Fury as Government scraps 2Mbits/sec broadband pledge
By Stewart Mitchell
Posted on 15 Jul 2010 at 15:52
Rural campaigners have reacted angrily to the news that the Government has scrapped plans to deliver a universal broadband service level of 2Mbits/sec by 2012.
Instead, the coalition said it would aim to deliver 2Mbits/sec to the whole of Britain by the end of this parliament, which means rural and urban areas with poor coverage may have to wait until 2015.
“We're extremely disappointed and surprised that the Government has made this decision – they are basically saying it's potentially a further three years to wait and it will just widen the rural-urban digital divide,” said Charles Trotman, head of rural business development at the Country Land and Business Association (CLA).
I have looked at the provision the Government had made to achieve this by 2012. And I’m afraid that I am not convinced that there is sufficient funding in place
“And even then it's only a verbal commitment and not a legal obligation so they could push it back again."
Ironically, the decision was announced at an industry summit designed to work out a path forward for super-fast broadband, but it looks like many areas will have to wait years just to get what the Government accepts is a minimum requirement.
“Last month, I announced that we were supporting a universal service level of 2Mbits/sec as the very minimum that should be available,” said Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport.
"I have looked at the provision the [previous] Government had made to achieve this by 2012. And I’m afraid that I am not convinced that there is sufficient funding in place.
"So, while we will keep working towards that date, we have set ourselves a more realistic target of achieving universal 2Mbits/sec access within the lifetime of this parliament.”
The decision comes just weeks after Hunt boasted that he'd found additional cash to plug Britain's broadband notspots, and will come as a major blow to the one in ten households that last year's Digital Britain report identified as being unable to receive a service of 2Mbits/sec.
With more than 20m homes is the UK, that means more than two million households are unable to perform many basic web activities, such as streaming media at a reasonable quality.
From around the web
The truth will out
2MB was not coming no matter what Labour promised. All thats changed is someone came out and told everyone the truth.
Internet users in the hinterlands need miles of cable to supply a handful of people which isn't economically viable without a subsidy and the rest of us don't want to pay for it. We don't have the money either.
Ask again when we've paid off Gordon's credit card bill.
By cheysuli on 15 Jul 2010 ![]()
Please don't don't have the arrogance to assume that everyone has the same opinion as you. I would quite happily have paid the broadband tax to meet this requirement. These sort of decisions will leave the UK's joke of internet infrastructure as just that.
By Nodule on 15 Jul 2010 ![]()
I'm quite willing to pay for broadband for all (even though I live in the city); it's an important utility which everyone should have access to.
By longn on 16 Jul 2010 ![]()
Fury as Government scraps 2Mbits/sec broadband pledge
What is wrong with the dongle to get broadband offered by mobile phone companies? Surely these backwater hamlets have mobile phones
By invalidscreenname on 16 Jul 2010 ![]()
The broadband tax was unfair
Let's not mix up the two issues. The broadband tax was unfair because it penalised the poor more than large companies (the 20M or so phones sitting on office desks would not have been taxed).
However getting a universal service level to at least 98%-99% of the country is a matter of fairness -in our age the internet is no different to electricity, phone or water.
The problem with alternate technologies is that there is no easy to deploy uniform technology to solve the problem.
Poor Martha Lane Fox, one day she has the full support of the government, the next the ground is cut from under her feet.
By milliganp on 16 Jul 2010 ![]()
Mobile broadband
Agreed with invalidscreenname. To lay miles of cables to connect up every last house is a ridiculous waste of money. Providing better mobile broadband coverage would allow both residents and visitors to rural areas reliable internet access (and phone usability) and so has a wider benefit.
By halsteadk on 16 Jul 2010 ![]()
advertisement
- Chrome's shine getting lost in translation
- BytePac: the cardboard hard disk enclosure
- How tech loosens our grip on reality
- Hokum watch: Safer Internet Day
- Why I'm deleting Adobe from my PC
- Prepare to be patronised: it's Safer Internet Day
- Dear Sony, Samsung and every other tech company in the world: stop trying to be Apple
- Will Apple's Final Cut Pro X update placate the pros?
- Smartr Contacts for iPhone review
- Switching to Office 365's Outlook Web App
- ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite
- Webroot Internet Security Essentials
- Trend Micro Internet Security
- PC Tools Internet Security 2009
- Panda Internet Security 2009
- Norton Internet Security 2009
- Kaspersky Internet Security 2009
- F-Secure Internet Security 2009
- AVG Internet Security 8
- BullGuard Internet Security 8.5
advertisement
