Beware the psephologist!

It’s not often that I get the chance to use the word psephology in this blog but it sprang vividly to mind as I read the results of ISPreview’s latest opinion poll regarding net neutrality. This struck me as a prime example of the ways in which both the framing and interpretation of consumer surveys can reveal quite a lot about the views of the polling organisation itself.  In this case, could it be that ISPreview (like most neutrality fans) abhors the idea of any changes to the current internet business model?  Take the following survey question (and results), for example:

Who should foot the bill for your use of internet content?
The Customer (You) - 42.1%
Your ISP - 31.5%
Content Provider (e.g. Skype) - 26.2% 

A leading question perhaps?  Might the results have been different had the phrase ‘your use of internet content’ been replaced with, say, ‘the conveyance costs of the content you access’? 

As it is, ISPreview appears a little disappointed with the poll result:

“Less than half (42%) of the consumers questioned by ISPreview.co.uk agreed that customers should foot the bill for their own consumption of internet content, which is the normal way of doing things (i.e. the same way you pay for your gas or water supply)…” 

At a stroke, ISPreview thereby dismisses swathes of economic thought on the internet as a multi-sided market (and very different to the linear market for utilities).  Not content with this, the pollster then goes on to paint the dire consequences if the misguided 26.2% had their way: 

“It's not hard to imagine the chaos that could ensue if hundreds or even thousands of ISPs from around the world suddenly began demanding payments from content providers. Some would simply go out of business, thus harming the very content that makes the internet worth visiting…” 

Democracy in action…?

USC: going down?

BDUK, the government agency tasked with allocating funds to rural broadband projects recently (27^th May) announced the successful bidders for the latest round of DCMS subsidies.  Congratulations go to local authorities in Wiltshire, Norfolk and Devon & Somerset who, together with their delivery partners, will share £50m of funding towards new broadband pilots.  All well and good but, in order to get a better understanding of this process, I’ve been looking closely at BDUK’s recently published 'Delivery Model', a document which sets out its philosophy and preferred approaches to issues such as network design, procurement and funding. 

There are, predictably, some quite controversial points in this document but one I spotted early on was that BDUK’S objectives appear to have changed - again.  For instance, in relation to broadband availability, the outgoing Labour government crafted BDUK’s original mission statement as follows:

“To drive forward the government’s proposed Universal Service Commitment (USC) of ensuring broadband availability (at 2Mbps) to every UK household by 2012 “

Following the election, the new coalition government initially proposed joint ownership of BDUK – under both BIS (the original parent) and DCMS. The former realised that the initial USC timetable was not feasible, and modified the objective thus:

“To ensure delivery of the 2Mbps Universal Service Commitment within the lifetime of this parliament (2015)”

By contrast, the DCMS version at the same time (June 2010) was notably less prescriptive, i.e.

“Effectively use the funds provided to meet the Universal Service Commitment”.

Now, in BDUK’s latest publication, and with DCMS fully in control, we see a further tweak to the broadband commitment, i.e.

“To ensure delivery of Standard Broadband to virtually all communities in the UK within the lifetime of this parliament (2015)”.

 
Government targets for ‘superfast’ broadband have likewise seen multiple iterations but that’s another story…