Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Proposes Minimum 10Mbps Broadband For Poor (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The UK's Local Government Association (LGA) is proposing a social tariff to ensure that minimum broadband access of at least 10 Mbps is available to all UK citizens at an affordable price. Last November, Parliament announced that it would begin work on a Universal Service Obligation (USO), which would grant all citizens the right to request broadband service with a minimum 10Mbps. At the time, Prime Minister David Cameron said, "Access to the Internet shouldn't be a luxury; it should be a right -- absolutely fundamental to life in 21st century Britain." Research by Ofcom in 2014 showed "marked relationships between socio-economic deprivation and [poor] broadband availability in cities". Similar results have been found in rural areas, which means that the demand for increasing broadband service to a minimum level may be high among people with lower incomes.
"...marked relationships between socio-economic deprivation and [poor] broadband availability in cities"
Face, meet palm.
If we could get anybody but Comcast with that speed. Really, I think internet should be and will be a utility akin to electricity.
But how about making sure everyone has that at least?
With no contention?
This reminds me of the last time the British Government mandated a technology to the masses. The TV.
Where they allowed even the poorest of people to borrow money from banks just to be able to buy a TV. NO OTHER LOAN WAS ACCEPTED!.
They REALLY wanted the masses to be propagandized, enough to bank on it.
The same might be happening here, though id hazard a guess that most people already have internet access of some kind already.
Here in the UK we've taken into account internet for those unfortunate souls who may have had such access terminated in their home or residence unexpectedly. If you've recently experienced this issue, say, at the hands of an embassy or rather during, say, a political asylum against a rather simple investigation that is in no way a witch hunt with the potential to result in extradition to an island torture camp, the UK government has a solution.
simply leave the embassy, and walk directly toward the van marked "Internet." We're also offering free stainless steel bracelets to the first customers.
Good people go to bed earlier.
What am I missing.....................???
The fact that many people are limited to 3mbps DSL or satalite...
Because that's really fast..?
At 10MBps, I can get work done while my kids are streaming a movie. That is fast enough.
10 Mbps for the lot of them to split...bloody peasants.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I live in Seattle, and I would kill for either 3 Mbps or satellite. I live on the north side of an apartment building, so I can't get satellite access. Plus, even if you have access to the sky in the south, since we're 250 miles north of Toronto, you usually still can't get it to work since you have to aim the dish so low to the horizon. CenturyLink claims to offer 1.5 Mbps DSL to my block, but they can't get it to work reliably enough and can't get permission to replace cabling under the street. I'm stuck with dial-up.
What type of work?
Seattle is 250 miles north of Toronto?
You are either a moron, or just ignorant. Here is the information you need to become less ignorant.
You'er probably thinking 100 Mbps, not Gbps and it is more likely to be 1 Gps and not 100Mbps. 10Gpbs is largely impossible on most wiring, unless you're dealing with fiber (which I doubt you are). While there is a chance you can be using faster connection than 10Gbps speeds, it is highly unlikely as those are very expensive, are always fiber, and almost exclusive to data centers.
Someday, we'll see those speeds to the desktop, just not today.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
In my German town, we have an offer for 100Mbps symmetric fiber to the home for less than $40/month (200Mbps symmetric for an extra $10), but we'll only be able to get it if 40% of households subscribe. You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to get people to switch.
Yep - But more like 300 miles.
Seattle is at 47.6062 degrees N
Toronto is at 43.6532 degrees N
Who pays for the computers so the poor citizens can access the internet?
Well, i will leave my inteligence alone to myself.
I was refering to the "10Mbps" that the article refered.
In case you don't know, I can inform you that there are plenty of people that would be happy to have 5Mbps in UK.
Actually there are areas, like Island of Dogs in London, where you are lucky if you get any connection at all, just because the phone exchange is overloaded and there is no more capacity on it for years.
So yes, there are issues, and yes, internet in UK is crap comparing with other civilized countries.
Now regarding the cables not supporting, depends on the cables.
In case you didn't know either, some areas have cables not of copper, but of aluminium (which was way cheaper at the time, and worked for normal voice, but it's %£%£$% for internet).
So your milleage does vary a lot.
Compared to the average in the US, yes.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
'North of' means that if you start at Seattle and drive/fly north some 300 miles, you'll end up in Toronto. Although that's not the case - Toronto is some 2600 miles east of Seattle.
I tend to download video more often when the connection is too crap to stream.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
It will be "up to" 10Mb. If your crappy old BT copper phone line can only manage 2Mb, too bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think he means internet 3, which is at all top tier research universities in the US and UK. They do switch design, which is why you're hearing about 100 Gbps switches commercially available today, and they have quite a few 40 Gbps ports throughout almost all top tier campus locations.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Similar results have been found in rural areas, which means that the demand for increasing broadband service to a minimum level may be high among people with lower incomes.
I live in a rural area of the UK (my speed is 2.2 Mbps) and the issue is not being able to afford no better - that is all that is available down the end of a long copper line.
The are going to have to do a lot of road digging to put in cable before anyone around here gets any better, rich or poor.
And in rural UK the well-off outnumber the "poor". Most agricultural jobs have gone and the poor have gone to live in towns; their cottages have mostly been modernised and extended for better-off commuters. I live in what was once a forrester's cottage for example, extended to three times its original size.
I'm not sure how Toronto got into the original explanation, but Seattle is closer to the north pole than Toronto. If you drive 300 miles north of Toronto and then west, you'll hit seattle. If you drive 300 miles north of Seattle and head east, you'll be 600 miles north of Toronto when you occupy the same Longitude
Okay, but that's a pretty bizarre definition of 'north of' or 'south of'. I have no idea why AC mentioned Toronto
The poor should be able to stream 4K porn just like everyone else.
Okay, but that's a pretty bizarre definition of 'north of' or 'south of'.
Actually it's quite standard, especially when (as in this case) the context makes it obvious that the relevant factor is the difference in latitude.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
It's miserable and unfair to be in poverty. And simply giving them broadband will not solve that. Therefore I offer a simpler solution:
Why not just mandate that the poor "not be poor" anymore?
We should just give them all say, $100,000 per year, and then nobody will be poor and everyone will be happy.
That should work just fine.
-Styopa
Right, but the AC was comparing Peering connection (100Gb, 40Gb, 10Gb) to end user connection (10Mb). Those are not the same.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Valid criticism. However, I'll be honest, I always could afford a T1 line at work and at home.
People in Africa spend 1/8th of their income on cell phones and charging them.
One-eighth.
To you it's only $20, to them it's half of what they make in a week.
To them, 10 Mbps is not bad. But it's still a fraction of what the rich can afford (but choose not to).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Even video can be done in some manner at 1 Mbps, except some live streaming that doesn't offer a low enough quality.
But well, not owning any TV is a lot more common nowadays, now that analog broadcast was switched off (In France, they've doubled down by ceasing digital SD broadcast, so the dingy little tuner boxes and second remote have returned)
Also, 1 Mbps doesn't really exist except for some rural lines (nothing really wrong with e.g. Seattle's DSL, it's just that 65 year-old-phone lines are rare outside the US) ; if you've got 1 Mbps it's likely because you're mooching from some wifi hotspot that will have availability problems. Congestion may mean pings less than 100ms are only achievable at 3 AM. For UK in particular, I guess rain and mist ruin it pretty often.
1 Mbps up/down with 100% availability and low ping and zero jitter would be pretty nice actually, although still not usable for everything.
Re What am I missing .. ?
The physics of FTTX with X been lots of very long POTS networks i.e. wireline.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Some countries have "speed tiers" for DSL courtesy of the ISP, but some countries don't. Fixing a broken phone line here and there or simply enticing people to sign up will bring a lot of people to 10 to 15 megabits on ADSL2+. Rural 4G in some places might do it. If you have to bring some new fixed Internet, that will be fiber which is at least able of 1 Gbps. So there isn't a lot of point in trying to bring 1 Mbps to unwashed masses. Sure, let me show you my tax receipt and build me a T1 for free and I'll like it, but even 100/10 fiber will be vastly cheaper.
3mbps satellite? I pay $70/month for "10 mbps" which actually gives me about 70 kbps. Only option for me, living at the intersection of buttfuck and nowhere. .5 mbps would be a huge relief. Dialup speeds on the modern Internet suck so much. Fuck you very much, exede satellite Internet.
In a north facing flat, you find yourself unable to have line of sight with the goddamned Sun. Neighbours may also call the cops if they see you trying to climb the roof, and running the cable from what you've put on the roof be it solar panel or satellite dish to your window is untidy.
I don't even think, I would want to watch 4K porn. Sometimes better resolution are not your friend.
What type of work?
Email, Stackoverflow, and light browsing for work. Slashdot for goofing off.
If all of that works, even if someone in my family is watching a movie on Netflix, then I'm good.
Well, if not the cops I would expect they call the fire brigade instead.
Now, if you have one of those new-fangled buildings with a very flat roof and stairs or a trap door to access it, that'll be easier, maybe just a trespass.