Reply: Without the market we won't reach the broadband target
What is required to achieve the goal of broadband for all is a well-functioning collaboration between private actors and municipalities and healthy competition that encourages and utilizes continued investments from the market, write Ellinor Bjennbacke and Kajsa Frisell in a debate article in Dagens Samhälle.
Like Christer Mattsson, we also believe that everyone in Sweden - that is, 100% of households and businesses - should urgently be given equal access to our entire society through access to digital infrastructure, that is, broadband connection.
Mattson is also absolutely right that the involvement of municipalities in broadband deployment is crucial for it to become a reality.
However, we believe that the Swedish broadband policy, which is based on market players being primarily responsible for the rollout of broadband and the provision of services, has served Sweden very well. Without market investment, we will not reach the government's current broadband target of 90 percent and definitely not a target of 100 percent.
In order for the rollout to be implemented in all parts of the country, Sweden's municipalities need to have municipal broadband strategies, so far we agree. However, we believe, in accordance with what the government expresses in its broadband strategy, that it is also crucial that the municipalities promote effective and functioning competition.
This is because competition is the primary means of ensuring a choice of high-quality and affordable services to Sweden's consumers, businesses and public authorities, and thus the single most important tool for achieving broadband goals.
In the OECD report Christer Mattsson refers to in his opinion piece, there is an important conclusion he does not mention, namely that collaboration between public and private actors has been a recipe for success when it comes to access to broadband in Sweden. In summary, the market works well, which has resulted in a high rate of expansion - not least in international comparison.
Market players are continually investing heavily in digital infrastructure, with neither a lack of capital nor a lack of will to keep expanding. Rather, the main challenge is to keep up with the high demand.
Moreover, contrary to what Mattson writes, the municipally owned urban networks are very much in competition with the market. This competition benefits local residents in terms of both price and quality of service, provided that it takes place on equal terms. However, the combination of public funds and private financing requires very clear regulations to ensure competition - something that is also emphasized in the OECD report.
A healthy competitive situation in all municipalities would mean that the investments made in digital infrastructure would be sufficient for more people and also attract more actors to invest further. Unhealthy competition in a municipality instead risks affecting the municipality's citizens through a more limited expansion of new infrastructure, less freedom of choice and higher prices.
In many of Sweden's municipalities, cooperation between private operators and municipalities works well. A characteristic feature of these is that there is an internal will and drive among both politicians and officials.
Municipalities provide land contracts with reasonable conditions, have the resources to process the necessary permits within reasonable processing times, are sympathetic to alternative and more cost-effective deployment methods, and want to promote competition in and between different broadband infrastructures.
The social and civic benefits of broadband for all are probably not questioned today. What is now required to achieve it is a well-functioning collaboration between private actors and municipalities and healthy competition that encourages and utilizes continued investment from the market!
Ellinor Bjennbacke, Head of Industrial Policy at IT & Telecomföretagen
Kajsa Frisell, Industry Policy Expert IT & Telecommunications