The government has endorsed the plan to pass organisation of the digital dividend mega auction back to Ofcom, with universal service guarantees, and promises a new-for-old deal for the Programme Makers and Special Events (PMSE) crowd. Minister for Communications Ed Vaizey drafted a statutory instrument covering the plan, which …
We are all being granted a guaranteed Bugattit Veyron each too.
Obviously we'll have to pay for it if we decide to have one.
Confused and Confusing
"UK population to be guaranteed mobile 768Kb/sec service"
"90 per cent of the UK population will get 768Kb/sec sustained data rate 90 per cent of the time"
Those two do not mean the same thing - by a long, long way
what about the other 10%?
So the guarantee is there for the 90% who live in the 10% of the UK land area covered by major towns and cities - what about the other 10% who live outside the larger towns? With government trying to deliver as many services as possible electronically they will soon assume that everyone (well, everyone who matters) will have mobile broadband - and tuff to the rest of us. 99% coverage would be a rather better target to aim for.
Interestingly, in terms of access to public services, we accept the need to ensure disabled access to buildings with ramps, lifts etc ( and a jolly good thing too) - but in fact only about 1% of the UK population is in a wheelchair.
Nice to know...
... that there's to be "generous compensation" to the entertainment industry.
How generous will be very interesting indeed. As generous as the amount needed to fund pensioners' bus passes? Or as generous as a school building programme?
Isn't the entertainment industry, or at least parts of it, meant to be a great British success story? So why can't the wealthier bits of it help the poorer bits out with new radio mic.
RE: Nice to know...
>> Isn't the entertainment industry, or at least parts of it, meant to be a great British success story? So why can't the wealthier bits of it help the poorer bits out with new radio mic.
I don't think you understand the scale or scope of the problem. We aren't talking about a few high profile, well off, big businesses here (though there will be a handful of those). The "entertainment industry" is huge, fragmented, and diverse - ranging from some big production companies with large amounts of equipment (and probably in a position do do something for themselves) right down to village drama groups and even the village pub with a radio mike for the quizmaster on pub quiz nights.
The enforced change isn't being done for on on behalf of anyone in the "entertainment industry" - it is being done for an on behalf of big business and the UK Treasury. Big business sees a way to make money from having some of our (currently) TV spectrum, and the UK Treasury sees a way to make money by selling (or renting) it to them. The "entertainment industry" are being told to move to make way for them.
Your proposal is a bit like driving a new motorway through a town - and expecting everyone with an expensive house to pay not just for their own move (buy a new house, get nothing for the one the road builders knock down), but also pay for those with cheaper houses to move.
The fair way to do it is to expect the road builder to buy peoples old houses and/or support them in their move. The road builder can then fund that by charging the people who will benefit from the road - ie the road users.
What's being proposed (as I read it) seems quite fair - people have to move, so OfCom (or someone they law the cost with) will have to swap out equipment. The equivalent is that when the road builder wants to knock down your house, they will swap your current house for an equivalent alternative at no cost to you.
4G LTE is included . . .
. . . within the scope of UMTS, so refarming of 900 and 1800MHz (and 2100MHz) to LTE should be fine -
No UMTS at 1800Mhz
Currently I don't know about any handset that supports UMTS at 1800Mhz. There are handsets that support UMTS at 1700Mhz. But those can only be found in U.S and Canada and few other countries.
And up goes the cost
previously, service providers can hide behind the contract, especially the part stating it is not a guaranteed service.
Take this away from them and the only way they will respond is jacking the prices up to compensate for the extra bandwith.
That's much too loud, people will complain.
- Breaking news: Google exec in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL