Analysys Mason report on “NGA risk in the UK” – missing the moment

Back in March, Analysys Mason (AM) published a report on behalf of HMG entitled “An assessment and practical guidance on next generation access (NGA) in the UK”
(available here http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/assessmentngafinalreport) . An assessment it may have been, but its approach and consequent guidance has been undermined by the recent election.

The approach AM took was to create two dimensions: (1) three scenarios for the penetration of NGA across the country at 2012, 2015 and 2017; (2) three areas where the impact of not having NGA are highest – areas of highest “deprivation” (or social exclusion), “rurality” and “e-attitudes”. From this they produce areas classified as “priority”, “action probable” and “watching brief. This they do in commendable detail at the level of “lower super output areas” (LSOAs), producing many pretty maps of the country to illustrate their conclusions.

The problem however is that neither dimension is really solid.
The “base case” roll-out assumption has commercial plans (BT and Virgin) supplemented by the Next Generation Fund (Labour’s £6 pa tax) to subsidise up to 90% coverage. The “extended coverage” takes this up to 95%, on the basis of aggressive local initiatives (publicly funded). The third scenario is a “downside” case with no subsidy, reaching 70% population by 2017. In addition, they make some minor adjustments to take into account local initiatives, such as South Yorkshire Digital Region, but these affect only 2.5% of the LSOAs.

Clearly now, with the new Government’s focus on reducing the public sector deficit, and from the coalition partners’ manifestoes, there is little chance of public investment in such adventurous projects. Instead guidance on how that gap could be filled by community initiatives that require little public subsidy would have been helpful. Structured properly, these projects would be driven by local volunteers and use lower-cost local suppliers. This would be a better focus for a new NGA roll-out programme.

Similarly, the impact dimension is pretty soft. There is an unstated assumption that NGA is all about access to some sort of “socially valuable” services – e-government, training, education, even cheaper shopping. Yet the most likely driver of NGA take-up is television/video entertainment – broadcast, on-demand, YouTube, facebook etc, particularly once TV sets come with internet access built in (Sony has already launched one). Most other services are readily accessible at 2Mb/s. If government is concerned about citizens lacking access to important services, it should make sure they are available on the most widely available platform – the TV set.

The AM approach is to mash together Experian and CACI measures for social deprivation, mash them further with e-attitudes (ignoring obvious correlation effects) and overlay a fairly arbitrary “rurality” factor for good measure. It is not at all clear what that final index really represents and whether it forms a firm basis for the investment of several billion pounds of tax-payer money.

AM has as always produced a report which has admirable analytical detail. Sadly on this occasion they have missed the political sea-change and missed the opportunity to find ways of liberating local energies.