A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

3m homes have access to full-fibre broadband ... but 155,000 ruralhomes unable to get decent service



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 21st 19, 08:22 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 133
Default 3m homes have access to full-fibre broadband ... but 155,000rural homes unable to get decent service

MB wrote:
On 21/12/2019 13:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I wonder of there is technology that uses 5G or similar to local
cabinets in villages? The cost of running miles of fibre must be
horrendous.


Do you mean to feed the cabinet or to feed the local ends to the
different premises?

Feeding the cabinet might be difficult if 5G coverage is poor (or
non-existent) as likely in these rural areas.



It's well known that ripping up all the copper and replacing it with
FTTP would generate an enormous income from selling the copper.

Round here cab 6 is fed by fibre underground, and the further west cab 7
is fed by fibre carried overhead on the same poles as the copper pairs
that feed the houses in the area betwenn 6 and 7.

Round here (village near Thetford, commuting distance from Cambridge) 3G
only works outside the house, 4G and 5G don't exist. So that's a
non-starter ...

Friends in a properly rural location not that far away can't even get
ADSL - their run to the exchange is 12 km!


--
Graham J
  #12  
Old December 21st 19, 08:29 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 133
Default 3m homes have access to full-fibre broadband ... but 155,000rural homes unable to get decent service

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

[snip]


A lot of people who live in such locations actively choose to do so, but I totally fail to see why I should subsidise their mains' gas and sewer connections or fibre broadband.



Primarily because there is often no way to communicate with officialdom
without a broadband connection ...

I see that this is cheaper for the government, but it follows that
broadband should be a public service obligation, in the same way that
the government provides polling stations in even the most remote
location so that people can vote.

See:
https://www.gktoday.in/question/normally-under-the-election-commissions-norms-how

The distance is 2km.



--
Graham J
  #13  
Old December 22nd 19, 09:45 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 650
Default 3m homes have access to full-fibre broadband ... but 155,000rural homes unable to get decent service

On Saturday, 21 December 2019 15:44:56 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/12/2019 14:37, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Satellite access? Could be cheaper.


No, although the data is about 2-3 years old now, see the graphs linked
below - now that mobile has got cheaper since then, satellite is left
as the most expensive way to get broadband:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Shinness/FTTC...l#Technologies

If you want lots of shops, a pub, frequent buses, a postbox at the end of the street and fast broadband then live in the city. If you want a peaceful life away from the traffic jams, noise, the constant intrusions and hubbub of urban life then live in an isolated cottage in the country.

A lot of people who live in such locations actively choose to do so, but I totally fail to see why I should subsidise their mains' gas and sewer connections or fibre broadband.


The standard rant, to which the standard reply is that actually they're
subsidising you, because they're paying the same as you but for a sh*t
service.


A price related to actual bandwidth would seem reasonable. If you don't get 10Mbps or some similar threshold then you pay pro-rata.



A relative chose to live in hamlets in rural Lincolnshire, none had main gas, one finally got a main sewer a couple of years ago and another only got main electricity in 1952.


So?


When the mains sewer arrived IIRC it was ~£2k to connect.
  #14  
Old December 23rd 19, 11:29 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
MB[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 277
Default 3m homes have access to full-fibre broadband ... but 155,000rural homes unable to get decent service

On 21/12/2019 16:34, S Viemeister wrote:
For years, I paid the same amount for abysmally slow internet service in
Sutherland, as my uncle paid for excellent service in Edinburgh. (We now
have FTTC.)
We don't have mains gas, subsidised or otherwise, and we maintain our
own septic system.


But your slow broadband would be costing far more to provide than the
service in Edinburgh.

There are companies that cherry pick profitable areas where it is cheap
to provide the service so profitable, should they be required to provide
the same service in Sutherland or taxed to subsidise it?

The SNP's Westminster leader is a non-executive chairman of an Edinburgh
based broadband company - do they provide a universal service to all
Scotland at the same price?

  #15  
Old December 23rd 19, 05:59 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 564
Default 3m homes have access to full-fibre broadband ... but 155,000rural homes unable to get decent service

On 23/12/2019 10:29, MB wrote:

On 21/12/2019 16:34, S Viemeister wrote:

For years, I paid the same amount for abysmally slow internet service
in Sutherland, as my uncle paid for excellent service in Edinburgh.
(We now have FTTC.)
We don't have mains gas, subsidised or otherwise, and we maintain our
own septic system.


But your slow broadband would be costing far more to provide than the
service in Edinburgh.


Which is why OpenReach charge on a flat-rate basis, the reasoning being
that the extra cost is partially offset by rural customers paying the
same amount for less. But, either way you look at it, that model
doesn't really work ...

The POTS infrastructure around here was never properly installed in the
first place, in that it was never buried deep enough, and thus over the
years since has been frequently damaged by verge trimming and ditch
clearance - I've posted photographs of some of this damage just
recently, but I've since spotted another damaged box which I haven't
photographed yet - and then in turn this new damage is never fully
repaired, so now we have a number of damaged boxes left open to the
elements and cable joins left sticking up unprotected from the verge
awaiting the flails of next verge trimmer. Therefore, as clearly no
significant sums of money are being spent on maintaining rural
infrastructure, you can't really argue that the towns are subsidising
the country, because, if they were, the country would have a quality of
service equal to that of the towns.

Further, if, as seems to be the case, the government *saves* money by
being able to conduct more and more business online, and is beginning to
insist that citizens do government business online, then having decent
broadband becomes a necessity of life for town and country dwellers
alike, and therefore has to be supplied at an adequate level to *ALL*,
like electricity and roads. So, rather than complaining about your
taxes being spent on improving rural infrastructure, you should welcome
the savings the government can make as a consequence.

You may be quite happy living in a country where rural areas are treated
little better than a third world country, but I don't think, if they
really stopped to think of the long-term implications, many of your
fellow citizens would want to live there with you.

But then, "I'm alright Jack and **** the rest of you!" short-term
thinking seems to have been everyone's default position on every
political issue ever since the days of Thatcher.

There are companies that cherry pick profitable areas where it is cheap
to provide the service so profitable, should they be required to provide
the same service in Sutherland or taxed to subsidise it?


The classic case of that is parcel and postal deliveries. The way that
has been deregulated is disastrous, because none of the various playing
fields are level. White Van Man creams off some of the most profitable
deliveries in his local area, supposedly 'national' couriers cream off
the next most profitable inter-city deliveries, and Royal Mail gets
what's left. How unjust this is can be seen by what happens when White
Van Man or a so-called 'national' courier gets a parcel to deliver to
somewhere remote. Not only do they NOT deliver it themselves, but pay
Royal Mail to do so, but then charge the customer a surcharge over and
above what Royal Mail would have charged them directly, for the
privilege of NOT having to deliver anything at all! It's a scandalous
situation which no-one moaning here about the town subsidising the
country would ever endure for a second.

The SNP's Westminster leader is a non-executive chairman of an Edinburgh
based broadband company - do they provide a universal service to all
Scotland at the same price?


As you haven't named the company, I don't know, but, as it's broadband,
I presume it follows the standard OpenReach model and T&C.
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Half of UK homes could get faster broadband Java Jive uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 13 January 3rd 19 12:47 PM
Hyperoptic left 400,000 British homes open to hacking.. Richard Jones uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 14 May 6th 18 03:44 AM
Wandsworth council installs 1Gbit £30 fibre to its council homes 7[_2_] uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 4 May 15th 16 01:40 PM
1,000,000 FR.EE VISITORS ON YOUR SITE!- Cheryl Baker uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 0 November 14th 05 07:48 AM
1,000,000 Visitors to Your Website Without Paying a Dime In Advertising.. Scott Sanchas uk.comp.home-networking (UK home networking) 0 August 1st 04 12:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2020 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.