By Ellen Helsper
This blog post comes out of my confusion and concern about what is happening to digital inclusion policies in the UK. The policies related to universal access to ICT and its contents seem to be in constant flux. The latest activity in this area is the announcement of the National Digital Conference (the largest UK event bringing together multi-stakeholder support for a “fully networked nation”). Up until last year this conference was billed as the National Digital Inclusion Conference. There must be others, like me, asking whether this name change indicates a change in direction for the policy makers, third sector and industry behind these initiatives?
There has always been a wide range of actors involved in “digital” policies in the UK but at the moment the Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS) seems to have appropriated most initiatives. They are running both the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) and the eAccessibility programme. Nevertheless, both programmes are outsourced or partnered by other departments and organisations. For example, the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is responsible for BDUK. The RaceOnline initiatives (GoOn), led by Martha Lane Fox (the UK’s Digital Champion) and the UKOnlineCentres are responsible for the eAccessiblity programmes.
Meanwhile in Europe, official policy has become more coordinated – DG INFSO and Commissioner Kroes are mainly responsible for better defining – steering away from a pure infrastructure focus and aiming for digital inclusion. This means specific action points and funding structures in relation to skills, empowerment and social inclusion as well as access and infrastructure. Frustratingly, the UK shows less clarity and consistency over the last few years, evidenced by the number of different action plans and actors involved, including: the universal service commitment (led by DCMS), the digital participation plan (led by BIS), the digital inclusion action plan (led by DCLG), the media literacy strategy (led by Ofcom) to name but a few.
All of these are now either defunct or unrecognisable when compared to their original aims. High levels of discontinuity, in both content and in responsibility, has made it nearly impossible to follow up on promises made by this and previous governments.
I tried and failed to find an answer to the question of accountability; it remains unclear who in the UK government is leading on digital inclusion and universal service commitments for all citizens, that is beyond putting in “pipes” and tackling accessibility concerns of disabled users. Both are important but are only a small part of what previous policies were about.
Policy promises such as the Universal Service Commitment included a commitment to getting quality access to everyone in the UK and to creating a society in which ICTs serve to improve the quality of life. In the current climate – one obsessed with superfast broadband, 4G and skills for the workplace – this broader commitment to universal service is at risk of getting lost. The positioning of current policies emphasises infrastructure and employment, not quality of life and inclusion. Perhaps new commitments to these aspects of ICTs will be made soon. Until then, the question remains: who if anyone in government will make firm commitments to universal service (and therefore to digital inclusion)? If you read this and know, then please tell me and the other readers where and when they will announce these? They are long overdue.
If you ask me its the blind leading the blind. Since 2002 we have been trying to get broadband connections for our communities. In 2003 there was funding available to help villages build their own. This funding was swallowed up in the same way it is happening now. Very little made its way to the people who needed help, and they still don’t have a decent connection to the internet, with many on dial up. Many are digitally excluded and continue in their analogue world. Along comes digital britain, and history repeats itself, with countless groups and orgs and civil servants purporting to help the final third, the ones without connections, and yet again nothing happens but tick boxes, conferences and happy suits.
No wonder so many communities are just getting on and doing it themselves. The only problem is that many more don’t know how to build their own networks.
BDUK was supposed to sort out some innovative pilots which could be replicated. Unfortunately this isn’t happening, as county councils and rdas are sorting the tendering process so that again, as in 2003/4 public money for internet access goes to the incumbent telcos to patch up their obsolete copper phone network instead of going to the communities to build futureproof networks which actually stand a chance of delivering a service to the final third.
I despair. The government does not Get IT.
chris
Cyberdoyle is absolutely right, other than it is is the deaf, blind and dumb leading the blind.
Mike Kiely spoke out about his concerns about BDUK and he was struck dumb by being removed.
USC target was Oct 2012 – looked like it was going to be missed and is now 2015 (it WOULD have been missed)
The reality is that Gov has been led by the virtual monopoly holder to believe that the methodology suggested is ‘best‘. In the meantime BDUK has achieved nothing (other than 110% turnover of staff, and much taxpayer money spent on KPMG and internally)
The rub of the green is very much against the 2015 targets being met – or USC being realised, predominantly because this (and the previous) Gov are focused on systems and methods not outcomes. Incentivise the outcome and that is the driving force, incentivise the method and that is all that is delivered.
Sent via 482Kbps link in Mid Wales (quite good today)I am not convinced that the vast majority of communities have the skills and long term commitment to build and maintain their own broadband network. Selling in Kent being an unfortunate example.
‘Obsolete copper phone network’ is a soundbite and means nothing. If it is intended to mean that FTTC is not appropriate for some areas in the final third then surely that is wrong. The issue is how those beyond the reach of FTTC are served. While FTTP is ideal is there sufficient government funding for it, and if not, why not?