APPENDIX 26
Memorandum submitted by Mr C Dibben, 2nd
Pillar Projects (S43)
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is submitted in response to
the Committee's request for information concerning the provision
of Broadband in rural areas. The author is an independent consultant
in the agri-food sector and a onetime committee specialist with
the former House of Commons Agriculture Committee. The memorandum
explores briefly the potential benefits that modern information
and communication technology (ICT) presents for rural people,
but its main purpose is to provide an example of the difficulties
we face in obtaining access to it, even when connected to an exchange
that is Broadband-enabled.
DEMAND FOR
BROADBAND
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the demand
for Broadband in rural areas is significant. As the number of
businesses and homes making use of the internet increases for
business, leisure and everyday tasks (such as on-line banking
and shopping) the expectations of users are also increasing. We
have a desire to enjoy the same speed and reliability of data
transfer as other ICT users and to benefit from the additional
functionality that they bring (eg live web casts of Select Committee
hearings).
Arguably the benefits that ICT and Broadband
offer are potentially greater in rural areas because of the impacts
that the systems have in reducing the need for travel and easing
isolation. Fast and reliable communications technologies present
numerous opportunities, including, the potential to:
— Reduce vehicle journeys;
— Create new employment and business
opportunities within rural communities at a time when traditional
roles are in decline;
— Reduce the isolation of rural people
both from each other and the urban majority (which may be an important
factor in "reconnecting" town and country);
— Provide new opportunities for rural
businesses and rural areas to promote themselves and their services
to the wider world;
— Allow existing rural businesses to
operate more effectively and efficiently;
— Become an important tool in the development
of an economically sustainable rural economy and community;
— Improve service provision to rural
areas (eg health, education etc.)
Despite these potential benefits, there is a
danger that Broadband could become another modern communications
tool which by-passes large chunks of rural Britain[14],
which would reinforce existing divisions rather than facilitating
greater mutual understanding. At best, if rural people are to
benefit at all, they will be required to pay up front for the
infrastructure to provide it (eg by satellite) whilst others have
that infrastructure delivered to their door and are then enticed
to join by discounted subscription charges.
CASE STUDY
Despite being connected to a Broadband-enabled
telephone exchange, my property cannot be provided with Broadband
because the exchange is too far away. BT has informed me that
Broadband is a distance-dependent technology with a maximum range
of about five km of cable.
Although situated in a rural location, the property
is in no way remote, being less than two miles from a small but
growing town, about three miles from a major industrial estate,
five miles from Weymouth and a few hundred yards from a large,
luxury hotel.
As a regular internet-user, I would, ideally,
like the greater speed of connection and functionality that Broadband
would provide. Like many rural properties I have two telephone
lines, but only by virtue of one line being split into two via
a Digital Access Carrier System (DACS). Through this mechanism
I am able to get access at between 26.4 to 28.8 kbps and occasionally
33.3 kbps. Although this speed of access is faster than the 9.6
kbps that BT is required to provide and better than many other
rural customers enjoy, this is slow compared to other "ordinary"
telephone lines (where speeds can be almost twice as fast) or
services such as Broadband and ISDN. In any case, as I have been
reminded on several occasions of late, BT only guarantees its
lines for voice communication.
Whilst I accept that the laws of physics cannot
be ignored it is extremely frustrating that other BT customers
connected to the same exchange are being invited to sign up for
Broadband through discounted subscription offers. I presume that
Broadband development is being funded out of general BT revenue.
The rent I pay for a line via DACS is the same as someone who
has a single dedicated line. I have asked whether I could have
the DACS removed or a third line installed, but have been told
that the first is not BT policy and the second might not be beneficial
as the new line might itself be via DACS.
With regard to cost, I imagine that BT would
argue that the cost of maintaining rural lines is greater. However,
at about the same time that BT was rolling out Broadband I, and
other customers in my immediate area, were left without a properly
functioning telephone service (voice or data) for several weeks
because overhead cabling had worn out causing disruption to service
and difficulties in diagnosing faults.
I could be provided with Broadband via satellite
or possibly via radio link, however, these are expensive relative
to Broadband by line and would require me to pay the up front
costs of equipment and installation (over £800 for a "BT
system" albeit via a separate company owned by BT). In other
words, whilst other BT customers receive Broadband infrastructure
for free (or at worst at a heavily discounted price factored into
their subscriptions) those connected to non-Broadband exchanges
or those outside the five km halo of enabled exchanges would have
to pay for it themselves.
In this context, you will appreciate that it
is not simply poor access to Broadband that is a problem for rural
users, but access to faster internet services per se.
I feel, in many respects, that rural users are
regarded as second class citizens. We pay the same phone charges
for (where data is concerned) a lesser service. Should we wish
to enhance that service specifically for data use we are faced
with a much higher cost.
To paraphrase the rather unhelpful advice of
one BT customer services adviser, "the best thing would probably
be to move house". But if modern communications technology
is to revitalise rural areas in the way that it could, it cannot
be confined to urban and metropolitan users and the Broadband
haloes around enabled exchanges.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There are clear technical limitations
to Broadband technology via landlines.
2. The alternatives such as satellite or
radio are comparatively costly.
3. Even where Broadband is not available
rural users would benefit from increased effort to speed internet
access perhaps by the provision of more exchanges or through increasing
numbers of lines.
4. Where services are not equivalent in
terms of data transfer, charges should reflect reduced performance
(customers are expected to pay more for enhanced services such
as Highway and Broadband the reverse should be true for users
whose telephone lines do not perform well with data or for whom
additional lines are provided via DACS)
5. BT's insistence that lines are only guaranteed
for voice telephony is not consistent with modern patterns of
use and, perhaps, acts as a brake on upgrading facilities.
6. Greater effort should be concentrated
on establishing workable and affordable solutions to the Broadband
problem in rural areas and even the urban fringe. Failure to do
so risks concentrating the benefits on those areas least in need
of it, namely those that are already close to exchanges and thus
able to access the internet at faster rates over normal lines.
Clive Dibben
Second Pillar Projects
3 March 2003
14 There are parallels with digital terrestial TV;
cable services; mobile telecommunications; and other forms of
fast data-transfer eg ISDN. Back
| 
