Government "doesn't know what 2 meg promise means"

" the Government is issuing promises that even it doesn't understand "

Sadly, this is a recurring pattern. Not exactly new news!

By mnj_lim on 23 Feb 2010

How on earth can a 2 Mbits/sec service in the morning be different from a 2 Mbits/sec service in the evening? It is like saying 70 mph in the morning is different from 70 mph in the evening!!

By Amnesia10 on 23 Feb 2010

2Mb/s feels different in the evening...

..because the ISP has oversubscribed their bandwidth and the regulator hasn't the desire or ability to stop it.

What you get is in most cases NOT what you paid for!

By cheysuli on 23 Feb 2010

in other words

Loosely translated, the minister means 'up to' 2Mbps...

By greemble on 23 Feb 2010

@ Amnesia

Due to the fact that over subscribed lines get capped and your speed is limited

By Deathtaker27 on 23 Feb 2010

At 2Mbps, caps hardly matter

A 2Mbps line can transfer approx 21Gb per month flat out at 100% usage.
Most users of such a line would have difficulty hitting any of the existing broadband caps in normal use.
What is needed is a guarantee of line quality to ensure that the ADSL modem can train to a guaranteed data rate and sufficient back-haul to support the number of lines attached to an exchange.
This should be done by a scientist or engineer, not a marketing person.

By milliganp on 23 Feb 2010

PS

I should have added politicians to the list of people excluded from specifying w2hat 2Mbps means.

By milliganp on 23 Feb 2010

Can't add up?

Milligamp, I believe you have made an error in your calculations. There are approx 2.6 million seconds in a months so 2.6 X 2 =5.2Tb. note that you used Mb not MB, even so you are still in error! wink wink

By darkhairedlord on 23 Feb 2010

or rather Gb not GB....

school boy errors all round

By darkhairedlord on 23 Feb 2010

Cunning

With no real definition it means they can claim they have met their own target whatever they do or don't accomplish while levying more yet tax. After all 1mb/sec or less is "up to" 2mb/sec.

By miketoll on 23 Feb 2010

Clear as mud

Timms replied that "we will give virtually everybody access to a line capable of delivering 2Mbits/sec"

So, most people will have the possibility of getting 2Mbits. So good news, the Gov have already hit their target! Now that is efficient.

By JStairmand on 23 Feb 2010

I'll tell you exactly what it means

This is exactly what the "2Mbps promise" means: we will be way behind many other countries with many people having a woefully inadequate headline speed and some still with no access at all.

By halsteadk on 23 Feb 2010

what is 2 Mbits?

I am sorry to express my self like this but 2Mbits/s is s**t, i seriousely think that the goverment does not understand the meaning of 2Mbits, as they should be providing every home with at least 2 MB/s, which is 16 Mbits/s, this will make a difference. the speed they are saying will be there soon, is out of date, and services such as fibre optic should be delivered to any home, by BT or others, perhaps the costs substituted by the goverment, intead of promising 2 Mbits/s and spending god know how much trying to deliver outdates speeds.

By mobilegnet on 23 Feb 2010

internal error

Mea culpa, forgot to mutiply hour by 24 to convert to day making rest of my original post meaningless drivel! (no change there ;)
I do however agree that 2Mbps is entry level internet and the government should not be allowed to present it as any sort of advanced technology. Minimum speed for 2012+ must support at least HD video without any fear of data loss.

By milliganp on 23 Feb 2010

Dave

the point is 2Mbps is a minimum really now for almost all people. this government target is what over the next 5 years? surely 10Mbps should be a minimum for all by then.

i'm guessing that the govt got caught into thinking that a 2Meg connection as advertised by the isp's was 2 Megabytes per second and not 2 Megabites

By kingct on 23 Feb 2010

Should sack BT off with it's lame ADSL broadband and get Virgin in...

The government should sack BT off getting them to organise this nationwide broadband roll out and get Virgin to expand it's fibre optic network across the UK. Virgin already offer nearly 50mbps where as BT have just sat on their backside for the past 10 years doing nothing, letting the UK get behind in the broadband race and are now expecting the government to help them out by investing in a lame 2mbps solution for the whole of the UK. The government should be investing in the company that has actually attempted to roll out super fast broadband across the UK - Virgin. I'm currently on Virgin and certainly would never go back to BT as their speed just wasn't up to standard and their service was very overpriced.

By TheKLF99 on 25 Feb 2010

HDTV?

milliganp says that it should support at least HD. In Europe, most telcos are talking about the need to deliver at least 2 HD channels and a further SD channel whilst still allowing surfing, etc. You need a minimum of 16Mbit/s for that. Most are targeting 32 Mbit/s and more.

Virgin may sound good to TheKLF99, but you have to be in a big town to get it. Very many UK dwellings have no cable access at all...

By ghirson on 25 Feb 2010

Villages dip out

I'm still on 576kb/s. I would dearly love to see Virgin cable here, but it seems small villages are not a high priority.

Steve

By Techno610 on 25 Feb 2010

2MB and 2mbps

I suspect that Dave is right, that UK GOV is getting muddled over the often abbreviated 2MB/s used by crafty/confused marketing execs. It is a bit worrying that the ministers who SHOULD know better, are not getting properly briefed by their research departments. Most PC power users KNOW that BB speed is measured in BITS PER SECOND, rather than BYTES, so they SHOULD realise this is a factor of EIGHT difference. Some of these twits are actually in charge of complex legislation and law changes, no wonder we are in a mess!!

By TD1947 on 25 Feb 2010

On a spur!

I live on a BT spur - result broadband hell. Although the exchange is enabled for 3mb/s and many round here get the promised 2mb we never get more than 500kb and with no plans to improve our connection. When I moved here I was promised by phone (not in writing) a 2mb connection and so signed up to the unlimited package in anticipation of actually being able to make full use of broadband for the first time. I feel defrauded - complaints about line speed bring the inevitable 'It's in the permitted range' response. Will the broadband tax help people like me? I've more chance of viewing herds of flying pigs. It will just be another insult heaped on those of us with appalling connections and no other option (virtually no mobile signal here either).

By jaibee3 on 25 Feb 2010

George

If you take account of the overhead, to get 1 Mbyte/s of real data transfer you need a line speed of at least 10Mbits/s! The Government is gulity, like the ISPs of misleading the public with terms like "up to", "most" and "normal use". Another gripe is the misleading costs stated bu ISPs on comparison sites of "headline" prices to get offerings to the top of the list, whereas the REAL cost doubles after a few (typically 3) months. This is DISHONEST, as are their claims about line speed!!

By gbhill on 25 Feb 2010

Yes pricing is another area that the ASA lets ISP's get away with "dishonest" advertising. As you're typically locked into a 12 month contract, the headline advertised price should be the price charged for the majority period of the contract, not the introductory offer price.

If you think the shower in power have their bits and bytes mixed up, you have the woolly minded thinking they prey upon. They've set a target that they can announce they have achieved and spend the money elsewhere. After all they've never said that you would be guaranteed an actual minimum of 2Mbits/s.

By chapelgarth on 25 Feb 2010

Change the Law

So Steve still on 576kb/s and jaibee3 on on 500kb, you lucky people! BT constantly screws me down to 300Kb/s. So I would suggest that if a company offers "up to" then it should be legally justifiable for customers to pay "up to". As for the Government's suggestion of adding more cost to this current method of fraud, well, that speaks for itself, doesn't it.

By einstein9 on 25 Feb 2010

This whole thing is a cynical attempt by MP's to get votes. They don't care, living as they do in cities where high speed broadband is far easier to obtain. 2Mb/s will essentially mean tweaks, maybe a few exchange upgrades, and whoever is in power in 5 years will have to do it all again.

By qwertyqwerty87 on 25 Feb 2010

High Tech Britain?

In order to be High Tech, Britain needs to invest in technology that is fit for now and the near future.

Nobody has a crystal ball but the same fiasco seems to be the order of the day that has hindered our progress like "Digital TV" and HDTV.

Fiber Optics is proven technology that WORKS is HIGH SPEED and is SAFER to maintain (0 voltage).

Other advantages are that these cables are almost impervious to interference from emf pulse and are less likely to cause interference.

Fiber Optic is the proven High Tech Solution.

By lenmontieth on 25 Feb 2010

Depends what you mean...

I live in a rural village with our own telephone exchange. If I could be guaranteed 2mbps ALL day every day, even during peak times, I would be very happy indeed. If I need to download I do it at night, whilst 2mb is plenty for streaming video.
Tha't as long as they don't SHAPE the bandwidth of course and don't strangle streaming video in favour of HTTP or FTP.

By zzdave on 25 Feb 2010

Virgin what a joke

Sorry KLF but Virgin are a joke. they are punative towards customers who only want broadband and their business practices are shadier than Sky and in my case illegal due to the statute of limitations or whatever law in the UK covers this here. They get one final chance from me to comply with UK law, before legal action begins.

By derekd5 on 25 Feb 2010

Cable Broadband only in towns? That would be a start

Middle of the evening, downloading from the iPlayer site; rate c0.5 Mbps. In the middle of nowhere? Guest of HM? Guess again. I'm 2 miles north of the centre of Newcastle in a prosperous suburb, which is crying out for the fibre which houses to the south and and west of us can get.

The nearest we get to cable broadband is fliers telling us how great it is.

I know of one village which is less than 10 miles along a trunk road from Newcastle where they are lucky to get to get 0.5 Mbps.

This government (and I don't think the other lot would be very different) have their notion of what is "usually" available determined by conditions in Central London.

In other parts of the country whether or not you get real broadband (i.e. cable) depends on whether the local council has done a deal with Virgin. Now it will depend on whether the government is prepared to subsidise the necessary investment in infrastructure.

They aren't - both parties mutter about "encouraging" commercial solutions. I'm reminded of the description of the US attitude in 1940 towards Britain - "Give them all assistence short of actual help."

By Philippa on 25 Feb 2010

A lot of errors.. 2mb = 720GB

Gents, a 2mb line, running at full bandwidth 24/7, can transfer approx 720GB data per 31day month. Call it 700 gigabytes if you like.

Re the Govt not knowing the difference between 2mb and 2MB, what makes you think they dont. I would suggest that Stephen Timms knows exactly what the difference is, and stated 2mb for one simple reason: BT lobbied him to. Any higher, and BT would be faced with replacing a very significant portion of the last mile cable, a huge expansion in exchange physical capacity, a huge expansion in exchange bandwidth, and a massive expansion in the core network/backhaul.

Or he realised that even with "draconian" legislation, Govt would be forced to foot the bill... which would run into billions.

So yeah, I think the 2mb figure was very very deliberate.

By alan_lj on 26 Feb 2010

A lot of errors.. 2mb = 720GB

Gents, a 2mb line, running at full bandwidth 24/7, can transfer approx 720GB data per 31day month. Call it 700 gigabytes if you like.

Re the Govt not knowing the difference between 2mb and 2MB, what makes you think they dont. I would suggest that Stephen Timms knows exactly what the difference is, and stated 2mb for one simple reason: BT lobbied him to. Any higher, and BT would be faced with replacing a very significant portion of the last mile cable, a huge expansion in exchange physical capacity, a huge expansion in exchange bandwidth, and a massive expansion in the core network/backhaul.

Or he realised that even with "draconian" legislation, Govt would be forced to foot the bill... which would run into billions.

So yeah, I think the 2mb figure was very very deliberate.

By alan_lj on 26 Feb 2010

A lot of errors.. 2mb = 720GB

Gents, a 2mb line, running at full bandwidth 24/7, can transfer approx 720GB data per 31day month. Call it 700 gigabytes if you like.

Re the Govt not knowing the difference between 2mb and 2MB, what makes you think they dont. I would suggest that Stephen Timms knows exactly what the difference is, and stated 2mb for one simple reason: BT lobbied him to. Any higher, and BT would be faced with replacing a very significant portion of the last mile cable, a huge expansion in exchange physical capacity, a huge expansion in exchange bandwidth, and a massive expansion in the core network/backhaul.

Or he realised that even with "draconian" legislation, Govt would be forced to foot the bill... which would run into billions.

So yeah, I think the 2mb figure was very very deliberate.

By alan_lj on 26 Feb 2010