New EU Rules Promise 100Mbps Broadband and Free Wi-Fi For All (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The European Commission has promised free Wi-Fi in every town, village, and city in the European Union, in the next four years. A new grant, with a total budget of 120 million euro, will allow public authorities to purchase state-of-the art equipment, for example a local wireless access point. If approved by the the European Parliament and national ministers the cash could be available before the end of next year. The commission has also set a target for all European households to have access to download speeds of at least 100Mbps by 2025, and has redefined Internet access as a so-called universal service, while removing obligations for old universal services such as payphones. It also envisions fully deploying 5G, the fifth generation of mobile communication systems, across the European Union by 2025. Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker made reference to many of these proposals while also promising to abolish roaming once and for all in his "State of the European Union" address on Wednesday morning.

Comments

Civilized

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Seems like a good idea. Shame that the US is going to fall further behind on this front.

Re:Civilized

[Anonymous Coward]

Until 100% (yes, every single residence no matter where they are), have access to good broadband, I don't care.

Re:Civilized

[TheRaven64]

the government has no reason or motivation to control the overhead

What on earth gave you that idea? Governments have been cutting funding for all manner of things over the past decade. Oh, and government income comes from taxation, which is related to the state of the economy and improving broadband access has so far led to increases in tax revenue everywhere that it's been measured.

Re:Civilized

[dgatwood]

90% of the U.S. will likely have > 1000Mbps by 2025, so most of us will be 10x ahead.

And 10% will still be barely faster than dialup, so by 2025, 10% of us—probably the poorest people who can least afford to pay for the infrastructure improvements to bring their speeds up to snuff—will be 1000x behind.

Re:Civilized

[prisoner-of-enigma]

10% of us—probably the poorest people who can least afford to pay for the infrastructure improvements to bring their speeds up to snuff—will be 1000x behind.

I'm still missing the part where this is somehow my problem and I'm required to pay higher taxes to fix it.

Live in a rural area with shitty service because it's unprofitable for the ISP to run millions of dollars of fiber to service fifty customers? Too bad. Move. Or get satellite. Or deal with slower speeds. You're there by choice. Nobody's stopping you from moving somewhere that offers fiber to the curb for $75/month if that's what you really want.

Can't afford faster service? Again, not my fucking problem. Get a job. Or if you have a job but it pays shitty, too fucking bad. You chose poorly when it came to selecting careers. Still not my fucking problem.

If this sounds cold-hearted, too bad. You have no right to anything I've earned through my own hard work just because you've made choices that put you in a bad position. You want charity? Fine. Ask for it through charity. But the moment you suggest the government should forcibly confiscate my earnings to fund your Internet is the moment we become enemies.

Way under-budgeted

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I appreciate the sentiment, but 120 million euro is way, waaaaay too little for a project of that scale.

Personally, I have the option of a 500Mbit line, but I have friends who live just a few kilometers away, who are stuck with ~10Mbit DSL or less. Based on my experience in the ISP/telco world, you can multiply that amount of money by ten, and maybe that'll be enough. For one country.

Great

[NotInHere]

UK will get a firewall instead, while on the mainland you have free wifi. Nice trade isn't it?

Re: who pays?

[Anonymous Coward]

The people, through taxes, most likely. And they will be happy to do it, because Europeans do not see taxes as some evil boogeyman, but rather as a necessity to enjoy a good standard of living and not have to worry about bankrupting the entire family should they ever get cancer or if they want to send their kids to university.

Re:who pays?

[alvinrod]

What I don't understand is: only 120 M Euro? That's 20 cents per person so it's easy on taxpayers but is it enough to buy and operate the infrastructure?

You are making the assumption that this is a well thought out and feasible plan, which it very well may not be.

If it were really that cheap and easy to do I would expect that some company would have already done so and charged everyone a few Euro for the service because if it's cost effective at an order of magnitude less cost, the profit margins would be obscene.

I suspect that important details have been overlooked which add significant cost to the project, or the person who initially proposed the idea has no idea what this should actually cost to implement.

Re:who pays?

[ruir]

EC is non-corrupt? That must be the joke of the decade.