Spain there's also a mesh network called Guifi that does something similar. Do we have any community networks like this in the UK?

  • shaz1308
  • 29 days ago

Some good points there.

Lengthy contracts should always have a break clause allowing to get rid of them if the customer moves house and the service cannot be moved to the new address. Some contracts have this, some don't.

Landlords should not have the right to block installations. This applies to both private landlords and freeholders holding leaseholders hostage unless they pay a mickey mouse "fee". And yes, I am a landlord, not tenant. I would not contribute to any installation costs but I would not expect to have the right to block my tenant from getting a better service.

  • hvis42
  • 28 days ago

@hvis42
"Lengthy contracts should always have a break clause..."

The problem with this as I see it is:
1) Some contracts give lower monthly fees in return for an extended term, this discount would need to be repaid;
2) Many ISPs calculate the ROI based on the full contract term, should not be expected to make a loss.

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to offer such a break clause as an option in return for a fee, let the market decide if such a thing is valued by customers.

  • New_Londoner
  • 28 days ago

@new_londoner Nevertheless, the number of contracts broken this way can be estimated and budgeted. Non-OR operators (Hyperoptic etc) already have this clause in their contracts and somehow they still survive financially - despite the fact that they lose a lot of customers by existing ones moving outside of their area. OR based operators don't even lose that much.

This is more important to a low income family than the ISP in proportion of their income and taking the ISP side does not serve any particularly important purpose or public interest.

  • hvis42
  • 27 days ago

Post a comment

Login Register