Fight for the right to broadband

Our dependence on the internet grows and grows, sometimes faster than we notice.

I was idly looking at the possibility of buying a new television. I was startled to see how easy it is to buy sets that have no capacity whatever to be attached to an aerial on the roof. The manufacturers assume that we’ll find all our viewing online; it’s becoming normal.

That’s why I believe that broadband should probably be treated as a utility, and its supply and establishment properly regulated, just as with water and electricity.

The government has – credit where it’s due – made some useful steps in this direction, especially in terms of allowing internet suppliers access to Openreach’s

Webwatch

For my latest tips and free newsletter, go to www.askwebster.co.uk

Olive and Mabel youtube.com/@mrandrewcotter

The collected films of the two best-known Labradors on the internet.

Easter worldhistory.org/Easter

Easter – historical context, date, liturgy, customs, from World History Encyclopedia.

I will happily try to solve your basic computer and internet problems. Go to www.askwebster.co.uk or email me at webster@theoldie.co.uk network at a fair price. It has accelerated competition and reduced prices.

Another tiny advance was made in December 2022. The Building Regulations Act has been amended so that all new homes built in England must now be fitted with the fastest internet connection on the market in that area. If that is not yet the very fastest (known as gigabit broadband – a dream where I live), the house must be built to accommodate gigabit broadband when it does arrive. That means junction boxes, cable ducts and the like.

This is, as far as I can see, the first time there has been a legally enforceable acceptance that access to the internet is a necessary part of life.

Of course, you might argue that it’s preaching to the choir. I suspect that every house/builder in the country already knows that they can’t sell a new house without an internet connection, any more than they could sell one without running water. But better late than never.

The devil is in the detail, and there’s plenty of that – too much to go into here. However, the usual trouble with developer-installed broadband, especially in more remote areas or in blocks of flats, is that it tends to be yoked to a single supplier that’s done a deal with the developer and hence has the monopoly of supply to those homes. This leaves users at the mercy of that company’s pricing with no option to change supplier. The new rules don’t address that.

They also miss another trick. There should be an obligation that every newly- built home has a central cupboard for the router, and built-in cabled connections from it to sockets (known as ethernet sockets) in all the main rooms (including the shed). A wired link to a router offers the fastest-possible connection. Wi-Fi, convenient as it is, is a heavy drag on transmission speeds.

You really would notice the difference, especially if there were several people using the same internet simultaneously. There is no excuse for new houses’ being built without this sort of network in every room.

Another well-intentioned change in these new regulations relates to flats. Hitherto, tenants have been entirely reliant on the goodwill of the landlord for permission to install decent internet, and apparently about 40 per cent of such requests are simply ignored.

The new rule states that if a request is ignored for 35 days, a court can order access to hallways and lofts to install the wires. However, this new legislation can’t force landlords to agree, and if they do respond to the request in good time but say no, I’m not sure how far this gets us.

When I am in charge of the country (it can be only a matter of time, surely), and after I’ve dealt with misplaced apostrophes, I’ll introduce a national grid of gigabit-broadband wiring to all buildings, just as for electricity. The broadband-suppliers will then pay to use that network and fight for our custom, just as electricity companies do already.

Well, I can dream.

Margaret Dibben: Money Matters

How to ensure your insurance pay-out

People are rarely satisfied with the insurance company’s pay-out when their car has been stolen or written off.

The regulations say you should get a ‘fair market value’, which should be enough to buy a comparable replacement. The figure should equate to the price you would have to pay in a reputable dealership for a car like yours before it was damaged.

But forecourt prices can be higher than ‘fair’ and the offer from the insurer can be lower. The price of second-hand cars soared during the pandemic, leaving policyholders even more short-changed by undervaluations.

With this in mind, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has sent a warning to insurers not to undervalue cars – or any other insured items – when they are settling claims because it is unfair on consumers, especially during the cost-of-living crisis.

The FCA’s chiding is fuelled by its new strategy of being proactive in improving customers’ experiences when dealing with financial firms.

It is reminding insurers that they must clearly explain to policyholders the implications of the different settlement options available when making accident claims, such as taking cash instead of repairs, and that they must not incentivise staff to undervalue.

There is no question that some insurers are breaking the rules and giving claimants less than their vehicle’s market value. Insurers base their offers on the prices published in trade magazines such as Glass’s Guide, which is for trade only, or Parkers, which gives the public a free online quote. HPI Check also gives online quotes but charges for them.

Write-off valuations are not fixed amounts and anyone who believes an offer is unreasonable can negotiate with the insurer. Companies will sometimes increase the figure if you complain it is too low – but the FCA says people shouldn’t need to do that. It expects firms to calculate a fair price immediately, including taking into account the impact of inflation, and whether customers have to buy a replacement car or are getting the damage repaired.

To challenge an offer, look for similar models online and in local salesrooms and compare the condition of your car with the average. Perhaps you have low mileage, have recently bought new tyres or have had an expensive sound system fitted.

As a last resort, if the insurer refuses to pay what you believe is the right amount, you can take a complaint to the

Financial Ombudsman Service. If they agree with you, they will instruct the insurer to increase the offer and add eight per cent interest to either the extra amount due or sometimes to the whole amount they are paying you.

The FCA’s intervention is an indication of how the regulator is changing its procedures to set higher standards, becoming more innovative, more assertive and tougher on firms seeking authorisation. It promises to take quick action against any financial institution that it finds treating customers unfairly. Its new groundbreaking requirement –Consumer Duty – comes into force at the end of July, to improve the way financial companies treat their customers.

You can expect better treatment and you should complain if you don’t get it. If customers continue to keep quiet when they are dissatisfied, service will be even slower to improve.