In reply to a post by RossMcG:

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.

If only there were some other way to deliver such vital content to people such as a national radio-based broadcasting network or some kind of storage media that can be readily purchased or sent through the post.

As Mr Saffron has mentioned: 'Basic' is a relative term and a movable feast. Just how much money am I supposed to pay via taxation to ensure that everyone has access to Game of Thrones the day of its UK release?

In reply to a post by ian72:

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.

Basic as in 2mb minimum which will allow for services such as netflix, bbc iplayer, gaming etc introductory level

Anything over and above is a luxury for some, normal for most non existstant for many

Ian when you had 512 internet was netflix, iPlayer etc about..........I remember waiting almost a day for Attack of the Clones to download, but that was normal back then. Some people are still suffering those speeds, would you be happy if you were one of them and hearing about how others will soon be getting GB speeds and how the Govt. have ploughed cash into an easy fix, knowing full well you will never get such speeds and your home just had tens of thousands dropped off the value to cop.

To make it worse no investment has been considered to even informing these people of the intentions for them. Its just a case of ahh "<<<insert explitive F bomb>> Them", they are just a statistic.

As for the latter comment on tax , lets have a look at the billions being ploughed into a high speed railway that only a fraction of the country will ever use or benefit from. Why should a penny of my taxes go to fund that? The Olympics was another. That's a false statement as examples are everywhere. No one mentioned using any extra money, I was criticising the USE of money from the offset and lack of communication.

2mb is enough to ensure you have a 720p or 1080p version of your favourite show (including Game of Thrones) sitting waiting for you in the morning (assuming you set up irssi / flexget/ rss or something similar). Bad example as sky screen it hours after USA but we get the gist. Fibre would mean you could stream it in HD. Main thing here is if the 2mb base line was for 100% of people then 100% of people would have that option.

Perhaps what they should do is alter the whole leasing a telephone line system and levvy those with fibre and higher speeds using a fair and equitable cosing system and pass on the proffits to making sure everyone has a fair shot at the race. Pay for what you get. Lets face it many of us have mobile phones and only use the telephone line for broadband, OFCOM should be starting to look at enforcing a fair system on line rental based upon what you use the line for.

But 2Mb is the current target for everyone. That is what was pledged. It just happens they are also trying to rollout better than that to 90% at the same time.

What I was trying to say was goalposts are ever moving. A network is designed for the current target and before you are half way through delivering a new target is set. This country I suspect wouldn't survive if we had said "just deliver 2Mb to everyone and forget anything faster until that is done".

As far as HS2 and the likes is concerned then I don't generally make comments of "don't do that do this" because the decisions are too large and not comparable for me. Personally I would just drop HS2 altogether and reduce the deficit - but then I don't have to juggle budgets, people's calls for "I want this", deficits, etc.

And have you not noticed that fibre costs more than standard ADSL? If you start taxing fibre then people will stop buying it, there will be no reason to roll it out, government won't make any money and the UK Internet scene will quickly stagnate and be overtaken by every other part of the world - at which point companies will leave the UK as the workforce won't have the Internet needed to do modern working.

I think you are viewing this all in too simplistic a fashion. This is a highly complex subject that is not as simple as "just give 2Mb to everyone". Neither the economics or the technology can support that view (in my opinion).

Ian the tax comments were aimed at Andrue.

Are you trying to say that by concentrating on getting people to 2MB as minimum would somehow scupper the whole project? From my point of view it would have saved cash, while doing that Openreach would still be deploying fibre in areas where they could generate a proffit. If you think for one minute at the moment they are not using any BDUK money to deploy proffitable cabinets (saving themselves cash while doing so) then I think that is very naieve. In my opinion of course and my own speculation.

Technology can support 2MB to everyone, issue is they opted not to go down that path in that order. You said they pledged 2MB for everyone then later on said neither the economics or technology can support this. So effectively you are saying the Government lied in your opinion?

Case and point of the whole thread.

The government have said 2Mb for all by 2015 (presumably the end of). They also said 90% to have super fast by the same time.

The ISPs/providers were asked to provide detail for BDUK projects as to areas that would be covered under commercial footprint. Those areas of out of scope for BDUK as they cannot be used due to EU funding requirements. It is down to audit office and EU to audit the projects to ensure this is being abided by - if it isn't then it is a breach of EU law.

There is nothing to say that only doing 2Mb and ignoring fibre would have resulted in anything quicker. For many people the solution to get the 2Mb is FTTC - anything else would have been cost prohibitive. So, if FTTC had been ruled out then there wouldn't have been an alterative to get 2Mb to people via phone lines - in which case satellite and mobile networks would have been the only potentially viable options.

The other thing with BDUK is that there is a coverage threshold in each area. If that threshold is broken then BT starts paying back a percentage of earnings. So, if they enable a viable area then it is likely that money will come back to the BDUK project which can then be used to further expand the network.

I am not saying this is perfect but saying "just deliver 2Mb to everyone and don't do fibre" does not work and would have almost certainly been very little quicker than the way it is being done now.

And if people want more than 2Mb connection speed it is available to nearly everyone. Satellite is an option - it currently appears to be oversubscribed and is high latency but for many purposes it would be adequate.

Problem with that Ian is ISP's cant provide any accurate data. Some say I can get up to 80mb, some say up to 15mb, some are realistic and say between 1.5mb and 2mb. I have neighbours who are <2mb. We all are on the same "pole", I dont forsee any upgrade for anyone on that pole. Fact is they wont get accurate data to perform a decent audit. God damn me for registering speed tests lol ive stuffed it for the whole street

I enquired about satelite to Digital Scotland (the BDUK folk here) and they said that is not an option. I dont see 4G being an option either as you already need to virtually lean out windows to get 3G. So i really dont know for people like myself. Too far from the exchange, too far from a 3G antena and too few a poulation for anyone to give a hoot.

Does anyone actually believe they will provide a minimum of 2mb broadband to everyone by 2016? I sure dont.

They have said they are working on new technology, well thats nice and a broad statement. I am sure people are working on warp drives and 'laser beams on freekin sharks' (ala austin powers). I wonder which one will come first !

I vote the sharks!

ian - "The government have said 2Mb for all by 2015 (presumably the end of)." and as the thread title says, they have broken that pledga and it will not have happened by 2017 either., Simple. 'Broken their pledge' = a euphemism for 'Government lies'

Why is satellite not an option? You can order that without recourse to any bduk project

In reply to a post by ian72:

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.

Or the cherry picked areas where BT have decided to roll out FTTP on a somewhat random basis - such as in Cornwall where single rural farmhouses have been given FTTP, or towns and villages where half the street is on FTTP and the other FTTC - or even as odd as a couple of poles in a part of down being FTTPed with everyone else surrounding iton FTTC. The lucky few who can have 330Mbit guaranteed, today, compared to everyone else who probably won't get 80Mbit.

In my own village, they've FTTPed one road, that could easily have supported FTTC (it's not EO), whereas much longer roads like mine are FTTC despite the cabinet being at one end, and the others on the end of a very long line might struggle to get any serious speed on VDSL. In a neighbouring village they trialled installing a copper PCP on some EO lines, so that the FTTC cabinet could be installed.

I just assume that BT flips a coin to choose a technology (weighted to prefer FTTC, of course) or they throw a dart at a map and roll out FTTP to where it goes

Edited by deleted (Tue 23-Dec-14 18:50:35)

All these essentials that you are basically ranting about that need these higher speeds ....

Ofcom's European Broadband Scorecard, published today, [that was 12 March 2014], shows that the UK leads the EU�s five biggest economies on most measures of coverage, take-up, usage and choice for both mobile and fixed broadband, and performs well on price.

The report finds that the availability of superfast broadband has increased in the UK from around 60% at the end of 2011 to 73%. This has taken the country from third to first for coverage among the 'EU5' (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

Take-up of superfast broadband, which is capable of providing speeds equal to or greater than 30Mbit/s, had reached nine in every 100 people in the UK at the start of last year.

Which if my arithmetic is correct means 73 people per hundred could get over 30Mbps, but only 9 per hundred had signed up to it.

Maybe it isn't so essential to the other 64 per hundred that could have done.

Edit - OfCom report.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 23-Dec-14 23:21:30)