Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 21 Dec 2017.
Well, it's a start.
You can argue that BT has a point when it comes to slow speeds in truly remote rural areas (if there are such places on a small geographical land mass as the UK).
..But they have no such excuse for the lousy sub 10Mb/s connections in many cities across the UK, of which there are far more than BT want to admit to, which is why only a legal requirement would make them address the problem.
Enough words from BT, time for action.
Weak, honestly. 10 Mbps is still pathetic.
IIRC you don't/won't have the right to 10MB/s... you have the right to ask for it... iirc BT/Openreach can still say no on cost grounds...
That's just a legally guaranteed minimum, regardless of where you live. In reality most people in the UK have much faster connections than this.
I know, fella. It's still pathetic, though.
Especially as by the time is rolled out [and that's assuming they get the work done even remotely on time], other countries will have minimums 10-100x the UK's...
As people keep pointing out - we're a rich industial nation [allegedly], we should be leading the field [or at least near the front] not limping at the back with the bare minimum.
But 'Do the bare minimum? nah... that's too much...' seems to be the SOP for HMG.
There's only two real options:
- Plump up the few billion needed to replace all the ancient and corroded POTS last-mile connections nationwide with FTTP
- Throw in some small change to patch up the last few places lacking POTS lines and hope people aren't paying attention
The slowest package on my service is 100 down and I sit at around 130, with the option to go up to 350+ for some extra dollar. That's in the US... massively larger than the tiny UK. I'm not in a big city either. Hence why 10 Mb is pathetic.
C - ensure 4G [or whatever] coverage is up to snuff for the few places that genuinely are impossible to lay cables to... because there inevitbly will be some.
FWIW were it not for cable i'd be relying on 4G for internet as BT still won't [re]install a phone line.
There was a European Commission report called 'Costing the new potential connectivity speeds', released in September 2016, which examined the feasibility and cost of implementing a 1Gb service to 100% of the EU, (ie, including all rural areas too) - provided by fibre and wireless infrastructure.
The cost to the EU was estimated to be €249b, and the cost for the UK specifically was estimated to be £25b.
(84 page report)
Even though it's a vast amount of money, the UK could obviously afford that if there were the political will for it, but there doesn't seem to be any from any main party, so it won't happen any time soon.
Ignoring for a moment the social value and enjoyment aspects it would bring to tens of millions of people, given that the cost of something like HS2 is now estimated to be £80b+, I reckon 1Gb broadband to 100% of UK citizens for £25b+ would offer significantly better value for money in terms of the potential return on investment due to increased productivity and therefore raised GDP.
Still, 10Mb is better than nothing I suppose...
That seems optimistic as it was the same quote for FTTP for all in the UK nearly 10 years ago in 2008 (can't find a source link but I remember PC Pro hammering that number). Inflation over the last 10 years must make that a fair bit short of what would actually be required to cover FTTP to everyone in the country.
Ah well, 30% of children live in poverty, and 27% of disabled families, but at least people's right to broadband is protected. Priorities, I suppose.
You're probably right, I haven't examined the report myself to see how they came up with the figures, (and we all know government estimates tend to inflate like balloons once work actually starts) - they may be factoring in things like expected economies of scale, or the development of wireless technologies that don't yet exist.
Even if it eventually tripled in cost, (like the estimates for HS2 basically have) I still reckon it would eventually provide better value for money though. The copper wires of the old system started being laid in the late 19th century and were mostly finished throughout the early-mid 20th centuries, so, (very!) roughly speaking, the backbone of the old system lasted a century.
Covering the country in fibre prepares the backbone for our communications infrastructure for the coming century...
Not really. I have 62/12 at home in Canada, but am down in the US right now on a 10/1 connection, but it hasn't had any meaningful impact other than the increased latency due to the ISP here not supporting phyR/G.inp. I was even dumped onto a 2.5/0.5 profile after screwing around with my modem last week and went 6 days before my dislike of slow speeds overcame my dislike of having to phone tech support to get my PPP credentials.
Yeah, right, I'll believe it when I see it.
I've told this story before, but my folks live in the sticks. They were *mis-sold ADSL a couple of years back which never worked properly. It was supposed to be 512k, but was actually closer to 200k, when it worked (which was less than 50% of the time). Multiple engineer visits resulted in them cancelling both the broadband AND the home phone. They now use the 3G/4G on their phones and get a connection that's around 100 times faster than the crap they got with BT at around the same cost. The only downside is the monthly allowance; 20GB isn't really enough for them to do lots of Netflix streaming for example.
* A few years prior to them getting ADSL they were told by BT that they were "too far from the exchange" and 56k/ISDN was their only option. One of the visiting engineers revealed that nothing had physically changed with their phone line since then, but rather BT had just slackened off the requirements (I'm assuming the noise and attenuation limits).
I'm still waiting for fibre at my place (cabinet is there, just waiting for power). Currently stuck with a crap ADSL connection that's 8MB on a good day, 2-3MB on a bad. The pisser is that Virgin have just laid a load of cable, but they stopped about 200m up the road (there's a stretch without any houses, then 5 properties in my little cul-de-sac, but none of my neighbours have any interest in getting cable).
Separate names with a comma.