A spatial divide in broadband coverage, accessibility and speed across the UK and between rural and urban areas has been uncovered by University of Manchester researchers.
University of Manchester researchers have uncovered the scale of the national digital divide (Credit: iStock/phaustov)
In an article in the newly released Policy@Manchester publication, On Infrastructure, Professor Cecilia Wong and Dr Helen Zheng note that, according to the Ofcom’s 2023 Connected Nations report, 97% of all residential premises in the UK have access to superfast broadband of at least 30 Mbit/s.
But a closer look at the numbers reveals that “England, Scotland and Wales (55% or less) are lagging behind Northern Ireland (90% and over) in a major way in terms of gaining access to full fibre broadband, and the spatial divide is also witnessed in gigabit capable broadband.”
They add: “Our data also highlights major urban/rural differentials in England, Scotland and Wales: while 82% of residential premises in Northern Ireland’s rural areas have access to full fibre/gigabit capable provision, the comparable figures for England, Wales and Scotland are at least halved.”
The authors highlight the reliance on government-funded schemes to boost broadband coverage in hard-to-reach areas, with Northern Ireland doing especially well as a consequence of the confidence and supply agreement between the Democratic Unionist Party and the Conservatives after the 2017 general election.
Whilst acknowledging that the delivery of broadband infrastructure projects often involves local authorities and the devolved administrations, Wong and Zheng underline that the UK government has primary responsibility for broadband policy and coverage targets.
They continue: “When examining the funding distribution of Building Digital UK (a UK government executive agency, responsible for bringing fast and reliable broadband and mobile coverage to hard-to-reach places across the UK) for superfast broadband development in 2020, it is clear that has been a strong spatial bias of government spending as 73% was for England but less than 10% for Wales.”
Wong and Zheng remind readers of the previous Conservative government’s policy commitment “to improve broadband connections to the very hard- to-reach premises in rural and coastal areas.”
They write: “The target was seen as overambitious due to the lack of commitment of sufficient funding. With a new government, a placed-based approach could award more powers to combined authority mayors, such as North Yorkshire and East Midlands, to make long-term strategies and prioritise investment. Empowering local planners, working in tandem with communities to remove red tape and designate where improved broadband infrastructure projects are prioritised, may be a key to unlocking crucial access for some rural and coastal areas.”
The authors warn that a lack of clarity on “how and where taxpayers’ money will be spent” has provided less impetus for investors in the industry. But they argue: “A place-based approach, which tangibly shows the outcomes of investment in communities, could address this gap and encourage more local investment.”
Wong and Zheng conclude: “The dramatic turnaround of broadband provisions across urban and rural areas in Northern Ireland, however, serves as an exemplar (which government, civil service working with industry and Ofcom could use as a blueprint), demonstrating that things can be done if there is a political will and the backing of funding resources.”
On Infrastructure is available to read free of charge on the Policy@Manchester website.