Slashdot Mirror
UK Government To Back Broadband-For-All
Barence writes to mention that the UK government is throwing their weight behind a broadband-for-all initiative with an initial round of £250 million in funding. Using money left over from the digital television switch, the initiative aims to have a 2Mbit/sec broadband connection or better in every home by 2012. "Analysts welcomed the proposals, but say there are still many details to be hammered out: 'The Chancellor... needs to consider how to remove the barriers that prevent the people who cannot afford broadband to get connected. They need to ensure that competition in the market remains fair and consumers are given choice rather than one or two providers.'"
Five bucks...er, five pounds, that this will be filtered to high heck...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
2000 called. They want their broadband back......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I guess it's a start, so they should be congratulated on that.
However 2Mbit seems remarkably slow. Even now, I'd find it too slow to bear. By 2012, in 3 years time, I'd imagine it will seem even more obsolete as services change to take advantage of higher bandwidth.
I have 10Mbit at home and that's about the lowest I can bear. I will upgrade to 50Mbit soon.
I live in the boonies of the USA and my connection peaks just over 1 Mbps (I have a WiFi connection to a tower on the local volcano. Not a typo.) 2 Mbps would make me dizzy with joy, especially since at peak times I sometimes get under 500kbps. A lot of people out there are still using a modem, like me until a few months ago.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Internet is more and more a utility. People can't live without it, so I think the governament stepping in and offering free/cheap internet access for those who can't afford it is only fair. Plus they can pass it as a education initiative.
While 2MBit/s might sounds slow to those of us that have turbo connections and get upwards of 10Mbit/s, this is actually a decent number for an initiative such as this.
2 MBit/s is actually a very attainable number for a cheap internet solution to get EVERYONE access to that speed. And while some may scoff at it being slow, 2 Mbit (around 250 KB/s down) is still about 5x faster than dialup. And it would be an always-on connection, something dial-up is not.
Also, for the UK to fund an initiative like this, it is VERY forward thinking, considering there are many parts of the UK that have roads no wider than a single small European car, and barely receive tv signal or cable-equivalent. I have been to parts of the UK where there is literally NOTHING for miles and miles. For them to be pushing for 2 MBit/s in these areas (if they are SERIOUS about providing this speed of internet to EVERYONE), it would be a viable alternative to the laggy, delay-prone satellite internet that many people in these areas are forced to purchase.
Ever tried to play an online FPS w/ Satellite? Yea. It sucks.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
It's weird, isn't it? People applauding what they want, rather than what you think they should want.
This is just so V can stream to every screen in London with minimal buffering.
Network effects. The more people on the Internet the more valuable it is to everybody.
this is actually a decent number for an initiative such as this.
No it's not, because by the time they are done spending money at the rate the Government typically spends it they could have bought a fiber to the doorstep system for every man, woman and child in the UK. Why would you spend a pile of money to build a system that's obsolete as soon as you turn it up?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You may want to talk to your retarded little brother USA, and see how that worked out for them.
Gov'ner: Here's 250$ million, Broadband for all, yea! :(
Telcos: Yea!
Pleabs: Yea!
Gov'ner: Where is our Broadband?
Telcos: What broadband?
Gov'ner: Where is our money?
Telcos: What money?
Gov'ner: *shrugs*
Pleabs:
It does if you are stringing new wire. The cost of the wire is nothing compared to the labor cost of installing it. If you aren't stringing new wire then why haven't the phone companies already provided service?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, somebody is going to have to dig the trenches and put down the cables and all. I presume that this is exactly what they are doing. This way people earn money and you get something in return. This is typical behavior for governments during this particular economic crisis.
Besides, for many remote places the cost will be prohibitive (of putting cables down) for an individual or group of individuals. So the government will have to put the infrastructure there for them. Otherwise they may face even more people moving from the countryside into the already crowded cities.
I guess it depends on whether they are targeting 2mbit as in actually 2mbit or "2 mbit UNLIMITED at 1:1000 contention with 4gb /month cap". If it actually ends up averaging 2mbit and not 500kbps then it's not so bad.
Maybe for those remote places, we just have to face the fact that cables aren't going to be cost effective, and instead focus on wireless or satellite solutions for Internet access?
As we generally follow football (English, not American), we tend to go for a Yellow Card / Red Card law rather than a three strikes law.
What, you thought the British government was gifting its people with free broadband because it liked and trusted them?!
I live in the boonies of the US and get 300 kbps, take that! Lets play who has the slowest internet.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Because, on the evidence of the last few decades, corporations are certainly not going to provide broadband for the entire population, or anyone outside profitable urban areas. Even when subsidised by governments, they eat up the subsidies and fail to provide a universal service. Eventually the US will work this out.
Though the way you reject universal health care because "it's socialist", allowing your poor to sicken and die, maybe I'm too optimistic.
Yeah, I was getting the same kind of connection speeds, the copper out here is pretty bad. Even if satellite worked on your site, it would still suck. However, people who live in the boonies don't get to complain about that last mile (Well, you can complain, but just don't expect anyone to be sympathetic) any more than they get to complain when civilization finally does show up, and they start getting traffic on "their road". In the mean time, is there anyone near you with whom you might form a co-op? You could put a solar-powered repeater on a peak visible to you and your compatriots, and pipe the signal up there from the nearest place you can get a signal (Even satellite, if need be.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would have had the first post, but damn this 1200 baud modem.
Having been on Virgin's fibre broadband at 20Mbits (yup, 20) for 6 months, while it is indeed very fast and so far, reliable, it is NOT fast enough. As soon as another occupant of the house beginds to watch an HD stream or download something, it slows down - sometimes even grinding to a halt altogether during busy evenings. Furthermore, with the advent of widespread cloud computing, considerable strain is going to be put on the Internet as a whole. Already, using Google Docs on anything but the fastest connection is impossible, with it timing out if the connection slows down too much. (Not Google's fault.) For the sake of the economy, like the autobahns, highways and motorways of the past, the governments of today (Singapore has already done this) needs to build a super/mega/ultra/wikkedly fast national network of at least 40Mbits (yes, 40) with a 5Mbit or more downlink to make uploading content and teleconferencing practical. The ideal way to achieve this without digging up half the planet to lay fibre to the home will be to use 4G LTE wireless technology. We MUST invest now!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
I find the term "broad band" offensive. I much prefer the phrase "all female orchestra", but I agree that everybody should have access to one. What do you mean off topic?
I live in the boonies of the USA and my connection peaks just over 1 Mbps (I have a WiFi connection to a tower on the local volcano. Not a typo.) .
The problem isn't that you can't get broadband in the boonies. Anyone can. The problem is that most of the time, that option is via satellite. Once you get past the initial hardware expense, monthly service for satellite tv and Internet packages are comparable to cable packages. The problem is the damn latency. Satellite is fine for downloading files and surfing. But try playing FPS's on one.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel