3 ms·

If it’s by choice, sure. A lot of people either can’t afford it or there’s no Connectivity where they live

rwmj 7y ago
> or there’s no Connectivity where they live Which unfortunately in the UK is an issue. I have no mobile phone reception at home (20 miles as the crow flies from Charing Cross station in London), so if my only access to the internet was through a phone then I might be one of these people.
tialaramex 7y ago
96% of UK premises could have "Superfast", not just "Internet" but "Superfast" broadband, which is defined as 30Mbps to the door. But you're correct that a very large fraction of the population don't choose to buy this either because they can't afford it or they don't want it. There is a Universal Service Obligation, just like in the days of voice telephony, which says the incumbent (British Telecom in most of the country) is legally obliged to offer anybody who wants it at least a minimum service (10Mbps down 1Mbps up asymmetric, so mediocre DSL basically) for a fee. In unusual cases (imagine you live on an otherwise uninhabited island for some reason or up a mountain) you may need to contribute to capital costs for installation. About 2% of the country are estimated to /live/ in places that can't get USO obligatory service (without new construction) if they asked. Unsurprisingly people who want fast Internet don't tend to buy properties with problems like that, but in principle if you were stubborn you could buy one and demand they fix it to 10Mbps up 1Mbps down. So, whatever it is the problem is not Connectivity.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Those are all goals and numbers thrown around by politicians and ISPs, though. They're not reality. Just a couple of days ago I heard on BBC Radio Devon that some broadband provider in that area got its license revoked because it didn't meet its commitments. It's like how the American cell phone companies claim to provide LTE access to 95% of Americans, yet somehow there are still several tens of millions of people on slow 4G, 3G, or with zero cell service at all.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    -shrug- Doing work only changes the facts, which I reported. We can't change what you believe, that has to be left to you to do. One of my friends works in IT, he's like third line support for some big international outfit. He's a Windows guy but still, you'd expect he knows what he's doing. One day he complained about how shitty his broadband is. So I asked why he doesn't have FTTC. "It's not available". OK, so I punch in his landline phone number and the system says of course yeah like almost everybody else in my entire city he can have FTTC. Yes, it costs more money and that might make it unattractive to some people, but it's right there, I'd guess it took maybe 5-10 days from that conversation until he had FTTC instead of ADSL.
    - johnnycab 7y ago
      >He's a Windows guy but still, you'd expect he knows what he's doing. Weird flex but ok.
- rwmj 7y ago
  > 96% of UK premises could have "Superfast", not just "Internet" but "Superfast" broadband, which is defined as 30Mbps to the door. Ha ha, that's hilarious. Out here in the real world although the maps show that I'm getting 4G mobile and "superfast"[1] broadband, the reality is no mobile at all and 20 Mbps when it's not raining and the BT culverts aren't waterlogged. When they are waterlogged, not much internet at all. [1] Where "superfast" means laughably slow compared to most other first world countries.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Isn't that USO voluntary? > In unusual cases (imagine you live on an otherwise uninhabited island for some reason or up a mountain) you may need to contribute to capital costs for installation. I agree with you, but this bit doesn't really describe how many people need to pay for broadband infrastructure installation. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/may/31/how-can-i-get-faster-broadband-in-a-rural-area-bt https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/may/31/h...
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    The USO is mandatory but isn't funded yet. So, right now the regulator would struggle to rationalise say, fining the operator for not meeting it when they aren't given any money or any means to raise revenue to provide it. But in principle if you can imagine the British government ever doing anything again except arguing about Brexit they might get around to it. Don't hold your breath.

rwmj 7y ago

> or there’s no Connectivity where they live Which unfortunately in the UK is an issue. I have no mobile phone reception at home (20 miles as the crow flies from Charing Cross station in London), so if my only access to the internet was through a phone then I might be one of these people.

tialaramex 7y ago

96% of UK premises could have "Superfast", not just "Internet" but "Superfast" broadband, which is defined as 30Mbps to the door. But you're correct that a very large fraction of the population don't choose to buy this either because they can't afford it or they don't want it. There is a Universal Service Obligation, just like in the days of voice telephony, which says the incumbent (British Telecom in most of the country) is legally obliged to offer anybody who wants it at least a minimum service (10Mbps down 1Mbps up asymmetric, so mediocre DSL basically) for a fee. In unusual cases (imagine you live on an otherwise uninhabited island for some reason or up a mountain) you may need to contribute to capital costs for installation. About 2% of the country are estimated to /live/ in places that can't get USO obligatory service (without new construction) if they asked. Unsurprisingly people who want fast Internet don't tend to buy properties with problems like that, but in principle if you were stubborn you could buy one and demand they fix it to 10Mbps up 1Mbps down. So, whatever it is the problem is not Connectivity.

reaperducer 7y ago
Those are all goals and numbers thrown around by politicians and ISPs, though. They're not reality. Just a couple of days ago I heard on BBC Radio Devon that some broadband provider in that area got its license revoked because it didn't meet its commitments. It's like how the American cell phone companies claim to provide LTE access to 95% of Americans, yet somehow there are still several tens of millions of people on slow 4G, 3G, or with zero cell service at all.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  -shrug- Doing work only changes the facts, which I reported. We can't change what you believe, that has to be left to you to do. One of my friends works in IT, he's like third line support for some big international outfit. He's a Windows guy but still, you'd expect he knows what he's doing. One day he complained about how shitty his broadband is. So I asked why he doesn't have FTTC. "It's not available". OK, so I punch in his landline phone number and the system says of course yeah like almost everybody else in my entire city he can have FTTC. Yes, it costs more money and that might make it unattractive to some people, but it's right there, I'd guess it took maybe 5-10 days from that conversation until he had FTTC instead of ADSL.
  - johnnycab 7y ago
    >He's a Windows guy but still, you'd expect he knows what he's doing. Weird flex but ok.
rwmj 7y ago
> 96% of UK premises could have "Superfast", not just "Internet" but "Superfast" broadband, which is defined as 30Mbps to the door. Ha ha, that's hilarious. Out here in the real world although the maps show that I'm getting 4G mobile and "superfast"[1] broadband, the reality is no mobile at all and 20 Mbps when it's not raining and the BT culverts aren't waterlogged. When they are waterlogged, not much internet at all. [1] Where "superfast" means laughably slow compared to most other first world countries.
DanBC 7y ago
Isn't that USO voluntary? > In unusual cases (imagine you live on an otherwise uninhabited island for some reason or up a mountain) you may need to contribute to capital costs for installation. I agree with you, but this bit doesn't really describe how many people need to pay for broadband infrastructure installation. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/may/31/how-can-i-get-faster-broadband-in-a-rural-area-bt https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2018/may/31/h...
- tialaramex 7y ago
  The USO is mandatory but isn't funded yet. So, right now the regulator would struggle to rationalise say, fining the operator for not meeting it when they aren't given any money or any means to raise revenue to provide it. But in principle if you can imagine the British government ever doing anything again except arguing about Brexit they might get around to it. Don't hold your breath.