Election 2019

[Carl_Manchester]

Helicopter123 said:

You accuse me of being "about 16" or "a Momentum stooge" because I want to debate the merits of a significant policy, possibly the most significant new policy announced during the course of this GE campaign?

For those of us who went through the 70s, 80s and 90s having to deal with the thin end of the wedge with BT, the policy has no merit and is thus not significant because the Labour team have simply stuck another nail in their campaign coffin.

We needed a wireless deal ten years ago but better late than never.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/1-billion-deal-...

[Zirconia]

jakesmith said:

Nickgnome said:

You are not taking into account demand increase. In 10 years 8K TVs will be the norm. They require an absolute minimum of 50Mb per channel.

You are not taking into account lack of interest and lack of adoption of uneccesary new standards by the public and networks, see 4K for details.

You are not taking into account streaming that is a massive growth method of content delivery that dynamically optimises content resolution based on available bandwidth.

The public have made abundantly clear that they prioritise choice and convenience over quality, see mp3 streaming vs CD.

I think the way forward is unclear. There is more SD on aerial but the panel makers are all 4k apart from a few cheap ones, NowTv or whatever was a lower format service for a while. SD is still running because people watch it, be it transmitted or DVD. Problem is the infrastructure for aerial is tied up and will need a big upgrade to do 4k (probably wont happen) and SD really needs to be dropped yesterday, streaming is the only way for 4K (and if 8K ever gets going).

There is a large gap between the various providers and kit makers and ISP, that is painful to see and it will need to be sorted. I expect that is where the government can kick butt, however Corbyn will ruin it.

Fibre to the home for me with radio internet as required to plug the gap (point to point or street 5g etc). Latter as a fill in until glass can be put into home. Force Telcos to stick dark fibres into powered cabinets in remote area's where they get three parts of sod all now. Long term plan the recovery of costs not an immediate fix but keep the government out of it.

[jakesmith]

Freedom of movement another key manifesto policy decisionfor Labour. Leave that one in (a one from their conference that the party democratically approved) and they’re fked. All the poor leave voting areas will turn their back on the party possibly forever. If they leave it out, they have betrayed their party membership too- it’s a win win (unless they get in of course)

[s2art]

Problem for going big on fibre is that we would be investing fortunes in a soon to be obsolete technology. Satellite internet can already deliver approx 500Mb and it will get faster, 5G can currently deliver approx 90Mb (and 6G is just about on the horizon). Its not cheap digging thousands of miles of trenches and laying cable.

[jamoor]

s2art said:

Problem for going big on fibre is that we would be investing fortunes in a soon to be obsolete technology. Satellite internet can already deliver approx 500Mb and it will get faster, 5G can currently deliver approx 90Mb (and 6G is just about on the horizon). Its not cheap digging thousands of miles of trenches and laying cable.

Serious question though, is there any technology on the horizon that will replace fibre optic cabling or is that the best solution?

[s2art]

jamoor said:

s2art said:

Problem for going big on fibre is that we would be investing fortunes in a soon to be obsolete technology. Satellite internet can already deliver approx 500Mb and it will get faster, 5G can currently deliver approx 90Mb (and 6G is just about on the horizon). Its not cheap digging thousands of miles of trenches and laying cable.

Serious question though, is there any technology on the horizon that will replace fibre optic cabling or is that the best solution?

See https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/05/spac...

[bad company]

ELECTION EXPLAINED

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now - The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So - The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

There you go that was simple!

[Zirconia]

s2art said:

jamoor said:

s2art said:

Problem for going big on fibre is that we would be investing fortunes in a soon to be obsolete technology. Satellite internet can already deliver approx 500Mb and it will get faster, 5G can currently deliver approx 90Mb (and 6G is just about on the horizon). Its not cheap digging thousands of miles of trenches and laying cable.

Serious question though, is there any technology on the horizon that will replace fibre optic cabling or is that the best solution?

See https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/05/spac...

Seen it, don't buy it for a total solution, also certain quarters are calling for a limit on satellites due to various issues.

What is going to be obsolete with fibre? It is the preferred delivery for much media and secure and less affected than satellite is to certain influences though the dreaded JCB is the worry rather than an outage for fibre. Both have limitations but fibre is already delivering rates that would make your eyes water in the commercial world. Where the house has a duct in, I would fibre every day. Get 1gb speeds for example, a limitation of the kit and not the fibre. 10 gigs off the shelf today if you have pockets deep enough.

[s2art]

Zirconia said:

s2art said:

jamoor said:

s2art said:

Problem for going big on fibre is that we would be investing fortunes in a soon to be obsolete technology. Satellite internet can already deliver approx 500Mb and it will get faster, 5G can currently deliver approx 90Mb (and 6G is just about on the horizon). Its not cheap digging thousands of miles of trenches and laying cable.

Serious question though, is there any technology on the horizon that will replace fibre optic cabling or is that the best solution?

See https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/05/spac...

Seen it, don't buy it for a total solution, also certain quarters are calling for a limit on satellites due to various issues.

What is going to be obsolete with fibre? It is the preferred delivery for much media and secure and less affected than satellite is to certain influences though the dreaded JCB is the worry rather than an outage for fibre. Both have limitations but fibre is already delivering rates that would make your eyes water in the commercial world. Where the house has a duct in, I would fibre every day. Get 1gb speeds for example, a limitation of the kit and not the fibre. 10 gigs off the shelf today if you have pockets deep enough.

Ultimately what will obsolete it is the cost. Not the cost in built up areas, but the cost of providing universal high speed broadband. I imagine that commercial use would continue to use fibre for a long time yet, but getting high speed broadband to all houses will become wireless.

[Zirconia]

s2art said:

Ultimately what will obsolete it is the cost. Not the cost in built up areas, but the cost of providing universal high speed broadband. I imagine that commercial use would continue to use fibre for a long time yet, but getting high speed broadband to all houses will become wireless.

Whatever happens it needs a government kick up the nether regions to sort out a multitude of issues. Corbyn will end up with cans and a bit of string for a phone service but people will see free stuff and I wonder how many will empathise with him.

[hutchst]

bad company said:

ELECTION EXPLAINED

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now - The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So - The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

There you go that was simple!

No.

You missed out the bit about 'Free Stuff Banks' which are apparently a bad thing.

[Nickgnome]

jakesmith said:

Nickgnome said:

You are not taking into account demand increase. In 10 years 8K TVs will be the norm. They require an absolute minimum of 50Mb per channel.

You are not taking into account lack of interest and lack of adoption of uneccesary new standards by the public and networks, see 4K for details.

You are not taking into account streaming that is a massive growth method of content delivery that dynamically optimises content resolution based on available bandwidth.

The public have made abundantly clear that they prioritise choice and convenience over quality, see mp3 streaming vs CD.

Except the number of Hi Res streaming services are growing and apparently quite profitable. Not everyone will tolerate lossy sounding music.

There is already a small demand for 8k TVs even though the media is not yet available. I would anticipate in 10 years time 8k will be seen as the same as 4K now.

I still run an old Pioneer plasma but the vast majority of my friends have already adopted 4K.

[Nickgnome]

s2art said:

Ultimately what will obsolete it is the cost. Not the cost in built up areas, but the cost of providing universal high speed broadband. I imagine that commercial use would continue to use fibre for a long time yet, but getting high speed broadband to all houses will become wireless.

Telecoms and media companies have been busy putting ducts/wireways to peoples properties for quite a while. I put a duct in from the connection point just off our property into our house. Virgin installed a new cable to the green box and it is terminated at 1st floor in my house, so not jointed. The cost was insignificant. Changing it to fibre will similarly be of insignificant cost, when it becomes available. Current connection gets me on average 325Mb, download.

[Nickgnome]

jakesmith said:

Freedom of movement another key manifesto policy decisionfor Labour. Leave that one in (a one from their conference that the party democratically approved) and they’re fked. All the poor leave voting areas will turn their back on the party possibly forever. If they leave it out, they have betrayed their party membership too- it’s a win win (unless they get in of course)

I’ve never understood why anyone is so anti free movement.

Why is having a family from Paris or Prague move in next door any difference from a family from Pontypridd?

[motco]

Nickgnome said:

jakesmith said:

Freedom of movement another key manifesto policy decisionfor Labour. Leave that one in (a one from their conference that the party democratically approved) and they’re fked. All the poor leave voting areas will turn their back on the party possibly forever. If they leave it out, they have betrayed their party membership too- it’s a win win (unless they get in of course)

I’ve never understood why anyone is so anti free movement.

Why is having a family from Paris or Prague move in next door any difference from a family from Pontypridd?

Is it not the additional numbers of people rather than their origins? It is for me anyway. Everywhere in the south-east is being developed to the point where the quality of life is deteriorating to an unacceptable degree. This is, of course, driven largely by the swelling population. In the 1970s Britain's population numbers were stable but now the figures grow inexorably mainly because of New Labour's open door policy superimposed on the EU free movement. I take people as I find them but I am not so fond of my fellow animal that I want to constantly be cheek-by-jowl with them whoever they are.

[Zirconia]

Nickgnome said:

s2art said:

Ultimately what will obsolete it is the cost. Not the cost in built up areas, but the cost of providing universal high speed broadband. I imagine that commercial use would continue to use fibre for a long time yet, but getting high speed broadband to all houses will become wireless.

Telecoms and media companies have been busy putting ducts/wireways to peoples properties for quite a while. I put a duct in from the connection point just off our property into our house. Virgin installed a new cable to the green box and it is terminated at 1st floor in my house, so not jointed. The cost was insignificant. Changing it to fibre will similarly be of insignificant cost, when it becomes available. Current connection gets me on average 325Mb, download.

Virgin just put fibre in the area, deal will beat BT by some for 300mb/s (new signing only). BT will lose me when the get out costs are low enough. Corbyn will have me on ComaradskiWetString service tied in forever at 50mb/s (subject to voting for the reds).

[DeepEnd]

motco said:

Is it not the additional numbers of people rather than their origins? It is for me anyway. Everywhere in the south-east is being developed to the point where the quality of life is deteriorating to an unacceptable degree. This is, of course, driven largely by the swelling population. In the 1970s Britain's population numbers were stable but now the figures grow inexorably mainly because of New Labour's open door policy superimposed on the EU free movement. I take people as I find them but I am not so fond of my fellow animal that I want to constantly be cheek-by-jowl with them whoever they are.

That's a bit of a myth.

The growth in the population due to immigration is not unlike historic birthrates - birthrates that have domestically fallen.

A growing population increases the economy and ability to pay for growing numbers of old people.

It is about their origins if its Nigel, isn't it? He didn't want Romanians next door at all, yet has a German wife.

[Earthdweller]

Nickgnome said:

jakesmith said:

Freedom of movement another key manifesto policy decisionfor Labour. Leave that one in (a one from their conference that the party democratically approved) and they’re fked. All the poor leave voting areas will turn their back on the party possibly forever. If they leave it out, they have betrayed their party membership too- it’s a win win (unless they get in of course)

I’ve never understood why anyone is so anti free movement.

Why is having a family from Paris or Prague move in next door any difference from a family from Pontypridd?

It isn’t , absolutely isn’t

But,

as long as they are economically active and not a drain on the host country and their presence is of benefit to the UK, and if they abuse the host then a means of kicking them out

However, as the UK is one of the most desirable places in the world to live their has to be a filter to stop all 7.6 billion deciding they are coming to live in the UK

[anonymous-user]

Nickgnome said:

I’ve never understood why anyone is so anti free movement.

Why is having a family from Paris or Prague move in next door any difference from a family from Pontypridd?

where do you live?

[Nickgnome]

motco said:

Nickgnome said:

jakesmith said:

Freedom of movement another key manifesto policy decisionfor Labour. Leave that one in (a one from their conference that the party democratically approved) and they’re fked. All the poor leave voting areas will turn their back on the party possibly forever. If they leave it out, they have betrayed their party membership too- it’s a win win (unless they get in of course)

I’ve never understood why anyone is so anti free movement.

Why is having a family from Paris or Prague move in next door any difference from a family from Pontypridd?

Is it not the additional numbers of people rather than their origins? It is for me anyway. Everywhere in the south-east is being developed to the point where the quality of life is deteriorating to an unacceptable degree. This is, of course, driven largely by the swelling population. In the 1970s Britain's population numbers were stable but now the figures grow inexorably mainly because of New Labour's open door policy superimposed on the EU free movement. I take people as I find them but I am not so fond of my fellow animal that I want to constantly be cheek-by-jowl with them whoever they are.

But that is driven by demand. How is our society going to function with NIMBY approach to development. We are an increasingly ageing population and living longer as well. We still need a workforce and support are care workers for that ageing population. There is no choice.

Less that 6% of the UK is built upon so not major. If you take out green spaces it’s even less. I lived and worked in and around London. There is still loads of green belt areas.

What is the alternative?