Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
biggbn said:
You think that doesn't happen already?
If government owned the network they would have a massive stick to beat FB/Google etc... whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population, it's far more likely IMO that a hard left government would force editorial control over news and social media under the cover of controlling fake news.768 said:
fblm said:
...whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population...
Snowden, anyone?It's simple manipulation of metadata.
Although "Hunted" is lots of rubbish about eavesdropping, the theory on data capture is realistic. Given a totalitarian state, it wouldn't be such bulls
t.768 said:
fblm said:
...whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population...
Snowden, anyone?
Hasn't Boris mouthed similar broadband upgrade plans ukwide in the past...only his were not free...just totally uncosted. So. It must be a good idea in principle? Just a matter of who pays?
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/06/bori...
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/06/bori...
I don't think anyone would disagree that FTTP nationwide would be a good idea.
The nationalisation then giving it away is the problem, huge amounts of cost and investment then no income.
BJ is suggesting investing money to speed up the rollout of fibre. BT own most of the infrastructure to the door, they have to allow access to 3rd parties to use that network so its a sensible approach and support the non commercially viable deployments, like the highland crofts.
Most people (today) don't need the bandwidth fibre can provide, latency is more critical especially for real-time applications like gaming and video or audio chat.
The nationalisation then giving it away is the problem, huge amounts of cost and investment then no income.
BJ is suggesting investing money to speed up the rollout of fibre. BT own most of the infrastructure to the door, they have to allow access to 3rd parties to use that network so its a sensible approach and support the non commercially viable deployments, like the highland crofts.
Most people (today) don't need the bandwidth fibre can provide, latency is more critical especially for real-time applications like gaming and video or audio chat.
biggbn said:
Hasn't Boris mouthed similar broadband upgrade plans ukwide in the past...only his were not free...just totally uncosted. So. It must be a good idea in principle? Just a matter of who pays?
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/06/bori...
Nope. It is a very stupid idea.https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/06/bori...
If the communists win do not bother trying to be successful or build a world-class business:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election...
“No one needs or deserves to have that much money, it is obscene,” McDonnell will say
"The party’s economic policies, which would represent one of the most radical assaults on capitalism seen in a major western economy..."
Run. Fast.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election...
“No one needs or deserves to have that much money, it is obscene,” McDonnell will say
"The party’s economic policies, which would represent one of the most radical assaults on capitalism seen in a major western economy..."
Run. Fast.
Bullett said:
I don't think anyone would disagree that FTTP nationwide would be a good idea.
The nationalisation then giving it away is the problem, huge amounts of cost and investment then no income.
BJ is suggesting investing money to speed up the rollout of fibre. BT own most of the infrastructure to the door, they have to allow access to 3rd parties to use that network so its a sensible approach and support the non commercially viable deployments, like the highland crofts.
Most people (today) don't need the bandwidth fibre can provide, latency is more critical especially for real-time applications like gaming and video or audio chat.
We don't need FTTP everywhere. What we need is broadband. That can be a mix of delivery models - FTTP, FTTC as well as WIMAX and related standards (or even microwave for point to point. Some more distant properties can be daisy chained (providing they have line of sight)The nationalisation then giving it away is the problem, huge amounts of cost and investment then no income.
BJ is suggesting investing money to speed up the rollout of fibre. BT own most of the infrastructure to the door, they have to allow access to 3rd parties to use that network so its a sensible approach and support the non commercially viable deployments, like the highland crofts.
Most people (today) don't need the bandwidth fibre can provide, latency is more critical especially for real-time applications like gaming and video or audio chat.
These would give both bandwidth and low latency without needing to lay fibre everywhere. Now not everyone would get the same product, but it would be a step change in options for many.
Hereward said:
If the communists win do not bother trying to be successful or build a world-class business:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election...
“No one needs or deserves to have that much money, it is obscene,” McDonnell will say
"The party’s economic policies, which would represent one of the most radical assaults on capitalism seen in a major western economy..."
Run. Fast.
I don't need all the money I earn, either, so presumably that is ripe for the taking. Also, do I really need two children? These people are extremely dangerous.https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election...
“No one needs or deserves to have that much money, it is obscene,” McDonnell will say
"The party’s economic policies, which would represent one of the most radical assaults on capitalism seen in a major western economy..."
Run. Fast.
vaud said:
We don't need FTTP everywhere. What we need is broadband. That can be a mix of delivery models - FTTP, FTTC as well as WIMAX and related standards (or even microwave for point to point. Some more distant properties can be daisy chained (providing they have line of sight)
These would give both bandwidth and low latency without needing to lay fibre everywhere. Now not everyone would get the same product, but it would be a step change in options for many.
Yes. And there are schemes to get such things. I even ran one to get ADSL to my village and then attracted a WiFI provider. These would give both bandwidth and low latency without needing to lay fibre everywhere. Now not everyone would get the same product, but it would be a step change in options for many.
I'm not even against subsidising broadband for those that can't afford it, but the 'free for all' is crazy as it just stifles competition for faster speeds and more roll out of FTTP or even FTTPoD to those that can afford it and then it'll bring it to the community at a lower price.
boxst said:
Yes. And there are schemes to get such things. I even ran one to get ADSL to my village and then attracted a WiFI provider.
I'm not even against subsidising broadband for those that can't afford it, but the 'free for all' is crazy as it just stifles competition for faster speeds and more roll out of FTTP or even FTTPoD to those that can afford it and then it'll bring it to the community at a lower price.
Agree completely.I'm not even against subsidising broadband for those that can't afford it, but the 'free for all' is crazy as it just stifles competition for faster speeds and more roll out of FTTP or even FTTPoD to those that can afford it and then it'll bring it to the community at a lower price.
Isnt there two networks in the uk, openreach and virgin's fibre network? What will happen to virgins network once the openreach one is offered for absolutely fk all to the end user?
They cant sustain the cost of it surely if its customer base leaves in droves to the free network.?
Or I could be wrong and they all use the same network in which case ignore all the above
k all to the end user?They cant sustain the cost of it surely if its customer base leaves in droves to the free network.?
Or I could be wrong and they all use the same network in which case ignore all the above
dazwalsh said:
Isnt there two networks in the uk, openreach and virgin's fibre network? What will happen to virgins network once the openreach one is offered for absolutely fk all to the end user?
They cant sustain the cost of it surely if its customer base leaves in droves to the free network.?
Or I could be wrong and they all use the same network in which case ignore all the above
Virgin have just put in a fibre network in our estate, powered cabs, distribution, the lot. I don't know if Openreach have anything to do with connection with local networks to a Virgin national network. I suppose someone will know.k all to the end user?They cant sustain the cost of it surely if its customer base leaves in droves to the free network.?
Or I could be wrong and they all use the same network in which case ignore all the above
BT just lost Virgin Mobile to Vodaphone.
Hereward said:
If the communists win do not bother trying to be successful or build a world-class business:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election...
“No one needs or deserves to have that much money, it is obscene,” McDonnell will say
"The party’s economic policies, which would represent one of the most radical assaults on capitalism seen in a major western economy..."
Run. Fast.
It all makes perfect sense, Jeff Bezos could distribute his wealth and Amazon employees in warehouses in Wales would all be on 6 figure salaries. Except Amazon wouldn't be a trillion dollar company if it operated in this way, and wouldn't exist at all under this system, let alone have the resources to employ 750,000 people.https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election...
“No one needs or deserves to have that much money, it is obscene,” McDonnell will say
"The party’s economic policies, which would represent one of the most radical assaults on capitalism seen in a major western economy..."
Run. Fast.
What perplexes me though is how an alternative system would have supported Bezos in selling books from his garage. Or would he not have needed to, as he'd be a road sweeper on 100 grand? I'd rather a system where someone is paying tax on a massive yacht rather than one where I'm paying tax to support them to be an artist or such.
That said we are effectively subsiding Amazon, or at least the Welsh government are, in building the infrastructure around the warehouses.
Labour constituency chair in Leicester not happy
https://order-order.com/2019/11/18/keith-vazs-cons...
https://order-order.com/2019/11/18/keith-vazs-cons...
fblm said:
biggbn said:
You think that doesn't happen already?
If government owned the network they would have a massive stick to beat FB/Google etc... whilst I doubt the uk government has the competence to spy on the whole population, it's far more likely IMO that a hard left government would force editorial control over news and social media under the cover of controlling fake news.Which one is more democratic?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff