UK Gov waters down broadband plans in spending review

[HEXUS]

Gigabit broadband UK coverage target revised down to 85 per cent of homes by 2025.

Read more.

[Friesiansam]

the BBC reports that the whole of the UK commitment has been significantly watered down to now be an aim to have a "minimum of 85 per cent coverage," for gigabit broadband in the UK by 2025..

When Tory government policy becomes an 'aim', you know it's not going to happen.

[LSG501]

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure most home users actually 'need' gigabit internet, even more so if it has useless upload speeds, but why is the government even paying for the infrastructure in the first place, especially when they won't see any profit from it....

Openreach (and bt because lets be honest they're still linked) are a commercial company who should be footing the bill, they've done so little to the infrastructure since they've owned it (we really should all be on fibre by now) it's about time they actually paid for something themselves instead of making huge profits off of previous (and current) government investment..
How about making bt use some of the money they've wasted on football streaming etc on infrastructure... instead of putting up bills for it.

Also why haven't the government delayed (or cancelled) that hs2 train thing, if we're heading down the route of businesses working from home, due to companies finding out it works during lockdown, one of the main reasons for the train line has been nullified and would be better spent on (ironically) the internet connections.


(forum posting works, posting on home page didn't for me)

[kalniel]

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure most home users actually 'need' gigabit internet, even more so if it has useless upload speeds, but why is the government even paying for the infrastructure in the first place, especially when they won't see any profit from it....

Openreach (and bt because lets be honest they're still linked) are a commercial company who should be footing the bill, they've done so little to the infrastructure since they've owned it (we really should all be on fibre by now) it's about time they actually paid for something themselves instead of making huge profits off of previous (and current) government investment..

Well 'making profit off it' is pretty much the raison d'etre for a commercial company. Why should they be involved in something that doesn't make them money? If you want a company like that then you found a not-for-profit or govt owned body.

Also why haven't the government delayed (or cancelled) that hs2 train thing, if we're heading down the route of businesses working from home, due to companies finding out it works during lockdown, one of the main reasons for the train line has been nullified and would be better spent on (ironically) the internet connections.

The govnt doesn't want us to work from home - all those commute costs, office leasing and supporting eateries etc. are putting money in the hands of business and is very much the Tory way (which in turn has been supported by the majority of the electorate so they can argue they've got a mandate to continue).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Maybe our country needs to be more realistic and try and get the existing infrastructure upto date. Something like targetting 100/40 would be much more doable and cheaper,especially since we also need to look at network capacity and reliability.So much of the country is still using decades old copper and aluminium cabling,and end of street boxes which look like a spaghetti maze!

Another thing is also investment in improved wireless infrastructure which might be more cost effective in rural areas than miles and miles of cabling - in certain countries in Africa,its been more cost effective to do this than more traditional methods.

[ik9000]

FFS just cancel HS2 and divert the funds to this. It'll surely be more beneficial to people here.

[LSG501]

Well 'making profit off it' is pretty much the raison d'etre for a commercial company. Why should they be involved in something that doesn't make them money? If you want a company like that then you found a not-for-profit or govt owned body.

missed the point I think....

A commercial company shouldn't be having stuff paid for them by the government, they should be using their own money especially as they'll be the primary company to gain from it (bt is near monopoly in most areas).... this isn't like mobile where the government leases spectrum etc.

The govnt doesn't want us to work from home - all those commute costs, office leasing and supporting eateries etc. are putting money in the hands of business and is very much the Tory way (which in turn has been supported by the majority of the electorate so they can argue they've got a mandate to continue).

except a lot of bigger businesses are seeing the potential benefits of smaller offices and less outlay etc so I don't think (long term) the government will have much say in how things evolve.

[philehidiot]

ffs just cancel hs2 and divert the funds to this. It'll surely be more beneficial to people here.

"you can travel to london 20 minutes faster!"
"you may not travel, work from home! It's the future anyway"
"we're still building the railway!"
"sod that internet plan!"

[towell]

Would be nice if Virgin expanded their coverage at all. It's pretty shameful that Openreach's top available speed in most homes is less than 100Mbps.

[iworrall]

I think I may have escaped this cutback. Openreach are already installing FTTP in my home town right now.

[kalniel]

missed the point I think....

A commercial company shouldn't be having stuff paid for them by the government, they should be using their own money especially as they'll be the primary company to gain from it (bt is near monopoly in most areas).... this isn't like mobile where the government leases spectrum etc.

Agreed, so from the company's point of view they should just not bother putting lines in where it's not profitable, right? Rather than taking government money, just leave the market to someone else (a not for profit/govt org for eg.)

except a lot of bigger businesses are seeing the potential benefits of smaller offices and less outlay etc so I don't think (long term) the government will have much say in how things evolve.

We'll see. There is definitely a lot to be said for more flexible work arrangements, but I think a lot of bigger businesses will go back to office working and the govt will encourage it.

[MrJim]

I think I may have escaped this cutback. Openreach are already installing FTTP in my home town right now.

They supposedly did the same in my town too - I signed up with BT for their 900Mb service back in August...and I'm still waiting for my installation. Openreach are a bit of a (bad) joke imho.

[ik9000]

Agreed, so from the company's point of view they should just not bother putting lines in where it's not profitable, right? Rather than taking government money, just leave the market to someone else (a not for profit/govt org for eg.)

We'll see. There is definitely a lot to be said for more flexible work arrangements, but I think a lot of bigger businesses will go back to office working and the govt will encourage it.

Well my view is the government should have fully separated openreach from BT a long time ago and made it NFP with a clear aim of what to achieve by what date. The governments (successive) aren't willing to do this - each one sells off more and more. They seem to not desire to have anything on the books they can be held accountable for. It puzzles me. Your example is exactly what happened with privatisation of the bus companies - non-profitable rural links lose their service in the name of profitability etc. A private company will rarely, unless obliged to/incentivised by finanical reward, do something just-because it might help a third party.

[jimborae]

Well my view is the government should have fully separated openreach from BT a long time ago and made it NFP with a clear aim of what to achieve by what date. The governments (successive) aren't willing to do this - each one sells off more and more. They seem to not desire to have anything on the books they can be held accountable for. It puzzles me. Your example is exactly what happened with privatisation of the bus companies - non-profitable rural links lose their service in the name of profitability etc. A private company will rarely, unless obliged to/incentivised by finanical reward, do something just-because it might help a third party.

This, OpenReach is critical infrastructure & should be nationalised. End Of.

[mikeo]

I would personally settle for any decent form of fibre connection myself! It seems like we will be stuck on ADSL for ever round here. It's not even as though we live in the bloody middle of nowhere. Sigh....

[Iota]

Got to be honest, I think I'll see the rollout of 5G long before anything remotely resembling a decent internet connection gets installed by Openreach / BT. It'll probably be cheaper and more reliable as well.

It's long overdue that any Government makes it a legal requirement of continued infrastructure investment to a much higher standard by BT / Openreach or lose the infrastructure to the public sector. Which can be contracted out to other internet providers upon the condition of actually meeting upgrade targets etc.

If you threaten BT / Openreach with complete loss of business, maybe that'll put some emphasis on doing the work required.