Are ISPs the problem or the solution to getting broader broadband?

We need fast broadband, and we need it everywhere. But is it harder to do with one company controlling a third of the market?

One of the most exciting things about growing a business in the 21st Century is that thanks to the Internet, you have the ability to reach an infinite audience. In the UK we're particularly good at it. We generate 8 per cent of our GDP, £120 billion, through the Internet.

But of course, to start a business on the Internet, you need have to have access to it first. That's why the Lords Communications Committee report into the Government's plans for Superfast Broadband has struck a chord with so many. Current Government plans are to install 25Mbps high speed broadband across 90 per cent of the UK and a minimum of 2Mbps broadband for everyone by 2015. They hope to achieve this through the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) Project. But the Committee's report argues that Government is too focussed on speed, and it needs to change its focus from a 'high-speed' network to a 'high-spec' network. A core part of the concern is the affect the project, and the way it has been run, will have on competition in broadband provision.

According to Ofcom's figures the market is currently split between four key players BT (29.3 per cent), Virgin Media (20.2 per cent), TalkTalk (18.5 per cent), Sky (17.9 per cent) and the rest split up between smaller providers (14.2 per cent). But there are concerns, both at home and from the European Commission, that the BDUK project will serve to exacerbate BT's dominance in the market. Currently only BT is the only provider that has successfully bid for regional funding as part of BDUK, with the nine other interested parties withdrawing due to concerns over costs and the complication involved in providing fibre connections.

The problem of providing ensuring competition in the broadband market is by no means easy, particularly with the historical position of BT. Many other countries across the world are coming face to face with the sheer cost required to invest in this technology, versus the need for competition. As suggested by the Lords report there are a number of changes that could be made to the BDUK project to improve this, including potential open access fibre-optic hubs and public money only being awarded should be dependent on installing fibre to a local level rather than to the cabinet. They also propose "fibre hubs", which would allow neighbourhoods who set up their own networks to retain control rather than being required to hand ownership to BT and could connect the BT exchanges at a set price.

Apart from changes to the BDUK project there are other measures that could be taken to encourage competition that do not involve additional funding to the BDUK project. Ofcom has done good work in getting BT to reduce the cost of wholesale broadband and allow other ISPs access to its local exchanges in areas where BT is the sole provider, and ideally the cost would be reduced further. The Government can also, in light of its goals to deliver a better broadband, reconsider its decision from 2010 to scrap the review into the fibre tax which disadvantages other providers who must pay per metre of "dark fibre" to be lit.

Providing good competition to allow consumer choice is not just important for levels of service, speed and reliability as there are a number of wider issues that mean competition is increasingly important. Running parallel to the discussion over investment in broadband infrastructure we have the net neutrality debate. After many months of discussion ISPs have recently signed up to a voluntary “Open Internet Code of Practice”, which commits to them to providing full and open internet access and not block access to legal services which are bandwidth heavy, such as iPlayer or 4OD in the name of traffic management.

Most of the ISPs operating in the UK have signed up, including the dominant provider BT. Unfortunately Virgin Media, the second largest provider have not, citing issues with the wording of the code. The implementation of a voluntary code of practice relies upon consumers having real choice in their broadband connection, and the option to leave their provider if they do not comply with the code. Were the BDUK project to endanger future prospects for increased competition this would undermine the provision of an open internet.

And increasingly ISPs are being asked to take on more and more issues. While we want them to focus on providing us the best provision ISPs are currently being asked to look into; enforcing the Digital Economy Act and policing Internet users through a system of reports and warning letters; cooperate with the Government consultation looking into implementing 'default on' blocks for adult content; cooperate with the Home Office plans as part of the Communications Data Bill; and all while trying to put into place a better network for their customers who pay them for reliable access and good speeds.

We need to ensure that the UK has good enough Internet infrastructure to support our ambitions and not only compete with Europe, but with the world. The Government needs to decide where ISPs priorities should lie and consider whether it truly wants a broadband network fit for the future.

Sara Kelly is the Policy and Development Manager for the Coalition for a Digital Economy.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.