4 ms·

> technology companies should be scared. Why? > This proposal means billions of Pounds wasted on killing the industry Wasted or invested? > and billions mor

> technology companies should be scared. Why? > This proposal means billions of Pounds wasted on killing the industry Wasted or invested? > and billions more lost as a result. Why? By who? To who? > And then stagnation and a slow decay... Where? Due to what?

larnmar 7y ago
> Why? Because if the government decides that it can, at any point, kill off your entire industry and destroy hundreds of billions in value, then we’re all fucked.
- bnjms 7y ago
  You are the government. Small communities running their own network is the best case for everyone. The labor required will not change so those of us with networking skills will still have work and the scale is still high enough to pay is well. As long as the wireless industry exists to provide competition I still wonder why are you worried?
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Under the proposal we are discussing here, which is to nationalise broadband providers and to then provide the service 'free' to consumers there is no competition. Once this is done, then of course someone will say "hey let's nationalise the wireless industry as well"... Those guys are real Marxists, that's their ideology and goal.
    - bnjms 7y ago
      Apologies, that's the worst case.
bassman9000 7y ago
> Why? Unfair competition from the state, with limitless pockets, driving them to bankruptcy. > Wasted or invested? Wasted when finally repealed, or lost to lack of maintenance. > Why? By who? To who? Taxpayers > Where? Due to what? No competition. Lack of incentives to improve the network. edit: love to see the downvotes of those who can't argue. Keep em coming
- tomelders 7y ago
  > Unfair competition from the state, with limitless pockets, driving them to bankruptcy. Nope. The competition can still sell a better service, and can pass the free tier on for free. Also, ISPs sell bundled services, such as SIM cards or media packages. They can continue doing that. > Wasted when finally repealed, or lost to lack of maintenance. Nope. Invested. If some future government wants to throw that investment in the bin, that's on them. > Taxpayers The Tax Payer already invests in the infrastructure and get's nothing back. > No competition. Lack of incentives to improve the network. Nonsense. This isn't a monopoly. If anything, the infrastructure in terms of ground works will make it cheaper for private companies to run their own cables to people's houses, offering superior bandwidth.
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    It will be a monopoly once companies have gone bankrupt. * If some future government wants to throw that investment in the bin, that's on them.* No, that's on the taxpayers. Politicians never pay the cost.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    I must say I am shocked to read this on HN. There won't be competition because broadband will have to be free and it will also be a monopoly (what else?). They won't stop there because they want a socialist economy. 5G? State-monopoly and 'free', etc. How can seemingly smart and educated people in 2019 not understand and see what these guys are? They don't even hide it. Just ask Eastern Europeans, they know.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      They've said the plan is to nationalise OpenReach. That's the commercial wholesaler, who provide the fibre, the cabinets, the kit in exchanges. As the article notes, ISPs will have the option to keep going continuing to use OpenReach's infrastructure, now nationalised and named British Broadband. So all that's changed is the supplier of the pipes. How does that kill competition, enforce a monopoly, and ripple through into 5G - which is the mobile companies and nothing to do with OpenReach? For someone complaining of everyone's lack of smarts, you seem to have very little awareness of what is actually proposed. The sad thing is, BT invented a lot of the kit that enabled fibre. Much of the research whilst they were still a nationalised utility, and proposed to roll it out 100% in the 80s. That was FTTH not FTTC. Thatcher stopped it. The tech was sold off to the companies they now buy from.

larnmar 7y ago

> Why? Because if the government decides that it can, at any point, kill off your entire industry and destroy hundreds of billions in value, then we’re all fucked.

bnjms 7y ago
You are the government. Small communities running their own network is the best case for everyone. The labor required will not change so those of us with networking skills will still have work and the scale is still high enough to pay is well. As long as the wireless industry exists to provide competition I still wonder why are you worried?
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Under the proposal we are discussing here, which is to nationalise broadband providers and to then provide the service 'free' to consumers there is no competition. Once this is done, then of course someone will say "hey let's nationalise the wireless industry as well"... Those guys are real Marxists, that's their ideology and goal.
  - bnjms 7y ago
    Apologies, that's the worst case.

bassman9000 7y ago

> Why? Unfair competition from the state, with limitless pockets, driving them to bankruptcy. > Wasted or invested? Wasted when finally repealed, or lost to lack of maintenance. > Why? By who? To who? Taxpayers > Where? Due to what? No competition. Lack of incentives to improve the network. edit: love to see the downvotes of those who can't argue. Keep em coming

tomelders 7y ago
> Unfair competition from the state, with limitless pockets, driving them to bankruptcy. Nope. The competition can still sell a better service, and can pass the free tier on for free. Also, ISPs sell bundled services, such as SIM cards or media packages. They can continue doing that. > Wasted when finally repealed, or lost to lack of maintenance. Nope. Invested. If some future government wants to throw that investment in the bin, that's on them. > Taxpayers The Tax Payer already invests in the infrastructure and get's nothing back. > No competition. Lack of incentives to improve the network. Nonsense. This isn't a monopoly. If anything, the infrastructure in terms of ground works will make it cheaper for private companies to run their own cables to people's houses, offering superior bandwidth.
- bassman9000 7y ago
  It will be a monopoly once companies have gone bankrupt. * If some future government wants to throw that investment in the bin, that's on them.* No, that's on the taxpayers. Politicians never pay the cost.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  I must say I am shocked to read this on HN. There won't be competition because broadband will have to be free and it will also be a monopoly (what else?). They won't stop there because they want a socialist economy. 5G? State-monopoly and 'free', etc. How can seemingly smart and educated people in 2019 not understand and see what these guys are? They don't even hide it. Just ask Eastern Europeans, they know.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    They've said the plan is to nationalise OpenReach. That's the commercial wholesaler, who provide the fibre, the cabinets, the kit in exchanges. As the article notes, ISPs will have the option to keep going continuing to use OpenReach's infrastructure, now nationalised and named British Broadband. So all that's changed is the supplier of the pipes. How does that kill competition, enforce a monopoly, and ripple through into 5G - which is the mobile companies and nothing to do with OpenReach? For someone complaining of everyone's lack of smarts, you seem to have very little awareness of what is actually proposed. The sad thing is, BT invented a lot of the kit that enabled fibre. Much of the research whilst they were still a nationalised utility, and proposed to roll it out 100% in the 80s. That was FTTH not FTTC. Thatcher stopped it. The tech was sold off to the companies they now buy from.