Feeds

back to article Hunt tosses 27 cities into broadband cash bunfight

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has laid down the gauntlet for 27 cities to bid for £50m government funds to be in with a chance of gaining "ultrafast" broadband networks by 2014. A strict set of criteria was laid out by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) today. The cash pile was allocated by Chancellor George …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Thumb Down

Hull

That's going to be interesting to see how Hull manages to get on, what with KCC being useless ejiots*

*Something like a six month waiting list for business broadband last time I had to deal with them.

0
0
Thumb Down

Re: Hull

KC recently released just under half of their hardware oriented staff [van drivers, engineers, installation technicians and the like]. It's fair to say this has at least increased by 50% since your last contact.

0
0
Silver badge

50 million

Will just about pay 10% of the consultants fees.

0
0
Thumb Down

Yay descrimination lives

Given that alot of city's obtained there status thru the legacy prerequasition of having a cathedral, thenin a way this is biased towards religious people over non-religious.

That joke aside it still is a situation that area's were private money would to upgrade infrastructure as its cost effective due to population density in these area's would be more suitable. Especialy as the goverment has been bent on privatising alot of areas. The logic here seems flawed as to pump extra free money to make the most suitable area's better highlights that it's not cost effective otherwise and draws a big red line under how any non-city or large town, let alone small hamlet only a few miles out of the loop would ever have a chance of getting there super fast internets.

If were having to subsidies better internet in high, densely populated area's then what hope have the reast of the country. This is not how you encourage private companies, it's how you encourage companies that want to steal that money to pay there shareholders and then after carroting punters, rape them as well.

0
3
Z80
Headmaster

Re: Yay descrimination lives

"Given that alot of city's obtained there..."

Good grief. Couldn't carry on reading after that opening.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Yea, Salford, there's a surprise, but that's in the final 10

1
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

bunfight?

What is now politically incorrect to say bum fight? I also better never lose my right to say bum rush.

0
3
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: bunfight?

@asdf - I suggest you look up the term. "Bunfight" has nothing to do with "Bumfight" and, in fact, pre-dates it by a long time.

Whilst it can mean an official (but completely unimportant) event which requires people to dress up in their best finery, it also is used to mean an argument or dispute which is "a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing at all".

0
0
Silver badge
Megaphone

Re: bunfight?

>it also is used to mean an argument or dispute which is "a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing at all".

So they did mean bum fight which this describes unless of course you consider the vodka bottle the bums are fighting over to signify something crucial. Ok ok sorry you are right of course. I guess its only American white trash that has heard of bum fights but not bun fights.

0
1

Citys

This seems a little harsh on large towns such as Reading given that they are bigger they are bigger than some of the citys on the list. Why the distinction?

0
0
Holmes

Re: Citys

Because for some reason places with cathedrals and/or royal approval need faster internet and definitely not because less proposals means less work. Or at least my uncynical and childish mind thought, until that is, I read the proposal and came across this:

3.4. Q. Why have you chosen the Chartered Cities?

A. In the UK the legal definition of a city is one with a Royal Charter. The criterion sets the number of cities eligible to bid to a manageable number, limiting the number of cities who will work to put together a proposal but fail to be allocated funding.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Citys

The Cities are small in number and have a more diverse geographical spread giving somewhere other than the south east a fighting chance?

0
0
Bronze badge

£5 million

is £5 million enough to build a fibre broadband network for a city?

If so then surely it's economically viable for commercial business to build their own with no need for government funds. If not then this is a superficial waste of time.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: £5 million

I see you've been introduced to our talented Culture Minister.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

It's enough to have roaming bands of private Tech consultants to come in and take it all away with nothing to show for it at the end.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

At least

He can't be accused of favouring his own constituents.

Sady that is about the only +ve thing that can be said about this statement by my own MP.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: At least

Jezza doesn't need to worry about favouring his own constituents. He's had fibre to the cabinet available at his house for over a year.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

As a resident of leicester I thought the city was already well covered by virgin media. Not that I'll be complaining about more investment in the local infrastructure if it happens.

0
0

Opportunity missed... again!

Government should be focusing on a public sector network to deliver a PROPER shared IT infrastructure capability amongst public sector organisations.

For example:

Q: WHY are there over a hundred individual implementations of Exchange server in public sector organisations in my region?

A: Because public sector directors are parochial players, public sector organisations don't have the skills or structure to run with a formal enterprise architecture, government will not clamp down on the parochial but profitable remit of public sector suppliers, and lastly, because, depsite the promises in opposition, we always end up with a clueless f*ckwit of a minister with no remit to deliver a coherent long-term strategy.

0
0

Stupid pointless headline grabbing diversion from the fact that BT won't invest because there's not enough profit in it while the government insist that private investment will provide all the while our creaking infrastructure quietly decomposes.

0
0

I'm curious as too whether the ministers actually have a plan for increasing the UK's overall capacity, its all well and good trying to convince the private sector to create 'super broadband networks'. I think most of the private firms have realized a few major things:

Our capacity for transit outside of the UK is becoming limited and major investment is needed in under sea cables. Of course the bottom lines will be hit as well: faster connections mean more data throughput and that of course leads to more expensive peer agreements yet the increased revenue barely covers it.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.