The results from 872 respondents to our latest monthly reader survey has revealed how more than half (51.7%) support the government’s plan to spend £100 Million (Urban Broadband Fund) on improving superfast broadband services in some of the country’s largest cities, yet only 10% felt that £100m would be enough to do the job properly. A further £50m has since been added, but this will only help “smaller cities“.
The UBF ultimately aims to support the delivery of “ultrafast” fibre optic based 80-100Mbps+ (Megabits per second) broadband services to ten large UK “super-connected cities“, and a further batch of “smaller cities“, over the next three years (full details). This will start with the main capital cities of Edinburgh (Scotland), Belfast (N.Ireland), Cardiff (Wales) and London (England). But our readers are split over how the money should be used.
Is the government right to boost superfast broadband in cities with £100m?
No – 48.1%
Yes (but £100m isn’t enough) – 41.7%
Yes (£100m is enough) – 10%Given the choice, how would you spend that £100m?
Boosting rural broadband – 62.2%
In cities as intended – 18.9%
Cut the country’s deficit – 11.1%
Spend it elsewhere (not broadband) – 7.6%
On this issue our readers initially appear to be split right down the middle. But, when given a choice, most people still think that the new funding would be better spent upon improving internet access in poorly served rural areas, as befits the government’s original focus.
At the same time we shouldn’t forget that poor broadband connectivity is by no means isolated to rural areas and many urban locations also suffer from similar problems, which is something that we covered last week as part of a special editorial. Never the less it’s still difficult to understand the government’s decision to intervene in places that the private sector could arguably resolve by itself.
This month’s new survey asks whether or not broadband ISPs done enough to protect children online? Vote Here.
Comments are closed