Read more.Quote:
Tories tout speeds of up to 100Mbps for the "majority" of homes ahead of the next general election.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Tories tout speeds of up to 100Mbps for the "majority" of homes ahead of the next general election.
Nice to know that the Conservatives are bringing key issues to the forefront of the electorate....Quote:
Originally Posted by HEXUS
Stronger sentences for convicted criminals
unemployment
Youth's and gun culture
high taxation and cost of living
Banking fatcats and their manopolies
....Having a faster Broadband speed?
This just doesn't seem to compute. Is there really that little difference between the parties now that they are making headlines with manifesto items such as this????:rules:
:surprised: :O_o1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tattysnuc
"a Conservative government would deliver broadband speeds of up to 100Mbps within seven years"
The first step they take is to ban misleading marketing-based descriptions of speeds. What is important is the actual speed you're likely to get. My exchange is a Be* enabled exchange "up to" 24 or 20Mbps. I can't remember whether it's 20 or 24, but tbh I don't pay much attention as the fastest I can get is 4. So on that ratio, "up to" 100Mbps will mean I might actually get the 20/24Mbps being advertised now...
(I didn't see the show - did they explain what tech they're going to actually use to reach those speeds? i.e. is this a thought out policy or yet another sound bite)
Bleh - a fluffy, headline-grabbing policy which would end up getting dropped quickly if they are elected..
If they're planning to cut local services and road maintenance to save money, there's no way they're going to fund x billion to entirely re-vamp the telecoms infrastructure..
If that's your stance your posting on the wrong forum my friend :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tattysnuc
Well, no, you don't have to agree with that just because you frequent a tech forum :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Terbinator
My bull**** detector is off the scale...
Actually I agree with this (at the level of importance) because somebody needs to wake up (quickly) to the fact that broadband is vital to our economy and the current lot have done feck all about it.
We all agree that our internet infrastructure here is very important, but we need someone at the top to realise that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dangel
Well, isn't that the case here? Should we deride the conservatives for wanting to give it a go or encourage it? Yes, the sceptic in me says "more political bull" but all I see atm is this country being left far, far behind if we do nothing. After all, this lot are almost certain to get in (tbh god help us if they don't..) so hearing them say this is good - so long as it translates to something real. It's 2010 and i'm getting 8mbit max, in a town, along with all the businesses therein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singh400
I don't see how trying to get private infrastructure funding is actually going to help though. It's been tried with cable, and private companies don't want to foo tthe expense of laying that kind of infrastructure - that's why I live about 2 miles from Manchester City Centre but still can't get cable on my street.
What's needed is a nationally owned (yes, I'm a huge advocate of nationalisation ;) ) network that is then either leased to comms providers *or* funded by a levy on communications bills (zomg did I just suggest a broadband tax?!?)... until then we get stuck with whatever BT wants to provide at whatever ridiculous cost they want to levy to get connected...
I thought BT were already forging ahead with 100MB to every home?
The upto is mainly due to the way ADSL works, basically the further you are away from the exchange, the lower speeds you can achieve, my Be line can reach upto 21Mbps due to my relatively short underground cable distance (1.4km length according to attentuation)Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryRW
This 100Mbps line will not be ADSL, and most likely not use exchanges like the way ADSL does but a communications box on the street level so distance will be much shorter.
However the upto 100Mbps will be determined on the available bandwidth and definitely on the source of the download. In short nobody can guarantee 100Mbps so for legal reasons they must use "upto".
Oh I understand why it's an "upto" speed, my issue is that it's usually only people living in the exchange itself that can get that speed. I therefore think it is entirely misleading to continually tout that maximum possible speed rather than a more realistic figure. I accept that adverts, price plans etc... could get messy if they continually have to quote 2 figures (the upto and say and average figure), but really, how difficult is it to make it clear to the average consumer that the actual rate they get is likely to be around half the headline figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNV
I guess it's not much different to sales that have "upto 75% off", but then there is only one item in the shop with 75% off, the rest are knocked down by 5-10%. So I guess this is a rant against marketing tricks generally, but i think this is a consistent trick on consumers. Maybe I'm being condescending, but I think the average consumer is not well equipped to realise the difference with more technical things like this.
(& I won't even comment on traffic shaping and throttling policies that seriously undermine the speeds you're likely to get even further....)
My bad - thanks for correcting my goof.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom