Right to fast internet
CSU politician calls traffic light plans “sign of poverty”
05/09/2022 08:44 am
While network operators advertise with gigabit speed, part of the rural population is far from such a download speed when it comes to the Internet. A new legal claim should now put an end to the worst snail’s pace. But a CSU politician doubts that.
The digital policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group fears that the “right to fast internet” decided by the federal government will come to nothing. The legal entitlement will bring no advantage to households in outlying locations because relatively poor satellite Internet is also to be included, said CSU politician Reinhard Brandl. “The federal government wants to comfort the citizens in these peripheral areas with a legal right to basic services with a satellite right – that’s an indictment.” The ordinance is later discussed in the Digital Committee of the Bundestag.
The opposition politician is referring to a passage in the regulation, according to which weak satellite Internet should be included. That means: If you only get lousy landline internet in your house on the edge of the forest, going to the Federal Network Agency shouldn’t help much. Because the regulatory authority could simply determine that the local supply is poor, but the so-called geostationary Internet is available – then the “right to fast Internet”, as the set of rules is called, would be fulfilled.
This should only apply in exceptional cases where the authority makes a decision on a case-by-case basis. “But it is completely unclear how many households will be affected by the satellite exception,” says Brandl. According to his reading, the regulation is formulated so vaguely that the authority could often refer to geostationary satellite Internet. Then consumers in remote areas would have to continue as before, their Internet access would remain lousy.
Better delete satellite internet
The new legal claim is intended to guarantee that there is internet access everywhere in Germany with at least 10 megabits per second for downloads, 1.7 megabits for uploads and with a latency – i.e. reaction time – of a maximum of 150 milliseconds. Due to the latency requirement, the geostationary Internet with distant missiles in space does not actually come into play, its latency is significantly higher.
According to Brandl, geostationary satellites should be removed from the regulation. Then the affected consumers would have better cards with the Federal Network Agency and the authority would probably arrange for the relocation of landline connections or the improvement of the mobile network more often.
Starlink is too expensive
Starlink, i.e. the satellite Internet of the US technology pioneer Elon Musk, plays no role in the legal right to fast Internet. Although the near-Earth satellites allow a much better transmission than the rather cheap geostationary offer, they are also much more expensive. According to the legal claim, the Internet must be affordable – so Starlink would not be included in order to consider the legal claim as fulfilled.
The name “right to fast internet” is also misleading. Because the new legal entitlement will not make it really fast – the vast majority of web surfers get much better downloads at home than just 10 megabits per second. The set of rules is nevertheless important, it is the first legal entitlement to broadband Internet. In addition, the lower limit will increase year after year because it is derived from general Internet use – and as consumers book better and better contracts, the minimum requirements will also increase.
Who is actually affected?
How many households actually have Internet connections with less than 10 Mbit at a snail’s pace? That is unclear. In a statement by the Federal Network Agency, there is talk of “potentially affecting around 330,000 households”. However, this value refers to households with a download connection of less than 16 Mbit per second. There is no number that refers to the 10 Mbit specification contained in the regulation.
CSU politician Brandl considers the regulation to be unambitious. The set of rules is “a real blow for families with children and employees working from home after two years of the pandemic”. The green light from the Federal Council and the Digital Committee of the Bundestag is still missing for the ordinance to come into force.