// Home / News / Broadband

Labour dismisses opposition's broadband promise

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 1 Feb 2010 at 08:49

Labour politicians have poured scorn on the Conservative Party's promise to provide 100Mb/sec broadband by 2017, saying the figures don't add up.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne put broadband on the election agenda over the weekend when he promised to spur “nationwide super-fast broadband” by breaking up BT's “local loop monopoly”, a move he said would spark investment from other operators. Any shortfall in investment would be made up by diverting funds from the BBC's licence fee, the Conservatives said.

"In the 19th Century we built the railways. In the 20th Century we built the motorways. In the 21st Century let's build the super-fast broadband network that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Britain," Osborne told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

“How are they going to pay for it? It doesn't add up,” Derek Wyatt, MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, told PC Pro. “I can't see where the money is going to come from – I don't think the market has the money.”

Osborne told the BBC that cabling in rural areas could be paid for by private investors from rival broadband providers, with the licence fee contributing up to £1bn of any shortfalls.

But, according to Wyatt, BT's rivals - such as Sky and Carphone Warehouse - would be unlikely to fund the expansion and the mooted £1bn diverted from the licence fee would be a drop in the ocean.

“It needs £20bn to £30bn and I don't think the market will supply that,” said Wyatt, an outspoken politician on technology-related issues. “They talk about levying money from the BBC, but they keep changing their minds about that and it wouldn't be enough anyway.

“More important is to get the 10 million people that aren't online onto the internet. If everyone was online, the government would have enough money to make those changes to the network.“

Wyatt cited a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the UK “champion for digital inclusion", Martha Lane Fox, that suggests the total potential economic benefit from getting everyone in the UK online could be in excess of £22 billion.

Although the Conservative blueprint is encouraging, industry insiders question whether the announcement is pre-election fluff, saying that both leading parties' broadband policies lack concrete detail.

"Broadband is likely to become an election issue in some constituencies where speed and availability problems prevail," said Sebastian Lahtinen, co-founder of Thinkbroadband.com.

"The Conservatives have said they expect 100Mb/sec services to be available by 2017 for the majority of households, but they haven't yet provided details of what's going to happen to those currently excluded from broadband, or exactly how many of us will receive faster services.

"On the other hand, the current government has not defined what it considers 'next generation' broadband in terms of speed, although it has given a commitment to reach 90% coverage by 2017. Clearly, all parties need to provide more information in the run up to the general election."

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

I'm sure Labour know what they're talking about when it comes to things not adding up.

By phantombudgie on 1 Feb 2010

josephlck

I don't even think it's possible. There are small villages everywhere and there's always going to be isolated farms and what-not.

I also notice the date conveniently spans two election periods. So either they get at least 2 terms or, if they lose the second term, labour mucked it up. Or maybe I'm just far too cynical.

By josephlck on 1 Feb 2010

@ phantombudgie

Osborne's not much (any) better! He flipped his homes to get even more expenses - around £55,000 - and last year it came out that his much-vaunted plans for rescuing the country relied on heavily-skewed figures to the point where the place he got them from tried to distance themselves from him and his plans as much as possible!

And I love the idea of relying on private investment to in-fill the availability of broadband to rural areas, because we all know that they've done *such* a fantastic job at it so far :rollseyes:

If (when) the Conservatives get elected, you watch just how quickly this promise either gets forgotten, or at least modified to 'Rural' equalling 'Population centres over 100,000 people in size' - i.e. what the telcos were going to upgrade anyway.

By bioreit on 1 Feb 2010

Like all parties, Labour sickens me with the latest news that they'll now invest in home care for the elderly. So, they've been in power since 1997 and we're no in a recession and now they say they (tax payers really) want to help the elderly.

How sick is that in order to try and win an election.

I can compare that with someone holding a gun to your head.

I'm not saying Labour is the only party that do this, but am I the only person who feels like this?

By treadmill on 1 Feb 2010

Both the main parties are being unrealistic. The Labour proposal is too low, and even with this low level BT are begging for public money. The Tory proposal is no better. Yes we all want better connections but what is needed is a ban on fair use and caps. This will show up poor ISP's and allow competition to force ISP and telcos to raise standards. Virgin Media now have a cap on all traffic from 9am to 9pm.

By Amnesia10 on 1 Feb 2010

"Virgin Media now have a cap on all traffic from 9am to 9pm."

That's not true, there's no "cap" on their 50Mb service.

By chapelgarth on 1 Feb 2010

Ridiculous - why does everybody resist the obvious?

Labour wants land-line telephone customers to subsidise broadband, the Tories want TV customers to subsidise it.
Here is a radical thought: Broadband customers should subsidise broadband!
The industry as a whole should have a universal service obligation. There would be a new agency which anyone who could not get service at a defined standard would apply. That agency would tender for provision, take the best offer and make up the shortfall in cost. The total cost of running this agency would be divided among all the service providers in proportion to the total number of customers they have.
Simple, direct, effective, fair and guaranteed to raise the required amount of money!

By JohnAHind on 1 Feb 2010

"Yes we all want better connections but what is needed is a ban on fair use and caps. This will show up poor ISP's and allow competition to force ISP and telcos to raise standards"

No it won't - this will just result in the existing system grinding to a halt.

What is needed is enforcement of clear advertising standards to stop ISPs reinventing the English language to suit themselves - ie not using the word "unlimited" when there are limits; not using the words "up to", when that limit is unrealistic for the majority of people.

There's nothing unfair about caps or fair usage, provided they are clearly marketed.

By halsteadk on 1 Feb 2010

What is /needed/ is for everyone to have access to the internet so they can access government services. What is NOT needed is fast broadband - what the country needs is a connection sufficient to access direct.gov & the like. Anything faster is what consumers /want/, and businesses want us to have so they can sell us services. Well, consumers & businesses can pay for that!

By Mark_Thompson on 1 Feb 2010

"What is /needed/ is for everyone to have access to the internet so they can access government services." Is that so you only hear "the truth/facts of the matter"

You've got it totally wrong. What is needed is fast broadband for consumers and business and NOT eye-candy government services.

By chapelgarth on 2 Feb 2010

John Bale

If a 50mg broadband cable was made available to all, then they would be able to get TV,Phone and Internet down it without seperate services for each service which should make life easier for everyone to e-mail, shop vote.pay bills, book holidays etc, so why cannot people who criticise so much try to look on the positive side for a change and encourage modernisation a bit more. People who are housebound would find life a lot easier.

By lafinboy on 7 Feb 2010

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.