Chapter 6: Summary of recommendations
253. We recommend that the Government consider
our vision for the UK's broadband infrastructure as set out in
this report. As a first step, we recommend that the Government
undertake to produce detailed costings of our proposal, not least
because our proposal removes the final mile—the most expensive
per capita component of the network—from the costs requiring
public subsidy. (Para 53)
254. We endorse the European Commission's suggestion
that open access to dark fibre at the cabinet-level should be
introduced as a condition of BDUK's umbrella state aid permission.
(Para 59)
255. Accordingly, not least, in order to expedite
its own programme, we recommend that the Government incorporate
open access to dark fibre voluntarily as a feature of its Framework
agreement with suppliers. (Para 60)
256. More broadly, we endorse and invite the
Government's view on the European Commission's conclusion on the
broadband investment environment that: "securing truly equivalent
access by alternative operators to incumbent networks is probably
the most important guarantee of sustainable competition, on existing
and new networks." (Para 61)
257. Broadband policy should begin from the question:
what should the UK communications infrastructure look like? (Para
75)
258. In addition, it should be a fundamental
principle of broadband policy that whatever measures are undertaken
to enhance or extend its availability, they strive to bring about
equality of opportunity to access broadband across all communities
in the UK. (Para 76)
259. In this sense, Government policy on broadband
should be driven, above all, by the social benefits it can unleash,
and the need to arrest and ultimately reduce a damaging digital
divide. (Para 77)
260. We recommend that future broadband policy
should not be built around precise speed targets end-users can
expect to receive in the short-term, however attractive these
may be for sloganeers. (Para 110)
261. In addition, broadband infrastructure policy
should be driven by an avowedly long-term, but also flexible view
of the infrastructure's future. (Para 111)
262. As an overriding principle, we recommend
that Government strategy and investment in broadband infrastructure
should always be based on a minimum ten year horizon and possibly
beyond. (Para 112)
263. While we acknowledge the presently elusive
nature of a 'killer app,' we believe there is a clear need for
the Government to state in explicit terms a long-term vision for
a pervasive, robust and resilient broadband infrastructure, central
to national policy and infrastructure planning. (Para 113)
264. We anticipate and recommend that policy
should be ultimately directed towards universal, point-to-point
FTTP as this is a technology not only able to accommodate current
demand, but at current rates of growth, will be able to accommodate
the UK's bandwidth demands for many decades to come. (Para 114)
265. In this sense, we recommend that the Government
should set out an even bolder vision for broadband policy than
is currently the case. (Para 115)
266. Given the impossibility, with current constraints
on resources, of rolling out universal point-to-point FTTP, we
recommend that Government policy should, as an intermediate step,
aim to bring national fibre-optical connectivity—which would
include, as a minimum, fully open access fibre backhaul—within
the reach of every community. This will provide the platform from
which basic levels of service can be provided to all, and an improved
service where there is sufficient demand. (Para 116)
267. As a point of principle, we believe it is
incumbent on the Government to ensure that policy and regulation
in the interim guarantee that there is a clear path from any intermediate
steps which may be taken to the roll-out of point-to-point FTTP
and that, crucially, these steps will not serve to hinder or hold
back any future upgrade. (Para 117)
268. It should be a fundamental principle of
broadband policy that measures be undertaken, where possible,
to reinforce the robustness and resilience of the network as a
whole. (Para 124)
269. We recommend the Government ensure freedom
and economy of passage for communication of data across the UK.
(Para 125)
270. We recommend that Ofcom, in addition to
its duties on competition and investment, be given an additional
duty to monitor and foster the efficient utilisation of existing
capacity (including, for example, use of the communications infrastructure
owned by other infrastructure providers) to provide a robust and
resilient national network that promotes affordable open access
to wholesale and retail connectivity across the UK. (Para 126)
271. We recommend that the Government's targets
should refer to minimum and median levels of service, and that
Ofcom adapts its scorecard accordingly. (Para 132)
272. In order to ensure the digital divide is
not widened, we recommend that the Government commit to reducing
the digital divide between the minimal service levels guaranteed
to all and the median service levels enjoyed by the majority.
(Para 134)
273. It is our view that a Universal Service
Obligation (USO) is not an appropriate way to bring about universal
access to minimum levels of service, not least because in practice,
imposing legal obligations on ISPs could easily and quickly lead
to drawn out proceedings in the courts. (Para 136)
274. We do, therefore, endorse the approach adopted
by the Government: pledging a Universal Service Commitment, to
which it will be politically accountable, and stating explicitly
a clear political aspiration to provide universal access to a
minimum level of broadband provision. This, in our view, is at
this stage a more appropriate approach than introducing a legally-binding
USO. (Para 137)
275. We recommend that the Government, Ofcom
and the industry begin to consider the desirability of the transfer
of terrestrial broadcast content from spectrum to the internet
and the consequent switching off of broadcast transmission over
spectrum, and in particular what the consequences of this might
be and how we ought to begin to prepare. (Para 141)
276. While we do not support the introduction
of a USO at present, we do believe that broadcast media will increasingly
come to be delivered via the internet. As and when that happens,
and particularly in circumstances where this applies to PSB channels,
the argument for recommending a USO becomes stronger. The Government
should begin now to give this active consideration. (Para 143)
277. We bring to the Government's attention the
fact that we have heard a number of calls during this inquiry,
with which we agree, for uptake and effective use of the internet
to become a higher priority. (Para 150)
278. We urge the Government to provide a more
coherent mechanism for the provision of enhanced broadband infrastructure
in the final 10% than currently is the case with the Rural Community
Broadband Fund. In particular, a new mechanism for distributing
funds must meet the criticism that its predecessor was flawed
in assuming all communities have the capital required, up front,
to invest in their own access network. (Para 160)
279. In their deliberations over the potential
reform of the Electronic Communications Code, we encourage the
Law Commission to consider the impact of the Code on the roll-out
and availability of broadband infrastructure throughout the UK.
(Para 167)
280. We urge the Government to consider reform
of street works permissions and the current planning system, given
their wider impact on the pace and sheer viability of the roll-out
of broadband infrastructure throughout the UK. (Para 168)
281. We recommend that the Government require
that all new building developments be ducted for fibre, with appropriate
provision for an internet connection, and that building regulations
for this be developed perhaps analogous to those which already
require adequate provision, for example, for the delivery of mains
electricity and sewage connections. (Para 170)
282. The refusal to provide financial support
for a project, like that in the Northern Fells, on the grounds
that its proposal to use a technology (in this case white space
spectrum) which would not meet the Government's speed targets,
is a further illustration of the way in which such targets are
actually counter-productive. We urge the Government to reconsider
using speed targets to define the goals of their broadband policy.
This would allow them to be more flexible with regard to the technologies
used to provide enhanced connectivity, particularly to outlying
communities. Loosening the reins a little could very quickly have
the effect of bringing enhanced broadband capacity to the final
10%. (Para 177)
283. The alternative strategy we have put forward
would avert the situation which has arisen under the current policy
whereby communities are left stranded with a minimal service because
a viable enhancement falls below the—relatively arbitrary—mark
set for public funding. We invite the Government to respond to
our proposal that bringing open access fibre-optic hubs within
the reach of every community would liberate communities and enterprises
to evaluate the cost—benefit calculation themselves of the
various different technological solutions available in the access
network. (Para 178)
284. It should be a fundamental 'design principle'
of the Mobile Infrastructure Project that where mobile coverage
is being widened for the purpose of eliminating voice not-spots,
coverage for data is widened and enhanced at the same time. (Para
182)
285. The Government should consider the potential
for serviced sites constructed as part of the MIP to be used as
open access fibre-optic hubs more generally, from which independent
third parties could extend out their own alternative, local access
networks. (Para 186)
286. As suggested in Chapter 3, the danger that
results from the lack of competitive pressure in the construction
of the UK's broadband infrastructure lies in the fact that the
Government can easily find itself in thrall to the commercial
interests of private enterprise, and therefore unable to direct
broadband infrastructure in the wider interests of the UK. (Para 194)
287. We urge the Government, therefore, to recognise
as a general principle that it will be vital to monitor the dominant,
national providers vigilantly and to deploy appropriate incentives
to ensure they, and the market in which they operate, behave in
the public interest as this will not necessarily follow automatically
from competitive pressures alone. (Para 195)
288. In addition, we note the argument of Chapter
3, that despite the presently non-competitive nature of much infrastructure
provision in the UK, open access to existing connectivity can
enable competition to play a role in extending the reach, connectivity
and diversity, and hence also the resilience and performance,
of these networks. (Para 196)
289. We recommend that the Government's approach
be explicit in its insistence that the technologies and infrastructures
in which companies using public funds decide to invest be ones
which offer a clear 'upgrade path' to point-to-point FTTP. (Para
200)
290. Where infrastructure providers using public
money decide to invest in Passive Optical Networks, we recommend
that the awarding of public money should be contingent on the
installation of the splitter at the level of the local exchange
rather than the cabinet, as this would enable passive unbundling,
and thereby real competition between ISPs. (Para 202)
291. We recommend that Ofcom draw on one of the
mechanisms at its disposal to encourage, if not require, the universal
adoption of standards like Active Line Access, if not ALA itself,
which are open, and industry-led, and contain a technical specification
for the physical network itself, the wholesale products it should
provide, and stipulations regarding the operation, administration
and maintenance (OAM) systems interface between infrastructure
providers and ISPs. The universal adoption of such standards would
do much to level the playing field between alternative infrastructure
providers and would help to stimulate competition at the access
network level. (Para 219)
292. We understand Ofcom's cautious stance with
regard to the removal of restrictions on Physical Infrastructure
Access. However, we urge Ofcom to give the benefits of doing so
full consideration. (Para 232)
293. In our view, the benefits of opening up
the restrictions on PIA are likely to be significant, particularly
were policy to be re-oriented towards the establishment of open
access fibre-optic hubs, as we advocate. Removing the restrictions
on PIA may, of course, have knock-on effects for the effectiveness
and coherence of other aspects of the overall regulatory edifice.
We, therefore, recommend that Ofcom evaluates alternative approaches
to the regulation of the broadband market as a whole, in line
with EU guidelines. (Para 233)
294. In light of the potential benefits, we recommend
Ofcom actively considers the possible implications of putting
its Revised EU Framework Directive Article 12 powers to use, by
undertaking an Impact Assessment of doing so, including an open
public consultation. Of course, some of Ofcom's existing remedies
in the broadband markets may be rendered ineffective or incoherent
by implementing these powers. In consulting on their use, therefore,
Ofcom should make positive proposals for how these issues would
be overcome. (Para 236)
295. Ofcom should consider employing its Article
12 powers to oblige infrastructure owners to provide open access
to dark fibre at the level of the cabinet, and active and passive
access, together with rights to install and collocate active equipment
on relevant links at the level of the exchanges and other nodes.
(Para 243)
296. We urge the industry to work to ensure there
is an organisation with the capacity to act as an intermediary
between an array of separate network providers and larger-scale
ISPs. We note that the existence and effectiveness of such an
organisation would be vital to the success of an open access fibre-optic
hub model. (Para 248)
297. The Government should consider, not least
in light of the EU Commission's current consultation and the issues
this raises concerning open access to dark fibre as a condition
of State Aid, what the implications might be for broadband policy
of a new 'house with a tail' model emerging in which the property
owner becomes responsible for the construction and maintenance
of their own final drop. (Para 250)
298. We recommend that consideration should be
given over time by the Government, Ofcom and the industry as to
when and under what conditions fibre switchover would be appropriate
and what implications it would have. (Para 252)
| 
