back to article Labour's Jeremy Corbyn wants high speed broadband for all. Wow, original idea there

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said the party will not win elections using strategies from the past, as he promised to "democratise the internet" in his Digital Manifesto today. During the unveiling of the manifesto this morning, Corbyn said the party should build on the campaign social media tactics of Democratic …

  1. m0rt

    "democratise the internet"

    Wouldn't it also, if sticking to the democracy theme, require no large scale snooping?

    1. Richard Jones 1
      FAIL

      Re: "democratise the internet"

      The so called snooping train left a long time ago. Credit reference agencies know all about your financial spending and income habits, your contacts, friends, etc. anyway. Banks, other financial bodies, the HMRC, Government Departments and so on all have access to all of that lovely juicy data anyway. Is there is anything left to so called snoop? It cannot be much to worry about.

      Now we can add in Big Brother Corbyn's digital passport, aka the digital ID card.'We see you bought something we do not like sorry your digital ID does not appear to work. No doctor or hospital treatment for you then, and you have no driving license validation and your bank account cannot be validated either, sorry. You can forget using the digital highway, your Identity card no longer works there either.'

      1. Mayhem

        Re: "democratise the internet"

        Actually I can see quite a few benefits to the Digital Id idea.

        It all depends on how it is used, but look at Estonia. They have a distributed set of services, all linked by a middleware layer with a unique identity product. That means that you have the ability to remotely prove that you are YOU to any entity that does business with the government by a single card. It does not mean that your identity is then shared between each service.

        Rather you have an identity as BloggsJ with the water department, and as Joe Bloggs (L) with the driver licencing, and as Joseph Thomas Bloggs with the electoral roll etc. And then your digital identity acts as a proof acceptable to each service that you are that identity. And it is up to the end user to register each identity into the system, rather than having it done by fiat by the government.

        It's far superior to the UK system of multiple redundant composite IDs, where you need a drivers licence and bank statement for this part, but a passport and national insurance number for that one, and bank statement and credit card for them over there etc etc.

        The critical thing about a proper digital ID is that it doesn't replace all the existing systems, it acts as a complementary system. That way if it stops working or is stolen you can still go in person with a bank statement and say I am me...

        As for the 25bn fibre rollout ... the Railtrack/Network Rail fiasco has already proven that the only way competition in the railways can work is with a neutral state body overseeing the basic infrastructure, with a monitoring body to ensure regular upgrades. We obviously need a similar entity for basic fibre infrastructure provision, because as Google has proved in the US, the cost of running cables far far exceeds the return people are willing to pay directly. Rollout via state taxation is the only way it can work.

        However I would want it to be done in such a fashion that the ducts are large enough to allow easy inspection and maintenance and that rival cables can be laid if private groups want to pay for it.

        That way you don't have to dig the damn street up every few months, which is where the main cost is. Dig the damn street up once, lay a gas trench, a water trench, a data trench and a power trench and cover em up. End of issue. Start in the newbuilds, in villages and small towns, then move to the suburbs, and finally the centres of the bigger cities where its a historical messy situation.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: "democratise the internet"

          "It all depends on how it is used, but look at Estonia. They have a distributed set of services, all linked by a middleware layer with a unique identity product."

          That would require trusting your politicians - at least twice as far as you could throw them.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "democratise the internet" @Mayhem

          but look at Estonia. They have a distributed set of services, all linked by a middleware layer with a unique identity product.

          Well, I suggest you go to Estonia. I don't like my government. I don't trust the fuckers. I don't want the obligation to prove I'm me to the fuckwits. And as far as I'm concerned they can shove their middleware up both holes between their second and third buttocks.

          Incidentally, on your example of single trenching utilities, that's a bloody stupid idea because you have to dig most/all of the damned things up when there's one fault. I won't outline all of the reasons for that, but the basics are that the most likely to leak are at the lowest layer because they leak.

        3. FlamingDeath Silver badge

          Re: "democratise the internet"

          You must be from the future, we don't do joined up thinking in the present

    2. macjules
      Coat

      Re: "democratise the internet"

      I am presuming that 'democratising the internet' does not extend so far as Mr Corbyn using Virgin Media .. given his recent experience with Virgin Trains.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "democratise the internet"

        "I am presuming that 'democratising the internet' does not extend so far as Mr Corbyn using Virgin Media .. given his recent experience with Virgin Trains."

        Would that be where he ignores 50 high speed connected houses in the street and goes to try and use it in the shed, in the overgrown garden, using a wet bit of string?

  2. AMBxx Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Socialism?

    Surely the correct approach for a socialist would be to limit everyone to the lowest speed available? If the person in rural Wales can't get 4G, then neither should the person in London.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: Socialism?

      It would also needs long queues of packets waiting to be processed by the few state routers and switches - as long as they show your ID card. Meanwhile they will show you propaganda videos about a guy named Ivan Petrovich Stackanov who laid down a thousand miles of fiber in one night single handed (just the glass came from empty vodka bottles - by the fiber workers - so it doesn't work so well)

      Packets that pays in foreign money or bitcoins will be able to access those special "routers for foreigners" which will be much, much faster...

      1. AMBxx Silver badge

        Re: Socialism?

        It's strange - I made the original post this morning when Europe was awake. Lots of downvotes. As the day has gone on, US is starting and lots of upvotes!

        1. Zippy's Sausage Factory
          Joke

          Re: Socialism?

          Thus proving that nobody actually understands what socialism is, we just misunderstand it in different ways...

        2. Chris G

          Re: Socialism?

          The downvotes are probably from people too young to remember pre- Bliar socialism where equality was determined by the lowest common denominator.

          Nice to see Corbyn has discovered the word ' digital' and applied it liberally to everything without having much idea of what he is really saying.

          I can see a Citizen Digital Passport being the only way to access the British internet of the future, plus of course everything else in your life.

          Oh well, "Under The Spreading Chestnut Tree" etc.

          Wow two downvotes in a couple of minutes, upset a socialist or two? Well, I don't like the other lot either, idealists rarely contribute anything but ideals to a discussion, whichever way they bend.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Socialism?

            Also people too young to remember how happy places USSR, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Bulgaria were to live in. Especially when someone there tried to improve "socialism" a little and found tanks with a red star going up and down the roads to remember them which was the correct interpretation of "socialism".

            Oh well, they are the same now incensing that little ex East Germany KGB agent....

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Socialism?

            "I can see a Citizen Digital Passport being the only way to access the British internet of the future, plus of course everything else in your life."

            Well, which would you rather have: "Papers, Please!" or foreign imposters sucking your national resources dry?

            1. JohnMoser

              Re: Socialism?

              Why would a foreigner need to pretend to be someone else to suck your national resources dry when they're already doing it legally?

          3. find users who cut cat tail

            Re: Socialism?

            > The downvotes are probably from people too young to remember pre- Bliar socialism...

            My downwote is from someone who remembers well socialism in East Europe as he lived there and thinks you have no bloody idea what socialism looks like if you think there was any in the UK, pre-Blair or not.

        3. Teiwaz

          Re: Socialism?

          "It's strange - I made the original post this morning when Europe was awake. Lots of downvotes. As the day has gone on, US is starting and lots of upvotes!"

          You'd have gotten a lot more votes from a certain portion of US denizens if you'd used 'liberal' instead of 'socialism'

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Socialism?

            I suspect that post-bernie the two have been linked?

        4. Baldy50

          Re: Socialism?

          Have another comrade!

          Does anybody believe anything that comes out of his mouth?

        5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Socialism?

          " I made the original post this morning when Europe was awake. Lots of downvotes."

          Probably from people who can't get 4G in London upset at the idea that people in Wales might.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Socialism?

            "Probably from people who can't get 4G in London upset at the idea that people in Wales might."

            Corbyn's London is only the North of N1 part he's been MP for since Chris Smith went to the EU

            In the lower part of Islington (south of (S)Upper Street) you barely get 3G on the Estates if you dare take your phone out of your pocket for that long (if you do, you ain't a local)

    2. Mark 85

      Re: Socialism?

      Surely the correct approach for a socialist would be to limit everyone to the lowest speed available?

      Except of course there is a higher speed for the elite who need the higher speeds to help in decision making since they are all smarter than rest of us.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Socialism?

        "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" - and needs more broadband, of course.

  3. djstardust

    Promise everything ....

    Between him and Smith they have promised the world in the past few weeks, and I bet none of it ever gets delivered if they get elected.

    Politicians promises, pledges whatever should be legally binding, not just forgotten about when they have reached the position they want.

    And as for Broadband ... as long as BT are allowed to carry on with their government supported monopolistic stance nothing will change soon.

    1. AMBxx Silver badge

      Re: Promise everything ....

      Ofcom want to break up BT but know that any action will be blocked in Brussels as deutsche telecom are in a similar position.

      Day after Brexit, Ofcom will hopefully swing into action.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Promise everything ....

        Please stop talking such utter shit.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Promise everything ....

          Wow, looks like I'm heading for my own downvote record! :-)

          Just to add some clarity: I wasn't dissing the original post but AMBxx's nonsense.

          Anyway, carry on.

          1. AMBxx Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Promise everything ....

            I think everyone knows what you were commenting on :D

            1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: Promise everything ....

              I think everyone knows what you were commenting on :D

              Okay, under what legislation would the European Commission be able to prevent a national regulator from imposing conditions on a company operating in a national market? Note, it's not really up to the deliberately toothless OfCom to decide whether OpenReach should be spun out of British Telecom, that would be for the monopolies commission. OfCom should be encouraging unbundling by making sure that there is a competitive market for unbundling (as in France) or alternative suppliers (as in Germany) through setting the prices and conditions of use of BT's network.

              Though there are many arguments for splitting up the ownership of the infrastructure from running services on it. And many precedents for doing this in things like the energy markets (managed in Germany by a far beefier network regulator).

    2. Wilseus

      Re: Promise everything ....

      "Between him and Smith they have promised the world in the past few weeks, and I bet none of it ever gets delivered if they get elected."

      That's a bit of a moot point, really...

    3. Chris King
      Holmes

      Re: Promise everything ....

      "Between him and Smith they have promised the world in the past few weeks, and I bet none of it ever gets delivered if they get elected".

      Typical politicians. They promise you the moon on a stick, and all you get if you're very lucky is the stick - smashed over your head.

  4. Pen-y-gors

    2008?

    "£13bn would provide 80 per cent coverage (Analysis Mason, “The costs of deploying next-generation fibre-optic infrastructure”, 2008)"

    He's basing the costs of laying fibre on an eight-year-old report? And no-doubt the costings for running HS2 based on the likely cost of coal for the locomotives.

    And the 80% coverage figure? In what way is that a good thing? Would we be happy if someone proposed providing mains water and electricity to 80% of properties, or health to 80% of people (all in the cities). Actually forget that last bit - the way health services are being centralised and rural GPs and dentists shut down, that's exactly what the governments are trying to do.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: 2008?

      "He's basing the costs of laying fibre on an eight-year-old report? And no-doubt the costings for running HS2 based on the likely cost of coal for the locomotives."

      So what else could he do?

      "The laying of deploying next-generation fibre-optic infrastructure might cost around £13bn, but we're not too sure what that will be when we get in because the only report in to it dates from 2008, you're just going to have to take my word for it that it won't cost too much money".

      80% coverage in terms of mains water or electricity, health etc would be very poor as at the moment it's nearer 100%. Yes health services are in decline in rural areas but is that Corbyn's fault? There has been no investment in the NHS since the ConDem government and even less so now with many NHS services actually facing cuts. It's not as if the NHS is a frivalous expense that we could do without, although most Tory MP's would disagree with that, saying their mates private health care system is better. But, what they don't think about (or choose to ignore) is that cancer, heart disease, broken bones etc don't discriminate. You could be poor and contract lung cancer, or you could be rich and suffer a major heart attack. How it's considered normal or justified to say to someone the level of care they can expect goes hand in hand with what they can afford is evil really. But that's a discussion for another day.

      Anyway, at the moment, 53% of the UK is covered by LTE/4G. So yes, in this respect 80% is a great figured compared to what's gone before it. And it's also fair to expect someone living 15 miles outside of Chester could get the level of service those in London get. Money is the issue with all of this, but we've seen what austerity and no investment in to public services has done, and we've seen what investment in our infrastructure did to our economy in the years after WW2.

      Ultimately money is going to dictate what can be done. But like what Tony Benn (RIP) said, we can find the money to go to war at the drop of a hat, but why can't we find the money to employ more nurses?

      1. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: 2008?

        Anyway, at the moment, 53% of the UK is covered by LTE/4G. So yes, in this respect 80% is a great figured compared to what's gone before it. And it's also fair to expect someone living 15 miles outside of Chester could get the level of service those in London get.

        You've cited the problem right there. Corbyn's complaining that some parts of Wales can't get one bar, but by all precedent the 20% who won't get the roll-out are precisely those people. You can't solve the 80/20 problem unless you aim for 100% coverage, and there isn't a commercial entity in the country that would do that out of choice, so it ends up being paid for out of taxation.

        In a way, that is actually quite similar to the NHS. The "last 20%" are the people who always lose out, unless you stick to basic socialist redistribution of wealth principles - i.e. paying for a service from taxation.

        But if you are going to pay a commercial company to install the darned thing in the first place, why not retain ownership of it? Handing over ownership while still paying subsidies (in whatever form) is (IMO) the main mistake made by successive governments since Thatcher started selling off public assets at below their true cost.

        A kind of Railtrack for the nation's communications infrastructure. Nationally-owned, but able to call in external (private) contractors when necessary, but crucially, just paying them for the job done.

        M.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: 2008?

          "A kind of Railtrack for the nation's communications infrastructure. Nationally-owned, but able to call in external (private) contractors when necessary, but crucially, just paying them for the job done."

          East Coast Rail Line. Previous franchise incumbent fucked up. Went back to public ownership. Turned it around and went into profit. But policy dictates it be franchised out again. Profitable line now has significant price increases. More pork anyone?

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: 2008?

        "So what else could he do?"

        At the least, add on compound inflation for the last 6 years, plus a reasonable guestimate of other increased costs. So that will be about £26b ;-)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 2008?

      As near as dammit to 100% of properties get serviced water as they do broadband - but not all of that water is delivered at the same pressure, bandwidth, or to the same quality.

      1. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: 2008?

        not all of that water is delivered at the same pressure, bandwidth, or to the same quality

        There are certain minimum standards that potable water has to meet, so barring accidents tap water in the UK is safe to drink wherever you are. Even if you are in Liverpool with stolen Welsh water(*) you can be pretty sure we haven't stuffed too many dead sheep in the reservoir outlets.

        It'll taste different around the country depending on where it originates and local choices regarding chorination, fluoridisation (is that a word?) etc, but it is water and it is safe.

        Pressure and bandwidth, well yes, but the crucial difference is that if it's really bad you can make adjustments at your end and by installing a tank and (if necessary) a booster pump. You can't do that with t'internet.

        M.

        (*)Yes, we do have far too much water in Wales for our own needs, but it is still a sore point in parts of Wales. I was looking for a balanced article on the subject, but that mug says it all ;-)

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: 2008?

          "Pressure and bandwidth, well yes, but the crucial difference is that if it's really bad you can make adjustments at your end and by installing a tank and (if necessary) a booster pump. You can't do that with t'internet."

          Well, you could install a caching server. Might need to be quite large though. And require lots of windmills, solar panels and unicorn droppings to keep it powered up 24/7.

  5. Julz
    Big Brother

    " Digital Citizen Passport " Hum, souds like an ID card...

    1. TheProf

      Or even a passport!

    2. Ian K

      While I was vehemently opposed to the mandatory ID card the last lot tried to bring in, I wouldn't automatically reject a voluntary system.

      A lot would depend on just what information they wanted, and what they could do with it, but if it was limited to a simple "confirm identity, in similar situations as you already need to now, and nothing else" function I could see that being useful and not overly intrusive.

      1. AMBxx Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        It's none of those things. It's just 3 words strung together to sound like Corbyn has an idea.

        Why are you all expecting coherent thought?

        Paris 'cos she has more chance of becoming PM.

      2. Dan 55 Silver badge

        The ID card wasn't mandatory, it was voluntary. We all knew it was going to be mandatory, of course.

        Much the same with this, I suspect.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      " Digital Citizen Passport " Hum, souds like an ID card...

      That's what I thought at first, but if you read a little more, it's actually not too dissimilar to using public-key cryptography to prove you are who you say you are. You don't have to do this everywhere, just when you want to access government services.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        If there is a voluntary digital ID card that has widespread use or a mandatory card, you can bet that it'll start being used to access government services, move on to bank verification, and end up being used to verify your age for porn sites in the UK.

        Well, I say "end up" but that'll be the thin end of the wedge. Who could disagree with that? Then there'll be something else.

        By the way I think the way a widespread digital ID card could be rolled out would be with a chipped driving licence, a chipped passport card given with a passport (like the Irish one), and finally a chipped card from the DSS for those who don't get one of the other two.

  6. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. AMBxx Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: A serious question...

      Um? EU takes money from company and gives to the one country that wants to leave the EU?

    2. David Nash Silver badge

      Re: A serious question...

      Dunno, you'd have to ask the Irish government about that, not the Brits.

  7. Starace

    25 billion fits easily into 500 billion

    The big question is where exactly does the 500 billion come from?

    Not worth worrying over too much though as my dog has more chance of becoming Prime Minister than Comrade Jez does.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: 25 billion fits easily into 500 billion

      Simple enough: The Bank Of England prints more money. There's no Gold Standard anymore.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: 25 billion fits easily into 500 billion

        At which point we invoke the The Mundell-Fleming trilemma and the UK will be back begging the IMF for loans, as it did in the 1970s.

        The mere prospect of the UK leaving the EU is already making funding the national debt more difficult and it is only going to get harder as the costs (lower tax receipts and more bureaucracy) rise. As a result there is going to be even less money available for investment than there already is (the UK compares poorly with other industrialised countries).

        The current manipulation of the debt markets by the central banks disguises the fact that not all central banks have infinite balance sheets. As soon as it looks like any particular central bank is directly monetising government debt, then risk premiums will be applied. In the case of the UK, which is both able to issue debt in its own currency and force investors (insurance companies, pension funds and banks) to buy large amounts of debt, this may seem unlikely. But it's happened before and, as the recent failed auction hints at, it could easily happen again.

        But I think that Corbyn and his Luddite Militants might actually be quite happy with rolling back technological change. Whereas I'd be content with just social media disappearing…

    2. Pen-y-gors

      Re: 25 billion fits easily into 500 billion

      Didn't I see something on the side of a bus recently?

      "We send £500 billion to the EU every half hour"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 25 billion fits easily into 500 billion

        Ah, the Gospel according to St Nigel of Brexit.

        ' it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from Jeremy's wishing it so' is hardly a sentiment Nigel's likely to echo, is it ....

    3. JimC

      Re: my dog has more chance

      Don't be so sure. By and large politicians lose elections rather than win them, and would you really bet against the current lot doing something so mind bogglingly stupid that Comrade J looks like the lesser of two disasters?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why ?

    Corbyn is a dirty Brexit traitor, so he can "£$%^& off, but on topic ( and reposted from the Irish fibre story ):

    Why ?

    I have the cheapest available DSL where I live, which gives me 1.7 MB/s.

    I can download films 10 times faster than I can watch them.

    Does the average person *really* need 2MB/s, let alone GB/s ?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: Why ?

        Just because you don't really use the internet doesn't mean nobody else does.

        A bit strong? I'm more on the side of the OP, because even today 2Mb/s down is actually acceptable for most uses. 10Mb/s would be a good baseline figure to aim for, and one that a lot of people in the UK still dream of.

        The area I live in is by no means "rural", though it is outside the main population centres locally and ADSL2 struggles to sync much faster than 6Mbps, with throughput rarely higher than 5Mbps and yet, apart from downloading ISOs, we - as a family of six - rarely find that speed limiting.We can stream online content pretty reliably and do all the "digital economy" stuff that modern life demands, though we do try to keep it to a minimum.

        That doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for everyone to have much higher speeds, but let's get the basics sorted first, eh? Lucky for those who live in areas where faster speeds are available now, but if we're going to use public money for this sort of thing, let's put it to work where it is needed.

        Caveat - my local DP has recently been upgraded so in theory FTTC is now available. I'm in the 80%.

        M.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why ?

      "which gives me 1.7 MB/s.. ..I can download films 10 times faster than I can watch them."

      Lies. The Bitrate alone for 480p would exceed what 1.7 MB/s can deliver (If you're streaming), and if you're torrenting then its even worse (on average).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why ?

        "I have the cheapest available DSL where I live, which gives me 1.7 MB/s.

        I can download films 10 times faster than I can watch them."

        I think you might be confusing megabytes (MB) per second with megabits (Mb) per second. One byte is 8 bits.

        If, as you state, you can download files at 1.7 megabytes per second, that means your link is running at 13.6 megabits per second: actually more like 14.0 megabits per second once TCP/IP overhead is taken into account, or 15.4 megabits per second of raw line rate with the ATM overhead required by DSL.

        And yes, that speed is perfectly acceptable for most people.

        If you have 1.7 mega*bits* per second, that's not really enough for any video stream apart from something very low res, like on a mobile phone perhaps.

        At that speed, downloading a 300MB programme to iPlayer on your phone is going to take about 24 minutes - about the same amount of time to download as to watch.

      2. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: Why ?

        The Bitrate alone for 480p would exceed what 1.7 MB/s can deliver (If you're streaming)

        Not necessarily. It all depends on the other end.

        My son's stills camera takes 720p video in h.264 at 20Mbps or so, but a 720p programme from iPlayer comes in at about 2.3Mbps. SD programmes are around 1.5Mbps. Bitrates over-the-air vary but there are no channels out there broadcasting anywhere near 20Mbps as far as I know. A 2Mbps connection is probably enough for SD, unless your connection is very flaky or the teenager is sending selfies to his/her mates.

        M.

      3. rh587
        Headmaster

        Re: Why ?

        Lies. The Bitrate alone for 480p would exceed what 1.7 MB/s can deliver (If you're streaming), and if you're torrenting then its even worse (on average).

        Well, technically HD streaming needs ~8Mb/s, and 1.7MB/s equates to ~13.6Mb/s, so Bahboh should comfortably be able to stream HD to their heart's content.

        Of course that's not what Bahboh means, because Bahboh is the sort of awful human being who mixes their units and smashes interplanetary probes into the planets they're supposed to be orbiting.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why ?

          All the ranting morons who cannot tell the difference between MB and Mb can now apologise.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why ?

          I used MB/s and GB/s. I mixed my prefixes ( which is perfectly acceptable ) but I did not mix my units.

          The frothing idiots who replied, on the other hand...

          1. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

            Re: Why ?

            I didn't get confused by the prefixes. I knew exactly what you meant. It's everybody else (almost) who couldn't work it out.

    3. anthonyhegedus Silver badge

      Re: Why ?

      You can download films 10 times faster than you can watch them? I think you mean 4 or 5, but 2MB/s is not enough when you have phones updating, windows PCs updating, two or three online movie services all running at the same time. And the upload speed of only ~ 0.1 MB/s that you have is not really going to help when backing up photos.

      The thing is, you haven't got the speed you have by design, you have it by accident, because you happen to live quite close to a telephone exchange. When I moved where I live now, I was getting 5Mbps down and 0.5Mbps up. Definitely not good enough for me, so I had to upgrade to FTTC (incorrectly called "fibre" by the broadband companies). I now get around 6MB/s (around 50Mbps) down and 1.5MB/s up (around 13mbps), which is more than enough for me, but the thing is that I had to upgrade to go from poor to good, whereas people who already get 20Mb/s might not need to upgrade.

      It's pot luck really, based on where you live, and where the telephone exchange is, and how the wires get there from your house.

      All BT OpenRetch are doing is perpetuating this old technology (copper wires) rather than actually do the job properly and go full fibre.

    4. Thomas 6

      Re: Why ?

      Below are the Internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing movies and TV shows through Netflix.

      0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed

      1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed

      3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality

      5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality

      25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality

      You barely reach the recommended speed for standard definition (which can look terrible on an HD TV). And that is for one device. Most houses have multiple devices connecting at once, e.g. mobile phones, TVs etc.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Why ?

      Corbyn is a dirty Brexit traitor

      You keep writing this and I still don't know what you mean.

      Personally, I think he's a principled fool fighting last century's battles.

      1. Teiwaz

        Re: Why ?

        "Corbyn is a dirty Brexit traitor

        You keep writing this and I still don't know what you mean.

        Personally, I think he's a principled fool fighting last century's battles."

        - I think he's just repeating his grandparents...You can't be a traitor to something you've never believed in. I get the same impression about Corbyn too (about the last centuries battles) he keeps reminding me of the Greenham Common protests.

      2. Phil W

        Re: Why ?

        "Corbyn is a dirty Brexit traitor"

        "You keep writing this and I still don't know what you mean."

        I would of thought it was pretty obvious. Corbyn is the leader of the labour party, whose official position was (and is) support for remaining in the EU. As leader of the party you really have 2 choices, support and publicly advocate for the party's official position, or step down. At best you could argue that you have the option to keep you mouth shut and let someone else lead the campaign.

        What Corbyn did was to claim to support Remain, but do very little in terms of large scale public campaigning to support the cause. This is mainly down to the fact that Corbyn does not like to engage with the mainstream media, which is a perfectly valid choice for an MP but not for a party leader and potential Prime Minister. When he was pressed for details in his few media engagements he gave very half hearted support for the EU and was quick to list all the flaws he saw with it.

        I am by no means saying the EU is without flaws, or that they should be ignored or glossed over, but if you are the leader of a political party whose position is in favour of it you have a responsibility beyond your own personal feelings and opinions to espouse its virtues and support it.

        While individual MPs may, perfectly reasonably, be given freedom to campaign for whichever side they wish, the leader of the party has a higher obligation to lead the party in it's chosen direction if necessary to the detriment of his personal causes and passions.

        If he feels unable to lead the party in it's chosen path because it conflicts with his personal opinion then he must step down, which is why Cameron resigned following the referendum result.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why ?

          Precisely, Phil W.

          Well put.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. GrumpenKraut

              Re: Why ?

              > ...so I always have to refresh the comments page...

              Are you sure that problem (which I share) is caused by high speed? I have about 6Mb/sec.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Adrian Midgley 1

          what level of support would indicate success to you?

          The Labour voters were 2:1 in favour of remaining. How much more do you demand?

          The Tory voters were 1:2 against - with the leader of their party telling them to vote for. You think the leader of the Opposition is going to influence that very much?

          1. DavCrav

            Re: what level of support would indicate success to you?

            "You think the leader of the Opposition is going to influence that very much?"

            I'm not going to get into this one here, but note that someone would only have to convince 500,000 people to change their minds. Since the Labour vote was in the region of 10m (I made a typo in a first version of this that said 0m...), he'd only have to convince around a sixth of the Labour voters who voted Leave.

        3. Mayhem

          Re: Why ?

          You mean Corbyn failed to adequately support one side or the other in a bitter Tory leadership squabble played out via the proxy of the fate of a country? Well now, that's a surprise from the leader of the opposition.

          The problem is regardless of the official position of the party, at least half of his own MPs were inadequate in mobilising support in their own constituencies for remain. And then decided to hide their own inadequacy by putting all the blame for their failure on the leader for not compromising his own principles and waving the EU flag hard enough.

          He managed to convince his own electorate to remain by a large margin. That's effectively what his job entailed. Yes, he could have been more supportive of the EU, or the Remain campaign, but it wasn't his job to prop up David Cameron who was the idiot that kicked this all off.

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Re: Why ?

            FFS, you can't have it both ways. Either:

            You mean Corbyn failed to adequately support one side or the other

            Or:

            He managed to convince his own electorate to remain by a large margin…

            But basically he was the invisible man in the campaign and failed to make the case for anything. As for the numbers being bandied around that Labour supporters were a majority to stay in the EU, that doesn't square up with the votes in most constituencies outside London with Labour MPs and certainly doesn't bode well for the next election.

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Why ?

            "Yes, he could have been more supportive of the EU, or the Remain campaign, but it wasn't his job to prop up David Cameron who was the idiot that kicked this all off."

            IMHO he SHOULD have campaigned harder and more publically for the remain campaign. It's not the job of the opposition to oppose the government purely on the principal that if it's "them" it must be wrong. If Corbyn agreed that the UK should truly have remained in the EU then that's what he should have been seen to be supporting. The leave/remain question was NOT a party political matter in that respect. Members of the big parties were on both side of that campaign.

            There's far too much party politicking going on and not enough working for the good of the country. Sure, both might have similar policies but different ideas on implementation and the details, but there's never any compromise. Whoever is in opposition simply opposes by default, anything the Govt. do.

        4. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Why ?

          @Phil W. Thanks for the attempted explanation, to which I generally subscribe. But what's still eluding is what is meant by "Brexit traitor"? I can't make syntactical sense of this. Is he a traitor to the anti-EU brigade? That's certainly what it sounds like. Or a traitor to the country because of his anti-EU sympathies? Or is he just another fucking hypocrite? And maybe that would be the better term: "Corbyn, the Brexit hypocrite and incompetent party leader".

          1. Phil W

            Re: Why ?

            "what is meant by "Brexit traitor"? "

            Not my words, I consider him more of a failure than a traitor.

            But you could say he is a traitor to the labour party by refusing to provide effective leadership for the party's position on a key issue because he disagrees with it and not stepping down so that someone else could do so.

            From an EU neutral point of view you could say he was a traitor to the people for not being more active in supporting the course of action he felt was best for the nation, regardless of which side that may be.

            Even if you were in favour of Leave, you shouldn't ignore his failure and betrayal of the party, the British people and his own values by refusing to actively support either side on such a key issue. It demonstrates a lack of courage (either to stick to your beliefs of swallow your pride and toe the party line) and a lack of leadership, which somehow the the swathes of Corbyn superfans seem to be ignoring.

    6. hplasm
      Windows

      Re: Why ?

      "I can download films 10 times faster than I can watch them."

      Yeah? I bet you have a 405 line b/w TV too... that would save d/l bandwidth alright...

    7. DavCrav

      Re: Why ?

      "I have the cheapest available DSL where I live, which gives me 1.7 MB/s.

      I can download films 10 times faster than I can watch them.

      Does the average person *really* need 2MB/s, let alone GB/s ?"

      Coming to the defence of the downvoted person, all people afterwards seem to miss that he wrote MB/s, not Mb/s. So he has around 15Mb/s, and that's easily enough for SD and even HD programming.

      I personally think about 30Mb/s, so around 4MB/s, is easily enough for almost everybody right now, and perhaps we should be looking at getting more people onto 30Mb/s rather than upgrading my broadband speed in Birmingham *again* (with concomitant price increases, naturally) to something like 100Mb/s (I just tested and get 76Mb/s on WiFi, never mind wired).

      Of course, one problem is that we will probably only get to do this once, so we should produce a network with room for improvement. The trouble is, this technology has changed a lot, and it's not like electricity, gas, water and telephone, where the original rollouts are more or less still fine. A 'broadband' rollout in 1996, so just 20 years ago, would have been on the 'gold standard' of ISDN, delivering a whopping 128kb/s download. We are now looking at speeds 300 times faster or more, so how rusty is this broadband network going to look in 2036?

      1. rh587

        Re: Why ?

        I personally think about 30Mb/s, so around 4MB/s, is easily enough for almost everybody right now, and perhaps we should be looking at getting more people onto 30Mb/s rather than upgrading my broadband speed in Birmingham *again* (with concomitant price increases, naturally) to something like 100Mb/s (I just tested and get 76Mb/s on WiFi, never mind wired).

        See, I don't entirely disagree. 30Mb/s is enough for most people right now.

        The problem is that it ignores the reality of the network.

        The places who struggle to get infinity now are people like my parents - who actually aren't really rural at all, but their phone line doesn't come from the nearest village - it comes from the wrong direction, meaning they're a couple of miles from the cabinet - never mind the exchange!

        In principle it's very reasonable to suggest that we should get basic 30Mb Infinity rolled out to everyone before we worry about punting 300Mb/s G.Fast to the cities, but the problem is that even if you upgraded their cabinet to infinity, the "final mile"(s) would be the choke point - they're not going to sync more than 1.5Mb/s on a good day over the dodgy copper, regardless of how much fibrey goodness you stuff into the cabinet, and BT simply aren't interested in FTTH. Hell - they're still installing copper phone lines into new-build estates. I get that upgrading and overbuilding their existing network is expensive, but if you're fitting a brand new line into a new-build house, why the fuck would you install copper instead of FTTH as default? It's utter madness.

        The only real solution is to bite the bullet and start rolling FTTH, and if you're doing that, you might as well run it as gigabit - there's no technical reason you wouldn't. Of course business considerations demand that you choke it down to 10Mb/s and charge through the nose for the "upgrade" to 70Mb/s on a line which could trivially link at gigabit, but that's by the by. The only sane upgrade that leaves you overhead for tomorrow's demands is fibre - and you're going to run fibre at gigabit as a baseline.

        So my main concern is not the actual bit-rate you're getting and the growing gulg between town and country - towns will always get faster speeds just due to density, but the fact that the technology BT is chasing (squeezing every last bit out of copper) simply does not apply to much of the rural community, and is ultimately running into diminishing returns, whereas fibre can simply run at gigabit today (it could even run at 10G if you wanted to pay for it) and doesn't need touching for another couple of decades, by which time smart WDM optics will be capable of shovelling ever increasing quantities of data down each strand.

        Yeah, gigabit is waaay more than you need, but the cost differential between 100Mb/s and gigabit optics is negligible and the extra upload speed actually is useful for things like overnight backups and file transfers (about the only time you'll ever actually flat-line a network connection, even if you'd struggle to hit 100Mb/s with multiple HD streams and a few OS/App updates downloading).

        1. DavCrav

          Re: Why ?

          "The only real solution is to bite the bullet and start rolling FTTH, and if you're doing that, you might as well run it as gigabit - there's no technical reason you wouldn't. Of course business considerations demand that you choke it down to 10Mb/s and charge through the nose for the "upgrade" to 70Mb/s on a line which could trivially link at gigabit, but that's by the by. The only sane upgrade that leaves you overhead for tomorrow's demands is fibre - and you're going to run fibre at gigabit as a baseline."

          As you said, the idea that anyone would install copper on newbuild now, especially at $4500/tonne, is crazy. Retrofitting FTTH will be expensive, none of this £25bn that's tossed around. But the point is 30Mb, 100Mb, 1Gb, it'll all look pretty shit in twenty years time. 1Gb is only about 30 times faster than 'standard' 30Mb, so by my earlier rough guesstimate, just using current growth we'd be looking at needing to upgrade that again in ten-fifteen years time.

          One thing I can see that's going to need the next round of upgrades is deep learning. If we start using deep learning on lots of things, for example robots in houses and so on, they might well be transmitting and receiving large amounts of data: if a standard robot has ten cameras, each filming at UltraHD rates to send somewhere for analysis, that'll need a reasonable bandwidth.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Why ?

            "As you said, the idea that anyone would install copper on newbuild now, especially at $4500/tonne, is crazy. Retrofitting FTTH will be expensive, none of this £25bn that's tossed around. But the point is 30Mb, 100Mb, 1Gb, it'll all look pretty shit in twenty years time. 1Gb is only about 30 times faster than 'standard' 30Mb, so by my earlier rough guesstimate, just using current growth we'd be looking at needing to upgrade that again in ten-fifteen years time."

            Two things:

            One, fiber is not at its theoretical limits. More data can be stuffed down a single fiber.

            Two, digging is the expensive part. Once you've got the trench open, given how small a fiber is, why not over-provision it? How much more will it cost to bury say 100 times the fibers you intend to lay down originally?

            1. Dr Dan Holdsworth
              FAIL

              Re: Why ?

              One thing that really is needed where fibre roll-outs are in progress is very widespread coverage of what a fibre cable looks like, and that it has not got any valuable metal in it. The advertising campaign will need to be in several Eastern European languages, since it is intended to inform potential metal thieves that they're wasting their time stealing the stuff.

        2. Andrew Jones 2

          Re: Why ?

          @rh587

          "I get that upgrading and overbuilding their existing network is expensive, but if you're fitting a brand new line into a new-build house, why the fuck would you install copper instead of FTTH as default? It's utter madness."

          I don't often jump to the defence of BT - but I am going to have to here, it's actually up to the housing developer to come to an agreement with BT. If the housing developer does nothing - BT will install copper lines from the nearest cabinet which may or may not have been enabled for FTTC - so that new build might actually be stuck with ADSL. If the housing developer says they want the housing estate to have FTTC then BT will do their best and the housing developer MAY be required to contribute towards the cost of getting the cabinet upgraded - but in a lot of cases if it's a relatively simple job - the housing developer pays nothing, and BT install copper lines connected to an FTTC cabinet. If the housing developer is really forward thinking (or if there is a significant amount of properties - approx 100+) BT can install FTTH with the developer stumping up some of the cost and +250 BT tend to do it free of charge. See: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7345-improved-deal-should-mean-superfast-broadband-for-new-build-premises.html

      2. Charles 9

        Re: Why ?

        I'd believe you if not for THIS line:

        "Does the average person *really* need 2MB/s, let alone GB/s ?

        Emphasis mine.

        NO consumer Internet service that I know of in the Western Hemisphere offers 1 gigaBYTE/second (= 8Gb/sec) service. ONE Gigabit, maybe, in select markets (they're trying to expand into mine, for example, using DOCSIS 3.1), but 8?

        So the GB/sec nomenclature is likely being used by mistake. If so here, then likely up there, too. And 1.7Mb/sec is pretty low end, only useful if the source material is very compressed (and only practical for an SD stream, trying to do it with HD creates too many artifacts).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why ?

          Re. "I'd believe you if not for THIS line:"

          I did mean GB/s, believe it or not, but I did not realise that these sooper dooper new installations ( or Google's Fibre, the one I'd heard about before ), didn't actually go up to those speeds.

          But I could have checked, or wondered how they could be faster than Ethernet.

          If that's what made anyone think I meant Mb/s, I apologise - you are probably of normal mental development.

          1. Martin an gof Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Why ?

            I did mean GB/s, believe it or not, but I did not realise that these sooper dooper new installations [...] didn't actually go up to those speeds.

            As one of those who apparently erroneously assumed that you meant "bits" not "bytes", I'd like to add to the point about 1GByte/s not being available anywhere. Crumbs, there aren't even very many LANs that manage 1GByte/s to the desktop, which (effectively) requires a 10Gbit/s connection. No commodity motherboard (IFAICT) has 10Gbit/s net onboard, and a 10GBit add-in card - which will only achieve its full potential if it can use two or more PCIe v2 lanes (i.e. not a x1 slot) will probably cost more than any other single component other than the processor in a commodity computer.

            Those sorts of speeds are often confined to the racks, and there are plenty of offices "out there" which still have 100Mbit/s to the desktop with uplinks from edge switches running at 1Gbit/s.

            Add that even in this august publication, "MB" and "Mb" are often confused by commentards (and why not "MiB"?) to the fact you were discussing WAN speeds to the home, and failed to use a "Joke" or "Coat" or "Troll" icon, and you can see why many of us assumed you meant bits, not bytes.

            And to return to the point I made, in most cases such speeds simply aren't necessary. I stand by my opinion that an internet connection of 10Mbit/s is perfectly adequate now, and will be acceptable to many people for a few years yet (even if ISDN's 2x64kbit/s isn't), but until everyone has at least 10Mbit/s reliably, public funding should not be used to ratchet up speeds for people who already receive five or ten times that.

            M.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Why ?

              "And to return to the point I made, in most cases such speeds simply aren't necessary."

              Which was the point I was making in the first place !

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why ?

          Ha ha !

          I took a couple of months, but now *I'm right* !

          https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/10/27/2057251/a-radiologist-has-the-fastest-home-internet-in-the-us

          :-)

      3. Charles 9

        Re: Why ?

        "The trouble is, this technology has changed a lot, and it's not like electricity, gas, water and telephone, where the original rollouts are more or less still fine. A 'broadband' rollout in 1996, so just 20 years ago, would have been on the 'gold standard' of ISDN, delivering a whopping 128kb/s download. We are now looking at speeds 300 times faster or more, so how rusty is this broadband network going to look in 2036?"

        Given how tiny a fiber optic line is and how much we've been able to extract from just one line, how difficult would it be to over-provision a fiber-optic by a factor of 100 or more? With current technology, most domestic links only need one, maybe two of the fibers, not counting further technological improvements.

    8. MrZoolook
      FAIL

      Re: Why ?

      Well, bully for you and your wonderful rose tinted view of internest service provision.

      As for me, I pay the same as other people on the same "up to" speed plan with the same provider, but get about a quarter of the speed even though I live in the same post code.

      I'd get a better price if I paid by the MB.

  9. Chewi
    Black Helicopters

    I honestly read that as…

    "…portable identity for of their on-line activities."

  10. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said the party will not win elections using strategies from the past,

    Strange because everything I hear from him reminds me of the 1980s Militant Tendency.

    I really don't mind state-sponsored or organised investment in infrastructure. But without the right kind of oversight it tends to resemble an Oxo-powered train. I'm getting my bowl and soup spoon…

  11. Spacedman
    Go

    A money-saving expert writes...

    What happened to the study that reckoned the cost of laying fibre everywhere could be paid for by selling the copper that was taken up?

    1. Andytug

      Re: A money-saving expert writes...

      Well where I live the wires are aluminium, so probably not much to be made there........

    2. DavCrav

      Re: A money-saving expert writes...

      "What happened to the study that reckoned the cost of laying fibre everywhere could be paid for by selling the copper that was taken up?"

      It went the same place as the price of copper: down the drain. Today copper is $4500/tonne, in 2013 it was $7000/tonne.

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: A money-saving expert writes...

        Presumably the price tanked because a) no-one wants to buy the stuff for telecomms cables now and b) the more advanced countries have already flooded the scrap copper market with their old telecomms cables.

  12. adam payne

    "The maximum cost for nationwide FTTP [fibre-to-the-home] coverage is £25bn, spread over a number of years, which fits easily inside the £500bn investment commitment already announced. £13bn would provide 80 per cent coverage (Analysis Mason, “The costs of deploying next-generation fibre-optic infrastructure”, 2008). This investment could be funded at minimal cost to the taxpayer and with the most rapid deployment possible, using the National Investment Bank and relying on all-time low government borrowing costs."

    A roll out spread over how many years? 10 or 15 years when better technology has come along.

    80% has got to be better than it is now. How you can have towns and cities that are only half enabled for fibre is beyond me.

    Minimal cost to the taxpayer I do not believe that for a second. Costs always go up when any government is involved.

  13. Pen-y-gors

    Roll-out weasels

    Fibre is being slowly rolled out. But there are a lot of ifs and buts.

    Our exchange (in leafy, rural mid-Wales) was originally due to go to fibre in Oct 2013.

    The exchange was finally enabled in Oct 2015. Yay, result! Whoops, no not quite. The EXCHANGE was enabled and the cabinet outside it that served that village, but not the other cabinets on the exchange. A mile down the road and we're still waiting 10 months on. There's been a lot of activity by Openreach vans but no actual connection. Their boss now says live mid-Nov (admittedly with FTTP, which will be nice).

    One unexpected bonus though was that my bog-standard broadband connection suddenly went from 7.5Mb/440kb to 17.5Mb/1.2Mb overnight. That helps.

    So 'exchange goes live on xxx' isn't always something to cheer about if you don't live next door to it.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Roll-out weasels

      So 'exchange goes live on xxx' isn't always something to cheer about if you don't live next door to it.

      You are a rogue heating engineer and I claim my £5!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Roll-out weasels

      > So 'exchange goes live on xxx' isn't always something to cheer about if you don't live next door to it.

      Actually you won't get FTTC if you live right next to the exchange: that is, if your copper pair goes directly into the exchange rather than via a green street cabinet.

      Unless things have changed recently, they don't put VDSL equipment inside the exchange. Something to do with interference, I think.

  14. kryptylomese

    You have a choice where you live

    I am not interested in paying in the form of tax for people who live in a area with poor broadband speeds - I suspect that they would not want to put their hands in their pockets to bring the mountains into the cities to improve the view....

    1. Derezed

      Re: You have a choice where you live

      Yeah, whether you're interested or not, a tax is a tax...so you'll pay...unless you're Apple, in which case we can come to some kind of arrangement.

    2. M7S

      Re: You have a choice where you live

      True, but unless you want to say to all the farmers and other country folk "tough, produce our food but don't ever expect Netflix or to be able to file your accounts and other paperwork online (increasingly a requirement of HMG)" then what do you expect people to do? If everyone moved to "the cities" as a logical follow up to this then there might be a few problems, not least the supply and cost of housing....

    3. rh587

      Re: You have a choice where you live

      I am not interested in paying in the form of tax for people who live in a area with poor broadband speeds

      Fair enough, you'd best address your complaints to DEFRA - who are the ones increasingly making their extensive collection of paperwork only available online and insisting that various annual returns be done online.

      So, either they need to go back to paper-only, or they can fund the roll-out of infrastructure... from your taxes!

    4. Pen-y-gors

      Re: You have a choice where you live

      "bring the mountains into the cities to improve the view."

      Excellent idea. Let's drop the Cairngorms on London and the Alps on Birmingham. Would improve things immeasurably.

      1. Kevin Johnston

        Re: You have a choice where you live

        Do like the idea of dropping big things on London to improve it, either that or paint it pink and turn on the SEP field.

    5. Pen-y-gors

      Re: You have a choice where you live

      There's lots of things I'm not interested in paying taxes for - WMDs, HS2s, schools for children that aren't mine, CAP payments to farmers growing celery, the list is a long one...but the theory behind taxes is that they provide a level playing field in a society and spread the cost of essential services equally amongst everyone. A very socialist ideal in fact.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: You have a choice where you live

        " is that they provide a level playing field in a society and spread the cost of essential services equally amongst everyone. A very socialist ideal in fact."

        Two things:

        One, the problems with tax redistributions are that (1) people are in charge of it, mainly because (2) needs change, precluding a programmatic solution. Tax money is power, and you know what they say about power...

        Two, the word "socialist" is a bug-a-boo to many people. Older people remember the Soviet Union, note that China isn't as socialist as they make themselves out to be, and that most of the mostly-socialist countries still standing in Europe have strings attached (Germany's dependence on exports, Scandinavia's suicide rates, difficulties with increasingly elderly populations, the immigrant dilemma, etc.)

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You have a choice where you live

      You forget it can work both ways. (written in a trolling style as your comment is)

      'Get your hands off Welsh Water for your Cities then.

      Stop excess power generation on mountains/hills for generating Hydro/Wind power for your needs in the City, generate for local Welsh needs only'

      You forget rurally, we have the natural resouces Wind/Water that you need in your rat/crime infested Cities. If you want Welsh water pay the proper price back to the local communities, so we can pay for/have the exactly same technology levels as you, otherwise get your water/power from elsewhere.

      Don't treat rural folk as second class citizens, actually we need ultrafast broadband just (if not more) than you. o2 and Vodafone are still both 2G data where I'm writing this from, at the moment, FFS.

      I'm saying that as someone that is English, born in a city but can see the Welsh side of things, totally, Cities take the resources, give nothing back to an area. With City types like you expecting rural folk to make do with a crappy unreliable 1Mbps, even a USO 10Mbps is Oliver Twist 'minimal helpings' for rural communities.

      And don't moan, expecting to pick up a piece of prime Welsh Beef that doesn't taste fresh, or there is an empty shelf, because a Welsh farmer could co-ordinate his 'Direct-just in time' contracts with Supermarkets, due to crap BT broadband.

      To paraphrase you:

      'I am not interested in paying in the form of tax for people who live in an area with no natural water supplies - I suspect that they would not want to put their hands in their pockets to pay the proper price of bringing the Welsh mountain water (Elan Valley, as an example - aquaduct 100 mile - 42" water main) into the cities to improve their health'

  15. Tim Jenkins

    "It is not fair the people living in London can enjoy 4G... where in many parts of Wales people can't even get a single bar"

    It's also not fair that people living in, I don't know, say Finsbury Park, can enjoy the Royal Opera House, Regents Park Zoo, the Natural History Museum and the Tube, when here in Wales, I can't.

    I look forward to a brave new Socialist future where, under the enlighted rule of Comrade Jezza, we all get to host them in turn, just like the nice young SWP chaps in the pub say is our democratic right...

    1. Pen-y-gors

      One slight problem - in the Royal Opera House they sing OPERA! And have you seen their ticket prices?

  16. TRT Silver badge

    What is this rubbish about Wales?

    I was there last week. Camping in a field on the side of a valley in the middle of Brecon, and I got 200 baas.

    1. Pen-y-gors

      Re: What is this rubbish about Wales?

      Ouch!

      +1 anyway.

    2. Pedigree-Pete

      Re: What is this rubbish about Wales?

      Genuine LOL. Have an upvote. PP

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What is this rubbish about Wales?

      Is that better or worse than Chelsea? (London), where I get 200 yaars.

  17. Velv
    Coat

    "It is not fair the people living in London can enjoy 4G... where in many parts of Wales people can't even get a single bar."

    Reciprocal arrangement? The people of London struggle to get a single Baa

    1. Pen-y-gors

      Baa? Bah!

      "The people of London struggle to get a single Baa"

      Should encourage their Freeman to exercise their ancient rights to herd sheep across London Bridge then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Baa? Bah!

        A myth, that one ... well, according to QI there is no right to herd sheep over London Bridge.

        Be fun if you could do it to tour buses though ...get them all out of the way at once...

  18. Ru'

    Can they extend the wales argument to other things? Boo hoo they have slow internets, but they have traffic free roads, rolling hills and greenery etc. etc. Things which londoners probably do not have. Everyone cannot have everything.

  19. Adrian Midgley 1

    Which other matters does your headline writer

    want there to be no policy on, or a policy simply opposite that of someone else's?

  20. Adrian Midgley 1

    ID cards - useless and expensive...

    I was struck by the last effort to have us buy ID cards and be obliged to use them by one thing overall - that the government which proposed to require them would not accept them as ID or require that anyone else did.

    (It was also notable that the thing didn't offer any prospect of doing anything else for the carrier - not an NHS card, not a driving licence, not an entry card to a workplace for a civil servant...)

    I actually suggested a law was required first - that when an organisation requested ID, that if the subject presented a UK ID (card which had not been repudiated and looked like them) an offence would be committed by asking for any other form of or additional ID.

    That would have granted convenience and usefulness to the holder.

    No chance.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: ID cards - useless and expensive...

      The problem they discovered was that, to quote E. E. Smith, "what man can create, man can duplicate," and there's no way to completely stop insiders. Meaning there's always the risk of a fake ID authentic-looking enough for most people to pass. And once ONE is out there, more will follow, diluting the ID's value as a proof of identity.

  21. Tromos
    Joke

    With policies like that...

    ...I foresee the ballot boxes being 'ram-packed' with votes for him.

  22. ChubbyBehemoth

    Just nationalise BT again,.. see it's easy ;-)

    If I'm not mistaken that is how this whole thing fits into JC's world view. Utilities, communication, public transport should be state owned monopolies that can be guided into spreading cost across all for the benefit of the weaker in our society. Without the pressure of the market and pesky EU bureaucrats to thwart your socialist ideals you really have the chance to turn the UK into the socialist paradise it should be. Add a bit of economic turmoil wrought by the Tories and the ensuing Tory infighting an animosity and you have the recipe for electoral success when the Brexit voters find out that instead of minute Britain, they are to get more free trade deals, holidays to Blackpool instead of Terrormolinos, have had to revert to porridge oats for similar reasons and not in the mood to reward either UKIP or the Tories for their role in the whole event rather than seeking the fault by them selves. Screw the British Empire, let's try the workers revolution as a somewhat more modern form of showing discontent.

    Well,.. he can dream can't he...

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Just nationalise BT again,.. see it's easy ;-)

      "If I'm not mistaken that is how this whole thing fits into JC's world view. Utilities, communication, public transport should be state owned monopolies that can be guided into spreading cost across all for the benefit of the weaker in our society. "

      Problem is, being controlled by the state, there's no way to force a state-operated enterprise to operate more efficiently. Plus it's no less prone than private enterprise to corruption, though usually in different ways.

  23. Dieter Haussmann

    ICANN is already handing it over to the globalist UN.

  24. The Vociferous Time Waster

    Won't cost much

    Remember we also have that extra £350m that we haven't started spending on the NHS yet , we could use that.

  25. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

    High Speed Internet...

    ...is no good if the bandwidth is all reserved...

    Oh, it's you again Virgin. We meet again...

    Guess I'll go sit in the aisle after that comment.

  26. unwarranted triumphalism

    I like how in the same sentence he conflates data carrier type with signal strength.

    Truly he shows a real grasp of the technical issues.

  27. Adrian Midgley 1

    Do you feel the job of HM Loyal Opposition is to

    oppose, and therefore he and the party he leads should be against high speed broadband for all?

    It is a socialist idea, as is a flat rate postal service and the provision of water.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like