The government will take £100m from the £5bn national infrastructure investment pot over the course of this Parliament in a move to speed up broadband networks in selected urban areas. Rural areas, meanwhile, have been passed over. George Osborne announced the extra cash that the likes of BT and Virgin Media will be able to bid …
The Cities pretty much pay for themselves, no need to bung backhanders to very profitable businesses.
But still, that's the goverment way.
I would be happy if I got 2Mbs in my village. I want to strike tomorrow because of this.
Kelly "The Red" Fiveash does it again..
""Large swathes of the countryside will be able to access super-fast broadband as BT continues its roll-out and as funds already lined up by the government become available in the next five years or so," it said."
...Sort of goes against the tag line, Kelly...!!
This seems a rather silly idea. Urban areas are plenty well enough served already - or will be under existing plans by BT. Mind you £100m wouldn't have gone far in the rural 'hinterland' anyway. So basically just another government sop to try and look like they are doing something useful.
If my math is correct
then one hundred million in the government 'pot', minus what gets 'lost' in Whitehall, minus what gets paid to 'facilitators', minus what gets paid to lawyers, minus the profit margin for the operator, minus the bungs to local landowners means Mrs. Chevely of 12 Fortune Close, Belfast can expect to receive a new dongle.
Sometime in the next five years.
Joined up thinking
So all the major cities are complaining about traffic congestion and the need to reduce car use.
But public transport infrastructure is groaning at the increase in the numbers of commuters, so much so that rail and bus companies are raising their fares to 'regulate' users.
So increased connectedness is going to put UK.PLC at the forefront of the interweb revolution.
But rural areas, where a lot of people live (or would like to because it's way cheaper and a better way of life), are still going to be cut off from this revolution because of a lack of investment in broadband infrastructure.
Have I missed something?
Of course I haven't mentioned the dirty word - 'profits'...
>Rural areas, meanwhile, have been passed over.
Of course they have. Nobody gives a crap about rural areas. :<
Totally the wrong priority
That's right, speed up broadband in cities, where they already have FTTC, FTTP and fibre-optic cable TV, instead of putting broadband in where there is currently none.
One of the guys here wants to work from home, but can't. DSL struggles to a meg on a good day, and he barely gets 2G mobile let alone 3G. He's looking at satellite, but it's still a bit expensive, the monthly limits are low and the uplink speed is crap.
And they are spending £100 million putting better broadband in where they have already got 20 meg-plus.
Thanks guys. NOT.
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- Samsung Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner hacked in just 4 DAYS
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- AMD demos 'Berlin' Opteron, world's first heterogeneous system architecture server chip