Poll: Election 2019
Total Members Polled: 1601
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Randy Winkman said:
People might need good broadband to work from home which is a part of more and more "office" jobs.
"Good" broadband tends to be a challenge because of infrastructure i.e. loads of ancient copper.I'm lucky that I can get 160mbps to my home if I chose to do so and I honestly couldn't think of a single thing I'd do with it.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for ensuring people have access to good broadband speeds and I think there are things that could be done around ensuring people have access to broadband if they can't afford it etc.
But that isn't the same as picking up the tab for everyone's broadband - spend the money on focussing on infrastructure for those that can't get it and help those that can't afford it.
This just seems hasty and unclear from everything I've read.
The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
You still hear stories of people on 2 Meg download speeds, that's turn of the century stuff. Very limiting if you want multiple devices. Upload speeds of probably 0.3 Meg will stop you running a small business from home. That's a huge problem for the economy.
The irony of all this is that this summer something like this (without nationalising Openreach) was being punted around by Boris himself.
I think it's a vote winner for Labour, but the polls will tell us if it's a gamechanger, helping shift momentum towards Labour.
If the rest of the Labour manifesto is this ambitious, and we truly do shift from the previous one-dimensional Brexit focus, then the Tories are going to struggle to get that majority.
Helicopter123 said:
The policy, as I understand it, is not just about "free broadband", it's about bringing forward the investment required to give UK PLC the high speed full fibre infrastructure required to compete with other nations. I can't see why anyone would see that as a bad thing other than "because Corbyn"?
The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
You still hear stories of people on 2 Meg download speeds, that's turn of the century stuff. Very limiting if you want multiple devices. Upload speeds of probably 0.3 Meg will stop you running a small business from home. That's a huge problem for the economy.
The irony of all this is that this summer something like this (without nationalising Openreach) was being punted around by Boris himself.
I think it's a vote winner for Labour, but the polls will tell us if it's a gamechanger, helping shift momentum towards Labour.
If the rest of the Labour manifesto is this ambitious, and we truly do shift from the previous one-dimensional Brexit focus, then the Tories are going to struggle to get that majority.
I agree with the investment point, as you say 2mbps is backward.The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
You still hear stories of people on 2 Meg download speeds, that's turn of the century stuff. Very limiting if you want multiple devices. Upload speeds of probably 0.3 Meg will stop you running a small business from home. That's a huge problem for the economy.
The irony of all this is that this summer something like this (without nationalising Openreach) was being punted around by Boris himself.
I think it's a vote winner for Labour, but the polls will tell us if it's a gamechanger, helping shift momentum towards Labour.
If the rest of the Labour manifesto is this ambitious, and we truly do shift from the previous one-dimensional Brexit focus, then the Tories are going to struggle to get that majority.
My query is that I'm in a position where I have access to the infrastructure and I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay for a good ISP.
I'd sooner any government invest in areas that need it and help people who can't afford it.
I'd like to see more of the policy but as I understand it right now there's a big difference between "No more Zen Internet for you if you're lucky enough to be able to get good speeds and don't mind paying for quality" vs. "Yeah 2mbps is bulls
t we really need to sort out the infrastructure in your area".otolith said:
I work from home and have done for 15 years.
My broadband is rubbish (fibre to the cabinet, but the cabinet is in the village 2km away). I get 10 down, 1 up.
It's perfectly adequate.
I would like faster broadband for things like 4K streaming, but for work this is fine.
I work from home too. 57mb down and 5 up which I understand is excellent. Very happy with that. My broadband is rubbish (fibre to the cabinet, but the cabinet is in the village 2km away). I get 10 down, 1 up.
It's perfectly adequate.
I would like faster broadband for things like 4K streaming, but for work this is fine.
uk66fastback said:
otolith said:
I work from home and have done for 15 years.
My broadband is rubbish (fibre to the cabinet, but the cabinet is in the village 2km away). I get 10 down, 1 up.
It's perfectly adequate.
I would like faster broadband for things like 4K streaming, but for work this is fine.
I work from home too. 57mb down and 5 up which I understand is excellent. Very happy with that. My broadband is rubbish (fibre to the cabinet, but the cabinet is in the village 2km away). I get 10 down, 1 up.
It's perfectly adequate.
I would like faster broadband for things like 4K streaming, but for work this is fine.
Reliability also improved significantly.
We were 30mb down, 3mb up previously.
Costs went up from c. £400 a year to around £4k a year, but this repays itself multiple times over with the productivity gains.
s2art said:
If we want nationwide fast broadband why do it with fibre. The ;latest generation of micro satellites, made in the UK are much cheaper than they used to be and launch costs have come down a lot. So build a satellite internet capability, and maybe include a UK Galileo equivalent. Say goodbye to thousands of miles of roads and fields being dug up. Back of an envelope says it would be cheaper than Labours approach (when costed properly).
Satellites are rubbish for latency. OK for bandwidth / file transfer in download. Poor in upload.
So really bad for latency dependent functions - gaming, skype, facetime etc.
So ok for some use cases but not as good as fibre/copper broadband for many.
vaud said:
s2art said:
If we want nationwide fast broadband why do it with fibre. The ;latest generation of micro satellites, made in the UK are much cheaper than they used to be and launch costs have come down a lot. So build a satellite internet capability, and maybe include a UK Galileo equivalent. Say goodbye to thousands of miles of roads and fields being dug up. Back of an envelope says it would be cheaper than Labours approach (when costed properly).
Satellites are rubbish for latency. OK for bandwidth / file transfer.
So really bad for latency dependent functions - gaming, skype, facetime etc.
So ok for some use cases but not as good as fibre/copper broadband for many.
Edited by s2art on Friday 15th November 18:31
Out of interest what are Labour saying about the many ordinary folks who have thousands invested in BT shares, currently paying about 7% according to one report, so many have pensions and retirement plans etc hanging off this.
Presumably Labour are saying nothing but expecting to say tough titty you dirty rich capitalists. I don't have BT shares, as it happens, so no axe near the grinding stone for me.
Presumably Labour are saying nothing but expecting to say tough titty you dirty rich capitalists. I don't have BT shares, as it happens, so no axe near the grinding stone for me.
FiF said:
Out of interest what are Labour saying about the many ordinary folks who have thousands invested in BT shares, currently paying about 7% according to one report, so many have pensions and retirement plans etc hanging off this.
Presumably Labour are saying nothing but expecting to say tough titty you dirty rich capitalists. I don't have BT shares, as it happens, so no axe near the grinding stone for me.
They are saying Openreach will be purchased at a price to be determined by parliament.Presumably Labour are saying nothing but expecting to say tough titty you dirty rich capitalists. I don't have BT shares, as it happens, so no axe near the grinding stone for me.
s2art said:
Depends. A fleet of LEO satellites would not have high latency. Its the geosync ones that are rubbish for internet. The difference being a few hundred or so miles away compared with 24000 miles.
This kind of thing?Edited by s2art on Friday 15th November 18:31
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/02/spac...
I'm interested but skeptical ... if BT, etc could see huge cost avoidance by taking this approach then they would be bought into the approach (and just use local receivers per street for the last 100metres)?
Also - more space junk.
FiF said:
Out of interest what are Labour saying about the many ordinary folks who have thousands invested in BT shares, currently paying about 7% according to one report, so many have pensions and retirement plans etc hanging off this.
Presumably Labour are saying nothing but expecting to say tough titty you dirty rich capitalists. I don't have BT shares, as it happens, so no axe near the grinding stone for me.
They will be compensated.Presumably Labour are saying nothing but expecting to say tough titty you dirty rich capitalists. I don't have BT shares, as it happens, so no axe near the grinding stone for me.
With UK government bonds.
Backed by a government which is running round expropriating private property.
Should be useful when the shops run out of bog roll.
vaud said:
s2art said:
Depends. A fleet of LEO satellites would not have high latency. Its the geosync ones that are rubbish for internet. The difference being a few hundred or so miles away compared with 24000 miles.
This kind of thing?Edited by s2art on Friday 15th November 18:31
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/02/spac...
I'm interested but skeptical ... if BT, etc could see huge cost avoidance by taking this approach then they would be bought into the approach (and just use local receivers per street for the last 100metres)?
Also - more space junk.
Earthdweller said:
We have a “by air” broadband signal with an Ariel on the roof beamed from a church about 2 miles away
It is wired to a router in the house and you just connect around the house whatever device you want wirelessly
It’s as easy to use as a cable internet system in the house
Admittedly we have very occasional dips in signal due to atmospheric conditions but it’s very rare and it’s generally very reliable
Not saying it doesn't work, radio links have been used since ever to connect people in various ways be it TV, data networks or hard to reach area's when they will not put a cable in.It is wired to a router in the house and you just connect around the house whatever device you want wirelessly
It’s as easy to use as a cable internet system in the house
Admittedly we have very occasional dips in signal due to atmospheric conditions but it’s very rare and it’s generally very reliable
For my money, a fibre into the home is a single big hit. That cable will then take pretty much anything thrown at it and allows for a great bandwidth and there are area's where radio waves have a hard time, congestion perhaps, bandwidth limitations, weather and so on. Could be fibre to the home then a 5g network inside, who knows.
Helicopter123 said:
The policy, as I understand it, is not just about "free broadband", it's about bringing forward the investment required to give UK PLC the high speed full fibre infrastructure required to compete with other nations. I can't see why anyone would see that as a bad thing other than "because Corbyn"?
The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
You still hear stories of people on 2 Meg download speeds, that's turn of the century stuff. Very limiting if you want multiple devices. Upload speeds of probably 0.3 Meg will stop you running a small business from home. That's a huge problem for the economy.
The irony of all this is that this summer something like this (without nationalising Openreach) was being punted around by Boris himself.
I think it's a vote winner for Labour, but the polls will tell us if it's a gamechanger, helping shift momentum towards Labour.
If the rest of the Labour manifesto is this ambitious, and we truly do shift from the previous one-dimensional Brexit focus, then the Tories are going to struggle to get that majority.
I agree that its a vote winner, saw a question on another forum of "do you think nationalisation of BT is a good idea?" about 90% of people responded that taking openreach back was, even if its a bit lefty I was surprised it was that high.The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
You still hear stories of people on 2 Meg download speeds, that's turn of the century stuff. Very limiting if you want multiple devices. Upload speeds of probably 0.3 Meg will stop you running a small business from home. That's a huge problem for the economy.
The irony of all this is that this summer something like this (without nationalising Openreach) was being punted around by Boris himself.
I think it's a vote winner for Labour, but the polls will tell us if it's a gamechanger, helping shift momentum towards Labour.
If the rest of the Labour manifesto is this ambitious, and we truly do shift from the previous one-dimensional Brexit focus, then the Tories are going to struggle to get that majority.
The elephant in the room is that they're going to pay for it by taxing the buggery out of tech companies. This confuses me - if they put in great infrastructure but then make the economic reality of using it either unpalatable or maybe for startups unfeasible.. what exactly is the infrastructure going to do (other than serve smut and catch up tv of the latest reality show) ?
Do they really think the likes of Google and Amazon, who spend much effort avoiding paying existing taxes, let alone a "tech tax" will just sit back and say "fair cop comrade, we'll pay" ? No, I don't either.
I doubt if anyone is too worried as they aren't going to win and it'll never see the light of day, but the "the rich will pay" thing (in general, not just this) is misguided and naive.
Bill said:
It might do. Once they win the price will collapse. 
The whole sector share price will collapse with the resultant collspse of investment and potentially end of service for millions of people. Throw a few hundred thousand jobs on the scrap heap whilst you are at it.Its a great idea if you want to see the UK telecoms sector scrapped.
Helicopter123 said:
The policy, as I understand it, is not just about "free broadband", it's about bringing forward the investment required to give UK PLC the high speed full fibre infrastructure required to compete with other nations. I can't see why anyone would see that as a bad thing other than "because Corbyn"?
The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
Not just "because Corbyn" - though he doesn't jump out at me as the man to lead a us into the digital future - but also because British Leyland, because Coal Board, because NHS, because HS2, because all the other stuff that was and is badly run by the state. The government are committed to paying much of the cost of the infrastructure anyway, but Openreach are failing to deliver at anything like the required pace.
Not that the private sector are just better by magic, private companies fail all the time, but not usually as badly as government run stuff fails, and not with such bad consequences because those companies that fail are replaced by ones that don't.
In addition to the risks of just getting it wrong, there's the huge costs and logistical difficulties of such a scheme, with the added difficulty of politics. What happens when Comrade Corbyn realises that he's going to need a few senior managers (or Fat Cats) on 500k a year to deliver it? Or that the contractors putting it in are using casual labour on zero hours contracts? Or that digging up thousands of miles of roads and laying cables under it creates quite a lot of CO2? Or will they have thousands of full time permanent staff, with an unlimited environmental budget, overseen by Len McClusky's nephew on £300 a week?
It will all just end up an expensive flop, with people milking it until it gets abandoned.
jsf said:
Bill said:
It might do. Once they win the price will collapse.
The whole sector share price will collapse with the resultant collspse of investment and potentially end of service for millions of people. Throw a few hundred thousand jobs on the scrap heap whilst you are at it.Its a great idea if you want to see the UK telecoms sector scrapped.
Great
We can go back to waiting 9 months for 5 guys to attend to fit one of these .. well 4 to actually stand around watching the first guy
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff