Posted: 03rd Feb, 2010 By: MarkJ

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) has given a tepid welcome to new plans by the Conservative party, which hope to use part of the BBC's TV Licence fee to push 100Mbps superfast broadband connections out to a "
majority" of the UK population by 2017 (
here).
However the CLA's President, William Worsley, warned that it was important to "
get the basics right first". Worsley noted that some 20% of rural areas still have no "
suitable" broadband connection at all and should not be overlooked.
CLA President, William Worsley, said:
"It is fundamental to the economic well-being of rural Britain that adequate and effective broadband is available to every home now – rather than having to wait until 2017. By then, many rural businesses will either have gone to the wall or relocated to areas where fast broadband speeds are available.
Mr Osborne says that in the 19th Century the railways were built, in the 20th Century the motorways were built, and now in the 21st Century a superfast broadband network needs to be built. The CLA agrees with this sentiment while pointing out that before we had motorways we had a basic road network. This is currently not the case for broadband."
Meanwhile the
Communication Workers Union (CWU) has taken an unsurprisingly different stance and claims to be "
appalled" by Tory moves to break-up BT. They also believe that using part of the BBC's TV Licence fee to fund a rollout of next generation broadband services will not be enough and could undermine the BBC's ability to maintain a "
quality service".
Andy Kerr, CWU Deputy General Secretary, said:
"In other countries where ducts have been opened up there has been limited investment in fibre infrastructure by alternative operators due to the high associated costs, and where such investment has taken place it is limited to the profitable urban areas. Singapore and South Korea are not comparable with the UK because of the high level of government investment in broadband in these countries and the fact there is no equivalent access provided to their incumbent's major competitors.
Rather than "breaking up the BT monopoly", the Tories need to consider the significance of the £1.5bn fibre investment planned by BT to reach 10 million homes by 2012, and what this means for companies like Carphone Warehouse and Sky who will rely on this network to deliver their own services.
The Conservatives' proposal to divert 3.5% of the licence fee currently used to pay for digital switchover would raise half a billion pounds less than Labour's plans for a next generation access fund."
By now surely even a blind man could tell that a General Election is coming, with all the usual players apparently falling over themselves to put their support behind one party or another. One thing we do like about all this is that at least both of the largest parties now have an agenda for Next Generation Access (NGA). That is quite a turnaround from 2 or 3 years ago when NGA was still being openly shunned as unnecessary.
So, when politics are removed, who really has the best idea? Conservative or Labour (the Liberal Democrat position is unclear)? Labour has already set aside £200m to make minimum UK broadband speeds of 2Mbps available to everybody by 2012, it also wants to put a 50p +vat per month tax on all fixed phone lines to help fund the rollout of next generation broadband services to 90% of the country by 2017 (focus on rural areas where private investment cannot reach).
By contrast the Conservatives have pledged to make broadband service speeds of 100Mbps available to a “
majority” of the country by 2017, which it will achieve by using 3.5% of the BBC’s TV Licence fee and by a further break-up of BT (focus on rural areas where private investment cannot reach). They have also promised to review the controversial tax on fibre optic broadband, though at this stage they appear to have no specific view as to whether it should be cut, reduced or retained.
Suffice to say that there are merits to both ideas and also pitfalls too. The 2Mbps promise is of little use without an additional focus on upload speed, latency, service flexibility and affordability. Likewise the 50p tax is not terribly popular but would help to get the job done, even if it ends up being retained for other non-telecom things later on.
By contrast the Conservative plan saves another tax but the BBC TV Licence could just as easily rise to accommodate any grander goals, so consumers would probably end up with a similar sized hole in their pockets. The advantages of breaking up BT any further are also debatable. Likewise they have not yet committed to cutting or reducing the fibre tax and have no short/medium-term solutions for reaching rural areas with a suitable broadband connection.
So to answer our own question, the devil is in the detail. Both ideas have merit but also appear equally open to failure unless done properly. On the surface what the Conservatives have proposed sounds better but they have yet to flesh out their plans. For that matter, neither has Labour.