Several organisations and industry figures have raised concerns about the potential consequences of Labour’s promise to provide state-run free broadband ahead of the UK general election.
For a nation with the world’s fifth-largest economy, the UK’s broadband performance is disappointing. Research by Cable ranks the UK 34th globally, with an average download speed of just 22.3 Mbps. Even more troubling, roughly 10 percent of households still lack access to fibre broadband.
With the general election approaching, improving Britain’s broadband has become a major political issue.
Sorting out Britain’s broadband
Since becoming Prime Minister in July, Boris Johnson has pledged nationwide gigabit connectivity. The Conservative Party has proposed a £5 billion fund to support the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband in the hardest-to-reach 20 percent of the country, aiming for “full fibre” across the UK by 2025. Their strategy emphasises competition and private-sector delivery, relying on companies such as CityFibre, Hyperoptic, and Openreach to expand networks.
Labour’s plans are more radical and have sparked controversy. Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has proposed nationalising broadband infrastructure so it would be owned and managed by the state.
Labour intends to bring Openreach, the BT division responsible for connecting homes to broadband, into public ownership. The party estimates nationalisation would cost £20.3 billion.
That figure is based on a report by consultants Frontier Economics, although the particular report cited does not specifically value the purchase of Openreach. The same report also warned that, under a nationalised model like the one Labour proposes, there could be a three to five year delay before a monopoly operator begins rolling out a nationwide fibre network.
We will need to see the full manifestos from both main parties to evaluate their plans and how they would be funded, but commentators and industry leaders have already weighed in based on the proposals revealed so far.
What does the industry think?
Industry stakeholders generally welcome the strengthened political focus on digital infrastructure and acknowledge the need to address areas where the UK lags. However, many express serious reservations about Labour’s nationalisation proposal.
Mark Bridgeman, President of the Country Land and Business Association, highlighted the economic cost of poor rural connectivity:
“The rural economy is 16 percent less productive than the national average – in part because of poor broadband across huge swathes of the country. Closing that productivity gap could be worth up to £43 billion to the UK economy.
We welcome the political attention on broadband from all parties, which signals a push to become a world-class, fully connected digital nation and to tackle the digital divide between rural and urban areas, along with the economic and social benefits that would follow.
However, while free services are always appealing, it’s unclear how nationalisation would speed up delivery of full broadband for everyone. Under these plans, investment could fall immediately after the election and might not resume until nationalisation is complete, a process that could take many years and actually slow progress rather than accelerate it.”
Malcolm Corbett, CEO of the Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA), also welcomed both parties’ emphasis on improved digital infrastructure but warned nationalisation could deter investment, reduce consumer choice, and curtail innovation.
“The UK’s broadband market is currently thriving because of infrastructure investors, local initiatives and involvement from the public sector. Alternative network providers attracted £3.3 billion in investment last year alone, alongside investments by BT and Virgin Media. That has helped deliver high-quality networks in cities and towns and extended coverage in previously underserved rural areas, growing from about one percent of premises to roughly ten percent today. Accelerating this progress is important and the industry is working to do so.
While we welcome Labour’s focus on full-fibre rollout, we are concerned that policies such as nationalisation could dampen investment in new fibre networks in the short term, delaying roll-out. Free broadband is appealing to consumers but could be expensive, undermine innovation and choice, and harm the service provider sector.”
INCA, together with TechUK, the UK Competitive Telecommunications Association (UKCTA), and ISPA, issued a joint statement expressing similar concerns:
“Labour has rightly identified the potential of widespread full fibre and the transformative benefits it would bring to the UK. However, as an industry, we believe this proposal will halt the significant investment already flowing into the sector, slow the large-scale builds currently underway, put jobs at risk now and in the future, and leave consumers with no choice.”
Beyond investment and market concerns, the prospect of a state-owned broadband network raises civil liberties and governance questions. A single state-controlled network could make it easier for authorities to monitor communications, restrict free expression or, in extreme cases, disconnect access entirely. International examples illustrate these risks: state-controlled networks have been used to restrict connectivity during unrest, as seen when the Iranian government shut down internet access amid protests.
There is broad agreement that something must be done to improve the UK’s connectivity and close the digital divide between regions. But many industry leaders, experts and commentators believe that nationalisation is not the clear solution and caution that it could create new problems, slow investment and reduce choice for consumers.
Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss topics like this? Attend specialist events where experts debate digital infrastructure, innovation and the future of connectivity, including expos focusing on Internet of Things, blockchain, artificial intelligence, big data, cybersecurity and cloud technologies with events held internationally.