Consultation outcome

Proposed Statement of Strategic Priorities for telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum, and postal services: government response

Updated 11 February 2026

Ministerial foreword

Digital connectivity has become a bedrock for our society. From internet access in our homes to mobile networks on our streets, reliable broadband now underpins almost every part of daily life. This is why the strength and modernisation of our digital infrastructure matters so deeply – to people, to businesses and to the UK economy.  And the UK has strong connectivity: at the end of 2024, 95% of UK households had 5G coverage. The telecoms sector supports over 160,000 jobs and is one of the fastest growing parts of the economy.^{[footnote 1]} Since 2019, it has expanded 13% a year, on average – outpacing most other sectors.^{[footnote 2]}

But we cannot be complacent and substantially more investment is required in the nation’s digital infrastructure over the coming years to deliver the connectivity the UK needs for the future – for consumers and for business. This means that we will not hesitate to bring down the barriers to commercial investment wherever we see them. And it means challenging regulators to deliver agile, responsive regulation that encourages – not stifles – innovation across telecoms and the management of spectrum as a strategic national resource.  

This is a vision for a digital society where everyone can take part. The UK already has lower broadband prices than France, Germany, Spain, and the US.^{[footnote 3]} But as the cost-of-living continues to put pressure on householders, supporting consumers has never been more important. This statement sets out our priority of digital inclusion. Consumer protection is a vital part of this – as much as it is in managing the transition to modernised telecoms networks, as it is in ensuring consumers feel confident they are getting a fair deal and are empowered when engaging with the market. 

The UK cannot grow and prosper unless its security and resilience are also built into our vision for the future. As we face growing challenges from economic security and cyber threats to the impacts of climate change, reliable and resilient networks matter more than ever. We must continue to strengthen them so they can withstand disruption and keep people and businesses connected. The statement recognises the vital role Ofcom plays in ensuring providers meet their security obligations, and in supporting the modernisation of our networks to make them fit for the future, such as upgrading fixed networks from copper lines to more secure and resilient fibre cables. 

Even as we invest in the technology of tomorrow, we must also ensure that the services citizens rely on today are fit for the future. The postal service has been a feature of British life for centuries, and this statement is designed to ensure that it is affordable, efficient, and sustainable in the century to come.  

This Statement builds a vision for the UK’s digital future that is enabled by high quality, secure, reliable and affordable connectivity. It has been informed by the public, industry, consumer groups and others, following a UK-wide consultation launched in July 2025. We were pleased to receive a broad range of responses and would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their views. As the pace of technological progress shows no signs of slowing down and will only grow more fundamental to our national life, this statement of strategic priorities sets out our plan to keep Britain connected, whatever the future holds.

Baroness Lloyd of Effra CBE
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Introduction

We would like to thank all of the organisations and individuals who responded to our consultation on a draft Statement of Strategic Priorities (SSP) for telecommunications, the management of spectrum, and postal services.

In accordance with the requirements of section 2C of the Communications Act 2003, before designating, the Secretary of State must consult Ofcom and such other persons as he considers appropriate on the draft statement for at least 40 days. The Government’s consultation on the ran from 21 July to 18 September 2025, a period of 59 days, to reflect the wide range of steers included in the statement.

The consultation sought views from respondents on the following questions:

• Do you agree with the government’s strategic priorities and desired policy outcomes for fixed digital infrastructure? Are there alternative or additional strategic priorities and desired outcomes you believe are required?

• Do you agree with the government’s strategic priorities and desired policy outcomes for wireless (mobile) digital infrastructure? Are there alternative or additional strategic priorities and desired outcomes you believe are required?

• Do you agree with the government’s strategic priorities and desired policy outcomes for the management of radio spectrum? Are there alternative or additional strategic priorities and desired outcomes you believe are required?

• Do you agree with the government’s strategic priorities and desired policy outcomes for consumers? Are there alternative or additional strategic priorities and desired outcomes you believe are required?

• Do you agree with the government’s strategic priorities and desired policy outcomes for telecoms security and resilience? Are there alternative or additional strategic priorities and desired outcomes you believe are required?

• Do you agree with the government’s strategic priorities and desired policy outcomes for postal services? Are there alternative or additional strategic priorities and desired outcomes you believe are required?

For each section of the proposed Statement, we set out a summary of responses followed by the government response. This includes, where relevant, how the Government has updated the Statement, having taken into consideration respondents’ views. We also provide an indication of the number of responses and the strength of feeling in support of any particular position. In order to illustrate a point, some non-confidential respondents may be named individually.  We have kept confidential responses anonymous.

We received over 70 responses in total. The vast majority were from telecoms companies such as BT, CityFibre and Community Fibre, trade bodies including Comms Council UK and Tech UK, consumer groups including Which?, individuals and local governments such as South Yorkshire and Glasgow.  A full list of organisations that responded non-confidentially can be found at the end of this document.

Strategic Priority 1: Driving growth through world-class fixed and wireless digital infrastructure

1a. supporting growth through access to gigabit-capable fixed telecoms connections

Competition

Summary of responses

Stakeholders are supportive of the government’s overarching position on the benefits of promoting network competition to support investment in the fixed telecoms sector and economic growth. Respondents agreed that competition provides the most effective way to encourage investment and deliver the best outcomes for consumers, in terms of innovation, quality of service and pricing. One respondent noted however that competition should not always be prioritised over economic growth.

Respondents also agreed that regulatory stability was key to supporting investment. The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) noted that Ofcom should take predictable and evidence-based regulatory decisions with a focus on competition, investment and growth. Respondents (including INCA) also highlighted that the “fair bet” principle should be honoured in order to give investors confidence. The fair bet principle allows a company making a large, risky investment to expect to earn a return that is commensurate with the risk of the investment.

The proposed Statement outlines that having several networks building in the same area is only the first step towards established competition. Most alternative network providers, the “altnets” agreed with this view. AllPoints Fibre Networks (APFN) argued Ofcom’s analysis should go beyond simply assessing the availability of altnets and consider whether those networks are established and sustainable. CityFibre agreed that the presence of competing networks is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate that competition is established. However, another response argued that Ofcom’s approach to deregulation should be proportionate and data-driven rather than cautious, and that the regulator should set out a clear pathway towards deregulation.

Altnets agreed that the regulator should take prompt steps to remedy actions which present a risk to competition and should closely monitor commercial terms and pricing offered by Openreach. INCA stated that Ofcom’s threshold for intervention is too high. However, another response found the language in the Statement to be disproportionate and others (including ISPs) noted that it was essential that Openreach remain free to offer attractive wholesale terms.

The draft Statement, in line with the 2019 Statement of Strategic Priorities, reiterates that promoting investment and competition should continue to be prioritised over regulatory measures to further reduce retail prices in the near term. Some altnets supported this statement and believe lower prices will be best delivered through competition. APFN noted that current retail pricing is making sustainable returns for investors challenging. However, other respondents were clear that consumers should be able to benefit from lower prices in areas where competition is working and noted that the Statement should strike a better balance between incentivising competition at the network and retail levels. 

Stakeholders noted more emphasis should be put on business connectivity. There was strongly agreement that the regulator should ensure that businesses across the country should have access to fast, reliable and resilient broadband.

Similarly, respondents were supportive of the need for Ofcom to monitor pricing differences for gigabit products between rural and urban areas and to consider steps to avoid rural consumers paying more due to a lack of local competition. Some respondents notes that quality of service should also be monitored. INCA were clear this should however not lead to the introduction of a price “national price cap”.

Regarding gigabit take-up, stakeholders were also largely supportive of the priorities set out in the Statement, highlighting that adoption of gigabit services is a key enabler for economic growth and required more oversight from Ofcom and the government. Several respondents, including INCA and the Digital Connectivity Forum, supported a greater use of consistent terminology between providers. Some respondents felt the government could go further to support take-up, proposing that we set up a government target, ask the regulator to monitor adoption rates per network, and work to improve awareness of the technology. One respondent disagreed with the need for the government’s intervention, noting that a wide range of factors such as cost and branding were responsible for driving adoption.

Government response

The government is committed to achieving nationwide gigabit coverage by 2032. We want people across the UK to benefit from a faster and more reliable broadband in their homes and businesses. Since the first Statement of Strategic Priorities, thanks to a pro-competition regulatory environment that enabled the commercial delivery and thanks to Project Gigabit in non-commercially viable area, the roll-out of gigabit technologies has happened at pace. Today, close to 89% of UK premises have access to a gigabit connection, up from 6% in 2019. In the long term, competition will lead to more choice, low prices and more innovation for consumers.

The government welcomes stakeholders’ support for our continued ambition to promote network competition. It is key to delivering the fibre roll-out to homes and businesses across the country, supporting the government’s missions to increase economic growth and support digital inclusion. Thanks to network competition, people across the UK, including in the Hull area (where Ofcom found that KCOM has Significant Market Power), will benefit from faster and more reliable broadband, more innovative products and low prices.

In order to deliver the best possible outcomes for consumers in the long term, it is crucial that the market can reach a stage where there is established competition where several players have reached a scale and gained a foothold such that they can compete fairly on price, quality of service and innovation. We welcome the regulator’s actions to ensure that the commercial terms offered by Openreach to retail providers are fair and do not inappropriately prevent other networks from competing. Ofcom should exercise its regulatory powers to promptly remedy actions which present a risk to effective competition.

At the same time, there should be no undue regulatory burden and that regulation should always be proportionate. As such, the regulator should take an evidence-based approach to deregulation: once a competitive market is established and networks are competing on a level-playing field (without any one player benefiting from an unfair advantage), regulatory requirements should be removed. We would expect Ofcom to continue to apply remedies in an adaptive way, reviewing Openreach’s commercial offers in light of the evolution of competition over its Telecoms Access Review period.

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of a commitment to the ‘fair bet’ principle in order to promote investment. In the 2021 Wholesale Fixed Telecoms Market Review, the regulator provided firms with the reassurance that they would support investment through regulation until at least 2031. We have therefore amended the Statement to make clear that it remains the government’s view that future regulation should allow firms making large and risky investments in critical infrastructure the opportunity to make a return commensurate with the level of risk incurred at the time of making the investment decision.

The government anticipates the market will evolve significantly through consolidation over the Telecoms Access Review period. We want these changes to result in good outcomes for consumers and to support continued investment by the sector. We have amended the Statement to ask the regulator to work with government to monitor the evolution of the market and its impact on consumers and the sector.

We welcome stakeholders’ support with regard to asking the regulator to consider business connectivity as a priority. Fast and reliable business broadband is critical for the growth of the economy, fostering innovation, and ensuring investment in the UK. In line with this, we have amended the Statement to make clear that it is important that the regulator continues to promote competition in the leased lines market across the UK.

The government is committed to ensuring that consumers across the UK can benefit from affordable gigabit-capable broadband and the regulator should monitor pricing differences between geographic areas and localities. This should not be interpreted as government wanting the regulator to introduce a price cap on broadband products. The government’s objective is to ensure that consumers in less densely populated areas do not face prices above the normal rate of return due to a local lack of network competition.

Consumers’ adoption of gigabit will support the economy and boost employment through increased productivity, provide social and wellbeing benefits in rural areas, and improve the UK’s international competitiveness. We welcome the launch of Ofcom’s One Touch Switch (OTS) as consumers now only have to contact their new provider when they wish to switch. We also welcome the introduction in September 2024^{[footnote 4]} of new guidance by Ofcom which sets out that providers need to give customers signing up to a new deal clear information about the technology that underpins their broadband service.

We agree that raising awareness is a key factor to increase take-up. This is why we published in August 2025 information on gigabit technology on GOV.UK^{[footnote 5]}. However, we believe that introducing a requirement for Ofcom to monitor take-up per operator, as expressed by some alternative networks, would put some undue burden on the regulator. We also do not believe it would appropriate at this time to introduce a government target for consumers to use a particular speed as adoption will naturally remain primarily driven by consumers’ needs.

Broadband Universal Service Obligation

Summary of responses

The proposed Statement set out that Ofcom should work with government to review the Broadband Universal Service Obligation (USO) and make any appropriate changes. Respondents broadly agreed that the Broadband USO requires review and modernisation, with suggestions that current speed thresholds are too low and fail to support modern connectivity requirements. One respondent noted that the USO as currently drafted is a hangover from provision of telephony services and that assessing relevance of it in the current market landscape will be an important step. Coverage gaps in rural areas were noted alongside affordability concerns, with some rural and very hard to reach residents remaining unserved. There were some suggestions that Ofcom’s role in relation to universal service delivery could be reformed or expanded.

Market competition was raised in relation to the Broadband USO. Some respondents noted that any changes made should be careful to not impact investment and competition, in particular given the roles of Universal Service Providers.

Respondents acknowledged that the trigger point to review the Broadband USO had been reached, with some calling for a prompt review. Other respondents suggested that business and productivity perspectives should be considered alongside consumer affordability within a review.

Some respondents (Eutelsat and Consumer Scotland) recommended making delivery changes to the Broadband USO so that Universal Service Providers also supply connections via satellite broadband. However, one respondent (PlatformX Communications) suggested that the Broadband USO should “remain a fixed line service obligation”, despite both eligibility for and delivery of the obligation already being inclusive of non-fixed line technologies (for example fixed wireless access). One respondent (KCOM) suggested that it wasn’t clear based on the proposed Statement whether a change in policy or regulatory approach will be taken forward.

Government response

The government recognises that any changes to the Broadband Universal Service Obligation (USO) need to be considered within the context of the market landscape and consumer needs. We welcome the suggestions for changes raised by respondents through this consultation and will look to work together with Ofcom through the review to consider appropriate changes to the Broadband USO and following this any changes to legislation or implementation that may be required. Government will look to direct Ofcom to carry out a review in due course. 

Infrastructure sharing

Summary of responses

Respondents are largely in agreement that the regulator should monitor and ensure enforcement of Openreach’s obligations with regard to the Physical Infrastructure Access (PIA) product, and should demonstrate transparency. INCA welcomed the focus in the SSP on the transparency of the Openreach Monitoring Unit (OMU) and the requirement for Ofcom to take quick and decisive action to remedy non-compliance by Openreach. Another respondent shared that users’ confidence in PIA requires a visible Ofcom-led programme of monitoring and enforcement.

Respondents also agree that PIA charges should be set in an evidenced-based and transparent way by Ofcom. INCA strongly welcomed government’s requirement that Ofcom should be more transparent with regard to how it calculates and sets PIA prices.

Some altnets argued Ofcom should move from a “No Undue Discrimination” (NUD) approach to an “Equivalence of Input” (EOI) approach. In a NUD approach, Openreach must treat all the networks in a fair and transparent, but not necessarily identical way: different terms could be offered to different customers if the difference is justified. In an EOI approach, the same terms must be offered to all customers. However, other altnets are content with the current NUD approach. One respondent noted that Ofcom’s definition of NUD in PIA is stricter than in other markets.

One respondent suggested changes be made to PIA rental charges in order to make rural build more affordable and efficient. They stated that PIA charges should be based on the amount of premises connected rather than on the length of the infrastructure network used. They propose that for the 20% premises for which PIA charges are the highest, operators should pay a discounted price based on a national average price, that is, based on the total PIA cost Openreach needs to recover for all premises and the total number of premises.

With regard to infrastructure sharing beyond the PIA product, respondents support the government’s ambition that infrastructure should be shared wherever possible to minimise duplication. One respondent (TechUK) noted that it would maximise the value of existing infrastructure investments while minimising environmental impact and planning requirements. However, several respondents were clear that no requirement should be introduced for networks to share their physical infrastructure.

Government response

Laying passive infrastructure, such as ducts and poles, is typically the largest expense incurred when deploying networks. Sharing this infrastructure reduces roll-out time, costs, and disruption, while supporting market entry from alternative networks.

Introducing unrestricted access to Openreach’s national network of underground ducts and poles via its PIA product has transformed the competitive landscape of the UK fixed telecoms market. It has made it significantly easier for new entrants to build their networks at scale and compete with the incumbent provider. PIA remains essential to delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2032 and to supporting wholesale competition into the future. 

Effective and transparent monitoring and enforcement of the PIA obligations put onto Openreach are a crucial part of regulating the wholesale fixed telecoms sector to establish a competitive market that will provide the best outcomes for customers.

The government’s view is that a continuing with a NUD approach is the most appropriate and proportionate means by which to achieve a fast roll-out of fibre. We believe a change of approach could have a negative impact on roll-out if it leads to significant organisational and structural changes within Openreach. Additionally, a change would only have a limited positive impact on competition as Ofcom’s interpretation of NUD requires strict equivalence where possible, as set out in the regulator’s consultation on the Telecoms Access Review. Ofcom set out that any difference of treatment between Openreach and their competitors must not put the latter at a disadvantage in terms of cost, time or uncertainty. For new or upgraded services, Openreach would only be able to offer different terms in “exceptional” circumstances. We believe any change of approach would therefore create disruption for limited benefits. We also note that some altnets do not support a change of approach.

We do not agree Ofcom should move to a per-premise model of PIA charging for the most expensive rural areas. PIA charges are set so that Openreach can recover the cost of its physical infrastructure used by third parties, which we believe is an important principle of regulation. The changes proposed by the respondent mean that Openreach would no longer recover the full cost of its infrastructure. While they argue that the loss to Openreach will be negligible, these costs would accumulate over time and, even accounting for their SMP, it would be unfair to mandate Openreach to rent their infrastructure at a discounted price over any substantial period of time.

The proposed discount would also only apply to the 20% premises which use the highest length of the infrastructure network. This would be unfair to networks which connect premises which use a slightly shorter length of the network, as they would end up paying more for less use of the network.

Some stakeholders have shared changes to PIA rental charges could lead to lower prices in rural areas. DSIT has seen no evidence that higher operating costs (including PIA charges) in rural areas are driving up prices for consumers in those areas. Evidence suggests instead that price differences are more likely to be driven by overbuilding that is more common in urban areas, leading to operators offering discounts to gain market share. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that lower PIA prices for operators in rural areas would lead to lower prices for consumers in those areas.  

Finally, while it is correct that rural operators pay more than urban ones for access to PIA (as they use a greater length of ducts and more poles) they also face lower levels of competition and less overbuild. Over time, we would expect rural networks to experience higher take-up rates than urban networks, which should partly offset higher operating and PIA costs.

The government welcomes stakeholders’ support for sharing infrastructure wherever possible to minimise duplication. It is not the government’s intention to mandate infrastructure sharing between all networks. We believe this would be disproportionate at this stage as it would result in high costs to administer the system for smaller operators. However, we continue to encourage any voluntary sharing of physical infrastructure between operators.

1b. supporting growth and productivity through investment in high-quality 5G networks

Summary of responses

In the proposed Statement, we stated that widespread deployment and adoption of high-quality 5G can help people become better connected and our businesses and public services to become more efficient and innovative. We emphasised that it is critical we have a pro-investment policy and regulatory framework and noted we are seeking support from Ofcom in the following areas:

• ensuring effective competition;
• monitoring investment in 5G networks and the cost of regulation; and
• identifying any regulatory changes that may be needed.

Overall, most respondents supported the approach taken by government on this priority. For example, industry respondents welcomed government seeking support from Ofcom on the monitoring of investment in 5G networks and the cost of regulation, as well as continuing to ensure effective competition. Respondents also suggested ways in which this could be achieved within the existing regulatory framework. The majority of industry respondents welcomed government seeking Ofcom support in identifying any regulatory changes that may be needed to support investment and competition in an evolving market. Most industry respondents supported ensuring Ofcom and government work closely with regards to any further changes to the net neutrality framework, with a minority concerned any change would unbalance competition across the telecommunications market.

Regarding Ofcom’s role in ensuring effective competition, respondents were broadly supportive of the proposed wording. One respondent noted the increasing role of online communication services (OCS) in driving competitive change in the mobile market. Industry welcomed government asking Ofcom to assess competitive dynamics beyond the traditional mobile market and added Ofcom should ensure its policies continue to support public network viability. Industry respondents also agreed that Ofcom should work with the CMA to monitor the changing competitive landscape.

One respondent noted that the statement should explicitly recognise and promote neutral hosts and shared infrastructure models. They also added that incorporating performance requirements into spectrum licensing, as has been done internationally, has provided clarity to the private sector across the value chain to invest and supported competitive market dynamics.

AP Wireless suggested that the Statement should include a call for Ofcom to conduct a market study into the Wireless Infrastructure Provider (WIP) market. They stated that the dominant role is now played by only a handful of WIPs who are not subject to coverage targets, quality of service requirements, or transparency obligations around reinvestment.

There were also wider references in responses to innovation and emerging technologies. For example, one respondent argued that the absence of AI in the proposed Statement was a significant omission. Others, such as Objective Designers, argued that while the mobile infrastructure priorities in the Statement are generally well directed, there is a lack of reference to convergence trends and the evolving nature of wireless networks. The Welsh Government and Digital Catapult referenced the importance of new and emerging technologies. The Welsh Government, for example, called for Ofcom to be encouraged to consider how it can best support the deployment of emerging technologies, including satellite direct to device mobile connectivity and the development of 6G. Eutelsat suggested that the future telecoms investment and regulatory regime will need to be geared to consider space connectivity and its integration with 5G and fixed connectivity.

On spectrum Annual License Fees (ALFs) paid by the mobile network operators, Liberty Global agreed with the draft and that ALFs should be set to reflect market value of the spectrum to incentivise optimal use. Another industry respondent argued that the existing priority should be reframed to state that Ofcom should periodically assess ALF affordability and publish evidence of their impact on growth and investment in 5G network deployment. Other stakeholders, including BT, argued that ALFs could be better redirected towards supporting investment in network deployments. The Welsh Government argued that Ofcom should review its approach to setting ALFs and consider whether they should be reduced or removed entirely and oblige MNOs to reinvest ALF expenditure into boosting coverage. The Scottish Futures Trust argued that thought should be given as to how different approaches to ALFs could be adopted to support network rollout and one respondent suggested that a small fraction of ALFs could be repurposed to support mobile research funding.

Regarding Ofcom’s support in monitoring investment in 5G networks and the cost of regulation, industry respondents broadly supported this approach but included suggestions on how it could go further. One respondent stated there should be a clearer definition on the frequency of “regular reporting” from Ofcom on the cost of regulation to industry and another stated that there should be a more structured and transparent approach to monitoring investment. BT stated that the government’s Mobile Market Review should consider broader measures to support greater mobile investment such as demand stimulation and spectrum availability.

Respondents were generally supportive of efforts made to improve the reporting of mobile coverage and a common theme from respondents was the need to report on the quality of coverage, reflecting more accurately the level of service a consumer would experience. One respondent suggested there should be clearer and more transparent performance reporting and the introduction of quality based regulatory approach for 5G networks. They stated that performance requirements reduce regulatory burden by providing operators with clear investment parameters. Several respondents noted that there was a lack of clarity around government’s 5G Standalone coverage ambition and what it means in practice.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) argued that Ofcom’s duties should be reformed and its duties amended with a new responsibility to promote investment and universal service delivery. The Welsh Government stated that Ofcom should be required to consider how geographically differentiated approaches to regulation, similar to those identified through the wholesale fixed telecommunications market review, could be used to encourage the roll-out of 5G standalone and other innovative technologies in remote and rural areas.

Regarding Ofcom’s support in identifying regulatory changes that may be needed, respondents suggested some areas for further clarity. One respondent welcomed the SSP’s emphasis on regulatory reform, which aligns with the principles of the Regulatory Action Plan. They also stated that there must be a formal process for regulatory assessment and evaluation, that applies to the growth duty and includes robust impact analysis. Another industry respondent welcomed the new growth duty applicable to Ofcom, though they suggested that government needs to advise Ofcom how this duty should be applied and prioritised. They added Ofcom should subsequently be required to update its Impact Assessment Guidelines.

Regarding net neutrality, most industry respondents supported reforming the current net neutrality framework to encourage innovation and enable cost recovery, while maintaining consumer protections. Some expressed concern that the proposed statement lacked clear policy direction and instead deferred responsibility to Ofcom. They called for targeted changes to be analysed as part of the Mobile Market Review and stressed that this issue affects both mobile and fixed networks.

A minority of respondents felt the current framework has successfully maintained a balanced ecosystem between ISPs and content providers, delivering economic and societal benefits. They warned that further reviews could disrupt competition and that the regime plays a key role in preventing ISPs from exploiting gatekeeper power. Some also opposed the introduction of network fees, arguing such measures would unfairly burden content providers and consumers.

Government response

We welcome the wide range of feedback on this priority. Overall, we consider the proposed drafting drives forward government aims to support commercial investment in 5G networks through a pro-investment policy and regulatory framework. We fully acknowledge it is investment by industry that will deliver the government’s ambition for all populated areas to have standalone 5G by 2030, for the benefit of businesses and people across the country.

However, we have proposed small changes to requirements on Ofcom regarding coverage reporting to ensure that future technological developments are considered in Ofcom’s public reporting in a timely manner and, the data provided is as useful as possible for consumers and government.

In order to shape government’s future policy making in the mobile sector, we are undertaking a Mobile Market Review, for which we will shortly be issuing a call for evidence. This will help us assess the technological, structural and financial developments impacting the sector to consider what more government can do to support the market to invest high-quality widespread networks, to ensure they continue to meet UK’s connectivity needs now and in the future. We encourage stakeholders to engage with this process.

Ensuring effective competition:

Government recognises that the wireless ecosystem is evolving leading to changes in the competitive landscape. Industry respondents highlighted that cloud and AI are reshaping how connectivity is deployed and hyperscalers are playing an increasing role in retail connectivity, as are mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). We also acknowledge that stakeholders had concerns over the lack of reference to emerging technologies such as satellite, as well as 6G. As part of the Mobile Markets Review, we will consider the impact an increasingly diverse ecosystem has on investment, innovation and competition. Through the call for evidence, we encourage interested stakeholders to provide detailed evidence to support our assessment.

The proposed Statement outlined that Ofcom should ensure competition in the market is working effectively and should proactively identify where it may not be. We made clear that this should involve additionally assessing the technological development and competitive dynamics shaping the market and the impact this has on investment in network infrastructure. We are content the scope of the drafting includes the wide range of technological developments and innovations occurring across the wireless ecosystem, and that consideration is given to their impact.

On spectrum annual licence fees (ALFs), we acknowledge industry responses in support of redirecting ALFs into investment in networks. We recognise Ofcom’s recent decision to reduce ALFs by around £60 million across the sector per year. As industry is aware, ALFs are designed to reflect market value and ensure efficient use of this finite resource. We are content that the proposed drafting remains relevant and reflects that reinvestment of received ALFs will be a matter for the government, rather than Ofcom. It is therefore not necessary for inclusion in the SSP.
 

Monitoring investment in 5G networks and the cost of regulation:

We welcome the feedback on this area, including suggestions on how it could go further. Understanding the factors impacting investment, including the cost of regulation is critical to shaping future policy and ensuring that the sector is able to invest in high-quality 5G networks. We are content that the draft wording, which requires Ofcom to monitor investment and consider appropriate options if investment in networks is not being achieved at sustainable levels, remains the right approach.

The launch of Ofcom’s updated mobile coverage checker ‘Map Your Mobile’ was a positive step in improving mobile coverage reporting. However, we believe that there is more work to be done on to support the accurate measurement and reporting of mobile coverage for consumers and to inform policy making. We do accept that there are various factors impacting a users experience that mean that a 100% accurate picture of coverage is not realistic, but we do believe it should align with user experience as closely as is practicable. There are scenarios where the predictive model used to map coverage cannot accurately reflect experience on the ground. Adaptations of the approach, including using measured and crowdsourced data, needs to be considered in this context. For this reason, the Statement reflects where more accurate coverage and performance data could be advantageous.

As part of the Mobile Market Review, we will be assessing the major factors impacting investment in the networks and what this means for delivery of high-quality connectivity over the long-term. Through the call for evidence, we welcome detailed evidence from interested stakeholders to support this assessment.

Identifying any regulatory changes that may be needed:

We acknowledge the feedback on how Ofcom can identify areas of regulatory change that may be needed. A key focus of this government is ensuring the regulatory environment is not burdensome and supports good outcomes for consumers and business. We consider that the proposed Statement adequately reflects this aim.

Regarding net neutrality, we recognise the role the current framework has played to date in supporting good outcomes for consumers, and competition in the content market. We remain committed to the principle of the Open Internet and ensuring the net neutrality framework works for all across the internet ecosystem, including consumers. However, we also consider it is critical that the net neutrality framework keeps pace with technological evolution and the changes in societal demand and consumption patterns.

The Mobile Market Review call for evidence will ask for detailed evidence on the effectiveness of the current framework and the impact of any potential change. We encourage all interested parties to contribute to this assessment.

We also recognise the concerns raised regarding implementing a charging regime that would require content providers to contribute to the cost of infrastructure investment. We have not seen the evidence to support this approach, and therefore have no plans to implement any such regime.

1c. Modernisation

Summary of responses

There was widespread support across almost all responses for ensuring the safe modernisation of UK telecommunications networks, in particular protecting critical national infrastructure and vulnerable consumers. This includes communication providers but also organisations like Which?. There was wide support for an active role by government in monitoring and ensuring modernisation happens safely. This included both the fixed network modernisations (Public Switched Telephone Network etc.) and wireless modernisations (2G switch-off).

Some responses, including BT, asked for Government and Ofcom to encourage a more rapid migration from copper-based to fibre-based services. This included suggestions that Government should provide strong support for modernisation, potentially setting target dates. Other responses, for example from ISPA and INCA put more emphasis on competition and avoiding market dominance.  There were diverging views on how much priority Government should set on competition verses supporting and enabling modernisation to take place as quickly as possible to reduce the risks to customers of old networks and maximise the benefits of newer networks for the UK.

There were different views on providers being obliged to give information to consumers on services provided by other networks when networks are being modernised. Established providers like Sky considered modernisation a continuation of existing services, whilst other respondents like INCA and Community Fibre considered modernisation an opportunity to change provider.

Government response

As modernisation includes both fixed (Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) migration, Exchange Exit, other legacy networks) and wireless networks (2G switch-off) the modernisation section of the proposed Statement has been moved to a new section 1c.

Telecommunications networks are privately owned, with decisions to modernise taken by industry. However, the government supports the industry in safely modernising telecoms networks, as it supports economic growth, improves network security, and provides a better service to customers. Specific benefits include reduced costs for network operators, enabling increased investment and/or lower customer prices; improved reliability and lower fault rates; better call quality; faster download speeds; improved energy efficiency; greater digital inclusion; and more diverse equipment suppliers.

The industry’s decisions to modernise networks is due to necessity. For example, the PSTN is increasingly unreliable, and the number of major incidents on the network, each affecting 500 or more customers, has been increasing. In 2024, there was a 45% increase compared to the previous year. And in 2024/2025, there were over 2,600 major incidents on the PSTN. For many networks, telecoms companies are finding it difficult to source certain parts required to maintain or repair connections as they are no longer made. These incidents potentially put at risk critical national infrastructure (CNI) and vulnerable customers.

The Statement has been amended to more fully set out the government’s objectives for modernisation that we would welcome Ofcom’s support on. Specifically, supporting the industry’s efforts on the PSTN migration, the 2G switch-off, exchange exit, and the closure of other legacy fixed networks, whilst ensuring that customers, in particular vulnerable consumers and CNI are appropriately protected.

In addition, the revised Statement sets out how we believe Ofcom should work with Government, industry and other stakeholders to monitor and ensure modernisations take place safely. The voluntary charters and checklist agreed by industry and Government for the PSTN migration offer a model for the other modernisations. These charters and checklists can contain the appropriate mix of safeguards for customers and freedom for industry to close legacy networks. 

We welcome the support from stakeholders with regard to ensuring that the modernisation programme does not have an adverse impact on competition. We believe it is also important that Ofcom set out clear criteria for copper regulation to be withdrawn. This will provide certainty to providers and customers and enable investment.

Finally, for this priority, we have amended the statement which refers to information being provided to consumers at the point of transition in order to ensure the policy can better work in practice.

Strategic Priority 2: Driving growth through maximising access to spectrum

Summary of responses

Overall, respondents were supportive of our focus on maximising the use of and access to spectrum. For example, Digital Catapult, noted that a forward-looking, flexible approach to spectrum policy will ensure the UK can respond effectively to emerging technologies and maintain global competitiveness in advanced wireless connectivity.

There was strong agreement with our focus on automation, simplification and potential innovation in licensing frameworks for local/shared access. Again, Digital Catapult noted that the government and Ofcom should continue to support experimental regulatory initiatives, such as the sandboxes. Other respondents noted that progress towards automation had to date been slow, with improvements needed in areas including fees, processing time, restrictive power levels and the accuracy of predictive tools. Comparisons were made to CBRS in the United States. Neutral Wireless welcomed Ofcom’s consultation on new “short notice, short duration” licences. Vodafone noted that policymakers should be wary of “technology for technology’s sake” when it comes to spectrum sharing.

Respondents with mobile sector interests frequently highlighted the importance of spectrum in supporting coverage and capacity improvements in mobile networks. It was suggested that more focus should be given to the importance of mobile spectrum use, given the economic benefits it generates. One respondent noted that government should encourage Ofcom to reduce deployment costs and support investment. Specific suggestions included: changes to Annual Licence Fees (ALFs) and reinvestment of ALFs to support investment (which is considered in Priority 2b: supporting growth and productivity through investment in high-quality 5G networks); targets for availability or coverage; specific growth and investment duties for Ofcom; a telecoms spectrum roadmap for future availability; increased national mobile access to the 3.8-4.2 GHz band; and enhanced mobile only access to the 6 GHz band. One respondent noted that Government should treat spectrum as a strategic function, focusing on affordability, predictability and prioritisation of strategically and economically important users.

Other respondents highlighted the importance of spectrum in supporting rural connectivity. Orkney Islands Council noted additional focus is needed on place-based spectrum access to support rural and island innovation, including for emergency services, transport and utility sectors. The Welsh Government suggested that smaller new entrant network operators should be encouraged to make use of unused spectrum in underserved areas.

Disruptive Analysis Ltd suggested that there was a lack of reference to unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi or IoT.  Dynamic Spectrum Alliance noted that government should maintain a policy that supports licensed, lightly licensed, and licence-exempt approaches, ensuring that these services can coexist and complement each other. Liberty Global noted that spectrum frameworks must evolve to support both traditional mobile network operator requirements and emerging use cases including private networks, IoT applications, satellite integration, and future technologies. Objective Designers argued that the approach remains largely focused on traditional spectrum allocation models when future networks will require more dynamic, AI-driven spectrum management and sharing. One respondent suggested that Ofcom should address receiver performance to incentivise efficient network build, recommending government direct Ofcom to accelerate and formalise work on this issue. They also suggested that the government should encourage Ofcom to take a proportionate approach to information gathering and consider the regulatory burden it creates for organisations.

Some respondents noted the importance of improving spectrum efficiency and utilisation through more transparent reporting on spectrum utilisation and more nuanced deployment requirements in economically important areas to incentivise comprehensive deployment. It was suggested that the SSP should encourage Ofcom to develop more transparent utilisation reporting.

DSA noted that transparent, predictable spectrum roadmaps, for example multi-year release plans and review cycles, were essential to support investment confidence and equipment/network R&D and planning. A respondent highlighted the need for a telecoms spectrum roadmap, suggesting this could be done through the government’s Mobile Market Review.

Several respondents were supportive of the government’s work on the future of TV distribution, highlighting the importance of coordinated decision-making in this important area. Terrestrial TV Champions emphasised the enduring importance of DTT and suggested that the government should formally recognise the strategic importance of DTT. Other respondents focused on the wider benefits of a potential transition to Internet Protocol TV (IPTV). Mobile UK noted that a transition to IPTV would be a once in a generation opportunity to encourage all to get online and close the digital divide. Another respondent noted that any transition to IPTV should support digital inclusion and fibre broadband infrastructure.  Vodafone noted that the future of TV is not just a question of spectrum use but will require rethinking of the fixed network across government and Ofcom, noting potential concerns around capacity and net neutrality. It was suggested that Ofcom should be encouraged to develop policies which align with an overall aim of getting everyone online. One respondent suggested government should underline to Ofcom that all stakeholders involved require early certainty on outcomes to support long-term planning and avoid a situation where spectrum sits fallow. The Welsh Government suggested that Ofcom should explore how any released spectrum could be used to further extend mobile coverage with appropriate coverage obligations.

Several respondents supported the review of PMSE spectrum requirements and technological trends, highlighting the importance of the creative industries to the UK economy. Some encouraged DSIT to go further, suggesting the government should prioritise and guarantee PMSE future access to the 470-694 MHz band, noting that protection of PMSE use from mobile should be a strategic priority. Maxxwave noted that PMSE used should be allowed for in the 86 MHz business radio framework. Another respondent suggested there was a disproportionate focus on PMSE as a minor user, noting a permanent home should be found for PMSE to avoid repeated relocations.

On emergency services, one individual respondent noted that an agile spectrum delivery framework is necessary for emergency service use in 5G bands. Consumer Scotland suggested that priority access should be given to services such as the transport and emergency services sectors. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency noted that the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) should also be factored into Ofcom’s spectrum allocation decisions.

Several respondents agreed with the importance of spectrum access for public sectors users, in particular defence. JRC noted that government should work to support better information sharing between public sector users and civil users. It was noted that the Government should remove barriers which prevent commercial agreements between a public sector spectrum users and MNOs, who may place a high value on access to specific spectrum that is not used intensively in populated areas.

On utilities, several respondents highlighted the potential importance of spectrum access to sectors such as energy distribution. One respondent argued that sector-specific spectrum designation was necessary to support resilient, private networks necessary for management of critical national infrastructure. International examples of spectrum allocations for this purpose were cited. National Grid noted that as the electricity system evolves into a smarter, more distributed model, telecoms capabilities become even more vital for enabling data-driven decision-making and ensuring operational resilience. This respondent noted the importance of acting on the NISTA recommendation to establish a dedicated telecoms strategy for the energy sector.

JRC highlighted the importance of timely decisions for electricity distribution network requirements and the risk of delays when considering requirements across different sectors. Mobile UK queried the focus on utilities sectors over other private users. Noting that all sectors should acquire spectrum in a market-driven way, it suggested that communication needs could be met in a more cost-effective way through procurement with the public networks. Vodafone welcomed the government’s activity in this policy area, noting that government should make clear to Ofcom that additional spectrum may not be required to meet the utilities sector’s telecommunications requirements.

On space sector ambitions, it was suggested government endorse Ofcom’s current approach of not obligating satellite communications to provide access to emergency services in their initial development but rather provide a longer terms plan for integrating emergency contact. Several respondents, including Connecting Devon and Somerset, Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Scottish Futures Trust and TechUK, specifically noted the need for spectrum regulation to keep pace with developing satellite ‘direct-to-device’ (D2D) technology. D2D is an emerging and innovative area that respondents felt needed to be highlighted.

On international spectrum negotiations, Eutelsat noted the importance of backing UK businesses at international spectrum fora. It was noted that part of Ofcom’s duty representing UK interests is to advocate for all UK stakeholders, including UK businesses. The Met Office reiterated the critical importance of spectrum to meteorology. Meteorological observations are taken using a variety of technology and spectrum bands and are particularly dependent on international regulations.

Government response

We are pleased that respondents broadly agreed with our strategic priorities for spectrum, and our focus on maximising the use of and access to this important national asset.

Enhanced spectrum sharing is an important route to maximising the efficiency of spectrum use, and we will therefore maintain this focus. We note that respondents highlighted other measures and spectrum users for more detailed consideration, for example suggesting greater focus on receiver performance, the potential of AI-driven spectrum management, and the importance of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum approaches. Respondents also suggested that more recognition should be given to the spectrum access requirements of the mobile, Wi-Fi and IoT sectors, among others.

We believe the proposed Statement already covers a broad range of potential innovation in spectrum management, informed by research initiatives where appropriate. We have added explicit reference to other sectors and licensing approaches, to clarify that we recognise the importance of spectrum management decisions to these sectors and the potential of technical developments to support efficient use of spectrum. However, we note that Ofcom’s existing spectrum duties include a clear focus on efficient spectrum management and use of spectrum, with consideration of all different users and potential users of spectrum.

We note comments on PMSE users and maintain that Ofcom’s review of spectrum requirements and technological trends is appropriate.

On the Future of TV distribution, the government recognises that there are broad potential implications for sectors covered by this SSP, including broadband networks and digital inclusion. These implications are relevant to Ofcom’s functions and input to the government’s broader programme of work. We have added a reference to other important factors, including digital inclusion, to reflect this.

On ensuring emergency services, transport, and utility sector telecommunications needs are met, we have made minor amendments to the Statement to clarify the importance of all safety-of-life services and considerations, and to reconfirm the government’s intention to set out our assessment of the telecommunications needs for the transport, energy and water sectors by the end of 2026.

The Government agrees that Ofcom’s duties with regards representation of the UK at international spectrum includes advocating for UK business and we have amended the Statement to better reflect this.

We recognise that the satellite communications sector, including D2D services, is an area of growth and innovation. Ofcom has already taken steps to license spectrum for this purpose, and we expect them to keep pace with innovations in the sector.

We are content with Ofcom’s current approach to ensuring emergency services access for satellite communications and will continue to monitor the appropriateness of this access as these services develop.

We recognise the crucial role spectrum plays in meteorology and the variety of meteorological observation methods that rely on access to appropriate spectrum. Finally, we will continue to work with Ofcom to support this use, and we have added an explicit reference to this sector in the Statement.

Strategic Priority 3: Supporting growth through a transparent, competitive, and fair retail market for consumers

Summary of responses

Respondents were broadly in favour of the principle of supporting growth through a transparent, competitive and fair retail market. Respondents including the Communication Workers Union and Community Fibre welcomed the Government’s focus in the Statement.

Some respondents thought additional topics could have been included, such as protections for customers in rural areas, the role of retail stores, and how AI might change the customer experience. AllPoints Fibre Networks (APFN) said that the Statement should go further in focusing Ofcom on providers’ compliance with obligations and in assessing vulnerabilities in the networks which are exploited by criminals.

One respondent said that consumer regulations should be reviewed and simplified, whilst others said there should be a high bar for new interventions. INCA said it acknowledges that Ofcom has a critical duty to protect consumer interests and that specific consumer protection measures are necessary in some areas, whilst urging caution for Government’s support of Ofcom’s shift towards consumer-focused interventions.

We received a number of comments in relation to Ofcom’s work on monitoring and evaluation. For example, Orkney Island Council said Ofcom should be more granular in its affordability monitoring, and South Yorkshire Digital Infrastructure Team (part of South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority) said Ofcom should evaluate if its Automatic Compensation Scheme improves repair times and acts as an incentive to resolve issues more quickly.

On customer care and satisfaction, respondents, including Which?, provided suggestions on what more Ofcom should do. These included collecting the number of complaints to Communication Providers directly from them and finding a way to capture data on customers who do not make it all the way through the complaints process.

In relation to the steer that Ofcom should explore ways which may improve customers confidence in new and emerging broadband and mobile retail providers, one respondent noted support for the principle that consumers should be able to trust and switch to newer providers where they fit customers’ needs. To avoid misinterpretation, they suggested that the Government should emphasise that Ofcom can boost confidence in newer providers by ensuring parity between them and more established providers on existing regulatory initiatives. Eutelsat agreed with boosting confidence in new providers through compliance/voluntary schemes, for example, automatic compensation.

INCA said it supports steps by Ofcom to increase consumer confidence in fibre but is not certain that reports about compliance with regulatory measures will be effective means of achieving that. INCA said that Ofcom should engage smaller providers or their trade associations in any initiatives it takes.

Respondents agreed that tackling fraud is very important, with some stakeholders taking the view that the draft statement does not go far enough. At least six respondents, including XConnect, Digital Connectivity Forum, Federation of Communication Services (FCS), Gamma and Comms Council UK, said that changes should be made to the Statement on this issue.  

Two respondents noted that the term ‘vulnerabilities’ is ambiguous and Digital Connectivity Forum asked for clarification on what is meant by this call for action and what is required from Ofcom and industry to deliver it. At least three respondents, including XConnect, Gamma, and Which?, put forward ideas on what Government and Ofcom should do regarding fraud, including changes to the Do Not Originate (DNO) list which was set up by UK Finance and Ofcom, making a central number repository and reporting of numbers that have been sub allocated. Comms Council UK said Ofcom should have greater consideration for the business community and supply chain.

Stakeholders provided varying views in relation to the smart data in the proposed Statement. Which? Suggested DSIT should commit to a smart data scheme in the telecoms sector. However, other respondents were more cautious, including stating that any consideration of such a scheme should consider existing regulatory obligations which may deliver the same benefit, with some pointing to One Touch Switching. FCS urged Government and Ofcom to explicitly review the impact of a scheme on smaller communication providers and resellers. BT believes a cross-sector scheme would offer greater benefits to consumers than a telecoms-specific approach. Other stakeholders, including Mobile UK, said they do not believe smart data has a clear role in telecoms, as they are not convinced of the need for a scheme.

Affordability and Digital Inclusion

Some respondents were supportive of the Government’s approach to digital inclusion and affordability, whilst some respondents said it lacked ambition and others provided further examples of what could be done by Ofcom. Which? said DSIT must develop a strategic long-term plan to support consumers who struggle to afford connectivity.  Which? noted, “Consumers must be at the heart of the draft SSP vision as the demand for telecoms services is a critical enabler of economic growth.”

For example, South Yorkshire Digital Infrastructure Team said it wants Ofcom to do more to encourage operators to promote their social tariffs and support vulnerable people, and for this to be specified in the Statement.

South Yorkshire Digital Infrastructure Team said that recent changes to in-contract price rises have led to some providers including above inflation price rises, and want a review of this to be included in the SSP. The Welsh Government said they would like to see greater emphasis on the role of Ofcom in mandating social tariffs and strengthened governance of social tariffs.

KCom stated that while they welcome all initiatives to support digital inclusion, they do not believe digital inclusion work needs heavy handed intervention from the regulator.

The Digital Catapult noted that digital inclusion should be explicitly recognised as a central pillar of consumer policy, and suggested adding emphasis in the Statement that digital inclusion is essential to fully deliver on the ambition of securing growth, productivity, and public confidence in the UK’s digital economy, noting that this is consistent with government policy.

Supporting vulnerable consumers

Respondents, including ISPA, were supportive of the government’s direction to Ofcom to continue to take all opportunities to improve consumer experience in the telecoms sector, particularly for vulnerable consumers.

Respondents, including ISPA, Which?, Mova and INCA, support the government’s call for Ofcom that to promote a more consistent approach across the sector to vulnerability. Some called for a cross-sector definition of vulnerability to help target support.

Which?, Orkney Islands Council, ISPA, South Yorkshire Digital Infrastructure Team, and Communications Ombudsman also commented on the importance of data sharing to ensure that vulnerable consumers are accurately identified and getting a consistent level of support.

The consumer voice

Respondents, including FCS, Communications Consumer Panel, Communications Ombudsman, Consumer Scotland and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland  (Consumer Council) said that the consumer voice is important to capture, with some specifying this is important for both business and retail consumers. Consumer Council said that consumers need independent representation to ensure that their interests are protected.

Government response

We welcome the support from many respondents for the proposed Statement in relation to supporting growth through a transparent, competitive, and fair retail market.

The government believes that it is imperative that people feel empowered when interacting with the telecoms market, and that they can be confident they are getting a fair deal. Consumers should remain at the heart of Ofcom’s work and that the market should deliver for consumers.

This approach not only supports positive outcomes for consumers but also helps to create the conditions for a vibrant, competitive market that encourages investment and innovation across the sector. The order of priorities in the Statement reflects our holistic vision for the sector, with each priority supporting and reinforcing others.

We have also added emphasis on the importance of the telecommunications market delivering affordable services that meet the needs of all consumers, including the most vulnerable.

The government supports Ofcom’s focus on monitoring and evaluating interventions. We have strengthened language to include that Ofcom should maintain a proactive stance in monitoring market behaviour alongside its interventions and take further action as required in response to ensure the market is delivering for consumers.

We note that several respondents provided views on additional areas that could be included in this Strategic Priority, including in relation to the role of AI. It is important that Ofcom is alive to emerging technologies and believe the Statement gives them the scope to deliver the intent behind these suggestions. 

After considering feedback we will also not be editing the text in relation to customer care and satisfaction.

We heard the feedback received in relation to encouraging Ofcom to explore ways which may improve consumer confidence in new and emerging broadband and mobile retail providers. We think the text is delivers the intent behind these suggestions.

We heard mixed responses in relation to Smart Data but not in relation to the role that Ofcom would play in the development of any scheme. We continue to believe that Ofcom will be an important stakeholder if a smart data scheme is assessed and potentially developed and therefore have made no changes to the Statement in this regard.

We have clarified that vulnerabilities in telecoms network impacting consumers also include fraud.

We heard support for the government’s Digital Inclusion work, including the Digital Inclusion Action Plan. We agree with the respondents point that digital inclusion will help enhance economic growth and have updated the Statement accordingly.

We take on-board the suggestions put forward by stakeholders regarding what more could be done to enhance digital inclusion. We feel that the Statement regarding Ofcom’s role in enhancing digital inclusion is appropriate and therefore have not amended it further.

In relation to supporting vulnerable consumers and the consumer voice we have reviewed and believe the existing text gives sufficiently clear direction to Ofcom.

Strategic Priority 4: Maximising opportunities for growth through secure and resilient telecoms infrastructure

Summary of responses

Overall, respondents expressed support for the government’s and Ofcom’s commitment to a robust approach to telecoms security and resilience. Respondents including Eutelsat, ISPA and Samsung endorsed the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 (TSA) as a framework for safeguarding the UK’s public telecoms networks and services, and recognition of the importance of Ofcom’s role in monitoring and enforcing compliance.

Respondents including Mobile UK, encouraged continued collaboration between government, Ofcom, and industry on telecoms security. Some responses highlighted the need for a risk-based regulatory approach that appropriately balances security requirements with cost implications for businesses.

Most respondents raised concerns about power resilience, particularly the prioritisation of restoring services in the event of a power outage. Respondents such as Consumer Scotland and Connecting Devon & Somerset pointed out that mobile networks rely on power to function, and even short power outages can cause mobile network ‘blackouts’ for large areas.

There was a broad consensus that clarity on the government position on power resilience would be helpful, with the likes of National Grid explicitly calling for DSIT to clarify its policy intentions on the issue. Some respondents requested that the government mandates that energy companies should prioritise service restoration to CNI sectors such as telecoms. Many respondents, including Mobile UK, were of the view that improving power resilience is primarily the energy sector’s responsibility.

Government response

The government welcomes the feedback provided and notes respondents’ support for the approach set out in the proposed Statement, including Ofcom’s role in ensuring the security and resilience of the UK’s telecoms infrastructure, and the role of the energy sector in ensuring appropriate resilience of mains power supply.

The government continues to welcome Ofcom’s work to examine the appropriate and proportionate measures for mobile services, and to continue to support collaboration between the telecoms and power sectors to reduce the likelihood of the loss of services and the impact on consumers.

Strategic Priority 5: Supporting growth through resilient and sustainable postal services

Summary of responses

A small group of stakeholders provided views regarding postal services, including a mixture of government and business organisations, consumer bodies and Royal Mail.

All supported the government’s view that the provision of a postal Universal Service Obligation (USO) that meets users’ needs, and is affordable, efficient and financially sustainable should be maintained as a priority objective for Ofcom. Royal Mail went further to advocate for greater financial sustainability of the USO through regular net cost assessments to ensure its financial viability.

Stakeholders supported the government’s priority to focus on improving the reliability of postal services, with concerns raised for those living in rural communities, vulnerable customers and businesses that rely on the service. Recognising that most important post is not included under Ofcom’s monitoring of quality-of-service regime, some respondents endorsed the government’s view that Ofcom must give due regard to the importance of bulk and access mail and take action if needed to restore high levels of service delivery.

In addition to reliability, respondents agreed that the universal service should be affordable, with reference to rises in stamp prices alongside unreliable service delivery.

In general, respondents were positive about the government’s priority to build up the security and resilience of the UK’s universal postal network by strengthening collaboration with Ofcom, Royal Mail and, where appropriate, the national security agencies. Several respondents, in particular consumer bodies, raised the importance of ensuring consumer interests are fully represented in policy decisions related to postal services. Local Authorities and Post Office also expressed interest in broader engagement by Ofcom in processes ensuring the security, resilience and reliability of the UK’s postal network.

The Communication Workers Union and Post Office Limited called on the government to recognise the importance of the Post Office network and reflect its role in supporting delivery of Royal Mail’s universal service obligation in the Statement.

Two respondents also encouraged increased integration of postal services with broader digital commerce strategies and logistics ecosystems to promote access to e-government services and leveraging data analytics for improved efficiency.

Government response

The government welcomes stakeholders’ support for its overarching priority on the provision of a reliable, affordable and efficient postal service. In terms of the specific call for regular net cost assessments, Parliament has given Ofcom a range of powers to support a robust monitoring regime, including a power to review the cost of the universal service obligation.

We believe the proposed Statement provides sufficient incentive for Ofcom to have regard to quality of service in its approach to regulating the universal postal service. Outside of the Universal Service Obligation (USO), Ofcom’s changes to an alternate weekday delivery model for non-priority letters have been applied to access, or ‘bulk, mail services sent by large organisations such as banks, government departments, the NHS bodies or local authorities should ultimately lead to better outcomes for consumers by supporting investment in and the sustainability of the universal service and therefore its continued provision. While Ofcom does not regulate the quality of service of access mail deliveries, it will focus on monitoring Royal Mail’s actions to improve its quality of service as it starts to implement changes to the USO. Ofcom has also called on Royal Mail to publish a credible improvement plan and make meaningful progress on its delivery across the board.

On concerns on affordability, Ofcom is conducting a review of its approach to pricing and affordability. In November, Ofcom launched a Call for Input setting out its early thinking on these issues. It is currently considering stakeholders’ responses and will set out its analysis and provisional conclusions in a consultation document in early 2026. The principles of affordability and uniform price remain at the heart of the regulatory framework and, in view of Ofcom’s current work, we have not considered further changes to the Statement.

The government has considered stakeholders’ views on broad engagement on Ofcom’s approach to regulatory decisions and agree that it should be reflected as a priority when carrying out its functions related to postal services. We have updated the Statement to encourage Ofcom to continue to engage with groups, such as consumer advocacy and business representative bodies on issues likely to affect users of postal services.

The government understands the importance of the Post Office network and is currently considering the future of that organisation following the closure of our Green Paper. However, we do not agree that it is appropriate to ask Ofcom to have regard to the sustainability of Post Office in the execution of its duty to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. Not least since Ofcom’s responsibilities do not include any oversight of Post Office Limited or its network of Post Office branches. We have taken note of Royal Mail’s response to the Green Paper which recognises that Post Office has a role to play in how postal services are used in future and a clear commitment to strengthening its partnership with Post Office to support its transformation.

The government supports measures to improve efficiency as a contributor to growth and better services for customers. However, we have decided not to include a new priority on increased integration of postal services with digital strategies and logistics ecosystems, as postal operators are privately owned with commercial and operational decisions taken by the individual businesses.

List of consultation respondents (72 total, 10 confidential)

Individuals

• 6 individuals

Organisations

• AllPointsFibreNetwork
• AP Wireless
• British Entertainment Industry Radio Group (BEIRG)
• BT Group
• Communications Consumer Panel and Advisory Committee for Older and Disabled People
• Citizens Advice
• CityFibre
• Comms Council UK
• Communication Workers Union
• Communications Ombudsman
• Community Fibre
• Computer and Communications Industry Association
• Connecting Devon and Somerset
• Consumer Council for Northern Ireland
• Consumer Scotland
• Digital Catapult
• Digital Connectivity Forum
• Disruptive Analysis Ltd
• Dynamic Spectrum Alliance
• Eutelsat
• Federation of Communication Services
• Fibrus Ltd
• Future Network Programme
• Freshwave
• Gamma
• Gigaclear
• Glasgow City Council
• INCA (Independent Networks Cooperative Association)
• ISPA (Internet Service Providers’ Association)
• Jet Connectivity
• Joint Radio Company
• KCOM
• Kuiper Systems
• Liberty Global
• Maritime and Coastguard Agency
• Maxxwave
• Met Office
• Mobile UK
• Mova
• National Grid
• Neutral Wireless
• Objective Designers
• Open Fibre Networks Limited
• Orkney Islands Council
• Post Office
• Real Wireless
• Ripl
• Royal Mail
• Samsung
• Scottish Futures Trust
• South Yorkshire DI Team (part of South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority)
• techUK
• Terrestrial TV Champions
• Welsh Government
• Which?
• XConnect

1. DDIT, ‘Economic Estimates: Employment and in the Digital Sector, January 2024 to December 2024’ (Statistics file, Table 3a, July 2025) accessed 5 February 2026. ↩

2. DSIT, ‘Economic Estimates: Digital Sector Annual Gross Value Added (2019 to 2023)’, (Statistics file, Table 3, March 2025) accessed 5 February 2026. CAGR is calculated by (Telecoms GVA 2023/ Telecoms GVA 2019)^(1/Years)-1. Values already adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2022 prices. The same calculation was performed in Table 1b Regional gross value added (balanced) by industry: all ITL regions - Office for National Statistics which we have used for comparison. ↩

3. Ofcom, ‘Pricing trends for communications services in the UK 2024. Ofcom, ‘Pricing trends for communications services in the UK’ (Comparison against France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the US, December 2024), accessed 05 February 2026. ↩

4. Ofcom, ‘Customers to get clearer broadband information’, accessed on 10 January 2025, 16 September 2024 ↩

5. Project Gigabit ↩