Print

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

[sevenlayermuddle]

[Ronski]

Perhaps you are too old to realise you are being condescending to the only participant of this thread to offer any kind of reasonable debate?

Perhaps I am although not intentionally, but you can't remember, or perhaps appreciate what you haven't experienced (7LM has made a valid point about how my memories may have been influenced), therefore you may think something a good idea and not know it's been tried before and failed.

As for being tried before isn't Australia's national broadband project woefully over budget and behind schedule, and with far lower speeds than previously envisaged? That project appears be the down to their labor party government back in 2007.

[johnson]

Perhaps I am although not intentionally, but you can't remember, or perhaps appreciate what you haven't experienced (7LM has made a valid point about how my memories may have been influenced), therefore you may think something a good idea and not know it's been tried before and failed.

As for being tried before isn't Australia's national broadband project woefully over budget and behind schedule, and with far lower speeds than previously envisaged? That project appears be the down to their labor party government back in 2007.

Indeed, I can only cite early morning grumpiness for being so rude. Apologies.

Yes, the australian broadband project is a decent example of nationalised internet access gone wrong. But have you seen the size of the place? We live on a tiny little island.

Maybe not perfectly related, but have you read this about early adoption of fibre up to 1990:
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

I feel there must be some balanced place to arrive at between nationalising everything and letting the free market and companies decide.

Maybe the government running Openreach and still having the same competition between ISPs would be that. Its a different world now to the 70s, should we try things once and give up on them forever?

[broadstairs]

I think my main concern over this and many other promises on funding things made by politicians is that where state funding is required the money has to come from somewhere and despite protestations about making millionaires and large companies pay more we all know that is very very difficult perhaps almost impossible, so who ends up paying - joe public in increased taxes whether or not they like it or can afford it. We all have to live within our means or suffer the consequences, governments should but do not, they just increase taxation.

Stuart

[dee.jay]

I think my main concern over this and many other promises on funding things made by politicians is that where state funding is required the money has to come from somewhere and despite protestations about making millionaires and large companies pay more we all know that is very very difficult perhaps almost impossible, so who ends up paying - joe public in increased taxes whether or not they like it or can afford it. We all have to live within our means or suffer the consequences, governments should but do not, they just increase taxation.

Stuart

And this is where a lot of modern Labour voters fall down. They think they are doing good by taxing the big corporations and getting the state to own everything, but it doesn't work that way. Big companies are clever, there are reasons why companies don't pay taxes like they should - they are clever about their money. They wouldn't be big companies, otherwise!

Anyway, it's fortunately looking like Labour will not win this next election, so we should be OK.

[Ronski]

@Johnson you wasn't rude, and yes I had heard the Iron Lady had wrecked BT's previous efforts at fibre, which was a great shame.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Perhaps you're too young to remember the seventies, and the complete mess the nationally run industries were in, I was still a young child but have vauge memories. I asked someone yesterday who is a lot old than me, and he said they were a complete mess.

Just remember the NHS is basically a government run company, do you want that repeated across all our utilities?

I think nationalised services are run with a different mindset, everything goes well over budget because people just think it's only the governments money.

Just because it CAN be run badly, or even was in the past, doesn't mean it inherently has to be.

It also depends on the time frame as the Tories, like they are now with the NHS, were deliberately pushing nationalised services to run poorly so they could privatise them.

BT were industry leaders and were going to lay FIBRE IN THE 70S, it was ditched when it was privatised!

[Alex Atkin UK]

Anyway, it's fortunately looking like Labour will not win this next election, so we should be OK.

Speak for yourself, if the Tories get back in I will probably be kicked to the curb as a disabled person claiming PiP.

[sevenlayermuddle]

BT were industry leaders and were going to lay FIBRE IN THE 70S, it was ditched when it was privatised!

Actually, BT did not even exist in the 1970s.  It was created in 1980, by splitting from the Post Office.

After privatisation in 1984 it seems to be true that BT led fibre research, becoming very strong in the field of fibre by the early 1990s, years after privatisation.  They had by then already deployed fibre in part were even in a position to consider widespread deployment, targeting the local loop.   My understanding is they were prevented from doing so by government and regulatory interference, another good reason to keep technology as far removed as possible from politicians.

[Ronski]

Just because it CAN be run badly, or even was in the past, doesn't mean it inherently has to be.

My personal opinion is because it's government run it invariably goes badly no matter who's in charge (Labour, Conservative whoever),it's human nature (greed,can't be bothered attitudes, don't know any better) that causes the issues. My mate works for the council, he can do jobs and is qualified and capable  to do them (he used to do them before the council took over!), but the managers overrule him because they don't understand and want to have someone else to blame if it goes wrong, and the end result is the council ends up with massive bills where he could have done it for a fraction of the cost, its the same all the way to the top. Government contracts always seem to go well over budget, I think companies put in higher quotes because it's the 'governments' money.

It also depends on the time frame as the Tories, like they are now with the NHS, were deliberately pushing nationalised services to run poorly so they could privatise them.

Can you link to the proof as I think that's just propaganda? The NHS's problem are vast, an ageing population, more people being saved, all the way from premature babies to the very old so their problems are far more complex, and with a much higher population means more hospital visits, it's going to take more than just money to fix.

BT were industry leaders and were going to lay FIBRE IN THE 70S, it was ditched when it was privatised!

Actually it was after they were privatised, and was interference from the then Tory Government that stopped it - see the link Johnson posted earlier https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

[dee.jay]

Speak for yourself, if the Tories get back in I will probably be kicked to the curb as a disabled person claiming PiP.

Have you been already, then?

[Alex Atkin UK]

Have you been already, then?

It was much harder to claim involving 12 months of fighting to get it, than it was when my mum got DLA.  She also doesn't get any mental component because they claimed she didn't need it and is too afraid to fight it in case they take it off her competely again.

The whole benefit system is now designed to take the money off you whenever they can.

[Chrysalis]

Well a lot of the UK have moaned on for years about a second referendum, a PEOPLES VOTE. People didn't know what they voted for - I find it all quite insulting. I knew what I voted for! I don't need another referendum, thanks, and nor does anyone else. I think they all blissfully assumed it would be remain, and were simply not prepared to carry out "Leave" because they thought they never had to!

I agree its insulting to claim every leave voter knew what they voted for, but I certainly know some leave voters who haven't a clue what they voted for, many of them family members.

Also I voted leave but I never wanted us to leave, it was a protest vote.  So I am proof in the pudding on a new referendum I would vote the other way.

Usually other countries wouldn't enact a poll on such a tiny majority and even if they did its seen as sensible to have a confirmation vote.  My personal opinion was the leave campaign was fed on a lot of mistruths and there needs to be a confirmation vote, but also the country should be prepared to leave very quickly if a confirmation vote confirms the first, not just sit halfway across the line for year's.

Whatever happens it is very evident our press needs regulating, we have so much news printed that's not fact checked, its damaging the country,

[Chrysalis]

Its not necessarily unaffordable if you're using joined-up thinking rather than just doing something and ignoring how it impacts everything else.

Are Labour using joined-up thinking here?  I'm honestly not sure.

On the one hand I think nationalising infrastructure is GOOD.  Splitting off telecoms, water, gas, electricity, has made a complete mess of those things.

On the other hand, I don't think having just one national ISP is a great idea due to the many issues we have discussed - not least our privacy and content filtering potential.  I also think its bad timing, with Openreach FINALLY deciding to push forward with Fibre First.  I think it will impact me personally in that my exchange being due to start being worked on any time now, will probably now get delayed until after the election.  If Labour do get in I'd imagine it would be delayed even more, due to the uncertainty of how things are going to proceed.

There are just far too many pressing issues the government would need to deal with BEFORE taking over Openreach, and the potential legal challenges they will get from that.  Its likely to delay FTTP roll out longer than just leaving Openreach to their own devices at this point.

Yeah as I said I think earlier policies were more reasonable and some renationalisation might be a good idea, but I think the broadband sector was probably the worst area they could have targeted.  The weakest candidate for such a policy.  Rail is the strongest area to target absolutely no question on that one, maybe followed by gas.  Telecoms is the sector you can argue that's doing reasonably well, fibre rollout is several years behind but it is at least now happening.

[sevenlayermuddle]