Dont give the contract to...
...Openreach. They have had enough money delivering half hearted efforts the past 20 years.
The UK government has promised to roll out new legislation to achieve nationwide "gigabit-capable broadband" among 26 bills set out in Parliament's State Opening today. In her opening, the Queen said the government's priority "has always been to secure the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union on 31 October". As …
They were here today: my FTTC was due. But it seems I still have to wait for any such luxury, while they fix something between here and the cabinet.
Of course if they don't give it to Openreach, maybe they'll have a tendering process ... like the trains. I wonder if Grayling is available to demonstrate how serious they are?
Of course if they don't give it to Openreach, maybe they'll have a tendering process ... like the trains.
Probably. But tendering will just result in fragmented networks and customers possibly locked into a single vendor. At least with Openreach there's the various wholesale & LLU-style options so customers can switch provider.
New build changes obviously won't help the 25m or so existing homes, and the devil will be in the detail, ie the building regs.. Which could be interesting, ie what they'll require, so duct(s), risers, space & power for kit in common areas and then there'll still probably be headaches around accessing those. Plus it'll still need some friendly telco to connnect to that infrastructure and terminate services for their customers. Then interesting times to sort out access for maintenance, and SLA implications.
After a no deal BREXIT, they'll be cutting the cables to the UK anyway.
Vast majority of the bandwidth between the US and Europe passes through the UK so I wish them every luck with that. Bit late to start laying pipe now.. All that finance traffic down the toilet, oh dear..
I think you will find that traffic will increase if only to bypass EU regulations.
This and numerous other reasons such as a predicted 50% loss of car German car sales to its largest and most profitable market with a consequential loss of 100,000 jobs alone whilst the German economy is already technically in recession is why the EU is now crapping itself at the real possibility of a no deal Brexit and the "take it or leave it Brexit deal" is suddenly negotiable again.
In France, the telcos are deploying 10Gbps EPON "together" in partnerships, you can then choose your preferred telco.
The tried the each owns his own with the 3G LTE and noticed that ended up with severe overcapacity in cities and hardly any presence on the countryside ... lessons have been learned.
Orange & Free hooked up our area, then my telco called me, a techy came to hook me up and I was sent the EPON module ...
For fun I have grabbed my 56k modem from the attic and placed it under the TV, my router is hidden behind the TV. My project ? Put a pi in it as a NAS ... and try to fool people that I still have prehistric internet speeds capable of playing 4K Netflix ... ;-)
Wasn't it the Conservatives that introduced and repeatedly raised the minimum wage?
No, it wasn't. The minimum wage was introduced in 1998, with the Tories voting against it and screaming that it would be the death of business. When virtually no effect was seen on business or inflation (except for more people having more money to spend, which is usually good for business rather than most of it staying in the hands of the few, who tend to squirrel it away offshore or buy another luxury yacht), the Tories confined themselves to voting against minimum wage increases. Consequently it fell behind what was considered to be a living wage and was topped up by working tax credits. When the Tories finally got into power they realised they had to raise the minimum wage to be able to cut the social security bill, so they made a song and dance about wanting to pay the living wage and finally stopped complaining about the minimum wage being increased. Miraculously, though, the minimum wage has stayed about a pound an hour behind the living wage for the last nine years.
You need to read today's "Who, Me?" for the explanation of 96%.
"the government's priority "has always been to secure the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union on 31 October"."
ALWAYS???
The aim of the government elected at the last elections, actually, was to exit on 29th March.
Then when that didn't happen, it was for either 12th April or 1st June
When THAT didn't happen, they asked for an extension until 30th June. Since the EU could see what a clusterfuck this was from many miles away, this was then granted to 31st October, because it was clear to everyone outside of Westminster that a solution by the end of June was impossible and even 31st October was a 'Hail Mary'.
If "the government" in that phrase refers to the month-old BoJo 'government', using 'always' is a bit of a stretch anyway.
Whatever BoJo says, there is no legal basis for a 'No Deal' exit (it has, in fact, been specifically rejected by parliament). Anything more to the Brexiteers' side of May's exit plan will never cut it with the EU, and anything more to the Remainers' side of May's exit plan would never pass parliament either. However much one tries to wrangle this one way or another, there is no way this is going to be resolved without, at the very least, another general election. Depending on electoral pledges of the eventual winning parties, another referendum might or might not be required.
The British public is still very largely split about Brexit, not to mention that the most strongly 'Remain' party is the weakest of the 'big 3' and Labour seems both ambiguous about Brexit and just slightly less of a shambles as the Tories. So even in the event of a GE it's highly probably that there still won't be much clarity in the election results to have a clear mandate either way.
Whatever the political situation it seems that legally speaking, Britain might be stuck in a legal limbo for quite a few months, or even years.
> Whatever BoJo says, there is no legal basis for a 'No Deal' exit
And, as has been explained time and time again, no-one wants a no-deal Brexit, and certainly not BoJo.
Use some logic, why would anyone want it? The whole idea behind Brexit is to be able to make new deals with trading partners, which includes the EU.
No-deal was never a long-term plan, even if we leave with no deal the first thing that has to be done is negotiate a deal. The question for the EU is whether they prefer to negotiate before we leave, or after. Before is better for everyone, after was the fallback in case the EU refused to agree a reasonable deal (as they have done so far). At least BoJo's antics have, as intended, given Barnier & co a kick up their collective ass and concentrated their minds on finding an acceptable deal before 31/10, which there seems to be some slim hope of happening.
even if we leave with no deal the first thing that has to be done is negotiate a deal
Fundamentalist brexiteer zealots believe we should have deals with everyone and anyone - America in particular - but a deal with the EU is entirely unnecessary.
"The EU is going to implode/explode/collapse/disintegrate in a few years anyway", though they were saying that over three years ago; masters of wishful thinking and delusion that they are. Besides; "they need us more than we need them".
So; fill the channel tunnel with concrete, erect fortifications around the south and east coasts, and we can have a glorious new future without the EU. As Churchill said, "oh yes, oh yes, oh yes". Huzzah!
This post has been deleted by its author
but a deal with the EU is entirely unnecessary.
Only a blinkered remainer could actually think anyone would believe that. The EU is a major tradng partner, and even we fundamentalist Brexiteers know that a deal with the EU is essential. The important thing is that it be a deal that works for both sides, not just for the EU.
I see at least a hundred Brexiteers saying exactly that every single day.
Tens of them on this very site. It's strange that you don't seem to have seen them.
The EU is doing what they must, what they are legally and morally required to do: Protect the members of the EU from all and sundry. The UK is the one leaving, the UK is the one who inflicted all this upon themselves and the world.
The EU are not going to throw Ireland under a bus. They're the member state, not the UK
>no-one wants a no-deal Brexit, and certainly not BoJo.
Are you sure?
If he wants to continue as a long term prime minister - no
If he wants to become a very well paid Fox News "journalist" with a future career bemoaning how everything has gone wrong because they didn't follow his plan.
Being fired from the Mirror hasn't exactly been bad for Pier Morgan's bank account
Exactly.
If (more likely when) Brexit is cancelled the FTSE will go through the roof. If all those with money have been buying low (the past 18 months) then they are set to make a killing.
They can then display faux outrage and put out a book but still walk away a few hundred million richer.
Mission accomplished.
"...in case the EU refused to agree a reasonable deal..."
reasonable to whom?
The UK's position so far has been that it has to have full control of it's borders (hard border everywhere), but that it does not want a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and it also does not want a hard border across the Irish Sea since that would mean different treatment of NI than the rest of UK.
All of this is based on some fantasy that it is even possible, let alone achievable, to have a "virtual" hard Irish border that will physically continue to operate in the current borderless state. As technologists, we on this site should know that whatever bullshit is spouted by Westminster and Brussels, there is exactly zero chance of this ever being successfully implemented in any of our lifetimes.
So who's being unreasonable?
The UK would be quite happy with a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland but the exiating agreements with the Feniens makes that politically tricky.
Much better to leave the EU with no deal and have Southern Ireland be forced to implement a hard border by the EU and have it be someone else's problem.
"there is no legal basis for a 'No Deal' exit'
You clearly don't understand the situation. The UK already invoked article 50. The default position is that we leave with no deal on Oct 31st. No further legislation is required for that to happen.
And as any EU extension requires unanimous EU agreement from the other 27 states, that's not likely to stop it.
Fuck off. The shitty bit of copper between my place and the cabinet is "gigabit-capable" - if you add the right gear at both ends.
So is a wet piece of string, in the right circumstances (although tbf only proven to 3.5Mbps so far IIRC).
So theoretically it's "job done" for my place already.
These meaningless statements from politicians really piss me off. Tell us what you're actually committing to deliver, rather than soundbites.
</rant>
> people can "reap the huge benefits of the fastest, most secure and most resilient internet connections"
Fast maybe. Secure, no, if the government is banning encryption. Is fibre inherently more resilient? The strand of copper (or aluminium) from my house to the pole is 40 years old and has gone from supporting 33kbps to over a thousand times that, the problems always seem to be the backbone or the exchange...
Amending the Building Act 1984 so that Building Regulations require all new build developments to have the infrastructure to support gigabit-capable connections.
Meanwhile they drag their feet on amending the regulations to require sustainable building materials & methods, proper insulation and provision for thermal & photovoltaic roof panels and sub-surface heat exchangers that would make the new owners' domestic fuel bills and carbon footprint virtually non-existent.
Not to mention all the new office blocks going up still awash with bog standard glass everywhere and collosal air-con & heating energy costs as a result.
Why the fusk do I need gigabit per sec Internet in a domestic property anyway? A fifty meg connection can support at least six hi-def video streams with ease when all the family members are hiding from one another in their respective fortresses of solitude.
As I understand it, BT had a plan in the 1980s to roll out fiber-to-home-to-exchange nationwide. Unfortunately, the Tories (namely, Thatcher), decided that Privitization would help everyone get a better deal, so they privitized the contract (as opposed to the previous state of affairs, where BT owned the entirety of the network). We now have a situation where people who have the money and ability to subscribe to Virgin, have fiber to home (and in Virgin-territories (ha!), to exchange, as well), meanwhile everyone else gets p*$s all. Another glorious example of capitalism, from our General Secretary, Money.
Privatise the end-consumer bit.
Nationalise the core-infrastructure bit that they have to use but aren't willing to pay for.
National Grid vs energy companies.
4G licenced infrastructure vs telecoms companies
and so on...
It's really easy, but politicians of all colours only ever act in personal interest. You nationalise the part that nobody wants to do, nobody wants to pay for, but which has to be done, then you force them to use it, and blanket-set the prices for everyone so that they are funding the rural installs as well as the profitable cities.
But then you don't have people paying billions for useless 4G licences that they never use to the full effect, can never pay back in any reasonable time, and which are multiple tiny competing slivers of spectrum rather than one big national allocation.
Yes, and the only reason why we need legislation to get fast broadband is because a previous Tory government prevented BT from rolling out nation wide in the name of competition.
Well, said competition cherry picked the most profitable areas, then they all merged into one company and used their cable monopoly to do just enough to be competitive against BT, but didnt have to try that hard because they had got laws written restricting the services that BT were allowed to deliver.
Well, said competition cherry picked the most profitable areas, then they all merged into one company and used their cable monopoly to do just enough to be competitive against BT, but didnt have to try that hard because they had got laws written restricting the services that BT were allowed to deliver.
Yup, it's been one of those chicken & egg scenarios. BT previously restricted from offering TV/'cable' services to support the cable franchises.. Now known (mostly) as Virgin. For many people, the main benefit of 'gigabit' broadband is to access TV services that aren't carried on Virgin.
Previously cable companies got funding from both subscriptions and charging content providers carriage fees for their channels. Then along came Netflix and disrupted that market by offering an OTT service outside 'cable' using plain'ol Internet capacity.. And now that market is fragmenting with individual content companies (ie Disney etc) announcing their own streaming channels. Which means multiple subscriptions & possibly clients for users, and no clear revenue stream from content supply other than charging for Internet access.
"bring in a points-based immigration system"
We've had this since 2010, (for example).
The current system only covers people from outside the EEA, and presumably this legislation expands it to cover the EU, but it's disingenuous to suggest that this is is some way a new system.
Expecting HM Government -- especially a Conservative one -- to do anything outside a narrow window that benefits them or their mates (sponsors?) is a mass delusion that flies in the face of common sense and history. Governments promise everything before an election but once power is secured then its business as usual. There are exceptions to the rule but any time a government proposes doing anything truly useful -- such as using the revenue from North Sea Oil to finance a systematic program of investment in UK industry and technology -- it gets taken out pretty quickly. My late mother described it to her children in terms like "The British Electorate Have Short Memories" (being a Cockney she expressed this type of sentiment using somewhat different terminology....).
What it all boils down to is that anyone who believes Boris and his cabal will deliver anything that doesn't make someone a killing is deluded. You'll get Gigabit broadband (or healthcare or transport or any other social good) only if it turns a handsome profit. It has always been this way and while there were some who recognized back in the 20th century that its neither efficient nor globally competitive to run a society like this their efforts were stunted and subsequently privatized.
We could have had a Pot norwegian styly from North sea oil.
And the east got their great broadband from the much maligned infrastructure Fund of the EU. much easier when you are starting with a clean slate.
Also Baris has been given the nod about 5g , that is where the fast, superfast, Lightronic brodband may be coming from.. punt up a few big aerials and jobs a good-un.