Access to the Internet shouldn't be a luxury
Does that mean we're not going to be charged VAT for Broadband?
10 Mbps is the speed needed to meet the demands of today’s typical family and many small business
And 10 Mbps makes it all the better to spy on you. ;)
its not going to happen, crusty BT won`t give you a landline back if your job ends, and you don`t pay them, all other landlines from ISP`s just sell BT lines except virgin
it ends up being faster and cheaper to just use EE and 3 on 3g with your cell plugged in to your desktop then most BT connections on landlines
Only way this will happen is if either the government legislate and can punish the underlying carrier with a fine bigger than the investment costs, or if there are large subsidies involved.
I can see why Virgin are against subsidies, because they know their technology isn't cost effective to install, or they would have done it in many more places by now, meaning most of the money will be handed to BT to upgrade all their cabinets to Fibre.
The problem with “rights” is that people see it as something they are entitled to without actually having to pay proper costs for it. If it cost £1000 per fibre line to upgrade a cabinet with only a few lines on it, no one connected to it would want to pay for it.
As indicated in the above statement, fast broadband is now seen as a necessity; essential for families, entrepreneurs, and businesses.
Pardon my cynicism but notice that there's no mention of government in that list. Strange given that the chancellor has been quoted as saying he wants HMG to move over to “digital delivery” of services.
Anyone think that this won't end up as (a) a lot of hot air, and/or (b) a whacking government subsidy heading to BT with no real progress in sight?
Actually I'd maybe be happier in the idea of subsidising OpenReach if OpenReach was either nationalised or reformed into a not-for-profit like Network Rail.
I'm also fascinated that 10Mb/s is “Fast Broadband” - surely that kind of speed is (theoretically?) achievable with our current 4G setup. What does that make my supposed* 152Mb/s from VM - hyperspeed?
(* very unhappy with VM at the moment - got an email from them saying I was being speed-boosted “shortly” and in the meantime the link speed has about halved. Maybe I need to move from SuperHub1 modem to something more modern).
BobF64
Only way this will happen is if either the government legislate and can punish the underlying carrier with a fine bigger than the investment costs, or if there are large subsidies involved.
I can see why Virgin are against subsidies, because they know their technology isn't cost effective to install, or they would have done it in many more places by now, meaning most of the money will be handed to BT to upgrade all their cabinets to Fibre.
The problem with “rights” is that people see it as something they are entitled to without actually having to pay proper costs for it. If it cost £1000 per fibre line to upgrade a cabinet with only a few lines on it, no one connected to it would want to pay for it.
the government has paid BT £16 billion to lay down fibre, which the payouts end in a few years
Corky34
Does that mean we're not going to be charged VAT for Broadband?
That would require the EU to agree
shaithis
Corky34
Does that mean we're not going to be charged VAT for Broadband?
That would require the EU to agree
So we could do it if we left.. They have no right to be meddling with our affairs anyway!
BobF64
I can see why Virgin are against subsidies, because they know their technology isn't cost effective to install, or they would have done it in many more places by now, meaning most of the money will be handed to BT to upgrade all their cabinets to Fibre.
I thought the reasons for VM not rolling out in more places was due to councils not granting permission, not wanting their roads dug up and the accompanying hassle involved with laying what they probably see as something that's already there in the form of BT cables, then again i could be talking rubbish as IDK about the inter workings of VM or councils.
Fast internet is not a luxury, it's a right. Tell that to homeless people who have to beg for food and shelter. Or the many people who use food banks because the government make more austerity cuts. Good for a lot of people, but I think priorities are a bit wrong.
crossy
I'm also fascinated that 10Mb/s is “Fast Broadband” - surely that kind of speed is (theoretically?) achievable with our current 4G setup. What does that make my supposed* 152Mb/s from VM - hyperspeed?
(* very unhappy with VM at the moment - got an email from them saying I was being speed-boosted “shortly” and in the meantime the link speed has about halved. Maybe I need to move from SuperHub1 modem to something more modern).
This also fascinates me (100Mbps user) also. But 10Mbps is still a darn sight better than the 0.2-0.7 some of my friends currently get.
(* on your note, I would ask VM if they will upgrade you, it can't hurt and the SH2 is far superior)
God this boils my urine
No-one need ‘fast’ internet for anything other than watching movies or piracy. There is no difference for people if their webpages take 2 seconds of 2.1 seconds to load.
abaxas
God this boils my urine.
No-one need ‘fast’ internet for anything other than watching movies or piracy. There is no difference for people if their webpages take 2 seconds of 2.1 seconds to load.
Oh my…. It's hard to comprehend the amount of stupidity in that comment.
aniilv
Oh my…. It's hard to comprehend the amount of stupidity in that comment.
So come on…. what do people ‘need’ fast internet for…..
Although it sounds very useful, there are possible issues around the government releasing address-specific connectivity data. If you're trying to sell your house and the government suddenly tells everyone it has rubbish mobile signal and slow broadband, and as a result the market value goes down by a few grand, you're going to be mighty annoyed!
Middle of urban Manchester and I get 3Mb/s (3.5 on a good day). Good luck with that!
CK_1985
Although it sounds very useful, there are possible issues around the government releasing address-specific connectivity data. If you're trying to sell your house and the government suddenly tells everyone it has rubbish mobile signal and slow broadband, and as a result the market value goes down by a few grand, you're going to be mighty annoyed!
One of the issue with mobile signal is that it is not fixed. We've just got through a mast upgrade from 2G (yes!) to 3g and the signal strength is much much worse.
Ironically the only way to guarentee quality mobile signal is to live in a rough area!
abaxas
So come on…. what do people ‘need’ fast internet for…..
Work, backups and legitimate downloads for starters…….
We should be look at satalite
Mobile signal is still patchy at best, my commute to work sees me losing my data & calls for 65% of the time i'm travelling. And that's on the M4 Corridor route into london!!!
Practically everything needs internet these days like:
-Paperless billing
-Service and support
-Digital content
-Government spying
-Purchase of goods - Bricks and Mortar are still useful but with the vastness and cheapness of click to buy stores, purchasing something at a decent low price is damn near hard to find in store these days.
-Communication - Email is now a primary method of contact and with the standardisation of digital signing of documents these are just as good as your scrawl on a piece of paper
-News - The average consumer of news is now easily done through your phone/tablet/PC. I very rarely see people pick up the Metro on the train anymore and I actually saw someone sat next to me reading the same Metro on their Galaxy Note as the one on the seat opposite the other day
-Fighting for your right to party - Vote for change, change.org, contacting your MP for suggestions of change are done mostly through email/web forms now
And with the size of the data we upload/download increasing over time this necessitates having ADSL2. Even being on 2.3mbps can be a slog.
abaxas
So come on…. what do people ‘need’ fast internet for…..
Corky34
I thought the reasons for VM not rolling out in more places was due to councils not granting permission, not wanting their roads dug up and the accompanying hassle involved with laying what they probably see as something that's already there in the form of BT cables, then again i could be talking rubbish as IDK about the inter workings of VM or councils.
Could well be the visible causes, digging up roads is cheaper and probably quicker than other ways of installing things. That said, other ways might just not be viable, like via sewers or other existing ducts.
Heck, even BT sometimes have trouble installing fibre cabinets due to “locals” objecting to the “eye sore” they cause and sometimes a lack of space on the pavement.
Biscuit
No point trying to insult yourself.
If you dont understand why, don't assume someone is trolling you, or you are just trolling yourslef.
Almost no-one needs fast internet. End of argument.
abaxas
No point trying to insult yourself.
If you dont understand why, don't assume someone is trolling you, or you are just trolling yourslef.
Almost no-one needs fast internet. End of argument.
I work in an audit department and our software is constantly back up our work to our works server whilst we are off site. We need reasonable internet to ensure this works. If we return one day and somebody's laptop has died overnight then any work that hasn't been backed up needs to be re-performed. We are extremely time pressured on site. We normally only get 5 days as a team on site and we then move onto another job the next week. Can you see that our work being backed-up over the internet, is necessary?
Similarly, I know the tax department use a piece of software that has a centralised database of all our personal tax clients. They remote desktop into office to use this whilst away/working from home/in a blind panic in the last week of January. Once again, a decent internet connection is required for these things. Not preferable, required.
Those are just reasons specific to my situation in my working life. Lots of people depend on good internet infrastructure.
abaxas
No point trying to insult yourself.
If you dont understand why, don't assume someone is trolling you, or you are just trolling yourslef.
Almost no-one needs fast internet. End of argument.
Ah yes, the old “you called me a troll therefore you are a troll” argument… good one.
The amount of reasons why the option of ‘fast’ internet should be a legal right are numerous, and people have posted them. You can choose to ignore them with claim that they are not good enough, but all that indicates is a difference of personal opinion and requirement. The argument may have ended for you but for most people there is no argument to be had.
For most people the internet is seen much like another typical common utility and as such a certain level of service should be expected and enforced by regulation. Aside from the fair statement that the governments priorities are wrong, there really isnt anything to complain about with this legislation…. assuming they actually go through with it and meet their goals for once.
abaxas
Almost no-one needs fast internet. End of argument.
Bear in mind that the definition of Fast Internet is 10Mbps. That sort of speed makes remote login to corporate portals and using Netflix a sensible speed and quality. You may have got it confused with all the 150Mbps Superfast stuff that gets plugged so much.
shaithis
abaxas
So come on…. what do people ‘need’ fast internet for…..
Work, backups and legitimate downloads for starters…….
Government is trying to encourage folks to “think green” - and teleworking is a fine way to eliminate the CO2 produced by the commute. They were also bleating on about “happiness” and not being stuck in a traffic jam in behind “Mater” in her Chelsea Tractor and front of some tailgating wide boy rep in a BMW/Audi is a fine way to improve happiness by decreasing stress.
There's also training, (big deal with me at the moment because my useless soon-to-be-ex employer doesn't believe in it, unless it's happy-clappy corporate ….). Try watching a video course on C#, Chef, Puppet or Ruby on a <10Mb/s link and it's really, really unpleasant. Plus - as shaithis says - there's legitimate downloads - e.g. a couple of gig for a Linux distro (to practice some of the new-found skills on?)
I'll also echo tabbykatze's list - I'm shocked by the number of sites that you
need to use which have HTML5/Flash anims, ads, etc. So you deploy your favourite “detech'ing” add ons (AdBlockPlus, NoScript, etc) and promptly find that the website is rendered either barely usable or totally unusable.
On the other hand, I do kind of wonder about the common sense shown in pushing this when Osbourne is trying to remove heat from homes, and food from the tables of the poorest. Of course, maybe this is another diversion for the techno-literate chattering classes? Personally I think a better target (if we're wasting time on “tech”) would be 99% 3G coverage for the UK, (and yes I know the Mobile Operators Association claims we're already at
99.3% - but I'm doubtful), or better still 100% 4G coverage - then we don't need fast broadband. :p
Typical PPE Oxford graduate politician spouting platitudes to gain votes without understanding the consequences of what he proposes. You can currently get broadband upto a certain speed for around the line rental price, which is roughly £17 per month (and a bit less with offers and paying the yearly cost upfront). There will be some people who will be getting a speed of 10mb or over, but most won't. I'm one of them, I get 7mb. In order for me to get a higher speed I need to pay more money.
Therefore your right to get 10mb will simply cost you more. A lot more. Instead of paying £15 a month for 7mb, you'll fully enjoy your new right to a minimum speed of 10mb by paying £30 a month, because areas with lots of people, where a roll out to the higher speed is cost effective, will have to pay above and beyond in order to subsidise those in rural areas where the cost is more per paying customer for installing the infrastructure.
This will hit the poorest hardest and they are the very people who need cheap broadband even if it's “only” 6mb.
The basis of the proposal is to extend the “universal obligation” of BT (and only BT) to provide a relephone line on demand to include fast broadband, effectively compelling BT to provide broadband wherever you reside.
Obviously more remote areas will cost more to provision than densely populated areas (one reason why VM and Sky concentrate on densely populated areas) so those costs will essentially be cross subsidised by all other customers. As that isn't required by VM and Sky, their prices can be lower.
Again, cross subsidy isn't new, it applies to phone line installation costs, which are capped, and Royal Mail charge the same to deliver a letter, whether it is to the house next door, or one several hundred miles away.
spacein_vader
Bear in mind that the definition of Fast Internet is 10Mbps. That sort of speed makes remote login to corporate portals and using Netflix a sensible speed and quality. You may have got it confused with all the 150Mbps Superfast stuff that gets plugged so much.
We all know (or at least should know) that most VPN/corporate access required a higher upload speed than we get with most symetrical connections.
spacein_vader
I work in an audit department and our software is constantly back up our work to our works server whilst we are off site. We need reasonable internet to ensure this works. If we return one day and somebody's laptop has died overnight then any work that hasn't been backed up needs to be re-performed. We are extremely time pressured on site. We normally only get 5 days as a team on site and we then move onto another job the next week. Can you see that our work being backed-up over the internet, is necessary?
Similarly, I know the tax department use a piece of software that has a centralised database of all our personal tax clients. They remote desktop into office to use this whilst away/working from home/in a blind panic in the last week of January. Once again, a decent internet connection is required for these things. Not preferable, required.
In terms of backup, this team must be producing 10s of gigabytes of data a day. Also, we we already know, the actual cost of any SLA on your broadband is huge. Do not confuse something being fast, with being available. If you have a standard residential or business broadband there is no SLA. If something is busines critical, you should be paying for the correct product.
Remote desktop software is much a function of latency than overall speed. Speed != latency. Hence why lots of citrix installations live on the end of ‘slow’ but reliable connections.
CK_1985
Although it sounds very useful, there are possible issues around the government releasing address-specific connectivity data. If you're trying to sell your house and the government suddenly tells everyone it has rubbish mobile signal and slow broadband, and as a result the market value goes down by a few grand, you're going to be mighty annoyed!
I looked up my house before I moved a few years ago on Sam Knows Broadband. It told me what ADSL speed I could expect, that VDSL was available, where the exchange is located, all sorts of stuff. I would have thought by now it would be part of the survey.
abaxas
We all know (or at least should know) that most VPN/corporate access required a higher upload speed than we get with most symetrical connections.
So we've moved from ‘nobody needs Fast Broadband’ to ‘Fast Broadband isn’t fast enough'?
spacein_vader
So we've moved from ‘nobody needs Fast Broadband’ to ‘Fast Broadband isn’t fast enough'?
My point is that it doesnt matter how fast something is, it has to be right for the job.
It's like buying a fezza to deliver furnature. Fast but no good for the job at hand.
tomthum
We should be look at satalite
Very high latency.
I must say, I agree with mojothejester - Priorities completely wrong.
Yes, we all need the net to fill informs these days, but SURELY a home, food, health and education are WAYYYYYY more important !
g8ina
I must say, I agree with mojothejester - Priorities completely wrong.
Yes, we all need the net to fill informs these days, but SURELY a home, food, health and education are WAYYYYYY more important !
The proposal isn't to make shelter, food, health and education secondary to fast internet though……..
abaxas
God this boils my urine
No-one need ‘fast’ internet for anything other than watching movies or piracy. There is no difference for people if their webpages take 2 seconds of 2.1 seconds to load.
What about the sheer myriad of legit online streaming users that use youtube, netflix, iplayer and so on? Also I've noticed in your previous comments that you've complained about downloading games on your 2 meg connection…..That's not a complaint I've had on my 40 meg connection.
Just as our forebears effectively brought gas, electricity and water to all, we're going to bring fast broadband to every home and business that wants it.
So, just like all the remote properties that don't have a mains gas supply, you're going to not supply them with fast broadband as well? 10 points for that statement.
shaithis
The proposal isn't to make shelter, food, health and education secondary to fast internet though……..
Indeed it's not, it's a proposal to give people the legal right to request a broadband connection of at least 10Mbps, just like i have a legal right to request pink fluffy elephants. :innocent:
Corky34
Indeed it's not, it's a proposal to give people the legal right to request a broadband connection of at least 10Mbps, just like i have a legal right to request pink fluffy elephants. :innocent:
The world does need more pink fluffy elephants.
Misleading title to this thread then. :rant: ;)
EDIT: I should have said misleading story and not thread title, or i think i should've as the first sentence mentions the "legal right to request" :undecided
Great this is all coming from a PM who is totally full of BS, Not a word can be trusted from this man, Not a word
Corky34
Misleading title to this thread then. :rant: ;)
EDIT: I should have said misleading story and not thread title, or i think i should've as the first sentence mentions the "legal right to request" :undecided
Or “BT to have a legal obligation to provide….”
But hey, journalistic licence! :)
abaxas
So come on…. what do people ‘need’ fast internet for…..
downloading games off of steam, id software rage is 50gb, and still takes a good 15 hours on 20mbs connection if the connection is download at full speed
blu-rays are now quad layer, and go upto 150gb
France (where I live a fair amount of the time), said a similar thing about fiber with a date of 2013 IIRC. Well my parent's don't have access to fiber yet or in the foreseeable future. I'm quite surprised at 10 Mbps being set as the threshold though, I'd have thought we'd at least want to match the US setting the broadband threshold to 25 Mbps (is that so unacheivable?)
I'm footling along on a whopping 400kB/s download max atm… That 10Mb/s will almost triple my bandwidth. I'm just outside Coventry…hardly remote, 3G is non-existant, let alone 4G. I'm not expecting to be blessed with anything faster currently.
shaithis
The world does need more pink fluffy elephants.
May I suggest you take one of these a day, every day. Won't be long then…
imshimaru
I'm footling along on a whopping 400kB/s download max atm… That 10Mb/s will almost triple my bandwidth. I'm just outside Coventry…hardly remote, 3G is non-existant, let alone 4G. I'm not expecting to be blessed with anything faster currently.
too bad, you can get 700kbs on EE and 3 if downloading with something other then your browser, which is open 3g and 3g 8mbs
EE has boosters you can buy, but still blocking everything if your over the fair use policy
3 has unlimited bandwidth for £15 PAYG +internation data
Corky34
Indeed it's not, it's a proposal to give people the legal right to request a broadband connection of at least 10Mbps, just like i have a legal right to request pink fluffy elephants. :innocent:
shaithis
The world does need more pink fluffy elephants.
Just as likely as a “request” of BT to provide 10Mb/s broadband actually being satisfied.
crossy
Just as likely as a “request” of BT to provide 10Mb/s broadband actually being satisfied.
If the universal obligation to provide a telephone service is extended to include fast broadbandi then they have no choice.
Similarly, they have no choice about providing a 999 service or maintained power supplies for their exchanges, although the latter had its roots in civil defence.
How is this any different to now, you can already request broadband from BT even if you live in some remote field somewhere? They will happily do it if you pay for all the infrastructure. Which will probably cost you thousands. Putting it on the same foot as otehr household services means nothing. There are plenty of places without sewers and gas supply. The electricity board will usually charge you to run power the middle of a field if it is really far from existing infrastucture.
Maybe if the goverment added the word affordable to their plan.
BobF64
The problem with “rights” is that people see it as something they are entitled to without actually having to pay proper costs for it. If it cost £1000 per fibre line to upgrade a cabinet with only a few lines on it, no one connected to it would want to pay for it.
Not strictly true, we looked into this. We would happily front a bill for FTTP install, but the only options available then demand a hefty monthly fee once it's been installed. It's this that was the deal breaker for us, not the couple of grand to upgrade the cabinet and lay the fibre.
Yeah Cameron promises a lot if things, shame its all just blah blah blah, the biggest pathological liar in existance on this planet…… Let me know when it happens, until then just <admin edit> shut up