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

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Not really comparable to a good wired connection.

By 2030 broadband is likely to be as outdated as phone dial internet connection.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

By 2030 broadband is likely to be as outdated as phone dial internet connection.

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

So should the government provide free access to tools on which the internet will be accessed?

Because if there are people who cannot afford a capitalist kindle or an iPad (and I'm not saying there aren't), how will they access their free internet?

It's a fair enough question.

I'm glad it seems to have been prompted by the acceptance that there are people who aren't able to 'read' or access the internet in private coffee shops.

Here's my simple answer: I don't know.

Here's my complicated answer: I don't know, especially as the question seems to be predicated on something which I am not suggesting. From the very start I have talked about the issue (i.e. lack of access to the internet/broadband difficulties) and the problems which come from that and how one might try and address it through government action rather than just leaving it to the whim of a market that would appear to be pretty broken.

I really hope that you've actually read what I've posted (some of which is undoubtedly wrong and some of which may well be inconsistent - given that it's a subject that I haven't properly considered until the last 24/48 hours since the Labour policy trail). I really hope that you may have approached it with the idea of acknowledging that there is a problem (you may not - that's your beef) and that what I'd like to do is try and address that problem. I don't particularly favour nationalisation versus privatisation; I'd like to do what is right for furthering the goal (if that goal is to try and improve the outcomes for the public).

Furthering the goal does not necessarily mean nationalisation or 'government supply' or 'giving away for free'.

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

Believe it or not, most public libraries offer free internet access. That in itself is universal access.

It's not a case of 'belief' - I've had to utilise what level of access has been available through libraries quite a bit in the last 10/15 years.

So it's: Yes and no.

Admittedly, I'm going from my local library (a library that is still open - how many aren't?):

Access is not allowed to certain types of sites;

There are limited terminals from which one can access the internet;

Booking is often required;

There is a time limit;

One is required to be a registered user and enter one's user details (thus tracking);

One has to get to the library (I realise this was also the case for the previously mentioned point about libraries in general but it's of slightly more relevance here when making a comparison with rural internet access difficulties).

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

By 2030 broadband is likely to be as outdated as phone dial internet connection.

This seems like a clever retort, clever enough for the BBC to waste some time knocking up an article with the exact same basis, but it's not.

Technology is always moving. It moves quite quickly at times, it slows at others. Standards tend not to move that often.

But the point is ultimately that, at some point, you have to jump in. And if we are going to invest in a good internet service for the entire country, it would make sense to jump in with best standard available at the time. We don't know the future.

It's just a hollow pointless snipe.

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Coffee shops do too

**** me, you really don't seem to get this.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

**** me, you really don't seem to get this.

Doesn't want to.

[LondonLax]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

This seems like a clever retort, clever enough for the BBC to waste some time knocking up an article with the exact same basis, but it's not.

Technology is always moving. It moves quite quickly at times, it slows at others. Standards tend not to move that often.

But the point is ultimately that, at some point, you have to jump in. And if we are going to invest in a good internet service for the entire country, it would make sense to jump in with best standard available at the time. We don't know the future.

It's just a hollow pointless snipe.

I would suggest that could be a pretty good argument for leaving that kind of risk of a ‘white elephant’ to the private sector though, rather than leave taxpayers on the hook.

As an aside, this debate happened about in Australia about 10 years ago when the then Labor government set up a government company,  called the National Broadband Network (the NBN), to provide fibre optic cable across Australia. It’s now become a national joke and a millstone around the government’s neck.

I’m not suggesting the same thing would happen in the UK (the geography is very different for one thing) but if you want an example of what not to do than look no further than Australia.

[Mic09]

38 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's a fair enough question.

I'm glad it seems to have been prompted by the acceptance that there are people who aren't able to 'read' or access the internet in private coffee shops.

Here's my simple answer: I don't know.

Here's my complicated answer: I don't know, especially as the question seems to be predicated on something which I am not suggesting. From the very start I have talked about the issue (i.e. lack of access to the internet/broadband difficulties) and the problems which come from that and how one might try and address it through government action rather than just leaving it to the whim of a market that would appear to be pretty broken.

I really hope that you've actually read what I've posted (some of which is undoubtedly wrong and some of which may well be inconsistent - given that it's a subject that I haven't properly considered until the last 24/48 hours since the Labour policy trail). I really hope that you may have approached it with the idea of acknowledging that there is a problem (you may not - that's your beef) and that what I'd like to do is try and address that problem. I don't particularly favour nationalisation versus privatisation; I'd like to do what is right for furthering the goal (if that goal is to try and improve the outcomes for the public).

Furthering the goal does not necessarily mean nationalisation or 'government supply' or 'giving away for free'.

Please explain to me, in your opinion, to what purpose does Labour propose free broadband fibre?

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

13 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Please explain to me, in your opinion, to what purpose does Labour propose free broadband fibre?

I'm not sure. I'm as skeptical about any political party's policies as you can get.

The point for me is, as I've tried to suggest,  not really about Labour's policy but about where it might take the debate.

If it means that we try and sort out the really shit broadband coverage that we have in the UK then that's a first step.

If we go beyond that and try to work out a policy that widens (and approaches universal) access in the future then great.

Couldn't give a monkey's arse if it fits with any one group of people's ideology (or if it distinctly gets the arse of any other group, neither).

I'd like to see people's lives made better and I'd like it not to rely upon being able to make it to 'a coffee shop' or a closed down library or...

Edited November 15, 2019 by snowychap

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I'm not sure. I'm as skeptical about any political party's policies as you can get.

The point for me is, as I've tried to suggest, is not really about Labour's policy but about where it might take the debate.

If it means that we try and sort out the really shit broadband coverage that we have in the UK then that's a first step.

If we go beyond that and try to work out a policy that widens (and approaches universal) access in the future then great.

Couldn't give a monkey's arse if it fits with any one group of people's ideology (or if it distinctly gets the arse of any other group, neither).

I'd like to see people's lives made better and I'd like it not to rely upon being able to make it to 'a coffee shop' or a closed down library or...

This is it - this is the debate

I appreciate your scepticism, but what evidence is there that Labours idea will improve broadband accessibility or speed?

Also, why do you think UK has a shit broadband coverage? In 2018 90% of households had internet access. By the looks of it 2019 that's likely to be 92%. By what standard is that shit?

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

but what evidence is there that Labours idea will improve broadband accessibility or speed?

I mean what the actual ****? You quoted my post, said 'this is it' and then ignored what I said.

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

 

You looked for something that approaches "universal access" as your main argument. Is that correct?

I argued that we have that, as 90% of households have internet.

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

This is it - this is the debate

I appreciate your scepticism, but what evidence is there that Labours idea will improve broadband accessibility or speed?

Also, why do you think UK has a shit broadband coverage? In 2018 90% of households had internet access. By the looks of it 2019 that's likely to be 92%. By what standard is that shit?

There is a pretty good blog here from an industry engineer about it:

https://www.talkunafraid.co.uk/2019/11/nationalise-openreach/

Quote

The ideal outcome for the UK telecoms market would clearly have been for BT (as it was then) never to have been privatised, and for the government to simply decide on a 100% fibre-to-the-home coverage model. This nearly happened, and that it didn’t is one of the great tragedies in the story of modern Britain; if it had, we’d be up at the top of the leaderboard on European FTTH coverage. As it is, we only just made it onto the leaderboard this year

 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

You looked for something that approaches "universal access" as your main argument. Is that correct?

I argued that we have that, as 90% of households have internet.

No, that isn't correct.

It does require some thought and some understanding so I can see where you're struggling.

[Chindie]

Britain's fibre network is laughable compared to like states.

[Chindie]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There is a pretty good blog here from an industry engineer about it:

https://www.talkunafraid.co.uk/2019/11/nationalise-openreach/

 

Communist.

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Also, why do you think UK has a shit broadband coverage? In 2018 90% of households had internet access. By the looks of it 2019 that's likely to be 92%. By what standard is that shit?

The UK had 8% full fibre broadband coverage in 2018.

I believe that is significantly below a lot of other countries, e.g. Spain and Portugal.

[chrisp65]

You have to weigh up, am I being trolled, or is someone genuinely finding something difficult.

We have vast swathes of the country where internet access or speeds are not sufficient for modern business. They aren’t sufficient for decent access to education. It’s too expensive for access for all. Something that is becoming essential for benefits claims, is too expensive and too inaccessible, for benefits claimants. It has become a necessity, a utility. 

There is an offer to invest massively in infrastructure that will help us compete in a world we are making deliberately harder for ourselves. We are supposed to be looking for new international business opportunities, but we can’t use basic contactless payment in large areas of the country. 

There is a proposal on the table to provide this new utility for all. It’s ambitious and its positive.

Such a small minded mean spirited Conservative I’m alright Jack view of the world to not want that rolled out to everyone everywhere.