- Email: [email protected]
London calling: A policy for telecommunications after privatization
Comment London calling: A policy for telecommunications after privatization Gareth Locksley
With the UK government’s plan to privatize British Telecom moving forward seemingly without obstacle, Gareth Locksley examines the implications for London. Rather than concentrate on the arguments against privatization, this article considers a post-privatization strategy for the capital based on the need for a universally accessible system for the whole community.
Gareth Locksley is a Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences and Business Studies at the Polytechnic of Central London, 32-38 Wells Street, London Wl P 3FG, UK and is a consultant to the Greater London Council.
‘Various categories of jobs, associated with telecommunications are discussed in G. Locksley, ‘Information technology and cities as job providers’, Cities, Vol 1, No 3, 1984. 2See his speech to the House of Lords on 29 March, 1984, Hansard. 3His Regulation of British Telecommunications Profitability, HMSO, 1983, expresses considerable doubts about the usefulness of regulation and the Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL) model. 4The case against privatization and the issues covered here are discussed in The Future of Telecommunications in London, GLC, London, 1984.
178
It is axiomatic that telecommunications networks are central to the emerging society and economy. It is also clear that the nature of ownership and control of these networks will have a crucial role in determining the nature of the future. Viewed this way it is surprising that public debate of the ‘privatization’ (or ‘desocialization’) of BT has been curtailed in the UK. Certainly the Committee stages of the bills to privatize BT broke records but open debate in both Houses was much shorter than one would expect of a programme of such import. However British politics have moved from the age of consensus. Now conviction politics dominate. Hopelessness tends to characterize the opponents of the programme whilst its proponents appear to be under the control of an auto-cue machine. The telecommunications networks are a key factor to London as a place where people both live and work. London has become the knowledge, information and communications centre of Britain. Changes in telecommunications nationally will have a disproportionate effect on the quality of life in the capital. The telephone system has become an indispensable tool at home and work. Large numbers of people depend on use of the telephone network to keep them in a job. Besides indirectly providing jobs the telephone system is itself a major employer in London’. British Telecorn (BT) has around 54 000 employees in London where there are over 6 million telephone stations (about 20% of the UK total) generating each year 2 million international calls,
6.5 million trunk calls and 10.5 million local calls. Further. the telecommunications manufacturing sector employs nearly 10 000 in London. Quite naturally the Greater London Council (GLC) has taken a keen interest in telecommunications. Given the absence of a public forum for the expression of opinion and gathering of evidence and the importance of telecommunications to the capital’s future, the GLC held a two-day ‘Public Hearing into the Effects of the Privatisation of British Telecoms’ on 7 and 8 March 1984. Unfortunately BT’s spokesperson failed to attend but user groups and union representatives from a wide range of interests did participate. It appears difficult to find any support. besides lobby fodder, for the government’s plans for telecommunications. Manufacturers, like Lord Weinstock.’ academics, like Professor Littlechild,’ all of the unions and user groups are in some way critical of the new legislation. This proved to be the case at the GLC’s Hearings.J However the event took a more positive stance and discussed the system that people would like to see. In so doing the participants were demonstrating that the status quo was not good enough. In this respect the hearings raised a crucial issue that is frequently ignored in gatherings to discuss high technology: how can technological developments be applied to ensure the maximum benefit for everyone? Many people are now aware of some of the wonders of new telecommunications products thanks to BT’s television advertising. But
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
POLICY
September
1984
Commenr
BT’s video image is very far removed from the reality of vandalized telephone kiosks, poor service and crossed lines which is the everyday experience of many. About 13% of London’s households do not have telephones and only those with the ability to pay receive the new services. For many customers BT’s vast profits, its alleged need to re-align prices (against domestic users) and their experience of service makes for an ironic comparison. It is not very comforting for an unemployed Londoner who is forced to use an expensive call box to know that BT offers some of the cheapest international rates and fastest digital services in the world. The most critical conclusion of the hearings was the recognition of the telecommunications network as holding a position of strategic importance in the life chances of everyone. Just as access to education is decisive in determining over time a person’s income and life stvle so access to telecommunications will hold a similar role. This perspective gives rise to two broad strategic considerations which should inform any policy. First, a post-privatization strategy must hold as one of its primary objectives a universally accessible telephone system for the whole community. Second, the strategy must ensure that new technological developments are introduced in the network to provide a wide range of services for the whole community. But underlying these considerations is that provision should be related to need rather than ability to pay. It is this last point that will mark out caring, progressive societies in the same way as the founders of the National Health Service and the post-war education system can be considered as progressive. The broad position outlined means that BT should be run as a national public service charged with providing access to its services to everyone. To these ends the following objectives would need to be met:
‘BT should be run as a national public service charged with providing access to its services to everyone’
5See ‘The GLC’s comments on The Telecommunications Bill: Draft Licence’, evidence submitted to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the issue of
telephone charges. 6See G. Locksley “‘Helpline 1000”: A voice based community information system’, Information Age (forthcoming).
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
POLICY
0
0
A phone in every home, installed free and at moderate rental charges. A restructuring of the rates for local calls to encourage a wider use of the telephone system, eg
September
1984
untimed off-peak calls and reduced rates at peak times5 A significant increase in the number of public telephone kiosks, especially where current residential penetration is low. No separate charges for telephone maintenance or directory calls. Operator services should remain decentralized in order to provide rapid and effective emergency call services and responses. Privacy on the telecommunications network should be guaranteed. Commercial competitors to BT should be charged a realistic rate for interconnection with the BT network and a surcharge to help to cover BT’s wider responsibilities to the whole community. A municipal input to telecommunications decision-making to ensure the level of public accountability necessary to achieve the objectives outlined. Linked to the strategy for a truly universal service are those concerned with applying technology for the benefit of all. Two opportunities are immediately feasible. The first involves a ‘life line’ service for all those infirm. disabled or senior citizens whose isolation is a cause for concern. The other opportunity is the provision of a voice-based community information system. Many commercial systems provide information that is both inappropriate in content and delivery mode for most people. However the GLC is studying a ‘Helpline 100W6 single telephone number information system. The service would allow callers to ‘deposit’, ‘retrieve’ and ‘matchmake’ information by talking to an operator who is equipped with an expert system and sufficient hardware. This system would immediatey provide access to the 87% of London households with telephones at no extra cost. Video systems require expensive user hardware which inhibits their penetration. Because the system is voice based it is immediately user-friendly and interac-
179
tive. Further this same characteristic means that the system operates between users and the central operator in an unstructured manner thereby dispensing with the restrictive formality of video based systems. An open system would allow anyone to lodge information on any matter from local sports events to trade union meetings. Its ability to matchmake is a big advantage. A caller could deposit some information in a basket which could later be joined by someone with a similar, possibly very fine, interest. It is expected that such a system would be of far greater use to Londoners than the latest satellite and laser tech-
‘Telecommunications should be viewed in the same manner as the health or education systems were seen by their creators’
180
nologYWhat has been outlined here is a considered strategy for telecommunications that has been devised through discussions with a wide range of groups. The UK has a limited track record of public hearings run by local
authorities and the experience on the telecommunications issue has demonstrated their value as a forum and a centre for creative thinking. In many parts of the world the strategy would be seen as rather innocuous but in the UK it may gain little favour with government because of its emphasis on need rather than power and on local planning and accountability as opposed to the anarchy of the market. The greatest success of such an alternative strategy for telecommunications is its recognition that telecommunications should be viewed in the same manner as the health or education systems were seen by their creators. It is that important. It remains to be seen whether the government is big enough to admit its mistakes, reverse its decision and provide the UK with the telecommunications infrastructure that will take all of us to an advanced information society.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
POLICY
September
1984
With the UK government’s plan to privatize British Telecom moving forward seemingly without obstacle, Gareth Locksley examines the implications for London. Rather than concentrate on the arguments against privatization, this article considers a post-privatization strategy for the capital based on the need for a universally accessible system for the whole community.
Gareth Locksley is a Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences and Business Studies at the Polytechnic of Central London, 32-38 Wells Street, London Wl P 3FG, UK and is a consultant to the Greater London Council.
‘Various categories of jobs, associated with telecommunications are discussed in G. Locksley, ‘Information technology and cities as job providers’, Cities, Vol 1, No 3, 1984. 2See his speech to the House of Lords on 29 March, 1984, Hansard. 3His Regulation of British Telecommunications Profitability, HMSO, 1983, expresses considerable doubts about the usefulness of regulation and the Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL) model. 4The case against privatization and the issues covered here are discussed in The Future of Telecommunications in London, GLC, London, 1984.
178
It is axiomatic that telecommunications networks are central to the emerging society and economy. It is also clear that the nature of ownership and control of these networks will have a crucial role in determining the nature of the future. Viewed this way it is surprising that public debate of the ‘privatization’ (or ‘desocialization’) of BT has been curtailed in the UK. Certainly the Committee stages of the bills to privatize BT broke records but open debate in both Houses was much shorter than one would expect of a programme of such import. However British politics have moved from the age of consensus. Now conviction politics dominate. Hopelessness tends to characterize the opponents of the programme whilst its proponents appear to be under the control of an auto-cue machine. The telecommunications networks are a key factor to London as a place where people both live and work. London has become the knowledge, information and communications centre of Britain. Changes in telecommunications nationally will have a disproportionate effect on the quality of life in the capital. The telephone system has become an indispensable tool at home and work. Large numbers of people depend on use of the telephone network to keep them in a job. Besides indirectly providing jobs the telephone system is itself a major employer in London’. British Telecorn (BT) has around 54 000 employees in London where there are over 6 million telephone stations (about 20% of the UK total) generating each year 2 million international calls,
6.5 million trunk calls and 10.5 million local calls. Further. the telecommunications manufacturing sector employs nearly 10 000 in London. Quite naturally the Greater London Council (GLC) has taken a keen interest in telecommunications. Given the absence of a public forum for the expression of opinion and gathering of evidence and the importance of telecommunications to the capital’s future, the GLC held a two-day ‘Public Hearing into the Effects of the Privatisation of British Telecoms’ on 7 and 8 March 1984. Unfortunately BT’s spokesperson failed to attend but user groups and union representatives from a wide range of interests did participate. It appears difficult to find any support. besides lobby fodder, for the government’s plans for telecommunications. Manufacturers, like Lord Weinstock.’ academics, like Professor Littlechild,’ all of the unions and user groups are in some way critical of the new legislation. This proved to be the case at the GLC’s Hearings.J However the event took a more positive stance and discussed the system that people would like to see. In so doing the participants were demonstrating that the status quo was not good enough. In this respect the hearings raised a crucial issue that is frequently ignored in gatherings to discuss high technology: how can technological developments be applied to ensure the maximum benefit for everyone? Many people are now aware of some of the wonders of new telecommunications products thanks to BT’s television advertising. But
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
POLICY
September
1984
Commenr
BT’s video image is very far removed from the reality of vandalized telephone kiosks, poor service and crossed lines which is the everyday experience of many. About 13% of London’s households do not have telephones and only those with the ability to pay receive the new services. For many customers BT’s vast profits, its alleged need to re-align prices (against domestic users) and their experience of service makes for an ironic comparison. It is not very comforting for an unemployed Londoner who is forced to use an expensive call box to know that BT offers some of the cheapest international rates and fastest digital services in the world. The most critical conclusion of the hearings was the recognition of the telecommunications network as holding a position of strategic importance in the life chances of everyone. Just as access to education is decisive in determining over time a person’s income and life stvle so access to telecommunications will hold a similar role. This perspective gives rise to two broad strategic considerations which should inform any policy. First, a post-privatization strategy must hold as one of its primary objectives a universally accessible telephone system for the whole community. Second, the strategy must ensure that new technological developments are introduced in the network to provide a wide range of services for the whole community. But underlying these considerations is that provision should be related to need rather than ability to pay. It is this last point that will mark out caring, progressive societies in the same way as the founders of the National Health Service and the post-war education system can be considered as progressive. The broad position outlined means that BT should be run as a national public service charged with providing access to its services to everyone. To these ends the following objectives would need to be met:
‘BT should be run as a national public service charged with providing access to its services to everyone’
5See ‘The GLC’s comments on The Telecommunications Bill: Draft Licence’, evidence submitted to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the issue of
telephone charges. 6See G. Locksley “‘Helpline 1000”: A voice based community information system’, Information Age (forthcoming).
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
POLICY
0
0
A phone in every home, installed free and at moderate rental charges. A restructuring of the rates for local calls to encourage a wider use of the telephone system, eg
September
1984
untimed off-peak calls and reduced rates at peak times5 A significant increase in the number of public telephone kiosks, especially where current residential penetration is low. No separate charges for telephone maintenance or directory calls. Operator services should remain decentralized in order to provide rapid and effective emergency call services and responses. Privacy on the telecommunications network should be guaranteed. Commercial competitors to BT should be charged a realistic rate for interconnection with the BT network and a surcharge to help to cover BT’s wider responsibilities to the whole community. A municipal input to telecommunications decision-making to ensure the level of public accountability necessary to achieve the objectives outlined. Linked to the strategy for a truly universal service are those concerned with applying technology for the benefit of all. Two opportunities are immediately feasible. The first involves a ‘life line’ service for all those infirm. disabled or senior citizens whose isolation is a cause for concern. The other opportunity is the provision of a voice-based community information system. Many commercial systems provide information that is both inappropriate in content and delivery mode for most people. However the GLC is studying a ‘Helpline 100W6 single telephone number information system. The service would allow callers to ‘deposit’, ‘retrieve’ and ‘matchmake’ information by talking to an operator who is equipped with an expert system and sufficient hardware. This system would immediatey provide access to the 87% of London households with telephones at no extra cost. Video systems require expensive user hardware which inhibits their penetration. Because the system is voice based it is immediately user-friendly and interac-
179
tive. Further this same characteristic means that the system operates between users and the central operator in an unstructured manner thereby dispensing with the restrictive formality of video based systems. An open system would allow anyone to lodge information on any matter from local sports events to trade union meetings. Its ability to matchmake is a big advantage. A caller could deposit some information in a basket which could later be joined by someone with a similar, possibly very fine, interest. It is expected that such a system would be of far greater use to Londoners than the latest satellite and laser tech-
‘Telecommunications should be viewed in the same manner as the health or education systems were seen by their creators’
180
nologYWhat has been outlined here is a considered strategy for telecommunications that has been devised through discussions with a wide range of groups. The UK has a limited track record of public hearings run by local
authorities and the experience on the telecommunications issue has demonstrated their value as a forum and a centre for creative thinking. In many parts of the world the strategy would be seen as rather innocuous but in the UK it may gain little favour with government because of its emphasis on need rather than power and on local planning and accountability as opposed to the anarchy of the market. The greatest success of such an alternative strategy for telecommunications is its recognition that telecommunications should be viewed in the same manner as the health or education systems were seen by their creators. It is that important. It remains to be seen whether the government is big enough to admit its mistakes, reverse its decision and provide the UK with the telecommunications infrastructure that will take all of us to an advanced information society.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
POLICY
September
1984