Statement of Principles

You can read why we believe the Final Third should be first on the About the Campaign page.

Our Statement of Principles is being finalised. However, here are the first few….

Principle 1

We believe that the Final Third – the 30%+ of the UK where market failure is predicted for next generation access and superfast broadband – should be the first to receive public sector intervention and support.

Principle 2

We believe that ‘broadband’ is the 4th utility and universal access to that utility should be a priority.

Principle 3

We believe that a key target for the country is that by 2012 everyone, wherever they live, should have access to a minimum of 2Mbps symmetrical broadband connectivity that enables universal access to present day websites, applications and services.

Principle 4

FTF acknowledges the developments of FTTH networks in other countries and the position from which the UK must catch up. We believe that in every possible instance, FTTH should be the first choice for both the 2012 target and beyond.

Principle 5

FTF recognises that there will need to be a variety of solutions to connect every home. However, every home and business must have equal or similar connection available to every other, whichever technology is chosen.

Principle 6

FTF insists that communication providers must meet specific coverage and quality of service for all connections, particularly those from Spectrum Policy and the Digital dividend auction process.

Principle 7

FTF believes all next generation access networks built with public monies must be Open Access so that any provider can offer services to consumers and businesses on that network.

  1. June 24, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    How is the rural economy to prosper and enterprise succeed without one the most basic business utilities? It’s the one thing that would make the biggest difference to my business. Public money into this element of the country’s infrastructure would pay dividends and generate greater employment, profitability and make a big contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Keep up the pressure!

  2. chrisconder
    June 30, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Thanks Karen, we will do our best! We agree, it is essential that this utility is available to all.

  3. July 1, 2010 at 10:23 am

    As the MD of a virtual office support business, I consider this situation to be another example of hypocrisy on the part of the government over the past twenty years. They pay lip service to the concepts of tackling global warming and supporting economic growth, but refuse to make it compulsory for broadband to be made available to every UK address. If they would only do so, each resident would have the necessary means to work, trade, purchase and communicate remotely at a standard befitting the 21st century, and we would be a more efficient nation commercially, despite our overcrowded cities, poor road infrastructure and sky high fuel prices. What will the coalition do about it, I wonder?

  4. July 15, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Nobody forced you to live in the country. You chose that life because it has a number of benefits that, for you, outweigh the costs. Why do you feel city-dwellers should be compelled to subsidise your lifestyle choice?

    It is not the government’s proper role to help the “economy [rural or otherwise] to prosper and enterprise succeed”. That is the function of businessmen acting in their own self interest.

    I can see how with all the ‘public’ money flying around, you’d be inclined to lobby for a cut. What’s a few billion here and there?

    The trouble is that even in the good times, there is no such thing as ‘public money’. Every pound the government spends or borrows is a pound that can’t be spent or borrowed by private individuals. If they left more money in your pocket, you’d find it easier to pay for your own broadband.

    • chrisconder
      July 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm

      City dwellers aren’t being compelled to subsidise rural dwellers, just like rural dwellers don’t subsidise your water. Utilities are a common goal for us all, we all need them to thrive and prosper. Government support is what we need, to make a level playing field and stimulate investment in rural next generation access. Once everyone is online it is estimated that government can save billions, far more than it would need to invest, so actually the ROI would save the country as a whole loadsa money, pay back some of our banking debts and then maybe generate enough to subsidise a few steelworks…

    • Willie
      October 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

      Although not forced to live in the country, the Government are starting to force on-line submission of various things. Why should the country inhabitants be forced to do such things on-line & how are they going to do it ?
      Are they going to pay the mileage to drive to the nearest area with broadband to achieve this ?

      • October 19, 2010 at 6:22 am

        I’d argue that universal postal service, with country dwellers paying the same despite vastly increased costs, is also an unfair subsidy.

        I think it’s better to focus on removing the obstacles erected by the government against free market solutions to the rural broadband problem.

        I’d also be in favour of radically reducing the need for communication with the government, especially central government.

        It is true that you stand a much better chance of getting a subsidy than a small state, so I can’t really blame FTF for pursuing its course, but I hope the commenters here will not lose sight of the deeper problems.

        If the government didn’t confiscate quite so much of your wealth to squander on undeserving people and projects on the other side of the country, I think you’d find it much easier to bear some of the naturally high costs of country living.

        So lobby for your share of the loot, if you must, but please also fight to stop the robbery.

  5. Phil Coates
    October 12, 2010 at 9:51 am

    The Urban v’s Rural argument is a smokescreen for doing nothing. There are plenty of examples e.g. the Nordic countries, where if there is a will, there is a way. Relying on provision from the established ISPs is a waste of time because of the lack of profit.

    Governments elsewhere have made the final third happen (e.g. Finland), there is no reason why this Government cannot. For the money spent in Iraq we could all have been connected ages ago.

  6. Somerset
    March 27, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    What does ‘However, every home and business must have equal or similar connection available to every other, whichever technology is chosen.’ mean?

  1. March 21, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: