Current Affairs The General Election

[Tubey]

I don't know about everyone else, but I know I'd rather be promised everything and receive something rather than promised nothing and receive even less.

I'd rather be promised sensible stuff and have it delivered.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

I'd rather be promised sensible stuff and have it delivered.

What do we want? Sensibly scoped and incremental progress!

When do we want it? On a manageable timescale!

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Albeit 20 years too late really. I don’t see how free broadband rollout would effectively create any more jobs in this day and age. Likewise broadband costs are hardly a barrier for entry for businesses to expand.

It's a policy idea trying to connect up rural locations, where broadband connectivity is poor wages are poorer and where important services such as banks agmonst have all but gone, and broadband is fast increasing in health appointments. I know many who live in rural locations only ten years ago had 3 or more banks within walking distance, they now have 70 mile round trip or go online, it's not unique situation...

It is valuable, I'm just not sure why Openreach would need to be nationalised in order to achieve it. Labour under Corbyn were supposed to be all about localism and cooperatives etc., and there are numerous community led initiatives to get broadband in underserved communities, yet they have to go for centrally managed nationalisation instead. It smacks of vote winning because that sounds so much grander.

There are no suggestions that open networks would be nationalised, just Openreach network. Besides these other open networks, many are recipients of Building Digital UK scheme, (BDUK) guess what, funded by the Tax payer.

Our locations

Ultrafast full fibre broadband for Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Berkshire, Essex, Devon & Somerset and more.

www.gigaclear.com

Building Digital UK

Building Digital UK (BDUK) is helping to bring fast and reliable broadband and mobile coverage to hard-to-reach places across the UK - transforming people’s lives and driving economic growth. BDUK is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology .

www.gov.uk

 

[zzr45]

I'd rather be promised sensible stuff and have it delivered.

Oh that’s all very well and nice for you isn’t it? But what about the poor people that others want to speak for without actually asking them?

 

[Jebus_lives]

It's dangerous ground though, especially as the other providers will need access to piping and all that, which they'd have to go to the government for (in this instance). Major competition concerns, and you'd imagine incumbents would protest in the courts.

Sorry Bruce, missed this earlier. It would likely only be Virgin that would have the issue.

Openreach are already a monopoly supplier of broadband infrastructure, as identified by the Ofcom ruling. Only Virgin doesn't use its network. As im sure you know, if you switch from another provider to BT, you're essentially just paying for a different name.

It will be interesting to see, based on the Ofcom ruling and the Tribunal ruling about market definition https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgm...-v-office-communications-bcmr-judgment-market what the challenge would be (I dont know enough about competition law to say accurately). But, I imagine, you could argue that this will ensure that, connectivity (which the UN have declared a universal service) would become one in the UK.

I note that there are those claiming that 'openreach is already awful' assuming that nationalisation would instantly mean it is better - you could cite East Coast Main Line I suppose, but supporters seem to hold a belief that nationalisation would be inherently a good thing.

 

[abelard]

Oh that’s all very well and nice for you isn’t it? But what about the poor people that others want to speak for without actually asking them?

2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gonetomorrow]

What do we want? Sensibly scoped and incremental progress!

When do we want it? On a manageable timescale!

What do we want? Donald Trump pooping on us from a great height!
When do we want it? Now!

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Are you really saying that the scapegoating of migrants and their countries of origin is the same as targeting greedy corporations and their CEOs?

In that it seeks to blame an "other" for all the worlds ills then sets them up as the solution.

 

[zzr45]

2019 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't worry I'll explain this one to you:

Tubey said that he wants things at a sensible pace.

I took the mocking tone of people who defend these policies and bristle that any object to such policies are essentially a slam on the poor.

But, the irony is that these self designated champions of the poor often have no idea what the poor actually want.

Pretty sure if you asked most poor people if they wanted free, dead fast internet or rather have money spent on building houses, they'd say the latter (and oh no, I've actually semi done what I was mocking, albeit as someone who lives in rented accommodation, under the median wage and pays for broadband, and would actually rather see the money it would cost to bring in free ultra fast broadband spent on other areas)

Yes there is an election.

 

[abelard]

Don't worry I'll explain this one to you:

Tubey said that he wants things at a sensible pace.

I took the mocking tone of people who defend these policies and bristle that any object to such policies are essentially a slam on the poor.

But, the irony is that these self designated champions of the poor often have no idea what the poor actually want.

Pretty sure if you asked most poor people if they wanted free, dead fast internet or rather have money spent on building houses, they'd say the latter (and oh no, I've actually semi done what I was mocking, albeit as someone who lives in rented accommodation, under the median wage and pays for broadband, and would actually rather see the money it would cost to bring in free ultra fast broadband spent on other areas)

Yes there is an election.

Thank you, I now understand what poor people actually want.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Don't worry I'll explain this one to you:

Tubey said that he wants things at a sensible pace.

I took the mocking tone of people who defend these policies and bristle that any object to such policies are essentially a slam on the poor.

But, the irony is that these self designated champions of the poor often have no idea what the poor actually want.

Pretty sure if you asked most poor people if they wanted free, dead fast internet or rather have money spent on building houses, they'd say the latter (and oh no, I've actually semi done what I was mocking, albeit as someone who lives in rented accommodation, under the median wage and pays for broadband, and would actually rather see the money it would cost to bring in free ultra fast broadband spent on other areas)

Yes there is an election.

Can both not be done?

 

[tsubaki]

I note that there are those claiming that 'openreach is already awful' assuming that nationalisation would instantly mean it is better - you could cite East Coast Main Line I suppose, but supporters seem to hold a belief that nationalisation would be inherently a good thing.

It would depend on what the nationalisation actually is - if they just take over Openreach as a going concern, then fund its expansion of the network and then sell access to ISPs (with a base level of access as “free”), I doubt anyone would notice the difference.

If on the other hand there is some form of trashing of the current firm, followed by state directed measures it will probably be a disaster.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It would depend on what the nationalisation actually is - if they just take over Openreach as a going concern, then fund its expansion of the network and then sell access to ISPs (with a base level of access as “free”), I doubt anyone would notice the difference.

If on the other hand there is some form of trashing of the current firm, followed by state directed measures it will probably be a disaster.

It's maintenance of the infrastructure and investment in future development that need to be addressed as well, but yes, it will depend on what approach is taken, rather than, as I suggested, it being inherently a good thing.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

It's maintenance of the infrastructure and investment in future development that need to be addressed as well, but yes, it will depend on what approach is taken, rather than, as I suggested, it being inherently a good thing.

If they appoint people who actually know about the issue at hand, for example, it will go a lot better than if they appoint their otherwise unemployable, quango-merry-go-round friends.

History tells us that governments of all stripes tend to go for the latter strategy.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Pretty sure if you asked most poor people if they wanted free, dead fast internet or rather have money spent on building houses, they'd say the latter (and oh no, I've actually semi done what I was mocking, albeit as someone who lives in rented accommodation, under the median wage and pays for broadband, and would actually rather see the money it would cost to bring in free ultra fast broadband spent on other areas)

Ignoring the digital revolution some parts of the country have experienced it's an entirely correct sentiment. However, I know for anecdotally fact commissioned out care services won't employ people (minimum wage carers) without their own reasonable smart phone and internet connection, and of course an internet connection is the easy cheap part of being online, data transmission is where the real burden is at...