In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The seed fund of £530m was not enough to upgrade 100% of people to an equal standard, plus the only tech that can give equal speeds no matter what location is FTTH/P.

A LOT of work has been going on to eliminate EO lines, seeing plenty that are getting cabinets now, with fibre twins following on.

There was no variable sized pot of money from Central Government, it was a simple here is £530m shared out how we think is fair and we want you to hit this target, with the existing rules.

By upgrading I merely meant upgrading to a point where 100% of people had access to over 2mb as standard and while at it upgrading EO to the standard of being fed by a cabinet thus making the infrastructure equatable accross the UK (in effect future proofing). Then they should have assisted with the roll out.

I am also wondering if BDUK cash was used to assist funding where Openreach would have entually upgraded to Fibre anyway. To me that is a major question and would serve to enforce the feeling that they have used the money to "speed" things up as opposed to the wider improvement for more people.

What has happened is the BDUK has created a massive divide and thrown millions into broadband poverty.

Whatever way you paint the picture the black / not spots should have been dealt with first.

Deal with the not-spots and you create new black/not spots as then you have people moaning they are only getting 2.3 Mbps, when those upgraded are enjoying a lot more.

The BDUK project needed to be a LOT larger to do what everyone wants, and needed to be massively larger if it was to avoid creating a divide.

Am sure that Openreach would have done more FTTC if the BDUK process did not happen, but probably over a much longer time scale.

Nothing stopping counties giving out subsidy vouchers for satellite in the short term or funding fixed wireless as a stop gap which some are.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Deal with the not-spots and you create new black/not spots as then you have people moaning they are only getting 2.3 Mbps, when those upgraded are enjoying a lot more.

100% disagree, currently there are a lot of sub 2mb people out there, exactly how many we will never know (see thread title for why).

How would upgrading them first cause others to moan? I wasnt meaning provide those people with fibre I was meaning upgrade the netwrok for them to the current standard, THEN start the fibre roll out, in the meanwhile Openeraeach could trundle on with the economicly viable areas. By no means did I mean give all EO and rural lines fibre or superfast anything, just drag them out of the dark ages.

Instead they opted to throw them further into the dark ages, which is wrong.

Just to add by my own theory I would not benefit in the least my internet would still be 3.5mb, I would still be 2.7k meters from the exchange as the crow flies., I would still be in a cluster of 150+ where fibre would be last in the list, however those further away than me (in the urban areas) would benefit greatly with usable broadband. My only benefit would be knowing that perhaps one day and also I may benefit from the line being shortened (openrach claim it is well over 5k meters long). but thats all by the by.

Upgradind the infrastructure should have been the first port of call regardless of how anyone spins in. Thats my opinion of course and everyone is entitled to one

The 2Mbps first was the labour plan in 2010 no plans started with a deadline of 2012. Governments changed and went for superfast

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The 2Mbps first was the labour plan in 2010 no plans started with a deadline of 2012. Governments changed and went for superfast

LOL so we should blame the Tory's

I do feel really sorry for those with sub 2mb speeds, no netflix no online gaming etc, must be really chronic. All while the Govt are blowing the super speed trumpet and throwing cash at getting statistics quicker.

If creating a massive divide was the Tory's aim then job done, oh wait that is the aim of the Tory's lol.

Thats made my day

They couldn't have fixed the sub 2Mb/s without changing the technology. The only sensible way to fix sub 2Mb/s is to shorten the lines to the active equipment. To do that they have to put in cabinets with powered DSLAM hardware. It would be silly to do that with ADSL when VDSL was an available tech. So, better to do FTTC which would mean upgrading those people and therefore creating a new divide.

The fact is there will always be a divide with new technology. The costs and timescales for rollout mean some will get it first and others will never get it.

I live in a fairly well off city and yet we don't get 3G from most mobile providers. 4G doesn't exist here at all yet. Even providers that have 3G are patchy and in some cases in the city centre would not even give enough signal to make a phone call. Whereas others in the country had great 3G and now have 4G. But, I understand that there are economics at play that make our city difficult to provide and that it doesn't come at the top of anyone's list.

It is a relatively long project. With targets of 90-95% the divide is not that big - once the project is finished. Economically it may be impossible to hit 100%.

I know my own county has a target of 100% greater than 2Mb/s and I think about 95% on fibre (and 90% superfast). That doesn't leave a "massive" divide. But then the people getting 30Mb/s will complain that others will be able to get 100Mb/s - and a new divide is born.

Until the whole country has exactly the same provision there will be a divide. And if you want to see the ultimate divide look at the people that can get Gigaclear and the likes at 1Gb/s.

All understandable, but with Internet becoming such a day to day thing for everyone it becomes much like a utility. At the moment some people do not have that utility at a usable standard.

There will always be a divide granted but they should have ensured everyone was at least on a usable standard first and foremost. OR the alternative and decent thing to do would be to come forward and be clear with what exactly they intend to do with the rural and EO people all the way down to district level.

At the moment the party line seems to be "you wont be left behind", well everyone sees those goalposts moving at a constant rate. Many people are tired of the spin from the government about this and get no where. I am annoyed when I hear how stuff like gigaclear is becoming available (in a envious way), however I think those who cant even access catchup tv, netflix, online gaming etc must be raging about it.

When the divide is those that can and those that cant at a basic level then thats where it is at its worse. Ensuring all can at a basic level would be the best starter for ten and then those who can get super dooper broadband, well good for them

Being able to say 100% of people in the UK have access to domestic broadband should be the initial yard stick.

I often laugh as I lease 2 * 10GB servers and for me to get files from the servers to home takes forever, yet a friend 2 streets away can get the same files in minutes.

Being able to say 100% of people in the UK have access to domestic broadband should be the initial yard stick.

That's commendable and perhaps the same should be said for both mains gas and mains sewerage, for both of which the availability in the UK is far from 100%. Further when main sewerage is provided to an area which previously relied on septic tanks the residents are expected to contribute towards the installation costs.

however I think those who cant even access catchup tv, netflix, online gaming etc must be raging about it.

When the divide is those that can and those that cant at a basic level then thats where it is at its worse

Trouble is how you define "basic level". You have defined as catchup tv, Netflix, online gaming.

Others will describe it as basic internet shopping. Yet more will describe it as the ability to stream HD video on multiple devices.

Each of these has different speed requirements. Todays basic level is tomorrow's "too slow". I started on 512Kb/s on Broadband - it was super fast and plenty to do everything that was available at the time.

Nowadays 2Mb/s that is the current target isn't enough for a family who want to do some HD streaming, a bit of gaming, some facebook, etc.

The technology is moving faster than can be kept pace with on a national basis. No sooner have BT got to a reasonable percentage of people having 512Kb but 1Mb is needed. Then they start getting that out and 2Mb becomes the "go to" speed. Then 8Mbs. Then 24Mb. Some people are now calling for 100Mb and others feel gigabit is the only way.

It has been a movable feast ever since the Internet was invented and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The government and BT are constantly chasing what people consider to be the "basic" requirement - and as things currently stand they will never be able to reach it for all because to keep up with the world economy you have to keep on pushing the goalposts.