The case for social broadband

Posted on: 26 September 2023 by Alan Southern in Blog

By providing social broadband through cheaper tariffs, so the argument goes, we can overcome the vagaries of digital exclusion and poverty.

The case for social broadband

The idea of social broadband is often associated with cheaper broadband connection and with something called social tariffs. These tariffs are specifically aimed at those on low income, those in receipt of welfare benefits and who generally struggle acutely with the costs of living. By providing social broadband through cheaper tariffs, so the argument goes, we can overcome the vagaries of digital exclusion and poverty. Yet there is also a political argument about social broadband. This, as we heard in the 2019 General Election campaign, is about seeing broadband as a utility and basic service for citizens and for this reason, social broadband is provided as a public good, for all, equally.

From both perspectives, social broadband is regarded as a way to help households save money and in the longer term, improve outcomes such as educational attainment for children, training for adults, and enhance employment opportunities.  Additionally, social broadband would enable the digital citizen to come of age. It would provide a way to deliver public services and provide safe and secure platforms for the digitally engaged citizen who could provide instantaneous feedback on decisions made by public officials and politicians. This in large part, is about a digital minimum living standard, something that is advocated by our colleague, Professor Simeon Yates here at the University of Liverpool.

In our research, we were interested in whether we could develop a business case for social broadband. We thought about how, if we could identify what digital poverty is and how it excludes certain groups of people, then through the short and longer term benefits that could be brought about through digital engagement, there was a rationale for providing social broadband, free or at low cost. We could then assess underlying costs against new economic and social value as more people became digitally included. However, as we began to research into this, it became necessary to reconsider what the problems were that social broadband could actually address.

The reason for this is that as we witnessed how the internet was used by those groups often assumed to be digitally excluded, it challenged earlier assumptions about digital poverty. These assumptions have indicated that those who experience digital poverty do so because they (i) are not able to access the technologies needed to connect to the internet, (ii) suffer from low income and are therefore not able to afford the technology required and (iii) often lack adequate skills and competence to make connection a routine affair. Consequently, the digitally excluded would then miss out on many things we now take for granted, such as online shopping, online job opportunities and accessing essential public services online. Our research gave us results that were at odds with such an assumption.

What our research told us

We carried out a survey of households in the Huyton area of Knowsley, in the Liverpool City Region. The aim of this survey was to find out how people in, what was a typical low-income community who we knew suffered from indicators of deprivation, experienced difficulties in getting connected to the internet. We also complimented this with more qualitative work including a focus group and interviews with those concerned with skills, health and communities. Without being over presumptuous, we felt the qualitative work would validate some of the survey work and would provide a perspective from community representatives, health officers and policy makers about digital exclusion

What our research told us is that access to the technology is not necessarily a problem and does not seem to limit internet connection and use. We found technology to be all pervasive. However, this does not mean that access to all technologies is equal, something that may be problematic. We found internet connection to be more prevalent through a smart TV than accessed via a laptop, suggesting therefore something about the way households use the internet is important. Nevertheless, our survey of households indicated that there was a level of competence in digital use notwithstanding those who do not access the internet at all. Most people in our survey described themselves as competent users, but were far from over confident or arrogant about this. Cost was a problem but not a barrier to use. The main problem about cost is that it disproportionately impacts on the lower income household who need to spend relatively more to connect, and some as much as 16% of all their household expenditure! An amazing amount to spend on internet and mobile connection. Subsidised tariffs were a non-starter, not least because of limits to data use and reliability.

What have we learned?

We were able to look at how internet connection is used in a low-income community, something not always easy to achieve because of the lack of trust with institutions amongst communities. Yet we have learned that with respect to access to the technology, to skills and competence and to costs of access in the low-income community that we surveyed, then a digital minimum living standard has been reached. Perhaps it is not the digital standard that is most useful to those households though.

We have also learned that the definition of digital poverty needs to be more nuanced, to be more sophisticated. Our survey community is a high user, low socio-economic neighbourhood; they are connected although still experience low income and poverty. More digital engagement does not necessarily mean less poverty. Instead, more use, higher levels of connectivity, can lead to greater levels of commercial online services being consumed, meaning greater expense for the household. If policy makers wish to overcome digital poverty, then they may need to consider and understand how to lessen this cycle of digital commercial consumption.

Finally, on policy there are two things to note. First, policies need to be designed, co-designed with user communities, in ways that not only develop the human capital of individuals, but can also lead to development of the social capital of communities.  Some of this means non-digital intervention. For example, instead of the digital champion, how about a community champion with the role of building community capital? This could be a beneficial precursor to better quality community-linked digital initiatives.

There is another very important reason for co-designing policies to address digital inclusion. Second, many initiatives run by charities and local government provide a basic starting point for digital inclusion. Some of these provide technology kit and perhaps basic courses offering digital literacy and learning. While these are laudable, there is in fact, a problem with such projects that require careful consideration

If policy enables low level skills, aimed at those who are digitally excluded and often in low-income households, then this will have the tendency to move those individuals into, or between those jobs that require low skill levels. In other words, they move into or remain in low paid work. It will also teach those individuals how to consume online, thereby creating the cycle of consumption we have alluded to above and in our reports. This will then feed the high user, low socio-economic characteristics type of use that we believe is a problem. In such circumstances, policy adds to the digital dilemma rather than providing a solution. Such an approach, we do not believe, will stimulate the better quality of use that enables the digital citizen, the one who is digitally empowered in production, in consumption and in civic society.