Two more think pieces on Labour’s plans to provide free broadband to everyone in the UK, if elected.
Free broadband: internet access is now a human right, no matter who pays the bills – The Conversation
Before the internet, most people in democracies had roughly equal opportunities to exercise their political rights. They could vote, write to newspapers or their political representative, attend public meetings and join organisations.But when some people gained internet access, their opportunities to exercise political rights became much greater compared to those without the internet. They could publish their views online for potentially millions of people to see, join forces with other people without having to physically attend regular meetings, and obtain a wealth of previously inaccessible political information.
Today, a large proportion of our political debates take place online, so in some ways our political rights can only be exercised via the internet. This means internet access is required for people to have roughly equal opportunities to make use of their political freedoms, and why we should recognise internet access as a human right.
Economics of Labour’s plan to nationalise broadband – £20 billion cost is unrealistic – The Conversation
While there is no nationalised and free full-fibre scheme to compare Labour’s proposal to, Australia carried out a government-funded broadband rollout scheme that is widely viewed as a relative failure. This policy was not identical – it was not for full-fibre connections – but costs of the programme spiralled and it became a political football.Expanding access to super-fast broadband is clearly an important policy goal and rural communities would likely be the biggest beneficiaries, as market forces are unlikely to provide this in the short or medium term. But Labour appears to significantly underestimate the costs, while possibly overestimating the savings.
Ultimately, the question to ask is whether guaranteed full-fibre connections in every home is justifiable if the programme started to run several times over budget, as seems likely. There would be a very real risk of non-delivery if the project keeps going over budget. Then, a lack of private sector provision would leave little alternative for consumers to turn to.
On one hand we’ve got nationalisation, on the other we’ve got zero hours contracts and international businesses with the right to sue the government for introducing standard they call restraint of trade. Make a choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone on the tv described the choice this election as choosing the least worst option…
LikeLike
I’m just looking at the people. Johnson, Mogg and Gove vs Corbyn, McDonald and Starmer. I know who’s told the most lies, and I’m not voting for them.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLiked by 1 person