By now you probably have a pretty good idea of what is in Lord Carter’s "Digital Britain" Report. There’s the government drawing back from a clampdown on internet piracy, the switching off of FM radio, preserving the BBC licence fee – and instituting a 50p a month stealth tax to provide megacorps such as Vodafone and BT with " …
If it's so expensive then stop paying people so much to present it. It seems everyones problem at these events is how to get their limited funding to pay for everything without compromising on their own salary structures.
Isn't it about time the Government thanked BT, politely, for looking after our national interest, then took it back off them and started insisting they do what is needed to drag us into this century in terms of availability and speed?
poor "content" producers. I wonder if there's a correlation between being online and being able to recognise that most of the content being produced by the media is tripe. It seems the issues raised were:
1) I don't want money being spent to get the internet to work, I want that money given to me, just for being on the internet.
2) OMG GOOGLE ARE STEALING OUR DATA!!!
The later is worth bringing up for comedy value. I mean transmitting digital signals through the air is clearly not beyond the wit of man, just the wit of government.
The government are actually paying attention to a report (independent or otherwise)?!?
What next? Flying pigs?
No killer App
As Professor Barwise noted, there is no pervasive need for a vast amount of the population to have high-speed internet access (i.e. over and above a reliable connection for email/web browsing for those who want to).
Fast broadband on its own does not magically generate revenue
Perhaps the 'content producers' should follow the examples of their truly successful forerunners and worry more about decent content than where their next funding boondoggle is coming from. There's something decidedly inartistic and very 21st Century about starving artists crying about not enough Government funding. Like we need more Nathan Barleys.
Who needs it anyway...
I've seen personal computers - and the internet - come a long way in 30 years. And I've enjoyed the process - more or less.
But increasingly, it seems to me that we are constantly pushed to accept that new technologies - things we didn't ask for, don't particularly want and certainly aren't prepared to pay for - are suddenly not just desirable but essential. All of a sudden we can't live without stuff that didn't even exist a few years ago. Technology which - as often as not - those selling haven't even mastered. Often the 'desirability' of this technology is based on the enthusiasm of those socially-damaged individuals who can't live without social networking or cellphone texting, and queue up all night to buy the latest version of Windows.
But most of us out here in the Real World actually have lives, and appreciate that only 2 things EVER guarantee the success of new technologies - price and real-life relevance.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Microsoft refuses to confirm 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Netflix swallows yet another bitter pill, inks peering deal with TWC
- Barnes & Noble: Swallow a Samsung Nook tablet, please ... pretty please