Government lies

I was entertained by a poster yesterday, and wondered, given where it was, whether the Government were trying to be ironic or insulting. I visited the quoted website and here is a quote directly from the Government's own web site for superfast broadband "Focus is now on the �final 5%� � those areas in the most remote and hardest to reach places in the UK that are not covered by existing plans" (my emphasis). Given that there are no plans at all for thousands of homes (including those in the building the poster was attached to) within earshot of Big Ben (even in sight of it from the fourth floor upwards), this can only be an outright lie.

This is far from a lie. The fact that you and I are both in central London and in that 5% doesn't mean that plans aren't underway for how to deal with that 5%. That the focus in on the last 5% doesn't mean that 95% can currently get fast broadband, just that current plans, when complete, should approach 95% availability.

What is misleading is the belief by some, including the writer of that quote, that only rural areas are in that 5%. A prime example being EO lines in non BDUK locations such as Birmingham and London.

I'm afraid MP Val Shawcross challenged the government on their actual plans for the 26% of London homes that cannot get so called superfast services. They told her categorically that there were no plans. She has a particular interest here as the MP covering Rotherhithe, where unless you are wealthy enough to live in a property Hyperopic would deign to bother with, you may as well live in the middle of Nowhereshire. This is also a common situation in council estates across London. The current government claim that all that are left are the 'most remote places' is therefore a lie. That is unless they consider places inside thethe division bell remote or hard to reach.

Where was this 26% of London figure from?

Greater London as a whole does very well for coverage. Don't have my own figures to hand

I think they like to "play on words" and manipulate the figures (as everyone does).

It may be a case that urban EO lines that are too far from the exchange to be exchange enabled have been "written off" the figures along with other situations.

I doubt we will ever hear a true statement of exact stats based upon 100% of live telephone lines.

That 26% figure for London premises is sheer nonsense. That would make London coverage considerably worse than the UK as a whole.

Any MP quoting that figure would be wildly misinformed. No comfort of course for the minority that don't have access, but a different approach will have to be taken than the area based BDUK process in otherwise well enabled cities,

I've just done some research on what Val Shawcross has been doing, and this is a blog item she wrote on the issues in Rotherhithe in September 2013. It seems to be a reasonably summary to me of the local issues and the problems with BDUK. She has written more up to date stuff since, but this one addresses BDUK too. The issue in that area is that it is ex-industrial and lacks "green boxes" so has a lot of long EO lines.

http://www.valshawcross.com/the-great-rotherhithe-br...

nb. well done to a constituency MP who is taking this seriously.

This is what Chris Condor has to say about the situation
Chris's Blog

In reply to a post by mikejp:

This is what Chris Condor has to say about the situation
Chris's Blog

facebook is blocked here

I have seen the same posters and online adverts, and they are laughable. I also live within earshot of Big Ben and have been told categorically by BT that I will never get fibre speeds.

A huge number of inner London homes (particularly post-war blocks of flats) are exchange only and will never be upgraded. I asked my local councillor about this (thinking that the council might have some interest) and she said that local councillors and MPs are hitting a brick wall on this.

There is absolutely nothing an individual consumer can do about this.