The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Wainy316]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

 No internet back then but a waiting list of about 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed

This can now take up to 3 months

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Xann said:

 

Did you write that in lemon juice?

[Sam-AVFC]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

A common conclusion reached by the far-right and far-left.

It never ends well.  

So you don't think Stalin has any responsibility, he was simply a product of a system so evil it will always cause such abuses whoever the people are?

[Awol]

Just now, Sam-AVFC said:

So you don't think Stalin has any responsibility, he was simply a product of a system so evil it will always cause such abuses whoever the people are?

Did I say that? Humans are inherently imperfect, so if a system is so perfect it can never be successfully implemented then it's not much use outside a seminar room. In fact it's positively dangerous, as scores of millions of dead Russians, Chinese and other nationalities would testify - if they could.

[Xann]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

A common conclusion reached by the far-right and far-left.

It never ends well.  

It's going pretty badly right now. Look at the risable bunch we're having to choose from.

fwiw I'd turn much over to the machines and have the code visible to all.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Setting aside the boring blah-blah issues about whether the government should nick other people's stuff, I reckon we're both old enough to remember BT pre-nationalisation? No internet back then but a waiting list of about 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed, no competition on prices and dire service. Post-privatisation (i.e. now) you can chop and change as you please (contract allowing) chasing the best deal. If nationalisation doesn't deliver better service or pricing (this would end up being paid for through general taxation, not some fantasy about the giants of Silicon Valley ponying up) then what's the point?  

Also I'm not thrilled by the prospect of ANY government now or in the future effectively controlling the internet and access to it.  

There's a strong functional argument for nationalising some critical infrastructure, that is a separate discussion from that of government pursuing massive nationalisation as an end in itself.   

 

Thank you for taking my post and responding in the spirit it was intended. 

As it happens, I'm not old enough to remember BT pre-privatisation, though I'm happy to take your word about what the quality of service was like. However, plenty of people have a lot of horror stories of their experiences of Openreach as well. It goes without saying that customer service is important, but the experience of a lot of privately-run infrastructure in recent years has been that they absolutely do not provide reliably good customer service, especially when they are operating in monopoly conditions. 

Perhaps the main part of our disagreement is your last line; I don't think this is pursuing nationalisation 'as an end in itself'. The 'end' is for everyone in the country to have access to high-speed broadband at an affordable cost. Whether this is the best way to achieve that 'end', or if another 'end' would be better than that one, is a matter for reasonable debate. But if you want that as your end-goal, this isn't an on-the-face ridiculous way to go about it, and certainly Openreach are never going to do it in their current form. 

Your strongest point IMO is the one about government control. In particular, people should consider how this would affect the implementation of the government's planned adult content filters.

[Xann]

9 minutes ago, Awol said:

Did you write that in lemon juice?

Nah, pressed return on the screen saver.

[HanoiVillan]

Further to my point above:

 

[peterms]

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Why can we not stick to discussing this one policy area of broadband for the moment?

I fear that what you are seeking to do is precisely what I'm seeking not to do, i.e. to make an across the board, ideological case for or against nationalisation or privatisation. All this really does is muddy the waters and fails to address issues that may be the case in one area and not another.

The discussion, both here and in the twitter threads you linked, has been about the broader issue of public vs private ownership and control of infrastructure but also using broadband as a very current example, rather than about any technical or structural issues that might make broadband a special case distinct from other types of infrastructure (do you think there are any?  I wouldn't have said there were).  If the case of broadband really is significantly different from other types of infrastructure and the issues of ownership and control are consequently different as well, then a discussion about only broadband might sit better in another thread, as a more technical and less political question?

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Perhaps the main part of our disagreement is your last line; I don't think this is pursuing nationalisation 'as an end in itself'. The 'end' is for everyone in the country to have access to high-speed broadband at an affordable cost. Whether this is the best way to achieve that 'end', or if another 'end' would be better than that one, is a matter for reasonable debate. But if you want that as your end-goal, this isn't an on-the-face ridiculous way to go about it, and certainly Openreach are never going to do it in their current form. 

If monopoly is the problem then break up the monopoly, don't replace it with another one run by the state. 

Your strongest point IMO is the one about government control. In particular, people should consider how this would affect the implementation of the government's planned adult content filters.

Adult content first. Then website that express "problematic views" (the most chilling phrase of recent times), or perhaps paint the incumbent government in a bad light..

We spend a lot of time talking about how corrupt, self-interested and frankly dangerous many politicians are. It seems counter-intuitive to then cheer-lead (not you, particularly) to extend the control of such people over our everyday lives. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Awol
quotey thingy

[Sam-AVFC]

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

Did I say that? Humans are inherently imperfect, so if a system is so perfect it can never be successfully implemented then it's not much use outside a seminar room. In fact it's positively dangerous, as scores of millions of dead Russians, Chinese and other nationalities would testify - if they could.

No, you didn't. I was being facetious as the post you quoted looked like a point about the corrupt people at the top of various regimes corrupt whereas your point read more like a point about the danger of extremists thinking any people who don't agree with them them are a problem and need to be controlled (which is obviously hugely dangerous).

[cyrusr]

32 minutes ago, Awol said:

Post-privatisation (i.e. now) you can chop and change as you please (contract allowing) chasing the best deal.

Actually whilst your provider can be chopped and changed, this service is still primarily provided through BT, hence most bills include a line rental charge. Sky, Talk Talk, Plus Net etc all use the BT network for cables to provide their services. I think the only company that is putting down its own lines is Virgin, so would be the most effected, hence the comments made by McDonnell in relation to discussions with them.   

If I have understood it correctly, it is only the actual network side of BT that would be intended to be nationalised, rather than the service provider. Therefore the choice that consumers would have as to who provides their internet would remain the same. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected. 

[bobzy]

44 minutes ago, Awol said:

Setting aside the boring blah-blah issues about whether the government should nick other people's stuff, I reckon we're both old enough to remember BT pre-nationalisation? No internet back then but a waiting list of about 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed, no competition on prices and dire service. Post-privatisation (i.e. now) you can chop and change as you please (contract allowing) chasing the best deal. If nationalisation doesn't deliver better service or pricing (this would end up being paid for through general taxation, not some fantasy about the giants of Silicon Valley ponying up) then what's the point?  

Also I'm not thrilled by the prospect of ANY government now or in the future effectively controlling the internet and access to it.  

There's a strong functional argument for nationalising some critical infrastructure, that is a separate discussion from that of government pursuing massive nationalisation as an end in itself.   

 

Moving house and getting adequate internet installed has, in my experience, been an absolute **** nightmare in terms of timescales and certainly equivalent (if not worse) than taking 6 weeks to get up and running - and the actual line already exists!  As an additional anecdote, my parents decided to change from Virgin broadband to Sky (cheaper to bundle as they have Sky TV anyway) and the service for the past... maybe a year has been awful.  Internet drops out regularly and line speeds are often horrific - nowhere near what was being advertised.  They've had something like 30 odd engineers come out to "fix" the issues and it's still awful.  They're seeking compensation and moving companies.  Now, they have the choice to do that (good thing) but a cheaper and at-least-reliable-if-slower connection would suit them absolutely fine.

Second bold I agree on - I don't like the idea of it.  I guess it depends on how controls are implemented.  I think privately owned internet appeals more than state owned, but I have no idea what's happening to my personal data currently anyway (scary) and if it's actually better/worse/the same being in the hands of our government rather than elsewhere (and probably another one).

Is it better for the government to get state-owned broadband out everywhere, or for them to "invest" money into a private company for the same reason but without the same guarantees?  I'm not sure.

Edited November 15, 2019 by bobzy

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

Actually whilst your provider can be chopped and changed, this service is still primarily provided through BT, hence most bills include a line rental charge. Sky, Talk Talk, Plus Net etc all use the BT network for cables to provide their services. I think the only company that is putting down its own lines is Virgin, so would be the most effected, hence the comments made by McDonnell in relation to discussions with them.   

If I have understood it correctly, it is only the actual network side of BT that would be intended to be nationalised, rather than the service provider. Therefore the choice that consumers would have as to who provides their internet would remain the same. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected. 

Yes, this discussion is about public ownership of the road, not the government supplying the cars as well. 

[Sam-AVFC]

46 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

This can now take up to 3 months

Surprised no one else mentioned this (edit:**** bobzy) as last time I had to get this done it took a couple of months.

My dad, who lives about 2 miles outside of a town (centre) with a population of ~50k, had to wait OVER A YEAR to get a broadband line put in a few years go as he was classified as 'rural'. The whole time he waited he was having to use dial up, which is nearly impossible to do anything on as it takes minutes to load pictures on a website. Every one of the neighbours already had broadband connected.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Surprised no one else mentioned this (edit:**** bobzy) as last time I had to get this done it took a couple of months.

My dad, who lives about 2 miles outside of a town (centre) with a population of ~50k, had to wait OVER A YEAR to get a broadband line put in a few years go as he was classified as 'rural'. The whole time he waited he was having to use dial up, which is nearly impossible to do anything on as it takes minutes to load pictures on a website. Every one of the neighbours already had broadband connected.

I live in a new built that had not even had a postcode available to wider public  when I ordered the internet. From the moment we ordered it took a week for engineer to come in, install 100mb internet and TV access with a phone line for £29 a month. 

But it's anecdotal. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Mic09

[Sam-AVFC]

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I live in a new built that had not even had a postcode available to wider public  when I ordered the internet. From the moment we ordered it took a week for engineer to come in, install 100mb internet and TV access with a phone line for £29 a month. 

But it's anecdotal. 

It stems from an original post stating how dreadful it would be to go back to 6 week waiting times which would happen if we nationalised. This clearly still happens a lot, based on anecdotal evidence I've heard and experienced.

Obviously my life could be a lot more difficult than having to wait a couple of months for internet and losing a day of leave, but I don't think the scenario I detailed with my dad is ever acceptable. In my view it shows major failings with the current system.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

If monopoly is the problem then break up the monopoly, don't replace it with another one run by the state. 

Fibre-laying to rural areas is a natural monopoly, so breaking it up isn't really an option. 

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Adult content first. Then website that express "problematic views" (the most chilling phrase of recent times), or perhaps paint the incumbent government in a bad light..

We spend a lot of time talking about how corrupt, self-interested and frankly dangerous many politicians are. It seems counter-intuitive to then cheer-lead (not you, particularly) to extend the control of such people over our everyday lives. 

Sure, this is a theoretical risk. However, it's also a theoretical risk for a public broadcaster, and we've had one of those for the best part of a century. The key, then, is setting up independent governance systems so that it is as free as possible from government interference. 

[Sam-AVFC]

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Fibre-laying to rural areas is a natural monopoly, so breaking it up isn't really an option. 

Sure, this is a theoretical risk. However, it's also a theoretical risk for a public broadcaster, and we've had one of those for the best part of a century. The key, then, is setting up independent governance systems so that it is as free as possible from government interference. 

To be fair, it's not all theoretical. We've already seen stage one where there are restrictions set by the government on how to view "adult content". Bloody Labour should never have natio...wait...

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

The discussion, both here and in the twitter threads you linked, has been about the broader issue of public vs private ownership and control of infrastructure but also using broadband as a very current example...

 

As with a lot of things, there can be multifarious strands to a discussion taking place at the same time. Genuinely to run the line that the broader issue of public v private ownership and control of infrastructure is all and only what it is about is to begin your intervention here (at least in terms of addressing me in the discussion) in bad faith, Peter, given my previous posts today.

I'm sure there are others in this thread who would like to regurgitate generalities about the merits or otherwise of nationalisation per se and I'm sure it won't take you long to identify them and to have that conversation with them.