|
Clause 54
Conditions about allocation and adoption of numbers
Mr. Lansley: Clause 54(1)(e) and (h) refer to number portability, which is covered by article 30 of the universal service directive. I wish to establish the Minister's intention about the extent to which number portability for geographic numbers may be required.
If one has a geographic number at a specific location, one can transfer it from one communications provider to another—the directive requires that. Does it require the ability to transfer a geographic number attached to a given exchange between one person and another when they are not necessarily at the specific location? To give a practical example, many businesses in the City of London fall under a given exchange and use a number that is consistent with that exchange and therefore capable of routing via that exchange. I believe that, at the moment, although it is technically possible, if such businesses change offices and location, they cannot seek number portability because a number is specific to a location. As I understand it, the directive does not require such portability, but it does not prohibit it. Will it be allowed?
In addition, article 30(2) says that regulators must ensure that
Column Number: 206
''pricing for interconnection related to the provision of number portability is cost oriented and that''—
this is the key point—
''direct charges to subscribers, if any, do not act as a disincentive of the use of these facilities.''
I think that that provision is translated into subsection (1)(h) as:
''payments of such amounts as may be determined by OFCOM to be made to them by a person in respect of transfers of allocations from one person to another''.
Maybe I have not been diligent enough, but I have not found the obligation on Ofcom to ensure that the charges, if any, do not act as a disincentive for the use of those facilities, as set out in the directive. As the preamble to the directive makes clear, number portability is important to the creation of a competitive market. The point about there being no disincentive to using number portability is important too, yet it does not seem to be reflected in the provisions.
Mr. Timms: I will need to expand my letter to the hon. Gentleman, to pick up some of those points. He is absolutely right about the importance of number portability, which allows users to switch operators. There is no barrier to that, such as the risk to users of losing their number. That is the importance of number portability, rather than people's ability to take their number with them when they move. It is perfectly possible for people who are changing building to ask to take the number from their previous building with them—I can think of examples of cases in which such a request has been acceded to. However, I do not think that it is the intention to make it a requirement that someone moving in those circumstances would be able to insist on taking their number with them. I shall check that, and address the point in the letter that I have already agreed to send to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of there not being a cost barrier. I am sure that that is addressed—somewhere, although I am not sure exactly where. I shall address that matter, too, in the letter that I look forward to sending him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Obligations to be secured by universal service conditions
Mr. Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in
clause 61, page 61, line 37, at end insert ', including broadband services'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 237, in
In view of the time, the importance that some hon. Members attach to the clause, and the fact that it has been referred to this morning, I am perfectly prepared
Column Number: 207
to allow what would in effect be a clause stand part debate on the amendments.
Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to you for that, Mr. Gale.
I acknowledge that the amendment is flawed and deficient, but it is terribly important that we have the opportunity to talk about broadband. It is of enormous importance, and it is extraordinary that the Government's publication, ''The draft Communications Bill—The Policy'', relegates the Government's policy on broadband to an annexe, which states:
''This comprehensive strategy does not require any legislation in order to achieve its objectives. As a result we are not looking to the Bill to help deliver our strategy.''
Given that the Bill will set the framework for communications for probably the next decade, it should take account of the fact that making broadband available is the biggest challenge that we face as a nation in terms of modernising our economy and rolling out the technology.
One reason why I accept that the amendment is deficient is that it is almost impossible to define broadband. In this country, it is regarded as the service that is now on offer from cable providers and BT at the rate of some 128 kilobits per second, or perhaps 512. Some cable companies intend to go further and supply the service at 1 megabit per second. I dial up my internet service provider daily to download my e-mails and access the internet, and I find the current speed on narrowband access incredibly frustrating—even 128 kilobits per second would be a big improvement. It will, no doubt, become faster, so it would probably be unhelpful even to try to define broadband formally at this stage. However, it is probably fair to say that even if we do not attempt to provide a formal definition, most of us know what it is when we see it.
Why is broadband important? It allows people to access a greater range of services: currently, people talk about downloading films or playing computer games, but it goes much further. Broadband is of huge economic importance to the nation. One recent study suggested that success in the new technologies, which means broadband in particular, could increase the United Kingdom's non-inflationary rate of growth from 2.5 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. in the next three years. A recent report entitled ''The Payoff Of Ubiquitous Broadband Deployment'' shows a positive correlation between broadband penetration and GDP per capita, which is already clear in the United States. There will be a real economic benefit to our nation if we can achieve much wider broadband access than we have at present.
The problem is that broadband can be made available through a variety of means. Most people who currently have access to broadband have it because they are cable subscribers, either to NTL or to Telewest, or because they have obtained it through BT, via ADSL technology. However, ADSL technology has flaws—for a start, it can be supplied
Column Number: 208
only to homes that are within 5.5 km of an enabled exchange. That means that even if BT eventually enables all its exchanges, there will be areas of the country where people cannot access broadband through that means.
It is therefore important that we consider all the other potential mechanisms for making broadband available. The Radiocommunications Agency is currently auctioning 12 licences to provide broadband fixed wireless access—we may discuss that later in our proceedings. There is also the potential development of satellite—I am talking about a one-way download from satellite first, but in due course a two-way download may be possible, although that is likely, at least in the short term, to be too expensive for residential customers. 3G, too, offers possibilities through the ability to access broadband through mobile telephony once 3G finally gets going.
Further ahead in the future, all sorts of other technologies will appear, some of which it is impossible even to guess at now. Perhaps one day, there will be the prospect of optical fibre linking exchanges first, then extending to the kerb, and finally into the home. That would make broadband available at a speed that is now almost inconceivable.
Mr. Lansley: In my hon. Friend's tour of such mechanisms, he has not referred to the possibility of wireless broadband using 3.5 gigahertz, which is in use in a number of countries. It has not been made available here simply by reason of allocation of frequency. Perhaps we shall come to that during the radio spectrum discussions.
Mr. Whittingdale: That is a good point that we should certainly consider during our discussion on the allocation of spectrum. We look forward to that debate on our return after Christmas.
Mr. Greenway: Another issue to which my hon. Friend has yet to refer is cost. Although the technology clearly exists and many people have access to it, does he think that cost presents difficulties? This very morning, I received a circular from BT saying that I could have broadband in my home in Kennington for £27 per month.
Mr. Timms: Excellent.
Mr. Greenway: That might well be an extremely good deal if I spent enough time at my home in Kennington to make use of it, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford think that many people to whom such services might be of value would regard that cost as excessive?
Mr. Whittingdale: It is a huge improvement on what BT used to charge. The price has come down, but I agree that it is still a significant sum. I suspect that at present many people feel that they are not likely to use the service enough. It is possible to get it slightly cheaper. To some extent, the market is now providing cheaper services, but I do not think that there is anything below about £20 a month, which is still a significant sum for many.
12.45 pm
It is worth comparing how we are getting on with what is happening in other countries. In some respects
Column Number: 209
we are making good progress. In terms of availability, we are middle ranking in the international league tables; about 65 per cent. of the population has cable or ADSL technology available to them should they choose to take it up. That means that we are ahead of France but behind Germany. There is room for improvement, but it is not an absolute disgrace. In our use of the internet, too, we are relatively well placed.
The real concern, however, is in the matter of take-up. At the end of the day, our competitiveness will depend on how many people have that technology and use it. A table of the top 20 countries would show that South Korea was far ahead, but we are lagging behind Canada, the United States, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy and Spain—and by quite a long way. Most people would acknowledge that, in terms of take-up, we are now at the bottom of the international league table.
|
