4 ms·

I’ve seen this before and I’m really not convinced that it’s not just another attempt to spread another negative story about Thatcher. As others have pointed ou

I’ve seen this before and I’m really not convinced that it’s not just another attempt to spread another negative story about Thatcher. As others have pointed out - hugely expensive project with limited benefit at the time, and not clear the technology choice then would have actually made a cost effective broadband project now.

Lio 4y ago
The major point is that the UK had an advanced technology is in fibre based networks. They had a market for product, TV and they had a company that wanted to invest in that market BT. The factories, including Europe’s largest cleanroom were ready to go. The politicians killed that by passing a law stopping BT selling TV and instead gifting the market to two foreign firms instead for whatever reason. That was a dodgy decision at the very least. My suspicion is that Murdock had a hand in protecting his satellite TV business. As they say “it was the Sun what won it”. :(
- simne 4y ago
  > They had a market for product, TV and they had a company that wanted to invest in that market BT. When people say such things, I always ask, Tetcher stays at BT with big gun and shoots investors? Or how she could forbid investors to buy technologies and to create their own enterprise for this? I understand, in exUSSR countries, like Ukraine, govt once just forbids private businesses to build abroad connections faster than 64k, so they all connected to bubble of state company (later govt created for this company 3G monopoly, this is very similar to history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company ). But after 2004 in Ukraine, govt just could not issue any really serious sanctions for violation of such forbids, so ~ 5 big companies built Gigabit+ abroad connections, and later they also built their own country wide fiber backbones, and once those forbids was just cancelled, because non-sence.
  - Lio 4y ago
    She didn’t point a gun at investors. Instead she passed a regulatory law that blocked the incumbent phone company, BT, from selling TV to consumers. That was reserved for 2 US firms Telewest and NTL.
    - simne 4y ago
      So what? Was BT monopoly protected by laws? For example, in Ukraine was state monopoly Ukrtelecom, and government constantly conducted policy, to prohibit private companies use technologies newer than in Ukrtelecom. Because of this, before revolution in 2004, Ukraine has very slow internet (private companies allowed only 64k private channel abroad - more only from Ukrtelecom); than 3G was slowed, because only Ukrtelecom got licence. Also there was many smaller law limitations in favor of UT.
      - Lio 4y ago
        No. It was the exact opposite. The Thatcher government issued laws specifically to stop BT having a monopoly in anything. BT was even prevented from entering new markets which were reserved for foreign competition.
        simne 4y ago
        As I said before, in Ukraine cheapest broadband internet in Europe, but only because Ukrainian laws are not working from 2004. If laws in Ukraine worked as in UK, it would be impossible for me to write this text. I think, in such case I would not be still alive, because Ukraine withstand Russian invasion with much help of self-organization. BTW now Ukraine have very big troubles, because corrupted officials sabotaged implementation of NATO standards, and now, on 8th year of war, our army still using old soviet tanks/artillery/planes/etc and allies constantly repeat "we cannot give you modern tech, because you need much time, to learn how to use it".

Lio 4y ago

The major point is that the UK had an advanced technology is in fibre based networks. They had a market for product, TV and they had a company that wanted to invest in that market BT. The factories, including Europe’s largest cleanroom were ready to go. The politicians killed that by passing a law stopping BT selling TV and instead gifting the market to two foreign firms instead for whatever reason. That was a dodgy decision at the very least. My suspicion is that Murdock had a hand in protecting his satellite TV business. As they say “it was the Sun what won it”. :(

simne 4y ago
> They had a market for product, TV and they had a company that wanted to invest in that market BT. When people say such things, I always ask, Tetcher stays at BT with big gun and shoots investors? Or how she could forbid investors to buy technologies and to create their own enterprise for this? I understand, in exUSSR countries, like Ukraine, govt once just forbids private businesses to build abroad connections faster than 64k, so they all connected to bubble of state company (later govt created for this company 3G monopoly, this is very similar to history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company ). But after 2004 in Ukraine, govt just could not issue any really serious sanctions for violation of such forbids, so ~ 5 big companies built Gigabit+ abroad connections, and later they also built their own country wide fiber backbones, and once those forbids was just cancelled, because non-sence.
- Lio 4y ago
  She didn’t point a gun at investors. Instead she passed a regulatory law that blocked the incumbent phone company, BT, from selling TV to consumers. That was reserved for 2 US firms Telewest and NTL.
  - simne 4y ago
    So what? Was BT monopoly protected by laws? For example, in Ukraine was state monopoly Ukrtelecom, and government constantly conducted policy, to prohibit private companies use technologies newer than in Ukrtelecom. Because of this, before revolution in 2004, Ukraine has very slow internet (private companies allowed only 64k private channel abroad - more only from Ukrtelecom); than 3G was slowed, because only Ukrtelecom got licence. Also there was many smaller law limitations in favor of UT.
    - Lio 4y ago
      No. It was the exact opposite. The Thatcher government issued laws specifically to stop BT having a monopoly in anything. BT was even prevented from entering new markets which were reserved for foreign competition.
      - simne 4y ago
        As I said before, in Ukraine cheapest broadband internet in Europe, but only because Ukrainian laws are not working from 2004. If laws in Ukraine worked as in UK, it would be impossible for me to write this text. I think, in such case I would not be still alive, because Ukraine withstand Russian invasion with much help of self-organization. BTW now Ukraine have very big troubles, because corrupted officials sabotaged implementation of NATO standards, and now, on 8th year of war, our army still using old soviet tanks/artillery/planes/etc and allies constantly repeat "we cannot give you modern tech, because you need much time, to learn how to use it".