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
Standard User D_P
(newbie) Tue 17-Sep-13 08:31:24
Print Post

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


[link to this post]
 
"Broadband in rural areas is so poor a "man with a stick" could deliver messages quicker, a Government minister has said."

From my own experience, I can't disagree with that.
Standard User yarwell
(sensei) Wed 18-Sep-13 15:56:48
Print Post

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


[re: D_P] [link to this post]
 
depends exactly where you're talking about, there are places in "the countryside" with FTTC and with fast ADSL and there are places in towns with neither. Broad generalisations are not really helpful.

--

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Wed 18-Sep-13 16:04:59
Print Post

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


[re: yarwell] [link to this post]
 
Always assume the person complaining is talking about their address, and then because they believe they are rural it is the same in all rural areas.

The fact that a 90% target was not going to give superfast to lots of rural areas should be no surprise to anyone who has looked at the demographics of the UK, or who understands that with some 26 million homes, 10% is still an awful lot.

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.


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

Standard User somerset
(committed) Wed 18-Sep-13 17:37:03
Print Post

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


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Always assume the person complaining is talking about their address, and then because they believe they are rural it is the same in all rural areas.

The fact that a 90% target was not going to give superfast to lots of rural areas should be no surprise to anyone who has looked at the demographics of the UK, or who understands that with some 26 million homes, 10% is still an awful lot.


Some 2.6 million?
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 18-Sep-13 17:39:23
Print Post

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


[re: D_P] [link to this post]
 
As someone in an urban area with no FTTC and slow ADSL I struggle to agree. This is not just a rural phenomenon.
Standard User D_P
(newbie) Thu 19-Sep-13 13:40:16
Print Post

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


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Always assume the person complaining is talking about their address, and then because they believe they are rural it is the same in all rural areas.

Just checked. I'm surrounded by fields of sheep & cattle. No other houses within shouting distance. Definitely rural.

For the record, I don't believe it's the same in all rural areas nor do I think everything is fine for suburban or urban dwellers. I was just drawing attention to Heath's quote & sympathising with his frustration. Of course, some may be amused that any Defra minister has the audacity to criticise any other department of failing in its mission.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 19-Sep-13 13:45:51
Print Post

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


[re: D_P] [link to this post]
 
If I was wanting to point out the obvious I would ask why has the RCBF administered by DEFRA

http://rdpenetwork.defra.gov.uk/funding-sources/rura...

not delivered more? Has anyone got a connection through it? The joint side of it with BDUK may not be helping of course, but DEFRA has a clear role to play.

One I have had with coverage of the bigger BDUK project is the annoying shots of fields invariably used in TV/print when reality is that most of it will be towns/market towns and villages.

For the record 5 houses within 0.3 miles of me, before you hit the village with the exchange in the neighbouring village.

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User murgatroyd
(newbie) Thu 19-Sep-13 15:23:19
Print Post

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


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Too many non-technical people have trouble with the laws of physics.
Distance from the exchange will affect everyone who does not have FTTP.
Out in sleepy Suffolk there are widely spaced exchanges and cabinets, so many people have slow connections.
The investment required to get most of us high speeds is gigantic and I think that we must put with being second class broadband citizens.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 19-Sep-13 15:35:39
Print Post

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


[re: murgatroyd] [link to this post]
 
For the money EU, Government, Council, Parish Councils and public are willing to spend, yes largely it is a case of FTTP costs too much on a county wide scale.

Openreach is not totally averse to FTTP, which might surprise some and some projects are looking to roll it out, in the same way as they are doing in Cornwall.

Andrew Ferguson, [email protected]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User 1sta
(member) Tue 24-Sep-13 09:10:46
Print Post

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


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
For the money EU, Government, Council, Parish Councils and public are willing to spend, yes largely it is a case of FTTP costs too much on a county wide scale.
According to the opinion of Nicholas James, Chief Executive Officer at UK Broadband ltd, in his ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE about THE RURAL BROADBAND PROGRAMME on WEDNESDAY 17 JULY 2013:
'My fourth point is, fixed wireless. It does worry me when you have a Report that says wireless cannot deliver NGA. That is completely untrue. Fixed wireless can deliver NGA. Mobile wireless cannot. So fixed wireless can; the EU has accepted that. We have demonstrated it to the EU. There was no attempt by the UK Government to get over the fixed wireless barriers. So two of our potential partners withdrew because they knew that they would not be able to deploy fixed wireless, and therefore they knew they could not solve the problem'.

and
Nicholas James: My last point is, there is a general issue here, where the EU rules make it really clear that each region has to publish initially its assessment of what is going to happen in its area. It then goes through a period of consultation. It then decides what it wants do and then it has to have a second consultation. This is written in the EU guidelines and in the BDUK guidelines. BDUK has added one word, "credible", that the EU had not added, which is interesting, but other than that, it remains. I do not know of any bid area that has had those two proper consultations. Lancashire certainly did not; it had one, which was a little bit of a consultation, and not the second one.

So the opportunity for people to come forward with alternative suggestions was denied, and in my view-we have taken legal advice on this, but decided, frankly, there is no point doing anything-what we are doing is challengeable under the EU rules, because we are not actually following those two very clear guidelines of setting it out.

ref: House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence

-----------------------------------
A BBC Radio 2 listener
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/
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.

http://www.mynow.co.uk/home-broadband
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]
www.thinkbroadband.com - formerly known as ADSLguide.org.uk
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!
Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to