With people being pushed online for all manner of basic transactions, the lack of broadband may soon appear discriminatory. There have already been calls for it to be included in the family of universal service obligations (USOs), which would put it on a par with water and electricity.

One might argue the National Broadband Plan (NBP), which aims to bring high-speed connectivity to 757,000 homes, is a de facto USO for broadband.

In truth, the plan is more an economic strategy than a regulatory obligation, and Government sources suggest the infrastructure has to be built before the possibility of a USO can be considered.

A USO for broadband would also needed to be funded either through an industry-wide levy or via a financial obligation on the monopoly provider, which would be challenging in the absence of a functioning network.

Britain, which is further down the road in its broadband infrastructure, has signalled an intention to introduce a USO, albeit for speeds of just 10 megabits (MB) per second. The NBP here envisages a minimum download of 30mbps. The differential reflects how quickly the technology becomes obsolete.

Significantly, plans to deliver broadband to the “final 5 per cent” of homes in Britain were recently dropped on cost grounds, with ministers there accused of creating “rural digital apartheid”.

A British government document suggested: “It is unlikely that everyone will want to be connected, even if that option is made available to them, and so we do not believe that an additional broadband roll-out programme at this time is proportionate or would represent value for money.”

It emerged that people living in the most remote parts will have to pay for any additional cost of connecting them above a certain unspecified threshold.

One can only assume the cost of connecting the “final 5 per cent” here will be equally prohibitive, given the legacy of one-off housing and dodgy planning, and that the Government may be confronted with similar problems.

All of which brings up the question of whether people who choose to live in remote parts should pay a premium to be connected or whether it should be added to the cost of planning at the outset.