British government wants Broadband for all by 2012
By Dave Parrack
Having used Broadband for several years, I can’t imagine having to go back to narrow band using a 56k modem. But I can well remember the days of waiting minutes for a picture to load, and not fondly either. Which makes the idea of Broadband for all very appealing to me. Could it be that the British government is actually about to do some good?
I often forget how easy I have it when it comes to technology. Having always lived in built-up areas, I’ve never had to suffer the ignominy of going without basics such as electricity, a running water supply, a telephone line and the like. But there are some people in rural areas that still don’t have such essentials.
It could be argued that access to the Internet has now joined those services as being an essential of life. Not everyone is online of course but those who are would be quick to inform you that they couldn’t live without the Web.
BT (British Telecom) has for some time been obliged to provide everyone in the UK with the capacity to obtain a fixed-line phone service and basic Internet services. Doing this is reported to cost the private firm up to £75 million ($115 million) a year. And now it looks like Broadband is going to be added to the company’s universal service obligation.
According to The Guardian newspaper, Lord Carter, the new communications minister, is expected to outline the plan in his inaugural report into the state of ‘Digital Britain’ later this month. If true, a 2Mb Broadband service would become a legal obligation for every British resident along with phone lines and a guaranteed postal service.
Currently, a third of UK households do not have Broadband. Carter, and the government in general, see getting everybody connected as an essential move to improve digital communications, and provide greater scope for developing a digital economy. With the government already trying to move people on to the Internet for filing tax returns and the like, having 100 percent Broadband coverage would inevitably help in this area as well.
BT obviously don’t want to have to foot the bill for this move on its own, and are already stating that mobile operators, and content providers on the Web should help cover the costs. The original universal service obligation was introduced when BT was privatized, so it does seem a little unfair to foist new costs on the company due to shifting technology.
All in all though, this is a good plan, and one which is necessary if the UK wants to stay at the forefront of technology and online services. Broadband for all is undoubtedly a noble cause, although 2Mb is likely to be extremely slow come 2012.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, January 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
under
Read more entries by Dave Parrack.
Stumble It!
January 16th, 2009
But Dave, remember you are all for freedom and stuff , by rights you should be fighting this, Not a free world if the government makes a private telecom company have a minimum service to everyone is it. Yet you seem to be for it,
Again your an idiot !
Your are contradicting all your past blogs,
You should just move to america and be done with it.
F****n idiot,
January 17th, 2009
Darian, you don’t need to be rude, but you do have a point. If you want fast Internet, move to the city where you can get fast Internet connection. Why should companies and their shareholders subsidize commercially unviable networks just so some socialist government somewhere can get more votes? If it’s so important for everyone to have fast Internet service, the Government can build it’s own network.
January 17th, 2009
Can you post about practically anything without contradicting yourself any more? You were supposedly in favor of got leaving us alone but I guess not so much any more.
January 17th, 2009
It’s a fine policy.
This is simply a matter of the minimum standard being set.
No-one will be a on less than 2mb connection no matter wherever you are in the UK, even on the very fringes.
Meanwhile the majority in the UK (by the end of 2010) will be on C21N tech ensuring that the current ‘up to 8mb’ connection most can have rises to an ‘up to 24mb’ connection.
(and this is under plans that were in place before the coming recession, the major capital public spending programs the UK Gov – like Govs all around the world – is instituting will undoubtedly go further in improving the UK’s internet infrastructure)
Excellent.
Even right-wing Rep Bush had a similar theme with one or two of his ideas (or at least in his PR) ‘no-one left behind’ wasn’t it?
Commercial freedom is one thing but there is also an element of social responsibility which wider society demands too.
It could be you, your parents or your kids that end up on the fringes.
(btw Roger Wilcocks, the UK Gov once did build and pay for the networks, then the Thatcher Gov sold what ‘we’ the people used to own back to us in a privatisation that let the financial institutions get hold of what was once ours at a knock-down price.
The least they can do is maintain a degree of responsibility towards the people from whom they now profit so handsomely.
…..and if you seriously imagine the present Labour Gov in the UK is remotely close to being ’socialist’ I suggest you go and find out what the word really means instead of casually throwing about laughably inappropriate terms.).
January 17th, 2009
here in canada my parents live 3 km from the citie yet they arnt allowed highspeed. you are saying move to the citie but what about the people who are just about the citie limits who arnt allowed high speed yet some places in the country side have high speed because there was a demand from younger folks who requested it. yet my parents are old and they dont know what to do with a computer and they live around old people also that doesnt know what broadband means. if this passes and works then more countrys will follow meaning someday my parents will finaly get some sort of high speed. i will be able to see my parents everyday via video chat or even with skype. so dont you think this is a good thing and eventualy replace the phone?
January 17th, 2009
“Even right-wing Rep Bush had a similar theme with one or two of his ideas (or at least in his PR) ‘no-one left behind’ wasn’t it?”
Will your need to constantly show your I-hate-Bush-but-Obama-is-God fixation for a country you don’t live in or know much about, being a police state and all, after next week?
January 17th, 2009
“your need to constantly show your I-hate-Bush-but-Obama-is-God fixation”
Jebus H Ken, what the f**k are you on about?
You quoted me so I gues you’re referring to me but if you actually looked you’d see I did not once mention “Police state”.
Neither did I express hatred for Bush.
I made a comment about “right-wing Bush” (which he is) and his beginnings as a supposed ‘compassionate conservative’ where not everything came down to a narrow economic perspective and a broader social awareness was supposedly going to be genuinely considered.
I certainly do not consider Obama “God”, even if I do expect him to be a better US President (why are people on the right-wing making that sort of ludicrous comment?
I’ve noticed it appearing pretty frequently.)
Defensive, much?!
LOL