The whole project reeks of propeganda and fudged figures.

My point entirely and why I pointed out the irony of a huge poster, on a building a few minutes walk from Westminster, where no resident can get these services, and where speeds are no where near as good as I get, and where they are told there are no plans at present for them to ever get these services. I'm sure they will one day, but to stick a huge poster up on their building, pointing people to a web site telling everyone how great the government is doing, is rubbing people's noses in it somewhat. I wonder would they be so keen to shove a huge poster up on the side of a failing hospital advertising how well the NHS is doing?

I wonder how many Tory front benchers have slow internet access lol, that would have been rolled out in Phase 1 to both their homes and they would have the bare faced cheeck to claim the internet bill on their expenses.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

The digital divide in the UK is not the simplistic one about rural and urban that the government would have you believe with their comments about remote and hard to reach..

Again, it is easy for a large print advert to concentrate on one or two bullets, but the full programme isn't just about the tech. Making access affordable is one of the bullets often missed, and includes funds for building business skills.

Digital inclusion for individuals is also recognised, but under different schemes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/governmen...

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

I wonder how many Tory front benchers have slow internet access lol, that would have been rolled out in Phase 1 to both their homes and they would have the bare faced cheeck to claim the internet bill on their expenses.

They will probably pay for a commercial/business bespoke solution involving leased/bonded lines.
Those seriously well paid people I know do - they don't waste time on cheap & cheerful domestic broadband along with rubbish call centres wanting you to test the master socket....again.
As ever if you want a faster broadband and a proper service start paying for it.

I don't think they count EOLs in that 5% do they?

Be happy that you are on a cabinet and not EO, which very low chance of ever being upgraded.

I am on an EO line. I very much doubt I will never be able to get a better service than the one I have now. The idea of that is utter nonsense, even if there are no plans to do anything as of today. Whether I need it is another matter entirely. At present the answer is no and I'm not sure when I might. It is not why I started the thread.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

The whole project reeks of propeganda and fudged figures.

My point entirely

Some people are unable to comprehend how large a project is needed for anything close to a national rollout. If they, and their mates down the pub, don't benefit, the numbers must be wrong and being fudged. Its all a conspiracy!

Even a 90% target leaves out nearly 3 million properties. You could do the rest of the country, and leave London entirely unserved, and get that result.

There are probably many people in rural UK who think that should indeed happen...

The upshot is that it is a lot of people to be left out.

but to stick a huge poster up on their building, pointing people to a web site telling everyone how great the government is doing, is rubbing people's noses in it somewhat

What are they supposed to do? Keep the whole thing quiet because there are one or two overly-sensitive souls around?

The thing is ... if more people sign up to SFBB, then the higher the takeup figure. The higher that goes, the more the clawback provisions trigger, and the more money goes back to councils for re-investment into the harder 5%.

The government have realised that they can recycle the funding this way, and have to put no extra money in themselves, if only they can persuade people to sign up. It isn't a surprise to see them bigging it up.

Who knows - If BT get persuaded that people really want it, maybe they'll start to cover London more.

Some people are unable to comprehend how large a project is needed for anything close to a national rollout. If they, and their mates down the pub, don't benefit, the numbers must be wrong and being fudged. Its all a conspiracy!

As I feel has been demonstrated by some of the posts in this thread.

I am not using my own definition but the governments

if it has city status officially then I see it as city, but I mean only the city not the surrounding areas, so basically inside the welcome to X city signs.

Obviously they a business, they need to be somewhat sensible with what they spend, with that said I think there has been political intervention, lots of the early rollout was in villages and rural towns, which doesnt make sense, there is a reason why just about every other country leaves rural alone and invests only in densely populated areas, BT seemed an exception to that rule for some reason which only they know why.

I know someone told me the cities came later because they were originally planned to be FTTP, but I find it hard to believe parts of london are less of a business case than some village with a few hundred people.