Talk Talking "claptrap" on digital exclusion
9th November 2009
Claims by broadband supplier Talk Talk that the Government's
proposed 50p per month levy on fixed phone lines fund the
infrastructal investment needed to speed up the universal delivery
of high speed broadband would force 100,000 households off the
internet altogether have been dismissed as "total
claptrap" by the CWU.
Responding to a number of extraordinary claims made by Talk Talk
chief executive Charles Dunstone following last week's
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) select committee meeting, the
union has accused the company of twisting statistics in an attempt
to wrong-foot the debate on digital Britain.
The vehemence of the company's opposition to the
Government's plans to tackle digital exclusion via a seven-year
£1 billion state-orchestrated investment to extend next
generation network coverage to parts of the country unlikely to be
served by the market alone, first became clear at the Parliamentary
meeting last Monday.
But since then, Charles Dunstone - multi-millionaire founder of the
Carphone Warehouse Group - has gone much further, launching a
blistering attack on a "broadband tax" which he claimed
would "force 100,000 homes to give up web" access
altogether.
The tycoon went on to astonish seasoned industry observers by
portraying his company's position as a noble defence of the
poor and vulnerable against the self-interest of the rich.
"This is an unjust and regressive tax on all phone customers
which will subsidise mostly richer rural households that can afford
high-priced super-fast broadband services," he stated in a
company press release positively dripping with enthusiasm for the
redistribution of wealth.
"As well as being unfair we estimate that the increase in
price will mean that over 100,000 mostly low-income homes will be
forced to give up their broadband lines. This is wholly
inconsistent with the Government's plans to tackle digital
exclusion."
But Mr Dunstone didn't end there - claiming that the very
existence of a Government programme to extend high speed broadband
coverage to remote, rural and other unserved areas would actually
slow down the process.
"Private investors will wait for public funds to be made
available," he argued - apparently rejecting the notion that
the absence of private investment in those areas to date had
anything to do with anything so squalid as the profit
motive…or rather the lack of it!
Responding to Mr Dunstone's claims, CWU deputy general
secretary Andy Kerr dismissed Talk Talk's claims as "total
claptrap that is clearly designed to distract one of the most
important debates of our time" - namely how the UK can best
provide equality of access to the benefits the Digital revolution
can provide.
"First of all there's no evidence at all that to fund the
next generation networks in rural areas would result in at least
100,000 homes being forced to give up their broadband lines,"
Andy began.
"Perhaps the richest point of all, however, is Mr
Dunstone's claim that those standing to benefit from the
Governments attempt to tackle digital exclusion are 'mostly
richer rural households'. It's almost like saying that
everyone who lives out in the shires is a member of the landed
gentry - and that's self evidently not the case.
"The idea that everyone living in these areas is so wealthy
that they don't deserve to be 'subsidised' is plain
provocative. Mr Dunstone also totally misses the point that in
reality there are broadband 'not spots' in urban areas due
to their geographical distance from the local exchange which
existing technology over copper wire cannot deliver.".
CWU assistant secretary Brian Healy rounded on Mr Dunstone's
further claim that Government intervention isn't needed at all
at present because in Britain "the private sector, unaided,
got to 99 per cent (broadband) coverage" - albeit
comparatively low speed - despite initial predictions that the
networks "would only reach 60 per cent of the
population".
"Mr Dunstone's being very clever with the terminology here
- partly because in reality it was only achieved by technological
advance - but also because it implies that, as part of the
'private sector', Talk Talk has been central to that
achievement," said Brian.
"That isn't the case, because Talk Talk doesn't have a
network of its own: BT and Virgin Media do, but you don't get
Talk Talk customers using VM's network - they only go where BT
goes. Even then they only claim to claim to cover 65 per cent of
households. So, Mr Dunstone, what about the rest? Are they not
equally deserving? Or are they just country toffs?
"In a very real sense Talk Talk are dependant on the back of
the BT Network. That's what local loop unbundling is all about.
"Talk Talk aren't building a parallel network; they are
building their customer base and business model on the back of the
BT network - yet Mr Dunstone is implying that somehow they have
been major players in getting to the 99 per cent broadband
coverage.
"It begs the question, if you took away BT's reach, where
would Talk Talk actually be? You can ask even further why the
company isn't providing a service to the same degree as the
reach of the BT network? I think potential customers should be told
why not."
Brian added that, in the CWU's view, even the apparently
reasonable-sounding assertion in Talk Talk's press release
"public funds must be focussed on delivering essential
basic services, not for premium services that few want, and only
where the private sector has been unable to meet demand"
- is equally misleading.
"They don't explain what the extra frills and the premium
services are, which isn't surprising because funds raised by
the levy have never been intended to support them anyway,"
concludes Brian. "It's simply to achieve the basic
infrastructure for a universal service of 2Mbps broadband speed
which Talk Talk claims to support, and which in the eyes of the
public is becoming an essential service need.
"Talk Talk is saying it wants a 2mbps universal service, but
is arguing against the means for this being delivered without
proposing an alternative. In my book that's plain disingenuous
- and whose interest is being served?"
