51–60 of 72 posts
What's needed is some light regulation to push the market towards being fully competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*cheapest fiber for free
I was using the words of the comment I responded to. If the fibre was of inferior quality, that would be the space for other companies to compete in.
Since there are multiple competing fibre companies, won't nationalising one company and offering "the fastest fibre free to all" bankrupt all of the other companies?
And it would lead to everybody having the fastest fibre for free. What is wrong with bankrupting companies that aren't needed anymore?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"astronomical cost of this on the tax-payer" is absurd. Who's having costs go up significantly as a result of free internet service being provided? You already have to pay for internet from a private provider, if you replace that with government-operated internet your internet is funded by taxes - but the government can tax corporations instead of individuals to avoid raising direct costs for any individual taxpayer,…
Everyone's costs are going to go up significantly as a result of replacing broadband that mostly uses existing infrastructure with a program of ripping up every street in the country and installing new fibre optic connections to every house. Making it "free" and taxpayer-funded just means that there's no way to opt out of paying if the existing broadband is fast enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a guess, I would hazard the thousands of people who would become unemployed? And not all be able to immediately go and work for the 'British Broadband Corporation'? That's one negative side effect.
By that logic, we should ban the internet altogether, and thus create more jobs for postal workers.
The history of Internet provision "for all" in the UK is atrocious. Massive government handouts followed by private companies that had lobbied for them failing to meet their promises is a summary. I can't see a nationalisation resolving the issues though, especially not with the paltry numbers being bandied around. I could see better regulation and forced separation of concerns achieving a lot however. That said, Int…
> Massive government handouts followed by private companies that had lobbied for them failing to meet their promises is a summary. That's basically it. OpenReach is the Network Rail of ADSL. Often Openreach would take millions of subsidy for rural broadband buildouts and then do .. nothing. While I think nationalisation may be a step too far, I think it's useful to move the conversation away from endless privatised f…
That is basically NOT it and issuing random threats to incumbent telcos, whilst contemporaneously empowering them is definitely not the solution. The shameless politicking does not address how to fund the empty promises. The article in essence is debating whether or not, Labour (2030) vs Cons (2025) pledge of "full-fibre Broadband" is a plausible one ie. the former is offering free access to the walking dead, and the latter shamelessly targeting it's base minority of curtain twitching shires, and neither of these parties know how to solve the wider and complex implications of engaging with businesses or how to implement any technical plans.
Meanwhile the idea of nationalising Openreach (BT) under public ownership is a much more complicated issue (i.e. its impact upon pensions, the question of who takes on BT’s massive debt pile (the public?), shareholders, competition etc.) and one that is likely to result in plenty of legal challenges (this could hamper the fibre rollout until settled). Not to mention a lengthy debate over whether that by itself would result in a better market.
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/11/2020-labour-pa...
EU has just approved Irelands National Broadband Plan, which has been characterized by delays and beaurucracy since it's inception. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/broadband-tim... It hopes to connect .5 million rural homes (private ISPs won't touch them generally) for about €3 Billion Euro over the next few years. It's insightful to compare the two approaches.
They’re trying to connect every home in rural Ireland at great cost even through research found that only a fraction will take it up.
"free" okay but where does the money come from?
>BT would be part nationalised under £20bn scheme funded by new tax on tech companies I would suggest reading the article, even the subheadline right where your eyes first focus had you even opened the link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Massive government handouts followed by private companies that had lobbied for them failing to meet their promises is a summary. That's basically it. OpenReach is the Network Rail of ADSL. Often Openreach would take millions of subsidy for rural broadband buildouts and then do .. nothing. While I think nationalisation may be a step too far, I think it's useful to move the conversation away from endless privatised f…
>That's basically it. >If nothing else has worked, let's try threatening Openreach until service improves. That is basically NOT it and issuing random threats to incumbent telcos, whilst contemporaneously empowering them is definitely not the solution. The shameless politicking does not address how to fund the empty promises. The article in essence is debating whether or not, Labour (2030) vs Cons (2025) pledge of "f…