In reply to a post by MrBukey:

Better broadband for all does help people's lives with more and more services going online.

Better broadband for all might - its arguable. Duplicate infrastructure is not such a great idea.

However, some may also make the case that those who live in 'rural' locations often chose to live there and so should not expect others to "subsidise" their lifestyle decisions.. increasing prices for the majority to help a minority

As for internet access and education, its why many libraries now offer access to the net.

In reply to a post by gt94sss2:

Better broadband for all might - its arguable. Duplicate infrastructure is not such a great idea.

However, some may also make the case that those who live in 'rural' locations often chose to live there and so should not expect others to "subsidise" their lifestyle decisions.. increasing prices for the majority to help a minority

As for internet access and education, its why many libraries now offer access to the net.

Okay, so if there's no duplicate infrastructure then surely that makes an argument for nationalisation over a private company that has a department that may be ring fenced in operation, but whose aims are best served by taking the revenue and push into their other endeavours?

Library services that are having their hours cut, their budgets cut and their services reduced - and open whilst most people are working or within their proper education - are not the same with regards to Internet access around the clock at home. Add to that the limited number of computers that can be in a library vs private homes where a lot of people have computers, tablets, phones and TVs that can all connect to the Internet.

Add to that the costs of providing computers, Internet access (lines, hardware, security maintenance, etc. etc) - surely this money would be better spent in improving infrastructure to peoples homes than just a few people at a time in a limited availability library?

If you go down the no duplicate infrastructure then this new national Telco will only ever address coverage in under 30% of the UK.

Virgin Media is expected to hit 70% in 2017 and people like Gigaclear have an increasing Gigabit presence too. I can get altnets will have a lot to say about a nationalised Telco particularly if it is competing with their plans.

Don't put down the library option immediately, at an EU event 3 years ago Romania got a lot of congratulations for ensuring all its libraries were fast enough and farmers apparently happy to go to them to do their filing and e-paperwork. Wi-Fi can increase ability for more people to use access, and this can be done securely so that transactions are safe enough.

I realise that this is a rather academic thread but Openreach is not going to be nationalised either now or in the future, there is no spare cash to do it and more importantly no public demand for it. MPs can be viewed occasionally on the Parliament Channel moaning about BB performance in their constituency, but they go no further than perhaps a call for Openreach to be split from the rest of BT and to stand as a private company.

I'd bet if a provider (no matter whether BT or Virgin Media or someone else) ensured that MPs had good broadband in their homes that the moans would be a LOT less.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If you go down the no duplicate infrastructure then this new national Telco will only ever address coverage in under 30% of the UK.

Virgin Media is expected to hit 70% in 2017 and people like Gigaclear have an increasing Gigabit presence too. I can get altnets will have a lot to say about a nationalised Telco particularly if it is competing with their plans.

Don't put down the library option immediately, at an EU event 3 years ago Romania got a lot of congratulations for ensuring all its libraries were fast enough and farmers apparently happy to go to them to do their filing and e-paperwork. Wi-Fi can increase ability for more people to use access, and this can be done securely so that transactions are safe enough.

Personally I believe in duplicate infrastructure for phones and broadband - it will create competition that will drive innovation between companies and ultimately I think consumers and businesses will benefit.

With regards to the library option, I think it's something worthwhile as having, but I wouldn't suggest that it should or could replace driving forwards Internet availability at home in the UK from 2015 onwards.

3 years ago was a very long time in the Internet, and Romania isn't the UK. Library access of Internet started properly in 1992 or 1993 if I remember correctly when it went into ITPoint in Chelmsley Wood Library in North Solihull. This was funded by the European Union and I think it was one of the uni's in Birmingham that implemented and maintained it.

I know this because I was one of its main users. I had access to BBS's at home, but didn't have more than an Atari 502STE as that's all my folks could afford. Having access to PCs with CD ROMs at school (which was unusual) and then at the library along with Internet access at the library was fantastic...

Unfortunately even back then you had to sign up to access slots, and whilst there were only 6 computers available, you might be lucky to be able to get an hour or two per week - and computer usage was much, much lower, and I even had to explain what the Internet was to practically everyone....

As I say, it was a different world back then. I think library Internet access has its place, but if you could only either put Internet access in libraries or improve infrastructure for everyone, I know which I'd choose... And I know which of the two options I think gives more benefit to more of the population overall...

In reply to a post by systemx:

I realise that this is a rather academic thread but Openreach is not going to be nationalised either now or in the future, there is no spare cash to do it and more importantly no public demand for it. MPs can be viewed occasionally on the Parliament Channel moaning about BB performance in their constituency, but they go no further than perhaps a call for Openreach to be split from the rest of BT and to stand as a private company.

I agree; I only suggested nationalisation in response to the "natural monopoly" idea.

I don't think allowing Openreach to be a monopoly and not driven by market forces is a good outcome. In my mind you either have to have a plan to increase competition (and therefore allow Openreach to be driven by market forces) or you need to have it in public hands; I don't think public hands is the right choice of the two, but is better than it being a virtual monopoly as part of a wider BT Group.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I'd bet if a provider (no matter whether BT or Virgin Media or someone else) ensured that MPs had good broadband in their homes that the moans would be a LOT less.

Yes I agree, I am as cynical as you it would seem.

You paid to get FTTC installed when you had it installed; you got what you paid for. However under an idea such as that I'm proposing competition would be increased in all areas as grants would become available for infrastructure to be provided.

You simply don't understand as is evident from your multiple posts. My neighbours and myself have paid over £18K to have FTTC installed and you then expect us to pay yet again so that others can benefit.

I've had a brain wave, why don't you pay 50p per month for each of those users who have already paid considerably more than that to get what was I suspect from your signature, where you mention having both VM cable and FTTC, provided to you on a plate for free.

In reply to a post by MCM:

You simply don't understand as is evident from your multiple posts. My neighbours and myself have paid over £18K to have FTTC installed and you then expect us to pay yet again so that others can benefit.

I've had a brain wave, why don't you pay 50p per month for each of those users who have already paid considerably more than that to get what was I suspect from your signature, where you mention having both VM cable and FTTC, provided to you on a plate for free.

I have started paying £92 per month for my Zen service. I am paying about £80 per month (admittedly including TV) for my VM service. Both are primarily for broadband access. I am paying more than most, I am happy to pay more than most for the services I provide - and on top of that I would be happy to pay a levy which would ultimately improve access for all and I would directly and indirectly benefit over time.

If costs halved tomorrow for all, and everyone was given the same speeds as me, I wouldn't expect the premiums I'd paid to date to get those services to be refunded.

Your neighbours and yourself have paid over £18k to get what you have. That was your choice, and you have got what you've paid for. If you were able to pay over £18k, then 50p a month isn't going to break your banks.

What you're effectively saying is, "We paid for this - no-one else is allowed to have anything similar unless they pay the same as us!". That kind of attitude leads to complete stagnation of broadband services in this country. Which curtails jobs that better infrastructure could bring.

You're right - I don't understand your point of view. I'm trying to, but ultimately I really can't get my head around it (short of selfishness, but I really don't want to be rude or cause an argument).

I've been an early adopter of many products throughout my life. I've paid for them. Sometimes the price has dropped rapidly and others have benefited because of the investment I made early on. I'm not bitter about it.

When you pay for any service or product, your ££££'s go into R&D, scaling up, taxes and such like in order to make things cheaper for future customers of both those companies, the industry as a whole, and other industries (through non-ringfenced taxes). What I suggest isn't really any different...

Edited by MrBukey (Wed 22-Jul-15 18:56:15)