{"id":35859,"date":"2023-09-28T22:00:34","date_gmt":"2023-09-28T21:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/?p=35859"},"modified":"2023-09-28T13:51:35","modified_gmt":"2023-09-28T12:51:35","slug":"smf-proposes-new-approach-to-uk-broadband-social-tariffs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2023\/09\/smf-proposes-new-approach-to-uk-broadband-social-tariffs.html","title":{"rendered":"SMF Proposes New Approach to UK Broadband Social Tariffs"},"content":{"rendered":"

A new report from the Social Market Foundation<\/a> (SMF), which is a British cross-party think-tank, has recommended that companies providing essentials (broadband, energy, water and transport) are made to offer Social Tariffs to vulnerable customers “in a consistent manner<\/em>” in order to ensure all eligible users can benefit.<\/p>\n

At the time of writing, the report \u2013 ‘Bare necessities<\/strong><\/a>‘ (due out tomorrow), commissioned by Citizens Advice \u2013 hadn’t yet been published, and so we do not yet have enough detail to properly judge it. But the SMF is seeking to help “eliminate [the] postcode lottery in social tariffs<\/em>” and are thus presenting a new roadmap that also addresses other major issues, such as low take-up and poor targeting.<\/p>\n

NOTE:<\/strong> Social Tariffs are cheaper basic plans that are only offered to those on state benefits. See our \u2013 Guide to UK Social Tariffs \u2013 Getting Broadband for \u00a315<\/strong><\/a>.<\/div>\n

The report calls for support to be extended across the following essentials markets: household utilities (water and sewerage, gas and electricity), broadband, public transport (i.e. bus and rail travel), and car insurance (note: there’s no mention of mobile operators). At present, responsibility for the design and implementation of social tariffs is largely left to companies, which the SMF says produces “wide variations in eligibility criteria and discounts<\/em>“.<\/p>\n

In fairness, we see this on related broadband and mobile packages too, but that’s largely reflective of the fact that there are often different underlying networks, capabilities, coverage and delivery costs involved. As such, what one broadband ISP can offer may not be possible on another, but most packages do still sit in the same \u00a315-\u00a320 per month range.<\/p>\n

To eliminate the postcode lottery, the SMF has called for the Government to set out mandatory, enforceable requirements that specify minimum standards for social tariff provision as part of a “series of short-term measures that begin to make social tariffs fairer for all<\/em>“. For example, it states that companies should be encouraged to better promote existing social tariff schemes and to eliminate exit fees for switching to a social tariff scheme, which seems fair enough (Ofcom<\/a> are already pushing for that).<\/p>\n

However, in the long-term, the report suggests that the “ideal design of social tariffs would cap bills as a proportion of income<\/em>“. As we haven’t seen the final report, then we’re not quite sure how that would work for broadband providers. But this seems to suggest divorcing the product from its delivery costs (who pays for that?) and operators might need to understand individual incomes, which is going to be a logistical and billing nightmare (new data sharing systems will be required).<\/p>\n

Beyond addressing postcode lotteries in social tariffs, the SMF has outlined what it sees as the “gold standard<\/em>” for social tariffs’ infrastructure, which they say should be the long-term ambition for policymakers:<\/p>\n

Gold Standard for Social Tariffs<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n