Home Economics Why We Shouldn't Subsidise Broadband Rollout

Why We Shouldn’t Subsidise Broadband Rollout



This is one of those numbers that is going to be so misunderstood. Or perhaps so misused. It turns out that having broadband lined into a house makes the house more valuable. How cool is that, eh? It means that we don’t need to subsidise the rollout of broadband for the people who get it gain the benefit and so they can pay for it themselves.

Of course, this is going to be used the other way around, as an insistence that we all should pay taxes in order to increase the value of other peoples’ houses:

A superfast broadband connection adds up to £3,500 to the value of a home, a Government-funded study has found.

The report by Ipsos Mori concluded that upgrading a home’s internet could increase its value by over one per cent in the post-pandemic era of remote working.

It comes as ministers have pledged to roll out gigabit-capable broadband to 85 per cent of the country by 2025.

However, industry figures warned that ministers’ decision in the autumn statement to only release one third of the £5 billion promised to the telecoms industry for upgrades would mean that rural and remote areas would go to the “back of the queue” for internet upgrades.

The report, which was commissioned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, found that upgrading to superfast broadband, which is at least 30mbps fast, added on average between £1,700 and £3,500 to the price of a home.

30 mbps is something we can manage with ASDL these days, we don’t need fibre to the door. But that will be ignored too.

So, think on it. The rise in the house price is the capital value of the services to be gained from broadband. That’s thus the maximum that someone should be willing to pay in order to gain that broadband. Fine – which means that people will pay some goodly portion of that sum to gain the broadband. So connectivity for most is dealt with.

We can also look at this the other way around. A major part of the value of the Jubilee Line extension went to the landlords at Canary Wharf. So, said landlords chipped in to pay for the extension. The Battersea extension of the Northern Line was just financed in the same way. And near the entirety of Hong Kong’s metro is financed that way, by collecting the uplift in land values from the provision of the services.

So, we’ve a capital uplift from the provision of broadband, that can be used to pay for the provision of broadband.

True, there will be those isolated places where the cost is higher than the uplift. But that’s just telling us that spending the money isn’t worth it, because the cost of provision is greater than the value created.

The sadness here being that of course we know how this number is going to be used. Everyone should pay more taxes in order to increase the value of other peoples’ houses.

Anglo Saxon Wave time, eh?



Comments are closed.


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

Agatha has been published.

Aunt Agatha has been published (the money came from an anonymous donor). It was £2500+ If you'd like a copy, donate £10+ and you'll get...

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

Recent comments