Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 31 Jul 2017.
Lets party like its...2005.
Not a ******* hope...
Really? Netflix requires just 5Mb/s for its Full HD streams, and will 'work' (for values of 'work' that include 'play something you can almost tell is the programme you requested if you squint') down to 0.5Mb/s. In other words, 10Mb/s is enough for two people to be streaming HD simultaneously.
Seems fair enough t'me.
Translation: BT bribes the government with less than *2% of its yearly profits in exchange for dropping regulatory requirement.
*is my maths correct?
What annoys me here is yet again all they care about is the download speed. I live in a rural area lucky enough to get fibre, so people assume because I'm on fibre it's fast. Not exactly. I went from 2:1 on rADSL to 20:1 on fibre. I'd happily drop to 10 or 15 down if my upload speed could be increased.
I should probably add you're all so very lucky to be calling 10Mb/s a "2005 speed", where I live did not even have 2Mb/s back then!
We get a 1:10/1:15/1:10 ratio on the packages we get in our place. 50/5, 150/10 and 300/30 down/up. I wish the up was faster!
At my parents house, the ratio is close to 2:1 on Infinity, but that's because the download is so **** poor thanks to aluminium cabling.
10 Mbps is still rather slow... we had that in 2005, as said above.
Yep I think (and in my experience) saying a reliable 10Mb/s connection is meets the needs of a typical family is basically true.
For a lot of people HD streaming is about as intensive as it gets and substantial downloads are relatively rare so having to wait a little longer isn't an issue. Also browsing on a 10Mb/s connection is typically more than sufficient. I say this as a fairly intensive user who has 14Mb/s down.
As much as 10Mb/s might seem slow and dated for people used to much faster connections, I think taking that as a benchmark for universal availability is probably about right, and filling in the gaps where speeds a totally insufficient should really be a priority.
We should be investing for future requirements, not current.
Let's not make excuses. Where I live, at least, only one provider can offer speeds exceeding 100Mb/s. All others max out at 76Mb/s. Whereas when I lived in Sweden I had 100Mb/s broadband...That was 15 years ago.
The UK has under-invested in broadband infrastructure since the beginning. This offering is too little, too late....and probably mostly labour costs because the outdated equipment is now dirt cheap.
Out of interest I looked up what's on offer in Sweden today. This is what we're competing with, and to convert SEK to GBP - remove the last digit and it's a little less than that.
*plays the world's smallest violin*
I agree it's a bit of a **** show in general but there are substantial portions of rural UK where less than 50% can get 10Mb/s+ and many can't even get close to that.
I think that basic infrastructure should be a priority.
...and "basic infrastructure" should be defined in comparison to other countries, not to a woeful internal past record.
Unless of course, we just want to watch iPlayer and leave competing in the information age to others.
At least you're not in Australia... NBN is a right mess.
Oh, deja vu. I can't help but feel we've been here before. Every few years, either the Govt. or BT make a noise about improving the UK broadband infrastructure... and every few years, money gets spent but not an awful lot seems to happen...
I'd love 10Mb/s, can't wait for the day they come and throw the 1200m of cable away that runs to our cabinet and maybe they could re-route it so it doesn't practically touch the power cabling too. Hyped already, stop poo pooing the proposal guys.
So is it "all homes" or "99%"?
I'm assuming there's still no hope for my folks. They had 512k ADSL at one point, but after 12 months of sporadic reliability, multiple engineer visits and a 3 month stint where it didn't work at all, they cancelled, all of it, landline included.
Separate names with a comma.