Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Weaver]

Referring once again to the government blurb

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-plans-to-make-sure-no-one-is-left-behind-on-broadband-access

mentioned in the previous thread, at the foot of the article, under “editors’ notes” it claims that

“The government is set to provide universal access to speeds of at least 2 Mbps by the end of this year. ” [presumably meaning by the end of 2015]

My question is
* Does anyone have any idea of where this 2 Mbps myth might have come from?

[Weaver]

Imagine if this were actually true. What would BT do?

1. Cut you off, because the line fails.
2. Insist you use a different modem of their choice.
3. Upgrade the copper somehow. Nice.

If I had the right to have 2Mbps downstream (upstream? govt has never heard of it), as opposed to the legal right to request it (thanks @ejs), what would I do?

i. Report my line as faulty under the USO?
ii. Request an upgrade on an existing line?
iii. Add new good-under-USO line and then do a cease? (won't give me more lines)

Without detail, the government babble is just revealed as exactly that: semi-coherent and not even signed off by anyone who matters. It's probably made of “aims”, “aspirations”, “targets” and such like constituent materials.

[Weaver]

Is David Cameron being in the King of England or the King of Britain today? I never know when reading this stuff now if it applies to England only, Cameron having forgotten the existence of Scotland.

Perhaps this USO 2 Mbps or 10 Mbps thing is a devolved issue anyway. Who knows. In that case, I will still be enjoying 1.75 Mbps × 3 and the English alone may be supposedly enjoying USO.

[4candles]

Be thankful. 

A friend in Moray lives in a property (built before the phone was even invented) which is in a narrow strip between two exchange areas. BT have quoted something around £10,000 to provide a landline. 

[WWWombat]

Simple isn't it? The government intend to have their satellite subsidy programme up and running around the full country, extending the current trials (IIRC in parts of Scotland and NI).

That means BT won't do anything, or need to do anything, if you get sub-2Mbps on one of their lines. It will be up to you to seek out an alternate provider - with the satellite scheme being the option of last resort.

In the past, the 2Mbps stuff has been referred to as a USC, not a USO. I'm not sure which of these the press release refers to with "universal access".

That is going to become one of the interesting facets of the new 10Mbps USO ... just who gets Obliged to do anything.

[Weaver]

I'd be quite interested in adding satellite into the mix too if there were subsidies on bulk data and if it were really fast. God only knows how I could hook it up. Would want a VPN to a Firebrick at A&A or something like that.

But surely no-one is going to be daft enough to buy satellite, especially with the costs per bit being substantial as well as the physics of it.

[Weaver]

@4candles -Let us never forget. I'm always very aware that there are people who are far worse off than me.

[WWWombat]

(IIRC in parts of Scotland and NI).

That might be an old trial. The latest one looks to be running in West Yorkshire (at least)

An interesting guide...
http://www.superfastwestyorkshire.co.uk/downloads/Getting%20an%20interim%20Basic%20Broadband%20service%20-%20Guide%20Sept%20Finalv1.pdf

I'd be quite interested in adding satellite into the mix too if there were subsidies on bulk data and if it were really fast. God only knows how I could hook it up. Would want a VPN to a Firebrick at A&A or something like that.

I'd imagine some intelligent, time-of-day, routing options would be needed to successfully work it into the mix. And an ability to timeshift bulk transfers into overnight.

But surely no-one is going to be daft enough to buy satellite, especially with the costs per bit being substantial as well as the physics of it.

If TBB's estimates are right, there's 0.8% of the country who could consider the subsidised scheme as an option - around 200,000. For those with modest needs, but needs nonetheless, I'm sure there are options.

I started with ADSL at 2Mbps in 2000, and it easily sufficed for me to work at home more and more. The wife did the same, with her own 2Mbps line; eventually we combined onto one single 8Mbps line. At this point, we were with one of Plusnet's better packages, with 20GB of peak (day+evening) usage, but slowdowns cut in at 13MB. It took until the middle of 2011 for the two of us working at home to start tripping the 13GB limit.

Nowadays, there is a lot more video, and a teenage daughter armed with an iPad, that would shoot through those limits ... but for 11 years, our needs were indeed modest for serious use.

Some of those 200,000 will find the limitations fine. Some will find them annoying, but work out a way to use it. And some will find it too restrictive. If I were in this position, I'd probably fall into the middle group.

It is very interesting to see that Avonline now distinguish packages between the satellite operators: http://avonlinebroadband.com/about-satellite-broadband/our-broadband-coverage/

[Weaver]

I just don't get it. The relatively small number of people need to be dealt with by using FTTP (shared as appropriate), or FTTRN plus WiMAX, or 4G with subsidies, at any rate by using something serious, not by pouring public money into satellite, a system that can never, ever, ever be fixed captain. The only exception would be if a split system could be designed, with path 1 to give low latency and path 2 via satellite to pick up some of the bulk later on.

[And whatever it is, anything that gets public money must be available on an open wholesale basis, so as not to create local monopolies, where the discerning user has absolutely no choice of ISP at all. (An atrocious system that has already happened close to here, where Scotnet gained 100% market share on several exchanges in the area, god only knows how. Now thankfully consigned to history afaik.)]

[WWWombat]

I just don't get it. The relatively small number of people need to be dealt with by using FTTP (shared as appropriate), or FTTRN plus WiMAX, or 4G with subsidies, at any rate by using something serious, not by pouring public money into satellite, a system that can never, ever, ever be fixed captain.

The SFWY document points potential subscribers at 4G and FiWiFi in place of the satellite subsidy.

Other than these, as options that already exist, I think a key driver is to not build, spend money on, infrastructure solely targeted at 2Mbps. Local project staff suggest that punters would rather see superfast infrastructure being built, and there is a spectre of overbuild problems.

Of course, the build of superfast infrastructure is an ongoing project, due to run for at least 3 more years. That's going to be slow & painful for some.

Yet that pesky target of 2Mbps by 2015 lingers, and the government are requiring farmers to perform online-only actions. They need something that will work NOW while leaving the superfast rollout to slowly catch, and hopefully negate, some of that 0.8%

It is hard to think of something other than satellite that fits the NOW bill.

I agree with you that we shouldn't pour money into satellite, but it should be seen as a valid temporary solution ... but I guess the key thing is temporary ... So if we use it, we should also have a plan to eradicate its use later.

And whatever it is, anything that gets public money must be available on an open wholesale basis, so as not to create local monopolies, where the discerning user has absolutely no choice of ISP at all.

The local project guys agree with you here, and not just in spirit - that the punters want a real choice of the major ISPs. That means more than just open wholesale, but ISPs that choose to retail through it.