Lib Dems Manifesto asks for 2Gbps FTTP as standard!

The Lid Dems manifesto has copied Lord Mandleson's USO amendment and says (pg 44)

Invest to ensure that broadband connections and services to be provided before 2020 have a speed of 2 Gbps or more, with fibre to the premises (FTTP) as standard and unlimited usage by 2020 across the whole of the UK. SMEs should be prioritised in the roll-out of hyperfast broadband.

I know of no 2Gbps broadband service in the UK does anyone know where our politicians are getting their info from and what existing technology gives a 2Gbps service?

In reply to a post by kitcat:

The Lid Dems manifesto has copied Lord Mandleson's USO amendment and says (pg 44)

Invest to ensure that broadband connections and services to be provided before 2020 have a speed of 2 Gbps or more, with fibre to the premises (FTTP) as standard and unlimited usage by 2020 across the whole of the UK. SMEs should be prioritised in the roll-out of hyperfast broadband.

I know of no 2Gbps broadband service in the UK does anyone know where our politicians are getting their info from and what existing technology gives a 2Gbps service?

I believe 1Gbps is available (or soon to be available) on Openreach FTTP services. There's no reason why that couldn't be increased to 2Gbps if required. In theory, the ONT allows for up to four connections IIRC, so in theory you could combine four lines for up to 4Gbps if you really wanted.

My question is how many consumer devices support more then gigabit interface? Laudable as a very long term goal but it is irrelevant to users for the next probably 5 years at least.

And who will pay for the equipment and infrastructure?

Or maybe flying pigs will be used to deploy the fibres from pole to pole!

"invest to ensure..."

"fttp as standard"

"unlimited usage""

"by 2020 across the whole of the UK"

Flying Pigs have been mentioned but apart from that there is no mention of cost and who is going to pay

And this guy obviously has no knowledge of physics

What is proposed is simply impossible

However, they are also proposing to legalise cannabis, so perhaps the manifesto author is ahead of the rest of us on that one too!

How is it impossible? They've done it abroad. Having said that, that would be some target. We certainly would be future proofed for decades to come.

Edited by deleted (Wed 17-May-17 16:56:36)

Read it carefully and recommend also seeing page 66

In reply to a post by WilliamGrimsley:

How is it impossible? They've done it abroad. Having said that, that would be some target. We certainly would be future proofed for decades to come.

Not impossible

Just unaffordable

In reply to a post by 961a:

What is proposed is simply impossible

In reply to a post by 961a:

Not impossible

Just unaffordable

Hmm...

Edited by deleted (Wed 17-May-17 17:18:46)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Read it carefully and recommend also seeing page 66

I have read it carefully. No cost mentioned

Page 66 is more realistic but again fails to detail cost either to investors (taxpayers?) or to customers

Where can I find it please? All I can get is links to key points on newspaper sites and twitter, or sign up to the LibDem website. I expect it is there but!

Found it thanks.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 17-May-17 17:41:28)

I query your Page 44.

I have downloaded the PDF from this site and the relevant page seems to be 42. Scroll down to just below the huge yellow banner link and under it is a download link.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 17-May-17 17:54:24)

I think some believe it means 100% FTTP coverage but it does not...suspect would actually boil down to the mandate on any new network built, so the 2% currently in planning beyond the 95% and of course new premises.

The answer for commercial operators if they don't like it would actually be to stop roll-out, so for example Virgin Media might stop the infill with some DOCIS and move to concentrate on its FTTP elsewhere, i.e. the half a street missed out now may continue missed out for the want of a bit of coax and a tube or two.

In reply to a post by kitcat:

The Lid Dems manifesto has copied Lord Mandleson's USO amendment and says (pg 44)

I know of no 2Gbps broadband service in the UK does anyone know where our politicians are getting their info from and what existing technology gives a 2Gbps service?

The Lib Dems can promise what they like as they will never be in the position to have to deliver on their promises.

If I ever get in power I promise now that everyone will get 100Gbps full duplex broadband to their home for free with a payment into your bank account of £10 every time you download a GB of data

obviously the population pays collectively whether thats via raised taxes or cuts elsewhere.

End of the day I dont know why we keep hearing rambles like "unaffordable" "we will go broke".

Not all of us think the only three things that matter is low taxation, gov deficit and brexit.

A UK wide FTTP sponsored by gov I expect e.g. would be cheaper than HS2 and we dont hear people rambling about the cost of that.

Actually there have been many people rambling about the cost of HS2. As there are about pretty much every area of government spending - there is always going to be someone saying that money shouldn't be spent on x but should instead be spent on y.

Somewhere decisions have to be made. If tax was raised who is to say that the thing that is the next biggest priority would be FTTP? In the end the government are voted in and responsible for making these decisions - if you feel strongly about something then campaign about it but you may find there are many other pulls on the public purse that will take higher priority for the general public.

And once 2Gb/s is available to all how many will opt for it? If you can get 100Mb for £30 or 2Gb for £50 then I suspect 90% of the country would go for the cheaper option - that affects ROI.

yeah my comment is that I think there is room for spending, for what its worth with the issues on NHS and housing I dont think FTTP is the top priority.

Personally I think the most critical area is council houses, followed by the NHS.

However the people who ramble dont tend to say its because they want the money spent elsewhere, they just seem anti spending in general. I say to them tax cuts are also spending. So e.g. the path the UK is heading down in becoming a tax haven for large corporate's is heavy spending in my eyes.

In reply to a post by ian72:

And once 2Gb/s is available to all how many will opt for it? If you can get 100Mb for £30 or 2Gb for £50 then I suspect 90% of the country would go for the cheaper option - that affects ROI.

TBH, even though 2Gbit for £50 would be nice, I would probably go for about 1Gbit due to anything more than about 900Mbit would be wasted due to our LAN being 1Gbit.

Yes I could upgrade to a 10Gbit LAN, but that would end up costing more than its worth.

So I would be happy going for 1Gbit option if the upload was increased as well, as long as the price was reasonable.

But yeah, you are right about the percentage that can get the faster speeds that go for the slower and cheaper option.

Paul

Indeed, a point I made here

I ramble endlessly about the cost of HS2.

If 20% of the cost of that was spent on various upgrades to allow longer trains and other upgrades on the existing network our railway would be much better than it will be if HS2 is built

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

.... the path the UK is heading down in becoming a tax haven for large corporate's is heavy spending in my eyes.

especially since many of them only pay a fraction of their UK trading profits in corporation tax, whatever the rate

agreed, ironically planned upgrades on east midland lines have been cancelled as unaffordable, yet they not even 1% of the cost of HS2, its madness.

The reason HS2 is approved is it helps rich londoners travel north.

Why would rich Londoners need to go north ? And by train with the great unwashed !

Yes HS2 is a waste of money.