UK's broadband falls behind

Internet users could find themselves barred from the next raft of online innovations because the UK’s broadband infrastructure is rapidly falling behind the rest of the world.

Ian Fogg, research director at broadband analyst Jupiter Research, said the Government and service providers had to work together to find a way to deliver much faster and more reliable services to rival those widely available throughout Europe and the Far East.

Speaking at a Westminster eForum on the future of broadband - a seminar for debate involving MPs, ISPs, broadband campaigners and journalists - Mr Fogg said that with innovative services constantly evolving, the limitations of existing broadband networks could leave UK consumers in the dark.

“The danger is that the next big thing on the internet will not work in the UK,” he said.

In the Netherlands, Germany and France networks capable of handling very high bandwidth (next-generation broadband networks) are being built, partly with government funding but also through demand for new services such as TV on demand over the broadband connection.

The UK has two principal types of broadband networks: DSL, which relies on the copper telephone lines in homes, and cable, which uses coaxial cable or the copper telephone line to reach the home. DSL services are limited by the distance between the home and the local telephone exchange, while cable is not available to every location in the UK.

Many experts believe a national fibre-optic network, capable of delivering far more bandwidth to each home, should be built to give consumers and businesses the tools to take advantage of as yet unseen internet innovations.

The industry and its regulator are trying to work out the fairest way to pay for the new networks. Many believe companies providing video content online - which accounts for the bulk of domestic internet traffic - should pay something towards next-generation broadband as they stand to make money out of it. Major companies such as BT and Virgin Media should contribute and then open their networks to other providers for a fee.

How much consumers can expect to pay for enhanced broadband is a controversial issue. Some users consume far more bandwidth than others by downloading more material. But a lack of clarity over how much bandwidth we currently receive will lead to more confusion and a reluctance to pay more. Our Crystal Clear Broadband campaign found that half of home users received less than 50 per cent of the bandwidth they pay for, although ISPs are protected by the ‘up to’ clause in the small print.

Computeractive’s editor, Paul Allen, told the eForum that ISPs had to be clearer with their customers about value for money: “The current gulf between the promises made by ISPs and the service they deliver is too wide.”

Mr Fogg added that providers should honestly market the benefits and limitations of broadband packages graded by price, not in megabits per second.

“There is no initiative for a single ISP to be honest about the value of next-generation broadband when the majority are permitted to use the ‘up to’ clause,” he said. "Next-generation broadband has also prompted fears of a new and greater digital divide unless Ofcom regulates to protect those out of reach of profitable services.”