Freshly-installed culture Secretary Maria Miller announced this morning just how much cash will be slapped on 10 major cities to improve local broadband, after the Treasury's initial £100m allocation ballooned to £114.1m. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provided a breakdown of how much will be spent in Belfast, …
No surprises there
They choose to give all the money to the cities that already have the fastest internet available, putting them another notch ahead of the rest of the country. What about us schlubs who are still stuck on 20CN, where's our subsidy?
Re: No surprises there
"What about us schlubs who are still stuck on 20CN, where's our subsidy?"
The ridiculous pricing structure means that for a long time we have been paying disproportionately higher costs for slower services over old and outdated kit.. The suspicion is that we are actually subsidizing the "faster" areas with their regular upgrades.
Please don't trot out any arguments about some areas being more expensive to supply. My area has had no upgrades from BT since 8 meg, and getting a line issue sorted out is a long painful experience as Openjoke would rather downgrade the lines expected performance rather than bring it up to the standard it used to achieve, despite getting "double bubble... Higher cost 20cn charges over a line on which it charges for unwanted voice services that WOULDN'T be connected if I could have a data only line and not pay for the maintenance of voice equipment, after all the dslam costs must be part of my ISP charges.. so why do I have to pay for provision and maintenance of Voice equipment that I don't use? a simple copper pair to the dslam has to be cheaper surely?
Uk Broadband remains a joke!
Re: No surprises there
Surely.. with FTTC then... A copper pair to the cab then fibre to the exchange would negate any need for voice? This would seem to be an artificial requirement more about the finances of the BT Group (lets treat those Chinese walls like the joke that they really are)
We are being screwed over as usual while the regulator meekly stands by and watches.
So.. give cash to the cities where broadband is already good (due to having large populations who can pay for it), not to rural areas where it's non-existent due to it being not cost effective, and needs government subsidy.
How does that make sense?
it makes sense, unfortunately
because the same money spent in a large city, will benefit (or "benefit") much larger number of people, simply.
Yes, it sounds horribly "fuck you Jack, I'm allright", coming from someone living in one of those cities, but I'd say the same, if I lived in the country, although I'd be frothing, obviously. But the fact's the fact, the population density and infrastructure, etc, etc.
Looking on a bright(ish) side [no sarcasm meant] - people living in the country stand a much higher chance of getting access to the benefits enjoyed in a city, such as LTE (even if it's 1/5 of the advertised up to speed), than us, living in the cities, of getting access to the benefits enjoyed in the country. Like what, high food prices? High petrol bills? Well, like open space. And trees, here and there (ok, not in X, Y and Z). And crime rate, etc.
Re: it makes sense, unfortunately
Err no, it makes no sense at all. The point of paying a company public money is to cover something thats not already viable ie. rural because of the increased cost due to lower density. By giving money away to cover somewhere that can sustain it already, ie. cities which have a high population density already, will mean the company will take the money and get a quick return, take the profit and not bother to expand.
Unless there is some hidden clause which says, oh and you must lay some fibre to rural villages x, y, z etc.
Just because you're in a city, it doesn't mean you get a decent broadband connection. Half a mile out from Manchester city centre and you're lucky to get 2 meg.
Just because you live in somewhere with green doesn't mean you can't. Get 12meg by 112k ADSL2 connection from Zen south of Stockport :-)
Here We Go Again
Improve "local" broadband by targeting the biggest cities first? This is a joke.........isn't it?
Broadband coverage needs improving and introducing in towns, small towns, villages, rural communities. Not cities that already have the fastest connections.
Re: Here We Go Again
There are a few rural project that are being bid for currently.
In this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/17/bt_preferred_bidder_for_norfolk/ it states the Broadband Delivery UK cash pot is £530M for rural broadband services. Norfolk, Cumbria and Surry are stated as preferred / won.
However, the EU is complaining they're breaking competition law picking BT all the time...
If it helps the debate - I live in leafy Stockport and Uswitch speed test regularly tells me I am getting >100 Mbps. My all time record last week was 198 Mbps (screen shot available on request). This from FTTC and then copper to house approx 50 m from the cabinet. Greenery and speedery.
So £13.7, or so, for Belfast? BT has already had chunk of cash from devolved government for fast b/band rollout in NI in 2 tranches I think. Most Belfast exchanges are now 21CN and FTTC enabled, 'orrible big green cabinets everywhere, plus some FTTH. Virgin's all over the city too.
Don't quite get what that dosh is gonna buy, not complaining mind you, I've got 80/20 FTTC from the cab a few metres up the street & I live in a medium sized village that's benefitted already.
Brilliant. Give cities with already decent broadband connectivity more money and screw the rest of us over.
I live about 10 minutes walk from my exchange in Gloucester and I'm lucky to have 1meg.
I fucking hate politicians and their constantly backwards facing logic.
When we had a story on the Reg about the possibility of money being spent upgrading broadband in rural areas, we had people in the cities complaining about why should they subsidise the countryside.
and London gets the cash AGAIN
and London gets the lion's share of the cash AGAIN
Can we not build a big wall around that city and the south east and stop all our money getting sucked into the black hole that is the SE ?
Re: and London gets the cash AGAIN
I think, generally, the the rest of the country sucks up the money that London and the SE generates.