General Discussion
  >> Broadband Not-spots & slow-spots

Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | >> (show all)   Print Thread
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 24-Sep-13 09:57:09
Print Post

Re: "Countryside 'let down' by poor broadband signal - MP"

[re: 1sta] [link to this post]
Of the wireless services I've seen sensible testing of then speeds in the 15 to 25 Mbps range seem possible now.

Whether a 30 Mbps baseline is feasible is the question, and in some areas this is the case, hence the use of fixed wireless in parts of Lincolnshire.

At the end of the day BT is going to push FTTC as it feels that is the answer, a sat provider will push guess what, a wireless provider and a FTTP builder - yeap you are right.

I watched the PAC stream so do remember Mr James. It is enlightening to look at the retail products from UK Broadband

Package Busy Period Usage
LTE Lite 50MB per/hour
LTE Standard 150MB per/hour
LTE Advanced 350MB per/hour
LTE Premium 1000MB per/hour

Those are not hard limits but they do say 'NOT intended to be hard limits but if a user were to regularly exceed limits such as these then we may have to take appropriate action as defined above and within our AUP' and busy period appears to be vague but encompasses after 8am and up to around midnight.
up to 40Mbps download and 5Mbps upload speeds
£21.50 through to £40 per month for advanced.

Now I watch streamed movies, at around 2GB/hour (not uncommon) so reading FUP suggests I should be on Premium which is £49.17+VAT on the business pages.

Hardly sounds like a service that is ready for large numbers of users to watch TV at the same time, and this is the way the market is heading.

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected] - formerly known as
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User gah789
(learned) Tue 24-Sep-13 11:58:55
Print Post

Re: "Countryside 'let down' by poor broadband signal - MP"

[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
We go round in circles. It has always been the case that a choice had to be made on how to use limited funding. One path (the one taken) was to invest in expanding access to relatively fast services by building on a technology that is attractive to the incumbent, because that way you get a lot of "commercial" investment to cover 50% or so of the population. The second path (not taken) was to start by ensuring that (almost) everyone has access to a lower minimum level of service - say 10 Mbps - and work upwards from the bottom of the distribution of broadband speeds.

The political attraction of the first path is pretty obvious: the misuse of the PR about helping rural areas is partly ignorance and partly deliberate misrepresentation to create the impression that no-one is being left out. It was inevitable that those left out were going to complain, so the program contains a meaningless assurance about a universal service commitment that no one knows how to deliver.

The costs of delivering 50 Mbps to rural communities over fixed wireless - e.g. using AirFibre or similar technology - are really high unless you have access to nearby fibre backhaul, which rather assumes away the problem. So fixed wireless is really part of the path not taken.

As the majority of the population gets access to superfast services funded by either taxpayers or users of phone lines, the level of complaints about paying for services that are not received will grow. Eventually, there will have to be a change to incorporate some of the elements of the second path rather than just offering a vague commitment for the future. Since BT will have little interest in this segment of the market, it would be wise for fixed wireless operators as a group to lobby for the infrastructure and access rights that would permit them to fill this niche. It is a niche but not necessarily an unprofitable one.

Incidentally, the universal FTTP option offered by Gigaclear, etc is simply not a solution for now. Given current take-up rates for SFBB it is viable only in rich, quite dense, communities with a minimum of 500-1000 premises. Great in Surrey or Oxfordshire but not in most of the countryside.

Invariably we come back to a choice. Why are we trying to provide access to faster broadband? Is it to enable more people to stream TV programmes? Or is it to enable people to access basic Government services online or run basic video conferencing or use services that require minimum but not superfast speeds? The first goal seems to be the answer in practice even if the second goal was often cited as the justification in official documents. It is that confusion that is the source of most disappointment and complaint.
Standard User mikejp
(learned) Tue 24-Sep-13 17:25:17
Print Post

Re: "Countryside 'let down' by poor broadband signal - MP"

[re: 1sta] [link to this post]
Ista - indeed - the level of ignorance of the performance of fixed wireless is lamentable. I attended a briefing given to a County Council by Analysis Mason about a year ago where they said ,"of course, wireless can only deliver about 10mb". I did try to put them right but you could see their minds were made up. Worrying since AM have a significant presence in the BDUK scenery. I would be interested to know what they are 'preaching' now!

Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | >> (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to