Only 40% of the population will notice any speed difference from ADSL 2+ compared to ADSL Max. That is the point that David Brunnen makes in his comment and he is right: without any shortening of the loops, 60% of us are stuck where we are now.

David Harrington, Leader Regulatory Affairs at the CMA, notified me of the recent resolution passed by MEPs on 19th June, where among other things, they called on member states to ensure "a future where no European child and no individual involved in educational programmes is left off line in Europe".

"Think of the children" is an evocative call, but in this case I think it is a fair enough plea. Education is one of the major beneficiaries of the leaps in technology over the last 15 years, with the PC (teacher can now read your homework) and of course the internet (your homework might teach the teacher something). If the historical infrastructure that this generation has inherited is not up to the job in some places, there will be massive inequalities in the standard of education available to different children.

With that in the background, perhaps you might expect some leniency with regards to the state aid issues raised by Mr. Brunnen in his comment, when governments start trying to level the playing field between citizens and with their neighbours. The need for this levelling between countries is partly evident in the table posted over the weekend on the Broadband User Group site, that shows the average retail cost per megabit per second throughout the EU.

The UK is clearly in a 3rd tier with the likes of Portugal, Spain, Poland and Ireland. My suggestion to those in the UK wishing to lobby for the rules on aid to be set aside would be to take a step back and let those countries fight the battle for you. The EU seems to find it very difficult to say no when those four come cap in hand... For the big bad UK to come and demand special treatment evokes memories of Thatcher, Maastricht and Vetoes which we are still paying for in political currency even now.

The comment by JFK raises an interesting contradiction for me. The Digitally Poor in Kent and Essex clearly do not have the same ability to pull at heart-strings as do their peers in rural Wales, but they if they are disadvantaged to the same level is this fair...? There is a risk here that social jealousy can lead people to think that hey, these people are rich and can afford to sort the problem out for themselves, why should I pay for it in my tax bill?

The Digitally Poor in those counties may be Commercially Rich in comparison to the folks in Dyfed, but I would argue they are still not rich enough to be able to afford to rectify the problem for themselves. They can't go out, hold a village fete and expect the proceeds to fund a new telephone exchange - this is an expensive upgrade we are talking about here. You'd have to be David Sullivan to be able to afford to solve the problem for yourself.

At some point your economic prospects and social and physical well-being might be determined by the length of the copper wire connecting your house to the rest of the world. At that point, the residents of Essex and Dyfed alike might expect their follow UK citizens to ensure a level playing field, much as we've had in the past with the roads or the railways. Is subsidising the broadband access any different to the subsidisation of the transport system?

My illustration in the last post about how much difference two miles can make was a real-life case study. Two miles from where I live there is a village called Shepreth. Its a nice enough place, like every other village it has a recreation ground, but Shepreth also has a primary school and a pub that has been converted into a fancy wine-bar / restaurant - making it a home from home for the Londonders fleeing the nightmare of city dwelling.

On top of all this, Shepreth is lucky enough to have a wildlife park with a couple of tigers and a mainline railway station on the London line. Until recently, the only downside was that it had a pig farm and when the wind blew on a hot sunny day, the place earned its nickname - "Stinky Shepreth".

Shepreth though is connected to the Melbourn exchange, which as the crow flies is 3.5kms away, over the fields and across the A10. I can't tell you the copper lengths, but having lived there for 6 months, I can reveal that the best internet connection you are likely to get is between 500k and 1M, even on ADSL Max. Having moved two miles up the road and now that I am connected to a different exchange, I now have much higher speed access - not 8M by any means, but at least 5 times what I had in Shepreth. Is this fair or is it just life?

Of course I don't think that this is a life and death matter (yet), and any impact on welfare will take a long time to become clear enough to justify my council tax money going into subsidising the resolution of the issue.

When I first read the BSG Report my view was that we should let the market do its thing and I still believe that the likely result of interference is a massive knock on distortion of the rest of the communications market. What I had failed to consider at that time and is becoming more important in my thoughts now, is the shift towards using the internet for social welfare purposes where people, regardless of their economic power, deserve to be treated equally.

Labels: BT, digital divide, FTTH, next generation networks