Important discussions on online safety and digital access were missing possibly the two most important stakeholders: The Government and big tech
The future telecoms sector requires clear, thoughtful and adaptive regulation
On 8 July 2025, ISPA (the association for UK broadband providers) hosted its annual Parliament & Internet Conference. After “30 years of innovation”, ISPA sought to bring industry and policymakers together to discuss how the UK telecoms landscape has evolved and what needs to be done to unlock the next phase of digital transformation. Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat DSIT Spokesperson) opened the event, providing a legal and regulatory history of the sector over the past three decades, during which time the internet has gone from a curiosity to critical national infrastructure. He stated that regulatory trends will shape developments over the coming years, reflecting a hard truth that “the internet is not separate from society, it is society”. Considering digital access a necessity, rather than a luxury, Clement-Jones called for clear, thoughtful and adaptive regulation that can evolve with technology – highlighting satellite as something that will present new and specific challenges. Teeing up subsequent discussions on the agenda, he also reflected on dissolving online-offline boundaries, which have changed the nature of harms (e.g. bullying and scams) and shifted the perceptions of ISPs from neutral facilitators of the ‘information superhighway’ to guardians of safety and security.
Whose responsibility is online safety? Tech firms, apparently
The first panel session centred on the hot topic of online safety, with its moderator Sarah Owen (MP, Luton North) identifying online abuse as a growing problem. She questioned panellists as to who should be held accountable for ensuring the safety of users – especially children – online, with Fred Langford (Director of Technology - Online Safety, Ofcom) arguing that the issue is everyone’s responsibility, or at least anyone across the value chain with any understanding of, and control over, content. Carolyn Bunting MBE (Co-CEO, Internet Matters) was more specific, stating that parents think online safety is their responsibility when it shouldn’t be. She claimed that they have been left to deal with the problem when arguably platforms – who were not represented on the panel – should have done more. Dan Sexton (CTO, Internet Watch Foundation) agreed, believing that not enough is being done by the large US-based tech companies, which have the greatest responsibility for online harm but also the greatest capability to address it. Sexton added that no one wants to ban access to certain digital services but with the time for self-regulation and experimentation over, it could provide the incentive that tech firms need.
On the issue of bans, Bunting considered the debate around the restriction of smartphones to be a reaction of frustrated parents that could come with “a heap” of unintended consequences while removing the onus on tech companies to make their spaces safer. In her view, the “right fix” is a combination of appropriate regulatory guardrails, central government support for parents and well-resourced and -trained teachers, alongside an increase in effort from the tech sector. Interestingly, Mashood Ahmad (CEO, Gigabit IQ) considered that ISPs should assume a significant proportion of the responsibility for online safety, stating that they are able to provide tailored access controls and even block sites at source. Ahmad advocated taking a strong approach to this issue, including recommending that Ofcom help develop an ISP safety code of practice and that there should be ‘NCAP-style’ safety ratings for ISPs, suggesting he thought this could become a new area of differentiation and/or competition.
Ofcom is pleased with the level of fibre coverage in the UK, but is not willing to accept further at all costs
The second panel began with a keynote address from Natalie Black CBE (Group Director, Networks and Communications, Ofcom), who – alongside promoting the regulator’s new mobile coverage checker – was keen to talk up the growth in fibre availability in the UK. She stated that telecoms has “gone through a revolution in a generation”, with Ofcom opening the door for industry to step through and to deploy fibre across the country. According to Black, Ofcom was the first regulator in Europe to review the physical infrastructure access (PIA) market, making it cheaper and easier for competitors to use Openreach’s ducts and poles. She claimed that this intervention contributed to a wave of altnet capex that “sparked Openreach into life”. However, Black cautioned that the job is not yet finished and that regulatory certainty is needed to sustain investment. She also underlined that Ofcom would not accept growth (in fibre coverage) “at all costs”, stating that networks must be secure and affordable, with consumers protected from harm. Giles Rowbotham (Chief Development Officer, nexfibre) agreed with Black that the increase in fibre coverage in the UK should be celebrated and stated that the priority should be on maintaining momentum, rather than exploring the potential of scaling alternative technologies, e.g. satellite.
However, Rowbotham identified issues with access to MDUs and converted Victorian houses, and with the rights of private renters to have fibre installed at their premises that are delaying infrastructure upgrades and putting urban areas at risk of getting left behind. Stacey McAdie (Digital Champion, South London Partnership) similarly noted the problem of urban not-spots, which she felt has played into a misconception that places like London are “fully connected”. Ben Harries (Policy Director, Ofcom) pointed out that these issues do not sit with the regulator to tackle but instead with the Government – another key stakeholder not to be involved in the conference. According to Harries, his focus now is on reviewing the many and lengthy – and occasionally predictable – responses to Ofcom’s Telecoms Access Review (TAR) consultation, suggesting that there has been material input on how the regulator should define effective competition and approach the business connectivity market.
