Comments on: Britain’s broadband leaders: arrogant and ambitionless

By: RYAN Alexander

RYAN Alexander — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:38:21 +0000

I still can’t believe after moving onto one of the biggest single development sites in Norfolk that it is being pinned on the back of an already overloaded exchange( which isn’t nearby), When I hear talk about high costs of installation for fibre optic services I can’t help to be frustrated when the cost of installing this before the roads and paths are laid would be significantly cheaper

By: David Gunn

David Gunn — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:55:19 +0000

What about a ‘data’ channel on Freeview on one of the BBC’s Freeview TV channels. Stick TV aerial into USB adapter. Users could get Linux Dists of 4.7GB without burdening Broadband. Just vote on BBC website for your local transmitters “programs”. Would compensate for bandwidth taken by iPlayer.

By: Alan (different one)

Alan (different one) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:25:30 +0000

At last, some others finally awake to what I have been saying for years. And since 2007, that the Govt should have invested £25billion to create a national FTTH network. The direct impact on the economy alone would have been worth it (far more than the 150billion pumped into the banks) in terms of labour, skilled engineering, prject management, equipment purchase, plant, etc. Network management could have been outsourced on a rolling contract (GX are vert very good at this), and access on a rental basis the same as access to BTs network.

By: Andy Gegg

Andy Gegg — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:58:07 +0000

FibreCity’s idea is ok if you have mains sewage, many rural areas do not (so they’re just wiring up the cities as well) – and, yes, my BT brokeband IS only fit for the septic tank

By: Bobbert

Bobbert — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:17:52 +0000

I definitely agree that giving broadband to as many people as possible is the way to go. Life goes on without it but everything is much simpler and much much faster with it (understatement). So the more people that can benefit from it (and all the positive side effects that have been mentioned like working from home, etc.) the better.

I live in South Africa where the fastest connection available is a 4Mbits/sec line (with ‘experimental’ 8Mbits/sec lines). A VERY small percentage of the population even has ADSL or some other form of broadband and it will stay that way for an incredibly long time. I think our costs are in the Top 5 globally as well – a 2GB Capped 4Mbits/sec internet account costs anywhere upwards of £50 at a good rate. Even though it’s very expensive, it is very necessary in the modern age so we pay what we have to. I must also state that even 2Mbits/sec is more than enough for any person (excluding business uses) and it will be adequate for a few years to come still.

I think that the goal should be to provide broadband of an adequate form (2Mbits/sec is enough for normal use) to as many people as possible at a fair cost. Rather forget about excessive speeds and fancy services and focus on making it available instead.

That’s my opinion (based on my own experience and knowledge) though.

By: Johan

Johan — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:23:51 +0000

If Fibercity is right and it does indeed cost considerably less than £400 a home (let’s say somewhat over half) you would be able to “fibre up” almost all houses in the UK for slightly more than the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration or slightly less than the government has pledged to improve health care in Africa in the next 7 years.

If you consider the anti-cyclical investments by the government are generally considered to be a good thing for the economy, why not invest in FTTH?

You would think that running fibre to ~24 million homes would create plenty of new jobs. Not to mention all the side benefits you can have like: combat the traffic problems as it enables a lot more people to work from home. Reduce CO2 emissions and give a boost to the UK’s IT landscape in general by creating the infrastructure needed to offer new and innovative concepts to a nationwide audience which were previously unthinkable.

But I guess the competition commssioner would frown on such a government sponsored endeavor.

Maybe a “lease back” construction to the main broadband players or an “open network” on which providers can offer their services would be acceptable, although I’m sure both BT and Virgin would still cry bloody murder.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:26:05 +0000

Let’s be honest. There’s no interest whatsoever from government in improving broadband. What they want to do is take more money from people who work, eventually creating another fuel tax. Soon, under Labour, going on line will cost as much as filling up a car.

We should have fibre to the cabinet by now at least. That we haven’t is a combination of a corrupt ‘regulator’ and stupid government.

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:33:26 +0000

I’m in South Korea, basically in the Boon-docks and I’ve got a 100-150MB fibre connection (I have over 6MBPS upload speed using bit-torrent.)

It costs me £15 per month and when you order it they come the next day to install at a time of your choosing with no installation fee.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:02:42 +0000

The discussion of broadband speeds is academic to my mother, who can’t even get dial-up anymore and BT have no answer to that. Yes, she lives on on a farm 1.5 miles from a road but she can see Carlisle from her front window, so she’s not in remote location.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:05:27 +0000

“I’m off to Switzerland this weekend”

Nice work if you can get it!