Fast Broadband For All UK Homes And Businesses By 2020

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Fast broadband has been deemed a “fundamental right” in the UK, and consumers will have access to 10Mbps connections or higher no matter where they live or work.

"We're getting Britain - all of Britain - online, and on the way to becoming the most prosperous economy in the whole of Europe." Officials said that more than 83% of homes and businesses in Britain currently have access to a superfast broadband connection - 24Mbps - with that number set to rise to 95% by 2017.
 
Since when is "10Mbps" fast and "24Mbps" superfast? I have had 50Mbps for the last 7 years, and that is with the shittiest cable company in MD, and 120Mbps for the last 3 years. I actually just had to repalce my trusty old Cisco router since it is only a 100Mbps switch and the poor Broadcom cpu can't keep up even O/C'd to 330Mhz lol...
 
Since when is "10Mbps" fast and "24Mbps" superfast? I have had 50Mbps for the last 7 years, and that is with the shittiest cable company in MD, and 120Mbps for the last 3 years. I actually just had to repalce my trusty old Cisco router since it is only a 100Mbps switch and the poor Broadcom cpu can't keep up even O/C'd to 330Mhz lol...

Well, it also has to be affordable. In Canada right now I'm paying $63 a month for 15Mbps. 120Mbps would cost me $123.
 
So, if the UK achieves this goal then 65 million citizens will have access to 10 Mbps internet or higher ... the USA probably had at least 70 million with that access more than a decade ago ... how is this an achievement ... now if they were committing to get 65 million to 1 Gig speeds or higher then that would likely put them well ahead of the USA
 
the irony of extending this "fundamental right" at the same time Britain debates yet more invasive spy laws that would see the government retain internet browsing history records for every citizen for one year?
 
This is a rolling target that gets updated every few years as the minimum connection speed most or all homes should have access to.

It was 1Mbps 15 years ago, then 4Mbps a few years later and so on.
 
the irony of extending this "fundamental right" at the same time Britain debates yet more invasive spy laws that would see the government retain internet browsing history records for every citizen for one year?

If you are from the US than I really don't think you have room to comment there. The difference with the UK govt is at least they inform their citizens of what they are doing.

What do you know your Govt is doing or not doing?
 
So, if the UK achieves this goal then 65 million citizens will have access to 10 Mbps internet or higher ... the USA probably had at least 70 million with that access more than a decade ago ... how is this an achievement ... now if they were committing to get 65 million to 1 Gig speeds or higher then that would likely put them well ahead of the USA

You seem to be guessing and forgetting that as a % of total population it would be like the US getting over 300 million citizens on the internet at 10mbps or higher, not that it matters because as stated this figure seems to change in the UK but least we don't have a single teleco in many places trying to screw us.
 
You seem to be guessing and forgetting that as a % of total population it would be like the US getting over 300 million citizens on the internet at 10mbps or higher, not that it matters because as stated this figure seems to change in the UK but least we don't have a single teleco in many places trying to screw us.

In 90%+ of the USA we don't have a single Teleco either ... a small city may only have one of each type (cable, DSL, sat) and 2-4 mobile carriers, but the rural locations with only one offering are very small ... achieving 100% coverage in the USA is tricky (partly because of size and partly because of jurisdiction) ... however, the larger metropolitan cities have had high speed offerings at the 10 mbps speed or higher since the early 2000's ... since LTE speeds exceed 20 mbps one could claim a very high percentage of USA coverage due to LTE implementation

That said, I would like to see more government or citizen responsibilities tied to internet access to force more people to upgrade and incentivise companies to support internet access to even the most undesirable rural locations
 
If you are from the US than I really don't think you have room to comment there. The difference with the UK govt is at least they inform their citizens of what they are doing.

What do you know your Govt is doing or not doing?

The UK government is just as bad as the US on this stuff. They were spying on UK citizens online for years through google and facebook before admitting to it.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/8691/20140617/uk-admits-spying-via-google-facebook.htm

They had a secret deal set up with the NSA to spy on UK citizens.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data

The only reason this stuff came to life was Snowden.
 
UK Cities get covered by fast 100Mbps - 200Mbps fibre broadband and above. It is easy to make back the investment when everyone lives close together. Trouble is those who live outside of the main cites can get very patchy service. There is a lot of BS from the main phone companies and some users get stuck with 0.5Mbps connections barely five miles out of town!! I have a large percentage of clients in the countryside below 5Mbps and unable to stream video. These are the people this law is supposed to help, but it won't. It is just political posturing.

Fibre broadband can be supplied to these people, but it will cost too much due to the distances between properties. So the phone companies delay their rollouts.


As to the names of "fast" and "superfast" attached to 10Mbps and 24Mpbs that is the old names for ADSL broadband. Daft old names that now don' t make sense when we have moved into the age of Fibre broadband instead. It is just like the daftness of calling 720p video HD. One time it was "High Def" but now 4K is here it looks a bit pixely. :)


The main thing to remember is the idiot saying this stuff is the UK government who, like most politicians, know nothing about the subject. They just rely on what they are told by the phone company's lobbing teams.
 
If you are from the US than I really don't think you have room to comment there. The difference with the UK govt is at least they inform their citizens of what they are doing.

What do you know your Govt is doing or not doing?

How England spies

spy_camera_CCTV-300x196.jpg


How America Spies

stingray-cell-site-simulator.jpg
 
My point exactly. ALL governments spy on their citizens. Some are just a little more up front about it than others.

It's pointless and naive to just point at one country and say "Well that's terrible!" because the exact same thing is happening where you are, maybe with just slightly different methods.
 
UK Cities get covered by fast 100Mbps - 200Mbps fibre broadband and above. It is easy to make back the investment when everyone lives close together. Trouble is those who live outside of the main cites can get very patchy service. There is a lot of BS from the main phone companies and some users get stuck with 0.5Mbps connections barely five miles out of town!! I have a large percentage of clients in the countryside below 5Mbps and unable to stream video. These are the people this law is supposed to help, but it won't. It is just political posturing.

Fibre broadband can be supplied to these people, but it will cost too much due to the distances between properties. So the phone companies delay their rollouts.


As to the names of "fast" and "superfast" attached to 10Mbps and 24Mpbs that is the old names for ADSL broadband. Daft old names that now don' t make sense when we have moved into the age of Fibre broadband instead. It is just like the daftness of calling 720p video HD. One time it was "High Def" but now 4K is here it looks a bit pixely. :)


The main thing to remember is the idiot saying this stuff is the UK government who, like most politicians, know nothing about the subject. They just rely on what they are told by the phone company's lobbing teams.

The problem is that villages get told by BT that it will cost £2,000,000 to put fibre to their village. So they just give up. But some villages have called BT's bluff and put the job out to tender and have found they can get it from another supplier for less than £100,000. Which when spilt between 500+ households is easier to achieve.

They just need to do more homework.

But yes as for anyone in a town or city connections are usually between 30-200+MBps. I could go to 80MBps right now but I've stuck on my 20MBps as it does the job for me.
 
The problem is that villages get told by BT that it will cost £2,000,000 to put fibre to their village. So they just give up. But some villages have called BT's bluff and put the job out to tender and have found they can get it from another supplier for less than £100,000. Which when spilt between 500+ households is easier to achieve.

They just need to do more homework.

But yes as for anyone in a town or city connections are usually between 30-200+MBps. I could go to 80MBps right now but I've stuck on my 20MBps as it does the job for me.
I have a client on the "wrong end" of a large business estate. One end has fast fibre, but his end is on 5Mbps(!!) ADSL. He has also had that "offer" made to him for his company to pay the hundreds of thousands to wire this up.

What annoys me is that BT got millions from the government to wire up those cities... places where they would already have made back all that investment.
 
If you are from the US than I really don't think you have room to comment there. The difference with the UK govt is at least they inform their citizens of what they are doing.

What do you know your Govt is doing or not doing?

'UK govt, at least they inform' -- LOL
 
Back
Top