Internet Access - a universal right?

It is now hard to argue that internet access is not an essential part of everyday life. Carrying out the tasks of daily life, enjoying entertainment and socialising without reliable and affordable connectivity is a serious challenge. Yet we know that millions of people either don’t have the internet at home, or are struggling to afford their broadband bills. 

Shade Nathaniel-Ayodele, data poverty fellow with Good Things Foundation, has just released her in-depth research report into internet access as a human right and essential utility, which includes a range of recommendations for the industry, national and local governments, and civil society. We have been thinking about the same issues as we develop our work with Impact on Urban Health on internet access and health. 

One existing solution on offer from broadband providers, with the encouragement of Ofcom, is social tariffs, which offer lower cost home broadband to those on certain benefits. However, they don’t necessarily provide the same quality of service as full price tariffs, and take-up is currently very low. One reason for the low take-up may be because social tariffs are means-tested: applicants have to demonstrate they are eligible, normally through the benefits they receive. They are also proportionately more expensive for low income households than median income households, and some require commitment to a year-long contract, which might be difficult for a household with a low or fluctuating income.  

It’s clear from other means-tested provision such as social security benefits that just because something is available, this does not guarantee those eligible will take it up. Nearly £2 billion in pension credit for older people goes unclaimed each year for example, and some households could be missing out on up to £4,000 additional income per year through unclaimed benefits. The process of means-testing itself costs money and can be off-putting for people, and there will always be people close to the edge of eligibility for a benefit or service who are struggling but don’t quite meet the criteria. 

The evidence so far from social tariffs is that they alone aren’t going to be enough to ensure that every household has access to reliable, good quality internet connectivity. It seems that leaving it to the market isn’t enough, so do we need to look at more radical interventions that change policy and regulation to ensure no-one is without internet access at home - is there a case for universal access to free, or very low cost, broadband? 

While some believe that means-testing and targeting is the most effective use of resources, others believe universality is the only way to ensure that everyone who needs something will actually receive it. Interest in universality has grown in recent years, perhaps most visibly in the attention paid to Universal Basic Income (UBI) by both the public and policy-makers. Arguments for UBI are wide-ranging, but most relevant to this discussion are the facts that it reaches everyone because it is universal, and it could destigmatise the less well off, as no-one can be accused of cheating the system or getting a free handout that they don’t deserve. 

As well as interest in UBI, academics and thinktanks have developed ideas around Universal Basic Services (UBS) - access for everyone in society to free or very affordable services that meet our critical needs. The concept includes both strengthening and improving our existing public services, and extending universal access to other essentials such as childcare, social care and transport. Interestingly, the original UBS paper seems to be the most definitive about everyone being provided with ‘basic’ home internet. While subsequent UBS models may mention internet connectivity or digital information, they don’t specifically say this would be delivered through free or radically affordable home broadband. 

One argument against UBS is that it would reduce choice for citizens. Another linked argument is that it would be paternalistic to make centralised decisions on behalf of citizens about what is essential and what isn’t. The same risks could apply to free or radically affordable home internet. Would there be a choice of providers, the ability to complain and switch to a new provider if the service was not up to scratch? Would it be acceptable to provide a lower speed service or to limit what people can use their internet for if they aren’t paying the market rate for it? Who would decide what constitutes essential internet use if UBS only provided a ‘basic’ connection? 

Another idea gaining traction, which Nathaniel-Ayodele delves into in depth, is to designate broadband as an essential utility, putting it in the same category as water and electricity. This would likely mean more robust regulatory requirements, better protection for customers in cases of service disruption, a requirement on providers to guarantee access, and could make it harder for broadband providers to disconnect people. However, as Nathaniel-Ayodele points out, the exact implications of becoming a utility are not clear. 

In addition, how much difference this would make, particularly to urban households who struggle to afford home broadband, is difficult to know. Our research suggests that while there are some urban areas without access to superfast broadband, the main challenge for unconnected households is not availability but affordability, unlike in the US where large urban areas are ‘red-lined’ and just not connected to good quality broadband. Designating broadband as a utility isn’t guaranteed to bring prices down, and some argue that it would stifle investment and innovation. Being a utility wouldn’t necessarily avoid a two-tier system either, with lower income customers receiving a different service: just look at the higher prices paid by gas and electricity customers with pre-pay meters. 

What the ideas of UBS and designation of the internet as a utility have in common is that they would need to operate or require change at a national level. The work we are doing with Impact on Urban Health focuses on a much smaller geographic area, and so has the potential to unlock different solutions and far greater community control and ownership.