Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. We have been keen
throughout this inquiry to make sure that enough focus is placed
on those who have no access to superfast broadband. There is a
risk in the current approach that improving service for those
who already have it will leave even further behind the 5% of premises
who have none. There is a risk of poor rural broadband availability
causing harm to farm businesses and the rural economy. It is essential
that those who are 'hardest-to-reach' are given priority. (Paragraph
7)
Broadband availability
2. Repeated changes
in target dates for rollout of superfast broadband inevitably
reduce confidence that coverage will be achieved on time. They
also leave those in the hardest-to-reach areas uncertain as to
when their businesses will be able fully to engage with digital
practices. Beyond business purposes, householders, particularly
in rural communities, are being left behind in accessing online
services that most of the country can take for granted. Activities
as diverse as children's homework, online tax returns, and simply
watching television now depend significantly on good online access.
(Paragraph 13)
3. We were concerned
to hear BT tell us that the present target of 95% of premises
receiving superfast broadband by 2017 may slip. Broadband Delivery
UK (BDUK) must make it clear that the target date must be met.
A target date for when the last 5% of premises will obtain access
to superfast broadband coverage must be published.
(Paragraph 14)
4. For many services,
2 Megabits per second (Mbps) is already an outdated figure, and
10 Mbps is increasingly recommended as a suitable USC for standard
provision. The Government must reassess whether the 2 Mbps Universal
Service Commitment remains a valid one.
(Paragraph 20)
5. Millions of pounds
are being invested in the rollout of superfast broadband at 24
Megabits per second. Within three years of the expected delivery
date, however, that speed will no longer be considered 'superfast'
by European standards. (Paragraph 22)
6. Councils need access
to timely data from BT that allows them accurately to monitor
take-up of broadband. Equally, they need access to timely data
from BT about planned broadband coverage and speed. It has been
argued that distributing information about broadband coverage
on a postcode by postcode basis can be misleading. An 'enabled'
postcode does not necessarily mean that each premise within the
postcode is enabled. (Paragraph 25)
7. We are surprised
that no assessment of the first phase of contracts with BT has
been published before the phase two and three contracts are signed.
Phase two contracts being signed must include provisions to ensure
that local councils and BT keep local communities up-to-date with
planned broadband coverage and speed. Information about rollout
should be delivered on a premise-by-premise basis as opposed to
by postcode. (Paragraph 26)
Broadband delivery
8. Fibre to the Cabinet
(FTTC) is an efficient, cost-effective method of improving broadband
in areas where premises are located close to their local street
cabinet. However, this 'one-size-fits-all' approach to broadband
delivery does not take into account the varied topography across
the 44 local areas receiving broadband upgrade. FTTC allows those
within a short distance of a local cabinet to experience the benefit
of an upgrade to superfast broadband but can leave those already
a long distance from the cabinet, and therefore experiencing slower
broadband, with limited or no material change in service. (Paragraph
31)
9. Satellite technology
provides a potential alternative to those in remote areas where
fixed-line delivery of broadband is impracticable or can achieve
only very low speeds. However, it will not fill all the gaps.
Satellite technology is not widely developed on a commercial scale
in the UK and the technology itself can suffer from delay and
reliability issues. (Paragraph 35)
10. The fact that
Fibre to the Cabinet is not a suitable solution in every circumstance
or every community means that alternative solutions, such as wider
satellite coverage or Fibre to the Remote Node, are necessary.
Alternative solutions are required not only to ensure that the
current commitments of basic and superfast broadband are met but
also to ensure that the infrastructure being deployed is future
proof and able to meet demands for increasing broadband speeds.
(Paragraph 38)
Digital-only services
11. The Rural Payments
Agency have taken a number of important steps to ensure that those
with poor broadband speeds can access its new Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) application software. It deserves credit for seeking
to ensure a 'soft landing' for the new system, but, given the
difficulties experience last time round, and in particular given
the variable state of broadband access in rural areas, judgment
must be reserved on the effectiveness of its preparations until
they have been tested in action. (Paragraph 44)
12. The RPA must
have a contingency plan in case the new online-only CAP application
system proves difficult to use for farmers with limited broadband
capability. The new software has not yet been tested by the number
of users who will access the site in May, and some of those doing
so will be using online services for the first time. The contingency
plan should be able to respond to the software not functioning
at the level required or with users not being able effectively
to access the software. (Paragraph 45)
13. We recommend
that the level of privacy in Digital Support Centres for those
making CAP applications should be comparable to that in a bank.
(Paragraph 49)
14. Support to
access online-only systems must be available not only in the first
few months of the CAP application, but also in subsequent months
and years, allowing sufficient time for planning training needs
and bearing in mind the farming calendar.
(Paragraph 52)
Rural broadband policy
15. The allocation
of funding between urban and rural areas is greatly unbalanced.
Those who live in urban areas have on average higher percentage
coverage of superfast broadband, coupled with access to voucher
schemes which can subsidise access. Rural areas are lagging behind.
Those in poorly connected areas are sometimes asked to pay twice:
once through their taxes for the Government-funded Broadband Delivery
UK (BDUK) programme and potentially again from their own pockets
if the BDUK programme does not reach them. (Paragraph 58)
16. We recommend the
introduction of a voucher scheme, similar to that available in
cities, for those who live in areas with no access to fixed-line
broadband or where they are unable to access a minimum of 2 Mbps
broadband. The vouchers should subsidise the cost of satellite
broadband access for those eligible. (Paragraph 59)
17. Fibre to the Cabinet
does not offer a solution to all premises. Alternative technologies
must be investigated and it is encouraging that the Government
is now investing in this research. It is disappointing that research
into solutions for hardest-to-reach areas has taken so long. (Paragraph
63)
18. The Innovation
Fund is the first step to providing superfast coverage to the
last 5%. The results of the pilot test must be published and the
most suitable schemes rolled out nationally.
(Paragraph 64)
| 
