GiffGaff announced that they would be giving away free pizzas on March 15th via Deliveroo, the intent being to off-set above-inflation mid-contract price-hikes on phone contracts. GiffGaff is also one of the few network operators that won’t be increasing their prices, whereas others are increasing them up to 8.8%.
Whilst people rightfully love a giveaway and a bit of fun, it brought up some serious questions I have about corporate social responsibility within the UK. GiffGaff said their campaign is “the yeast we could do”, and whilst an amusing pun, it made me wonder what other network operators are going to be doing, if anything, as they simply seem to be passing the apparent costs onto their customers. In an ideal world, these problems wouldn’t be making headlines, and there wouldn’t be the need for campaigns like this. I told a representative a little about what I thought, and so GiffGaff bought us a few pizzas to fuel us publishing our thoughts, but they ultimately didn’t get to see this article prior to publishing, and GiffGaff had no final say over what we wrote.
It’s easy to dismiss phones as simply being about calls and texts, but the PSTN has been a part of internet infrastructure since the early 1990s, and now that the PSTN is becoming digital in both voice and messaging (Rich Communication Services, better known as just RCS), the line begins to blur with our standard data plans once the the PSTN is switched off. As such, phones are long-since a very clear means of data exchange through a variety of means and the affordability of them is now more important than ever in the UK due to modern life.
Digital Poverty, Digital Inequality, and Digital Exclusion in the UK
Perhaps “digital poverty”, “digital inequality” and “digital exclusion” aren’t particularly well-named as people seldom seem to arrive at the actual definition of it without being told. The “digital divide” as it’s sometimes also referred to is a growing concern in the UK. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) defines the “digital divide” as “a major gap between people who can access and use digital technology and those who can’t”.
A lot of local libraries have been closing in recent years, and whilst people have long-since moved onto the likes of e-ink e-readers like the Amazon Kindle for their fix of the latest bestselling fiction or autobiography, many folks didn’t realize how many marginalized individuals relied on libraries for access to computers and the internet. With more and more services going digital-first or digital-only, that’s becoming a problem, especially with banks closing their local branches outside of areas of major population density.
People mistakenly assume that this only affects the less technically-savy elderly demographics. When the COVID-19 pandemic caused lockdowns to happen, this digital divide was made abundantly clear, but then forgotten about not long after. When people were told to work from home, or to learn from home, it was readily apparent how many people in the UK don’t have consistent, fast, or appropriate internet or phone access at home, and even how many people didn’t have a computer at home for their kids to learn via online. 8% of children aged 5-15 do not have any access to an internet-enabled desktop computer or laptop at home, despite Article 17 of the UNCRC stipulating that children should have reliable access to information from a variety of sources, from their own country and beyond.
Access to a device that can be used to communicate and perform important tasks is only as meaningful as the ability to afford the service to use it online. This is one of the key issues raised by students and their families during the COVID-19 lockdowns, in which they may have qualified to receive a free device to continue their education, but not received a hotspot or service credit to use with it to actually get online.
The UK PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) is going digital in December 2025, meaning landline phones will become digital, which on the face of it, sounds like it has a lot of advantages, such as increased call quality, but it also means that should a power cut happen, people won’t be able to dial emergency services via the landline as landline phones no longer receive power via the PSTN, which has its own backup power systems to combat blackouts.
This is something that’s been highlighted many times over, but many are quick to point out that seemingly everybody has mobile phones these days; however, consistently and accessibly priced mobile networks are something that could very easily affect that for a lot of vulnerable and overlooked demographics, thus I see a lot of the importance in what GiffGaff is doing by not following everybody else, even if they’re not consciously pursuing that specific goal.
An 8.8% increase on some phone networks is no joke following multiple cost-of-living crises and considering that 2.4 million UK households struggled to afford their mobile phone service in 2023. Affordability is such a big problem for individuals in the UK, that 53% of people offline can’t afford an average monthly broadband bill.
Ofcom states that providers must make concessions for specific requirements of their customers for free, e.g., for care alarms, burglar alarms, making calls during power cuts et al; however, it is the responsibility of the customer to inform their provider of these needs.
BT only offers a BBU (Battery Backup Unit) to individuals who qualify in a specific way, e.g., they need continued telecommunications access for medical equipment functionality; however, these batteries only last up to an hour, and it excludes a significant number of people who are vulnerable, but in a way that is more difficult to quantify. Perhaps some of these demographics don’t even realize that they’re vulnerable because Ofcom and BT have failed to provide sufficient information regarding the impending switch-off of the PSTN.
Despite multiple cost-of-living crises and inflation, network operators are reporting profits. BT reported pre-tax profits for the first time in 5 years due to price rises, yet line losses persisted. I feel we are far-beyond the line of acceptability when it comes to not putting the most vulnerable individuals first, choosing profits first and foremost does not sit well with me.
With the PSTN switching to digital, it should actually save money in maintenance long-term, and simplify overall day-to-day operations; however, cost-savings are seldom ever passed onto the customer. Instead, what we see are increasing bills and increasing complexity with little benefit to the people who need it the most.
In my opinion, you cannot float a business on the stock exchange that provides critical infrastructure and services necessary for day-to-day life in the long-term, as inevitably they will reach market saturation, short of some genuinely innovative new services or products they can also offer. At some point, these services should become sustainable in their existence through continued services provided to customers, and the pursuit of growth has to stop; however, publicly traded stocks inevitably welcome new investors, for which they must provide a return on investment, and if a company cannot innovate, then they must increase the prices and pass it onto the customer, giving the appearance of growth, but overall just pushing the problem of innovation further down the line. This ultimately creates or compounds multiple cost-of-living crises, e.g., energy companies, water companies, public transport companies, the NHS outsourcing to private companies. Providing quality solutions and services on a sustained basis is diametrically opposed to a publicly-traded stock’s pursuit of growth, cost-cutting and maximizing profit margins.
There’s an argument to be made that privatizing critical infrastructure, such as telecommunications, is the wrong path, but not only is it well outside of the scope of this article, we are also so far down that particular path that I’m not sure it’s possible to put the genie back in the bottle, let alone do it on any meaningfully rapid timescale to help vulnerable demographics in their time of need. Short of a buyback of stock to return to being a private company, one of the few serious options is customers holding the companies to account for price-gouging and mismanagement (e.g., C-suite receiving obscene salaries and bonuses in the millions), or a publicly-owned alternative, which seems unlikely given the fetishization for privatization at present.
The customers of network operators need to be told what these percentages actually equate to in pounds sterling, perhaps that would then emphasize to people how much more they’re paying yet not getting anything more for it.
What can you do? Write to your MP with your concerns, ask your network operator to put customers first instead of the endless pursuit of growth, telling them you’ll vote with your wallet and switch to another network provider unless something is done.
Image Credits: Hammy Havoc
Like this article? Share with your friends!