However, there are multiple reasons why South Korea’s broadband is successful, such as, “Government planning, healthy competition, urban population density, private-sector growth
The Korean government don’t provide free broadband. Nobody is suggesting government shouldn’t be investing in the infrastructure (the ‘planning’) but even in Korea it’s the ‘healthy competition’ and ‘private sector growth’ that means they can have world-class broadband.
It doesn’t stack up as an example, because you’re saying nationalisation and then evidencing it with a country that has a very well establish private enterprise.
EDIT: I did read the article you posted. It refers to the infrastructure being stifled, and I agree with that aspect of it. But providing the SERVICE (and for free no less) is the issue here, NOT the infrastructure, which government SHOULD be involved in.
You’re comparing the two examples as like-for-like. Which isn’t quite what I’m doing there. I’m pointing out that the market hasn’t worked for providing us great internet, so I’ve no problem with a swing back to the government.
I mentioned Korea because we could’ve had a world-leading fibreoptic network like them if Thatcher hadn’t blown it.
While the Labour policy may go further, it’s the principle of government taking back control in some form or other that I support, even if it isn’t exactly the same form in the past. I’d be happy if they overpromised and underdelivered where overpromising is ‘free broadband for all’ and ‘underdelivering is’ full fibre network covering all the UK that all broadband providers can use.
Even the quote you provide starts with the first reason for South Korea’s broadband being successful as “Government planning”
(BTW, you can delete your edit - I deleted the reply you’re responding to in it because I realised I fired it off too hastily and it wasn’t an appropriate reply.)
Okay - so why free? Why not government controlled but you pay for services? I just don’t like this ‘everything is free’ mentality on it.
And I literally have not said at any point in this thread that the government should do nothing. I’ve been consistent that the government should manage the network, planning and infrastructure.
That isn’t what Labour are just proposing though - hence it being a topic for debate. “Government pledge to improve broadband infrastructure” would hardly be a debate in most instances.
Please stop implying that I’m suggesting that the private market should just be let loose and no government intervention should happen - you know I’m not saying that.
Literal first line of the story linked at the top:
Labour has promised to give every home and business in the UK free full-fibre broadband by 2030, if it wins the general election.
I took the infrastructure component to be implicit there. As it stands, they can’t provide free full-fibre to all without first upgrading the infrastructure.
Now, I’m all for free stuff and if the state wants to give me free broadband I doubt I would complain. However, this quote from (the obviously Conservative leaning) The Telegraph made me realise it feels like funny season and Labour have their priorities wrong.
[…] It may be that millions of voters were secretly incensed by having to pay for their TV and internet from a private company, believing that Netflix is a human right, not a luxury. It should be like water – free. Except that under Labour’s plans, you’ll still pay for what comes out of your tap. But at least you’ll be able to surf the web free of charge.
The internet is an essential these days. From booking GP appointments, claiming benefits, shopping, banking… if you dont have the internet you are seriously disadvantaged
Yes, and there should be places where this can happen as things go increasingly online, and heck if broadband was like a benefit (in that low income families would be subsidised or free) then I would be on board with that too.
With almost all government services requiring access to the internet nowadays, particularly things like universal credit. It is absolutely crucial that people have free access to the internet.
Reading the comments here it is clear many of you are in a very fortunate provision to not have to worry about paying yet another monthly bill.
I know many children disadvantaged by being unable to properly complete school or college work at home because their parents can’t afford internet access.
Also, to the people saying “bUt iTs nOT fREe yOu pAy TaXeS foR iT”. Literally, everyone knows that. The point is it’s free at the point of use. Nobody thinks it doesn’t need to be paid for in some way.
In 1990 Thatcher stopped BT during its rollout of a fibre network, so that the market could do it. Well guess what, this is a fantastic example of market failure which needs to be resolved by government intervention.
Guess what, governments can have more than one policy at a time. They already have serious proposals around democratic control of water. Doing one, does not preclude doing the other. So the argument from the telegraph does not hold, quelle surprise.
Because means testing policies is bad. Universal public services are the way to go, rather than drawing some arbitrary line based on income or any other qualifying factor.
Importantly, it also reduces the stigma attached to using public services, because they are universal.
They’ve already got policies around reducing the cost of water and returning it to democratic control.
For many things I agree, but even if I were to agree with the free broadband, I don’t like the funding method.
You cannot guarantee a service being funded by a specific area for tax. So, let’s say Apple and Google pay more tax and this covers the cost. Great. What happens if they pay less, or leave? For whatever reason. We then have a policy that can’t be paid for except through other means. Guess who loses in the long run…
A very poor line of argument. If you genuinely think that Apple and Google will stop doing business in one the wealthiest countries in the world, with 65 million people, to avoid paying a bit more tax, I don’t know what else to say.
Also, you literally can hypothecate a tax to a policy area.
This policy would more than pay for it self in productivity increases.
I didn’t say anything of the sort. I don’t think Apple or Google will go because they pay more tax. But they are not a constant. They might leave for a variety of reasons, or find a place to better locate themselves. They are a private company and have that right.
It’s not a poor line of argument to suggest that such a public service not be reliant on a few private companies being in the UK. In 50 years time that might not be the case, so my question is, then what?
They already have access to that kind of stuff under the current government. There is no requirement to own the infrastructure to see data about a user. It doesn’t make any difference.
It doesn’t remove any barrier. The government sets the law and then its applied. Nothing around that changes regardless of who runs the infrastructure.
The vast majority of people use the internet without a VPN, I would say.
If the government wants to track you online they can already do that, and indeed do in many circumstances. Who owns the infrastructure/provides the service is irrelevant.
