MSE News: Government promises faster broadband in £830m push

west_is_best

Mankysteve wrote: »

I think people in rural area would juts be happy with 7mb. Reliable 7mb broadband would be nice that doesn't throttle down when there's more than two user on-line.

I would be more than happy to even get broadband!!!!!! let alone 50mb speed broadband.. :mad:

tifo

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

The government seem to have got the notion from somewhere that making 50 Mb available to everyone will turn the UK into a tiger economy.

South Korea have announced 1Gb broadband (1,000 Mb) so we're still a bit behind the 'tiger' economies. I suspect Japan and others will follow soon. This opens up possibilities of streaming TV programs, internet and much more all at once. They've had 100Mb for many years.

We've been behind most of Europe for ages.

nilrem_2

What's the betting that as usual the only benefits of this will be that people who already get decent Broadband that is 5Mb and above will get a better speed whilst those of us in rural areas will still be stuck on sub 2Mb speeds (and that's if we are lucky)

tifo

Until BT upgrade their network to fibre optic many of use won't get higher than 5Mb speeds. And for that they want govt money to make profits for their shareholders.

JC_Derby

nilrem wrote: »

What's the betting that as usual the only benefits of this will be that people who already get decent Broadband that is 5Mb and above will get a better speed whilst those of us in rural areas will still be stuck on sub 2Mb speeds (and that's if we are lucky)

quite right. BT provide an 'upto' 8mb service where i am. (which i am totally greatful for) but Virgin have no intention of branching out to where i live as (approx 12 months ago) they werer rolling out 50mb in Derby. Now the reason is they are rolling out 100mb in Derby.
I suspect that the time to recoup costs for covering the 5-6 miles to our village is what puts them off and there is no benefit in it (understand that, but its damn frustrating)
now looking at moving even further out into the sticks, where the line speed is estimated at 1.5mb....i had that 10 years ago¬:(

liam8282

JC_Derby wrote: »

quite right. BT provide an 'upto' 8mb service where i am. (which i am totally greatful for) but Virgin have no intention of branching out to where i live as (approx 12 months ago) they werer rolling out 50mb in Derby. Now the reason is they are rolling out 100mb in Derby.
I suspect that the time to recoup costs for covering the 5-6 miles to our village is what puts them off and there is no benefit in it (understand that, but its damn frustrating)
now looking at moving even further out into the sticks, where the line speed is estimated at 1.5mb....i had that 10 years ago¬:(

If fast broadband was the be all and end all, you could give up your picturesque country life and move to a place that has it.

Fast broadband is mainly a luxury item for the majority of people. The average household will use it for browsing the web, downloading music, playing games and watching iplayer etc.

To be fair a lot of people in the country still don't even have internet access, nevermind broadband! Be that through choice, cost or lack of knowledge.

For the govt to pay all this money just so that rural areas can have access to fast broadband is crazy.

As has already been stated, it is not commercially viable to install broadband in these areas, hence why virgin / bt haven't bothered.

So why is the govt bothering? It is just a total waste of money.

kwikbreaks

liam8282 wrote: »

So why is the govt bothering? It is just a total waste of money.

I would be tempted to ask which party has most of the city seats and which has most of the rural seats but the previous government were pushing the same thing.

I think the truth is that most MPs are technologically illiterate and have been lobbied to the point where they have been persuaded that high speed internet access is essential rather than being a "nice-to-have" although I doubt any could spell out any compelling reason why. I certainly don't see it as essential but I'm in a cable area and can get 50Mbps anyway with 100Mbps coming next year so maybe I'm biased.

They are also doubtless embarrassed by our low position in any comparison with other countries where so many put our average speeds to shame.

joethethistle

That's all very well for those who live in rural areas, but what about the people who do live in cities? I live in Glasgow, which is a quite large city, but my BT exchange is in Barrhead, a local town and I am just on the cusp of not being able to get broadband. According to BT, the fastest speed I should be able to get is 1.5 Mbs, and I am lucky if I can get half of that. And I have to pay BT £16.74 a month for this poor service.

liam8282

joethethistle wrote: »

And I have to pay BT £16.74 a month for this poor service.

You don't have to pay, you choose to pay.

There will be other providers available if you have a BT landline.

But, even so, I still see it is a waste of money for the govt to go to all the expense just to provide a high speed connection for those who don't have it. You can still access the internet (albeit slower).

Other countries will only concentrate on the main areas that have highspeed broadband when publishing their speeds etc.

I mean I doubt the South Koreans will go to the expense of making a high speed connection available to each and every rice farmer for example.

As I said before, the main areas already have a (relatively) high speed broadband connection available, be that through Virgin or BT, etc.

The only thing I can see that the govt is offering which is any different, to what would be it's competitors, is providing broadband in rural areas.

They are not offering speeds better than Virgin or BT, no doubt the price won't be any better, and also we are paying for it anyway through our TV licence.

At least with companies like Virgin, it is their own customers that pay for the company, so if you are actually using their services you are paying for them.

People who are paying their tv licences will be paying for the govt broadband, but a lot of them will never use it, and if they do they will have to pay again to use it, so in effect pay to create the system and then pay to use it too.

kwikbreaks

joethethistle wrote: »

That's all very well for those who live in rural areas, but what about the people who do live in cities? I live in Glasgow, which is a quite large city, but my BT exchange is in Barrhead, a local town and I am just on the cusp of not being able to get broadband. According to BT, the fastest speed I should be able to get is 1.5 Mbs, and I am lucky if I can get half of that. And I have to pay BT £16.74 a month for this poor service.

On the bright side for city dwellers though is the likelihood that the new FFTC product (BT Infinity) will rescue you but those out in the sticks are unlikely to see this or indeed any change unless there is some subsidy because the capital costs would never get repaid let alone ther being any profit in it.