Digital Britain: how does the UK really compare?

“Digital Britain disappoints” and “Digital dithering from a dated Government”: two hardly unique headlines in the media immediately after the release of the Digital Britain report, which is supposed to be the UK’s blueprint for a digitally connected future.

But how does Britain really stand up in the international league tables of broadband ambition? Well, for a kickoff, it’s worth pointing out that there are two completely separate targets: a universal service commitment of 2 Mbps by 2012; and delivery of “superfast broadband” (whatever that might be) to 90% of the households by 2017.

Let’s just look at the first of these, universal service.

In France, for example, the government’s policy document on the digital economy, France Numérique 2012, calls on telecoms providers to make broadband access – which it defines as 512 kbps or above – available to all French inhabitants by 2010 for less than EUR 35 per month.

Meanwhile, in December 2008 the Finnish government approved a EUR 200 million National Broadband Programme, which includes provision of at least a 1 Mbps connection to every permanent residence and workplace in Finland by the year 2010.

Similarly, the target of the German Federal Government’s Broadband Strategy, unveiled in February 2009, is a basic broadband service of 1 Mbps to be rolled out countrywide by the end of 2010.

And of course there’s the US, which doesn’t have a universal service program at the present time, and has specified a speed of 768 kbps downstream as the threshold for applications for its Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), part of the US stimulus package designed to bring broadband to underserved areas.

Compared to these targets, a 2 Mbps universal service commitment doesn’t look too shabby at all. What’s more the UK government has earmarked some cash to make it happen, which was approved in the March 2009 budget. Why aren’t we all celebrating?

In my view, the 2 Mbps figure has become the target of general consumer frustration with broadband speeds that aren’t exactly “as advertised”, and what appears to be a laissez-faire strategy for the longer-term future of digital infrastructure in the UK (the market will deliver).

The Digital Britain report specifically states that the 2 Mbps figure is not the extent of the UK’s ambitions; it’s about ensuring everyone has access to first-generation broadband, which seems like a reasonable proprosition. Even if funding was available immediately, it would still take 5-10 years to roll out true next-generation access across the whole of the UK; people living in notspots need a solution faster than that.

However, by mixing up the two objectives – universal service of first-generation broadband, and next-generation access – reporters, campaigners and policy makers are muddying the waters, and taking the focus away from the real problem areas in Digital Britain.

The main issue I can see with the UK’s universal service plan is delivery. Other countries are planning to execute their universal service programs in 18 months or less. The big question is why it is expected to take the UK twice as long?