Poll Result: If you were voting today...

Hi,

I've posted the poll results (copied below)..

We only had just under 850 people vote on this poll so I thought I'd post it here rather than write a dedicated news article on it.. probably everyone enjoying Easter break

If you were voting only on the basis of each party's broadband policies, who would you vote for?

Conservative ............ 367 (43.23%)
Labour .................. 191 (22.50%)
Liberal Democrat ........ 138 (16.25%)
Other ................... 153 (18.02%)

Where do you live?

England ................. 684 (80.57%)
Scotland ................ 87 (10.25%)
Wales ................... 46 (5.42%)
N. Ireland .............. 24 (2.83%)
Other ................... 8 (0.94%)

Thoughts?

What makes the Conservative plans so appealing, or are people not just thinking about broadband?


seb

In reply to a post by seb:

If you were voting only on the basis of each party's broadband policies, who would you vote for?

Given the new news that the Lib Dem party would scrap the DEB probably them, if it was just based on broadband.... Their new principle that the bill is not being discussed properly should be admired but their original 120A idea was stupid... So maybe shouldnt be admired too much...............

In reply to a post by seb:

What makes the Conservative plans so appealing, or are people not just thinking about broadband?

Voting comes down to more than just broadband, so the choices as i see them are (atleast for the main parties)....

Mr Brown, Labour... As much personality and clue as a dead horse, with a chancellor that couldnt add up even if you gave him the worlds most simple abacus. I really dont see how labour can win again. "super fast" broadband ideas and also creating a tax for broadband funding, even though we dont know what "super fast" is and its been made clear not everyone will get the promised 2Mb...... All in all shambolic and un-thought through.... Typical Brown.

Mr Cameron, Conservative... I dont think he will save us all, and for some reason i dont trust the man (Just something about him). But atleast they have had the odd idea which is their own, whether those ideas are right or wrong for the country is another debate. I personally think the fund it with TV license fee is a better idea, and unlike labour atleast they are clear about their broadband speed objectives.

Mr Clegg, Lib Dem... While his party saying no to the DEB is a good thing, he doesnt seem to have any ideas for himself and just appears to be a little angry man. I dont think ive ever seen him comment on any policy in a calm manner or ask any member of parliment a question calmly. So i couldnt vote for him either.

This election i probably will not vote, and ive only refused to vote twice in my life (in my mid thirties). There is no worthy choice IMO....... If it was law you had to vote, i guess id have to vote conservative this time around and just hope it turned out Cameron can be trusted.

As it is though not a single party stands out as a clear choice this time and none of them seem to speak 100% common sense.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Mr Cameron, Conservative... I dont think he will save us all, and for some reason i dont trust the man (Just something about him). But atleast they have had the odd idea which is their own, whether those ideas are right or wrong for the country is another debate. I personally think the fund it with TV license fee is a better idea, and unlike labour atleast they are clear about their broadband speed objectives.

Labour... "next generation broadband" to 90% of UK by 2017"
Conservative... "100Mbps broadband to "majority" by 2017"
LibeDem ... "40Mbps+ broadband to "vast majoeity" by 2017"

They all agree on 2017.. But they all fail to identify BOTH speed and coverage. Without this, the policies are pretty much the same.. the only exception you could argue is Labour's proposal could be read as being fairer.. but only if you think the other parties wouldn't push rural broadband more than the minimum of above promise.

In the end, they all look the same in terms of promise.. funding is different.. Labour/Libdem want to tax more.. Tories want to take it from another tax..


It is worth noting people like Tom Watson (Labour) are opposed to it.. so does vary by constituency..

This election i probably will not vote, and ive only refused to vote twice in my life (in my mid thirties). There is no worthy choice IMO....... If it was law you had to vote, i guess id have to vote conservative this time around and just hope it turned out Cameron can be trusted.

There might be some independents standing so at least do have a look even if you don't like the main parties..


seb

In reply to a post by seb:

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Mr Cameron, Conservative... I dont think he will save us all, and for some reason i dont trust the man (Just something about him). But atleast they have had the odd idea which is their own, whether those ideas are right or wrong for the country is another debate. I personally think the fund it with TV license fee is a better idea, and unlike labour atleast they are clear about their broadband speed objectives.

Labour... "next generation broadband" to 90% of UK by 2017"
Conservative... "100Mbps broadband to "majority" by 2017"
LibeDem ... "40Mbps+ broadband to "vast majoeity" by 2017"

They all agree on 2017.. But they all fail to identify BOTH speed and coverage. Without this, the policies are pretty much the same.. the only exception you could argue is Labour's proposal could be read as being fairer.. but only if you think the other parties wouldn't push rural broadband more than the minimum of above promise.

Labours pledge is pointless..... "Next generation broadband" means nothing. Does that mean 1Mb, 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb???? Can you imagine the adverts......
BT "get your 'Next generation broadband' today"
Virgin "Unlike BT we can supply 'Next... Next generation broadband' today.

All the UPTO nonsense we have now confuses people enough without new damn nonsense.

Id sooner know what speed they are aiming for if i had to pick.

I also doubt Labours 90% claim and do not blame the lib dems or conservatives for not quoting a percentage. Better not to spread around meaningless figures and then end up making yourself look stupid when that percentage isnt met.

In reply to a post by seb:

In the end, they all look the same in terms of promise..

I do not agree, Lib Dems and Conservatives have stated a speed, Why havent Labour???

Labours 90% claim is nonsense also, there are still people in this country that cant get any broadband let alone "next generation broadband" whatever Mr Brown and crones think that is (I doubt he even knows the average broadband speed for this country).

In reply to a post by seb:

funding is different.. Labour/Libdem want to tax more.. Tories want to take it from another tax..

I have real issues with the funding part, i dont want to see any 50p nonsense and id sooner not see TV license fee used for it either.

The 50p idea is disgusting, taxing the public see private industry can increase profit. Never has been a good idea, never will be.

Taking it from TV liceense again wrong, thats not what TV license fees are meant to be for, but given the hard choice id take that, atleast its not another new stealth tax.

In reply to a post by seb:

It is worth noting people like Tom Watson (Labour) are opposed to it.. so does vary by constituency..

Agreed but i assumed we were talking about which party to vote for in a general election. Not who would be my or anyone elses best local constituency member.......... Annoyingly thats another reason why i wont vote, my local MP is labour and has done a reasonable job, but i just cant give a vote to bland brown, frustrating eh!

In reply to a post by seb:

There might be some independents standing so at least do have a look even if you don't like the main parties..

The only 2 local independants in my area, have no clue at all about local issues, i actually asked one a over a year back how they would vote on an issue relating to my area if they were brought to representation for it......... They didnt even know about the local issue concerned until i explained it, and then they couldnt say if they would say yay or nay to it LOL Country is an utter mess and when i say that i actually think its the worse its been for close to 20 years.


EDIT:

Im shocked more havent responded to your original post seb, its a great topic for debate.

Edited by deleted (Tue 06-Apr-10 01:38:14)

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Labours pledge is pointless..... "Next generation broadband" means nothing. Does that mean 1Mb, 10Mb, 100Mb 1000Mb???? Can you imagine the adverts......

Neither does delivering 100Mbps to 50% of the population when Virgin are likely to be doing this by the end of this year. In fact libdem 40Mbps+ to 'vast majority' might be promising something more.. but still lots of wriggle room.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

BT "get your 'Next generation broadband' today"
Virgin "Unlike BT we can supply 'Next... Next generation broadband' today.

Oh they can say that already.. look at what they have both done with 'fibre optic' broadband.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Id sooner know what speed they are aiming for if i had to pick.

Those in less populated areas might well prefer to know they'll get something resembling next-gen than a headline 100Mbps..

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

I also doubt Labours 90% claim and do not blame the lib dems or conservatives for not quoting a percentage. Better not to spread around meaningless figures and then end up making yourself look stupid when that percentage isnt met.

If you don't actually want promises from politicians, then sure... that's a fair comment.. I'd rather they had a goal to aim to.. As it happens I don't think any of the parties do this properly as I said before.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

In reply to a post by seb:

In the end, they all look the same in terms of promise..

I do not agree, Lib Dems and Conservatives have stated a speed, Why havent Labour???

Because they did state coverage.. Speed and coverage have to be considered together.

100Mbps to "majority" (read 51%) will be met by end of 2010 probably
40Mbps+ to "vast majority" (read 75%?) is a slightly tougher challenge..
"next generation" could at worst be up to 16-24Mbps.. but probably 25-100Mbps and to 90% is quite appealing.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

I have real issues with the funding part, i dont want to see any 50p nonsense and id sooner not see TV license fee used for it either. The 50p idea is disgusting, taxing the public see private industry can increase profit. Never has been a good idea, never will be.

That's a view different people vary on.. my point was it matches more the general funding policies of the parties.. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the broadband levy personally but that's not the point.. they all have plans which we know about at least.

I guess the question is should government subsidise broadband for rural areas.. most users on our site think yes they should.. then the question would be how.. someone has to pay for it.. there's no such thing as 'government' money.. just who gets taxed for it..

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Agreed but i assumed we were talking about which party to vote for in a general election. Not who would be my or anyone elses best local constituency member.......... Annoyingly thats another reason why i wont vote, my local MP is labour and has done a reasonable job, but i just cant give a vote to bland brown, frustrating eh!

I was.. but I was highlighting that some people may have choices which don't tally with the party policy.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

The only 2 local independants in my area, have no clue at all about local issues, i actually asked one a over a year back how they would vote on an issue relating to my area if they were brought to representation for it......... They didnt even know about the local issue concerned until i explained it, and then they couldnt say if they would say yay or nay to it LOL Country is an utter mess and when i say that i actually think its the worse its been for close to 20 years.

Fair enough

seb

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Im shocked more havent responded to your original post seb, its a great topic for debate.

It's a bank holiday.. it's quiet.. and this is general chat

seb

What are the chances of the BT's 'roll-out to "Majority"' interfering with Virgins plans to lay fibre?
Will there ever be the chance of having 2 Fibre Optic Cables coming through the wall in the city centre houses, One from BT and one from Virgin?

With all this being said, are BT going to do anything to Colossus, the UK's backbone or the core of the network? Surely they will be the first to cripple when the new Fibre Optic plans are released unless something is done to extend it's capacity or upgrade it?

Great topic Seb!

wasnt this core supposedbly already expanded on 21cn investment?

VM and BT have opposite problems.

VM have a local cabling infrastructure capable of delivering 50mbit and beyond to every household its connected to but have severe oversubscription issues in various areas as their UBR's are way too fragile. (just 2.5 users able to saturate the link)

BT have a local loop that can deliver 20mbit to one person and 200kbit to the next however generally speaking their contention is far less fragile than VM's, generally needing a lot more than 2.5 users to saturate capacity, on FTTC this becomes even more so with openreach capacity between cabinet and exchange supposedbly completely uncontended 1:1. I think once FTTC takes off and is in many areas BT will have a clear upperhand. But VM still have it now.

Given that 21CN allowed isp's to bypass BT's collussus eg. entanet and various isp's have their own LLU backhaul, I think BT should worry about the local loop before their core network. We know they will upgrade the core when required anyway because congestion on that will reduce load on 21CN nodes which in turn drops BTw's income.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 06-Apr-10 11:43:08)

Virgin Media does not put fibre into peoples homes - thats marketing spin.

Colossus - a small project called an IP backbone with 21CN is the BT side to look at

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

This election i probably will not vote, and ive only refused to vote twice in my life (in my mid thirties). There is no worthy choice IMO....... If it was law you had to vote, i guess id have to vote conservative this time around and just hope it turned out Cameron can be trusted.

I'll almost certainly vote this time just because I want to. Living in South Northants means it's rarely worth the effort. ISTR a couple of elections ago it wouldn't have mattered if all the abstainers had voted Labour the Conservatives would still have got in.

Overall I preferred the sound of the Conservatives network ideas. It sounds more feasible and suggests a genuine desire for a modern network. Labour's vague 'NGA' could mean almost anything and will probably work out to be pretty much nothing.

More generally I just don't think Labour's attempt at socialism (hah hah) has worked. The wealthy still get to keep most of the power and wealth. The only difference seems to be that us poor [censored] in the middle get shafted so that the poor can get a bit of a leg up..and most of that gets mislaid between my pay packet and their sweaty little hands.

In reply to a post by CARPETBURN:

Im shocked more havent responded to your original post seb, its a great topic for debate.

I'm still trying to recover from the shock of agreeing with you