Inspired by @bryanglick I've given a short amount of thought to how broadband for everyone might work. Over the last decade and more, the pace of investment has suited the industry, not the country - and so a fresh take is extremely welcome...
Thing is, our national ambition for business, for education, health, entertainment, scientific research - it all depends on infrastructure that should be fibre, not copper. Fibre is more reliable and can go between 100,000 and 1,000,000 faster than copper on current technology.
The quality, speed, reliability of this infrastructure is a gating factor on our ambition. Full fibre could be a platform for all kinds of entrepreneurial activity. For telemedicine, it could make video consultations reliable enough to work (for everyone, not just the rich).
Anyone with kids knows that a) Internet access is assumed at home by schools b) school connections are often naff and c) not being on the Internet = social exclusion. You can't work from home, you can't run your own business unless you're connected...
Government itself pays a fortune for connecting schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, Job Centres, with 5M people who work in the public sector. We all benefit enormously. The difficulty is the societal benefit doesn't make more money for the companies, so investment is hard.
So the industry is worried that we pay now maybe £30 a month for a copper connection, and they could spend £16Bn putting in fibre...and we'd end up paying £30 a month for a dramatically faster and better service. That's not good business, but it is in our clear national interest.
The basic infrastructure - exchanges, cables etc. - is already effectively a utility. There are complexities around multiple players, but the largest is Openreach and is a legacy from when the comms network was in public ownership. They sell on connections to a range of providers
Putting Openreach into public ownership is therefore not at all crazy, but perhaps the simplest way to get investment based on what the UK needs, not what the shareholders need.
Enabling the current providers to offer a free basic (but fibre, so potentially very good) service, but charge for more / bundles, is an interesting idea. Who benefits proportionately the most? Those that need it the most.
About 10 years ago I commissioned some research that indicated the most benefit from Internet / comms use accrues to the poorest, those with the least education, and most surprisingly - women. The UN thinks communications infrastructure is vital to development, and so should we.
It is important to note that through our pensions many people are invested in these companies, so it has to be done equitably, but if it is done right then we have a huge amount to gain. Complex issues of planning and way-leaves also need to be addressed.
Done right, we could get a combination of infrastructure and innovation. Reflexively, the industry is setting its hair on fire / feeling threatened. However, if we think creatively how to do the best for the UK with our infrastructure, these are ideas worth considering.
Politically, this is bold and challenging, and while the detail may require a lot of work, I'm excited to see this kind of discussion being taken seriously. For too long a narrow-minded, short-termist and self-interested culture has defined this industry...
