Guaranteed broadband speeds could become mandatory by the end of this year, depending on the results of a consultation launched by European regulators.
The European Commission said on Tuesday that it is considering whether to update the laws on the universal service obligation, which compels incumbent telecoms operators such as BT to provide specific services to everyone, no matter where they live. At present, laws require only the provision of a voice line and dial-up internet speeds.
While BT has rolled out up-to-24Mbps broadband to half of the British population, around 11 percent of households face broadband speeds slower than 2Mbps. Some households cannot receive a broadband service at all.
The Commission is keen to address that kind of situation across Europe and is seeking opinions from the industry on how such a change should be implemented. Any changes will be proposed for legislation by the end of the year, the Commission said.
"This consultation will help us to check if we need to update the rules to ensure that all EU citizens have access to essential communications services, including fast internet," said Neelie Kroes, digital agenda commissioner, in a statement.
"As markets and technology are changing fast, we have to make sure that nobody is excluded from the digital society."
The Commission wants to decide if broadband should be included in the obligation, and if so, at what speed. It is also evaluating whether the cost of providing universal service should continue to fall on telecoms operators, or whether it should be supported by public funds. It expects to conclude its consultation on 7 May and make concrete proposals later in the year.
The Commission's work follows the proposal in the June 2009 Digital Britain report by Lord Carter for a broadband universal service commitment of 2Mbps. This proposal differs from a universal service obligation because no operator is obliged to deliver 100 percent coverage, and blackspots could remain.
Rural households are a particular concern, as they often struggle with slow or non-existent broadband connections, and the potential revenues there are not seen as high enough to attract commercial investment.
The Commission declined to comment on how its consultation might affect Lord Carter's universal service commitment, and would not say whether 2Mbps would become the preferred minimum speed. "The Commission is in listening mode," a spokesperson said on Wednesday.
BT had no comment on the European consultation, but said it was supportive of Lord Carter's proposal. "We are very happy to work with the government with regards to the universal service commitment for 2Mbps broadband," a spokeswoman for the company said.
However, funding for faster broadband remains a big issue for BT.
"We are waiting for the network design and procurement body that will set out how it's funded. We are interested in bidding," the BT spokeswoman said. "Commercial solutions can only go so far. The economics of fibre just don't stack up for rural areas."
One of the key technologies BT has proposed for rural areas is called Broadband Enabling Technology. BET will offer symmetric speeds of 1Mbps over distances of up to 12km from the exchange. Two lines will be required for each household in order to provide the 2Mbps required under the universal service commitment.
The government endorsed the universal service commitment in a report released on Tuesday. The report — the National Plan for Digital Participation — was published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and outlines how the Government intends to ensure that citizens gain the most of the opportunities afforded by the internet.
Talkback
If BT are allowed to use public money to implement their scam BEt solution to fulfill the USC in the digital britain report then the UK really has hit rock bottom.
There is a profit to be made from rural fibre if the VOA fibre tax is removed. The tax means that it costs too much to run fibre out to the rurals, but what isn't realised is that the BT fibre already runs through these areas, all it needs are break out points and that solution is very cost effective means of delivering NGA to all the country.
Copper means the digital slowlane and the UK becoming third world country. Break up this awful copper cabal and lets get the light shining.
Thanks for your comments, cyberdoyle. However, I do feel inclined to disagree. There is a real problem with getting fibre out to rural areas. While BT does have considerable backbone, connection costs in rural areas will largely be over £1000 per home - well over £1000 in many cases. The economics just don't stack up for a purely commercial roll-out in these areas.
BET has a lot of question marks hanging over it. The technology is new and largely unproven for starters. It also has distance v speed limitations.
It may not be the answer for rural areas. FTTC could be. Cellular could be. But BET could also be, in my opinion, because it is relatively cheap and with relatively long reach. What is likely is that the USC (or USO) will be met using a number of technologies. That is likely to be the most economically efficient, while still providing a reasonable minimum bit rate across the country.
I have laid fibre myself, from my farm to a neighbour. 1.2 km.
It isn't rocket science. It is cheaper and easier than copper. BT want us to stick to the copper, and stay in the slow lane. We want fibre, so that everyone can have the connection they want, need and are prepared to pay for. Cellular is no good in rural areas either. BET is a disgrace and a sin and a shame if anyone falls for it. What use in this day and age when the koreans have a gig is an expensive 2meg solution? Who in their right mind will pay for two telephone lines to get a barely usable connection contended in the exchange? How many new copper lines will openretch seek funding for because the existing lines are all using DACS? That funding should be used to run fibre and do the job properly.
chris
Aha, therein lies the rub. Other nations have proceeded to lay fibre into rural areas (and I would strongly dispute your figures of £1k per home based on evidence from elsewhere - half that in rural areas, and less if a DIY element is added) by not going down the purely telco route.
The point is that whilst commercial concerns continue to demand such high profits from all that they do, it is always going to be difficult to make the case to suit their profit demands. However, this does not mean in any way that rural FTTH is not a) sustainable and b) profitable. Other countries have done far more sophisticated calculations about rural FTTH cost-benefits and have come up with indisputable evidence about the payback.
Just the value it adds to your home has meant that in many areas of the USA and Scandinavia, homeowners have stumped up the necessary cash to build their own networks; the savings that can be made in fuel and transport come back from that initial investment time and time again. As a small business owner with kids living in a rural area, I would happily stump up £1000 today if it meant we could finally alleviate the burden of non-broadband and all that means. My £1000 would connect my neighbour who is skint and has no comprehension of what t'interweb might do for him as he's never tried it.
For councils and local government, NHS, LEAs, RDAs, blue lights, media companies, you name it, there are huge savings to be made by having a future-proofed working infrastructure. Preferably one where the entire population is not held hostage to shareholder interest. That money either stays in Treasury coffers, to reduce taxes and budgetary constraints, or it is invested in innovative solutions, now possible over the infrastructure.
We keep looking at all this from the telcos' point of view. Why? We are allowing them to set a glass ceiling on our nation's innovation, productivity, leisure activities', education, health provision, and much, much more. Why?
If BT were running the roads and told you that they were going to keep motorways purely for large corporates, government orgs and their engineers (i.e paying tenants or for their own interest), and told everyone else they had to use the B roads, would you believe them? That is what they are saying.
Fibre is affordable for rurals and the ROI is immeasurable, its just a bit slower than the profit margins in the cities...
I can't fault the enthusiasm of community broadband builders. It's fantastic to see the entrepreneurial spirit in areas like Alston, which have achieved so much in the face of so many difficulties.
However, I can't help feeling that some people are ignoring commercial realities. Whether people like it or not, we do live in a capitalist society where decisions are made in the interests of shareholders for commercial gains. Our economic system is such that broadband networks are a natural monopoly and will continue to be provided almost entirely by telcos and cablecos.
It's clear from both BT and Virgin that the economics don't stack up for fibre in rural areas. Independent (and very detailed) research that has been published by the Government has verified this fact (see the BSG report).
For the costs of fibre deployment in rural areas, look at Switzerland, Norway and Australia, for example. It is horrendous. The Australian Government as a result has a massive bill on its hands which it will likely fail to majority shift into the hands of the private sector. Most individuals will not want to share the burden of these costs. In Norway, citizens haven't actually chosen to build the network at their own expense: what has happened is that individuals have been given discounts on installation to lay the tail themselves. The costs in Norway remain very high indeed.
DIY fibre is indeed far cheaper, and savings can be made if aerial fibre is permitted. Partnerships, like you mention, access2broadband4all, are generally constructive, and help to shoulder costs. Entrepreneurism is a great asset, and the time spent by community-led individuals is a huge bonus to these projects. This will help connect some communities. But for the bulk of rural areas, fibre is not a commercial reality and is a long, long way away.
Independent research? Conducted by the trade body?! Hmm.
We are not arguing that rural fibre is not expensive. What we are saying is that it is viable for a community to do ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS. Other countries have proven it to be so. And the suggestion that those behind community projects don't have a business bone in their body is offensive, TBH. All of those involved in such projects are far more aware of the vital importance of ROI than, say, an RDA ever will be with public money.
We also understand more clearly the impact of the social capital and returns than can ever be shown on any spreadsheet or business model. FTTH is not just a business proposition, it is a social one. Other countries have discovered this, and it is high time someone produced a UK report on the impact of FTTH on 'well being' - a factor which no telco needs to consider, but the Government must.
Sweden has untold examples of community (and utility provisioned) fibre which make money. They may not make the level of profit that a telco wishes to aspire to, but they make a profit which will sustain them far into the future. Ditto USA and other countries. There are far too many case studies now to sweep them under the carpet so glibly.
If a small business is set up to provide a service but makes less profit than a larger more cumbersome one, are you saying we should just ignore the small company? Actively discourage it? Because it makes a smaller profit???
We need to step away from the artifical telco glass ceiling which blinds our vision for the future of this country. Recycling old, tired, hypothetical figures provided by the industry such activity will threaten is pointless and destructive. The figures in the BSG report have been challenged on numerous occasions, even by industry; yet, the real proof will come when networks are finally put in place that SHOW just how wrong the figures are.
bit more info on this post http://media140.org/?p=252 which exposes the awful truth about Broadband 'enabling' Technology. You pay for two phone lines bonded with government funding to deliver a meg. Scandalous. Read the comments!
I feel for rural folks. However the idea of aerial fibre sounds the most promising here. Why not just pair the fibre delivery with electricity (i.e. overhead grid network).
In London and other cities they are using the sewer networks to deliver fibre. If they work together they have a delivery channel just sitting there no costly dig-ups etc. I would like to mention I don’t know from an engineering stand point if this is feasible but in theory can’t see why not.