Re: Radio 4 this morning
What no one ever seems to mention is that BT's idea of fibre, even when it is run all the way, is generally some form of GPON (cheaper to install), so still a very asymmetric service that doesn't fit with the general trend (good or bad!) towards cloud-based services. Anyone tried backing up 1TB to a cloud store?
Are we to assume that the "1TB upload" requirement is business based, not a residential requirement? I suspect that it is a need that very few broadband users have, and those that do will almost all be businesses; I doubt if I have uploaded that amount in the 10 + years that we have had broadband, and Mrs Commswonk certainly hasn't. Are we supposed to fight (and more particularly pay for) a much faster service than we need (or can probably afford) so that business can have it.
I would argue that there is a clue in the figures in the article, which show about a 30% uptake of "Superfast Broadband" in those areas where it is available. That 30% suggests (to me anyway) that the demand for faster and faster speeds is not as great as some would want us to believe. How can you possibly defend the idea of a lot more capital expenditure to provide (for example) FTTP when the public demand for it simply doesn't seem to exist? I won't try to argue that nobody genuinely needs the speeds that FTTP can support but those who do have no business trying to convince the rest of us that we do as well just so that what really does appear to be a minority requirement is met.
I suspect that the 30% figure is the same one that shot past in this morning's interview on R4 between Karen Bradley and John Humphrys. He was being his usual combative self, but it was a bit pointless because an interview on the subject needs both parties to have some proper knowledge of the subject, and neither of them could exhibit that knowledge. (I have tried to find the interview on iPlayer but it doesn't seem to be there, but then I find the way iPlayer is structured "unhelpful" anyway.)
While I have no argument with planning to roll out the existing service to a greater number of people I can see no serious case for heavy investment in a faster service that an even smaller percentage are likely to want to pay for. And for all BT's perceived shortcomings I don't think it can be blamed for people deciding that a slower service than is currently available is sufficient for their needs.
Look at it another way; a manufacturer that finds that his sales are only 30% of what he is capable of producing (or even is producing) is unlikely to stay in business very long, and his shareholders are likely to be somewhat displeased. In BT's case those shareholders are likely to be institutional investors responsible for pension investments.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
