Should rural residents expect the same service?

Cornwall are lucky with all the Objective 1 stuff or whatever they call it nowadays. So they tend to get a helping hand from the EU. Remember that the next time you check your emails from Rick Steins chip shop.

As if... you need to remortgage your house to buy anything from his restaurants

hammy_y · 25-04-2016, 16:41

Well the only logical way to roll out a network is to benefit the most people first. So rural areas should expect the same service - they just need to wait a little longer.

moox · 25-04-2016, 16:46

Quote:

Well the only logical way to roll out a network is to benefit the most people first. So rural areas should expect the same service - they just need to wait a little longer.

It's not necessarily the "only logical way" at all. Why do you think that this is so?

So rural people should be first - urbanites typically (yes, there are exceptions before people point them out) already have access to the sorts of speeds that rural people are only beginning to get through the various rural broadband programmes. Why isn't it just as logical to start with the people who are the most deprived of service? It's a far bigger and more important leap for someone to go from 56k (yes, people still use dialup) or 2Mbits to 40 or more, than for an urbanite to go from 20 to 40.

I say this as a person who waited about 3 years after everyone else before I was finally able to get any form of broadband at all.

Stereo Steve · 25-04-2016, 16:56

Quote:

As if... you need to remortgage your house to buy anything from his restaurants

Sums up my point. It's not a destination for locals but the folk with the money will expect some 4G to check their Ashley Madison account while they enjoy pan fried chicken lobsters and prunes.

Aye Up · 25-04-2016, 16:57

Quote:

Firstly, for many of us, the fact that we live in a pretty place is just the way it is, we were born here. I accept that many others have moved in (and priced many of us out). I don't know what that means. But for many of us, this is 'home'. We could move away. I tried living in town once. Didn't suit me at all. I expect for many, the reverse is true.

Your post seems weighed against us yokels and reads like urban folk are subsidising our 'lifestyle'. Maybe. But then again, I pay near on 2 grand a year in council tax and get my bins emptied every other week. Where does most of my 2 grand go? Into the local towns. It's really difficult to separate what you think you are paying for and what you want to be paying for. Do I begrudge my massive council tax bill in return for little or no services? Not really. Overall, my tax bill seems fair.

I think, on balance, most rural folk readily accept that we are not going to be on the cutting edge of tech services. But that doesn't mean we should be forgotten. And it's not only for our benefit. When you come glamping in one of our fields, you do not want to be stuck on the sort of service that VO2 offer to most of the rural SW at the moment. Or maybe you do, get away from it all. Sorry boss, no service, call you on Monday.

You also have to take into account that a lot of very basic things are moving online. For example, for farmers, an awful lot of their form filling is now online and paper is only a 'back up'. A lot of these people are stuck on 512k or even dial up. The RPA website doesn't even work on these speeds. Or if it does, it will take you all day to fill out a form. And this is being forced upon these people with no technology to support it.

I think my last three sentences may have coloured that somewhat. I have no complaint against those that live in rural areas, for most as like you are born there. I prefer said rural locations to a trip to somewhere sunny in the med (for what its worth. I know rural areas have suffered the brunt of lack of investment and soaring house prices because of many wanting holiday homes.

I wouldn't move to a rural location unless good broadband was readily available, that was part of the shopping list when we chose a new home 5 years ago (suburban area). Of course that isn't an option readily available to the overwhelming majority of rural residents. I have a more nuanced view of it all, the market is clearly working for mobile telecoms but not fixed. As a country we are left with little option but public funding, even if it means handing money to a monopoly provider.

Broadband is becoming a necessity nowadays, therefore everywhere and every household has to have it, at least at a minimum speed. I don't think BT's 10Mb USO proposal is going to be enough, as by 2020 it will need to be faster to accommodate changing usage habits. You make the example yourself you need two lines in which to support online usage amongst your family.

I agree with your point that those in rural areas shouldn't be cut off, I would just wonder what the costs would be to get virtually every household online?

We, being in the city we get to take superfast services for granted, as the likes of Virgin Media will only rollout where there is significant demand. Clearly thats why the taxpayer has to step in, as it can't be fully funded using private money where the demand is more sparsely spread. In the near term I think wireless will be an answer, however long term somehow fixed line ultrafast broadband is going to need to permeate rural households. The government could do a lot worse than mandating a decent USO above 20Mb by 2020, it will cost, yet will be worth it.

I think in respect of the Shetlands and Scilly Isles announcement this morning, these areas are crying out for digital investment, especially accommodating tourists. The same can be said for the south west, the tourist season is underway this time of year and no doubt infrastructure is creaking.

In some respects as much as some may not like it, we have no choice but to support superfast broadband rollout to rural areas, in the not too distant future there will be demand and a requirement, least of all from the residents. The way its happening at the moment is shit, there is no getting away from that. Rural locations will always need public funding to get the faster speeds, until FTTP becomes a reality, thats the way it will stay.

Stereo Steve · 25-04-2016, 16:58

Quote:

It's not necessarily the "only logical way" at all. Why do you think that this is so?

So rural people should be first - urbanites typically (yes, there are exceptions before people point them out) already have access to the sorts of speeds that rural people are only beginning to get through the various rural broadband programmes. Why isn't it just as logical to start with the people who are the most deprived of service? It's a far bigger and more important leap for someone to go from 56k (yes, people still use dialup) or 2Mbits to 40 or more, than for an urbanite to go from 20 to 40.

I say this as a person who waited about 3 years after everyone else before I was finally able to get any form of broadband at all.

Why did you wait that long? I just spammed the BT 350 target thing with made up adresses and we got it in no time.

Oops.

moox · 25-04-2016, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

Why did you wait that long? I just spammed the BT 350 target thing with made up adresses and we got it in no time.

Oops.

It was 300 for me, but I was under the impression that BT actually checked at least some of them to make sure no one did that.

I think we got to 180 (legitimately) before BT pulled the plug on the demand checker and announced that we'd be getting it anyway. It took ages though - I think they did that in 2003, but we didn't get it until mid 2005

Stereo Steve · 25-04-2016, 17:05

Quote:

I think my last three sentences may have coloured that somewhat. I have no complaint against those that live in rural areas, for most as like you are born there. I prefer said rural locations to a trip to somewhere sunny in the med (for what its worth. I know rural areas have suffered the brunt of lack of investment and soaring house prices because of many wanting holiday homes.

I wouldn't move to a rural location unless good broadband was readily available, that was part of the shopping list when we chose a new home 5 years ago (suburban area). Of course that isn't an option readily available to the overwhelming majority of rural residents. I have a more nuanced view of it all, the market is clearly working for mobile telecoms but not fixed. As a country we are left with little option but public funding, even if it means handing money to a monopoly provider.

Broadband is becoming a necessity nowadays, therefore everywhere and every household has to have it, at least at a minimum speed. I don't think BT's 10Mb USO proposal is going to be enough, as by 2020 it will need to be faster to accommodate changing usage habits. You make the example yourself you need two lines in which to support online usage amongst your family.

I agree with your point that those in rural areas shouldn't be cut off, I would just wonder what the costs would be to get virtually every household online?

We, being in the city we get to take superfast services for granted, as the likes of Virgin Media will only rollout where there is significant demand. Clearly thats why the taxpayer has to step in, as it can't be fully funded using private money where the demand is more sparsely spread. In the near term I think wireless will be an answer, however long term somehow fixed line ultrafast broadband is going to need to permeate rural households. The government could do a lot worse than mandating a decent USO above 20Mb by 2020, it will cost, yet will be worth it.

I think in respect of the Shetlands and Scilly Isles announcement this morning, these areas are crying out for digital investment, especially accommodating tourists. The same can be said for the south west, the tourist season is underway this time of year and no doubt infrastructure is creaking.

In some respects as much as some may not like it, we have no choice but to support superfast broadband rollout to rural areas, in the not too distant future there will be demand and a requirement, least of all from the residents. The way its happening at the moment is shit, there is no getting away from that. Rural locations will always need public funding to get the faster speeds, until FTTP becomes a reality, thats the way it will stay.

I suppose, if we want our country to stay the way it is, with urban centers and rural retreats, then we have to accept that it is just going to cost to get essential services out to those areas. Not only for the people who live there but for those who want to visit (and who are very welcome to visit). I guess, I think I echo Moox's point (if I have got it right) that fast BB is now like water and electricity. You can barely get by without it unless you opt out of modern society in some way. So, it has become an essential utility and must realistically be rolled out across the whole of the UK.

There are a very few places who have no mains water and rely on a borehole and the same for electricity.

I suppose the frustration is that there are a lot of us who are not remote in the slightest. Live within 3 miles of a major town and between 2 major cities, 25 miles each way and yet are still in the third world in terms of telecoms with really nothing on the horizon other than the offerings of the mobile companies. It's a bit pathetic when you think about it.

Stereo Steve · 25-04-2016, 17:06

Quote:

It was 300 for me, but I was under the impression that BT actually checked at least some of them to make sure no one did that.

I think we got to 180 (legitimately) before BT pulled the plug on the demand checker and announced that we'd be getting it anyway. It took ages though - I think they did that in 2003, but we didn't get it until mid 2005

Nah, someone I know just spammed it. Or did I already admit that it was me? Hmmm. Got it anyway.

Thine Wonk · 25-04-2016, 18:06

Should rural residents expect the same service?

Interesting question, I'd say yes, however that is because I believe that the finite radio spectrum licences should enforce a coverage obligation that doesn't discriminate where possible. I'd issue licences where coverage and quality of service is in the interests of all consumers, however that would cost more, adding to the cost of everyone's service.

Radio used to be that way, where bidders would be putting in bids in the interest of public service and then Ofcom (previously the radio authority) would decide the winning bid based on public interest.

However the current system is all about money, and operators rarely have to conform to coverage obligations, with 4G only 1 network was subject to one, even then it wasn't a strong one. Networks have also breached obligations with little penalty.

So the answer is really, if you want a capitalist commercial system with free trade and competition and minimal regulation that you don't stand a chance as a rural resident. If you want a more heavily regulated (and therefore overall more costly) system, then you could, but that's not the system our government has in place at the moment.

hammy_y · 25-04-2016, 18:43

Quote:

It's not necessarily the "only logical way" at all. Why do you think that this is so?

So rural people should be first - urbanites typically (yes, there are exceptions before people point them out) already have access to the sorts of speeds that rural people are only beginning to get through the various rural broadband programmes. Why isn't it just as logical to start with the people who are the most deprived of service? It's a far bigger and more important leap for someone to go from 56k (yes, people still use dialup) or 2Mbits to 40 or more, than for an urbanite to go from 20 to 40.

I say this as a person who waited about 3 years after everyone else before I was finally able to get any form of broadband at all.

Because you can cover more population with the same amount of money if you start with urban areas.

If you're rural enough to only get dialup, then I guess you can't really expect the same level of service. But pretty much everywhere that isn't completely in the middle of nowhere has FTTC now, which is good enough really. Even a very rural village near me with only like 1,507 population according to wikipedia, has FTTC now. And it has 4G on EE too. Like if you're rural enough to not get FTTC, do you really expect good broadband? If I was in that situation I'd just move. Although I guess BT's 10Mb USO will cover that in 2020 anyway. Like I said rural areas get the same stuff, they just have to wait a bit longer.

moox · 25-04-2016, 19:27

Quote:

Because you can cover more population with the same amount of money if you start with urban areas..

But they already had it, or were planned to get it, before the rural broadband projects picked up steam. If they didn't have BT's fibre service, they either likely had pretty fast ADSL or Virgin cable.

These BDUK projects (or the independent one in Cornwall) are for rural areas. They don't cover urban areas (except the one in Cornwall which does cover almost all towns and the one city). It's really more that both rollouts are happening in parallel, than one side getting it before the other

Quote:

If you're rural enough to only get dialup, then I guess you can't really expect the same level of service. But pretty much everywhere that isn't completely in the middle of nowhere has FTTC now, which is good enough really. Even a very rural village near me with only like 1,507 population according to wikipedia, has FTTC now. And it has 4G on EE too. Like if you're rural enough to not get FTTC, do you really expect good broadband?

Some places do. 10 minutes outside of my village is a boatload of FTTP for farmers and owners of country piles. I'm not opposed to that, though I think it's rather odd that they'll put FTTP out there but relegate the rest of us onto dead end FTTC (which is barely good enough today, and not close to future proof).

What will be interesting is how a future G.fast or FTTP rollout goes - will BT want more taxpayer cash to roll it out to non-urban areas? In theory, it should be just as viable to do it in places like my large village, than it is in any town or city - we have the same density and the existing FTTC network has laid the groundwork by bringing the fibre into the village

Quote:

If I was in that situation I'd just move. Although I guess BT's 10Mb USO will cover that in 2020 anyway. Like I said rural areas get the same stuff, they just have to wait a bit longer.

Farmers can't move to the cities - and as I said, there are a lot of "rural" areas that really shouldn't be considered rural anymore due to population growth. They should be seen as small towns.

Stereo Steve · 25-04-2016, 20:00

Quote:

But they already had it, or were planned to get it, before the rural broadband projects picked up steam. If they didn't have BT's fibre service, they either likely had pretty fast ADSL or Virgin cable.

These BDUK projects (or the independent one in Cornwall) are for rural areas. They don't cover urban areas (except the one in Cornwall which does cover almost all towns and the one city). It's really more that both rollouts are happening in parallel, than one side getting it before the other

Some places do. 10 minutes outside of my village is a boatload of FTTP for farmers and owners of country piles. I'm not opposed to that, though I think it's rather odd that they'll put FTTP out there but relegate the rest of us onto dead end FTTC (which is barely good enough today, and not close to future proof).

What will be interesting is how a future G.fast or FTTP rollout goes - will BT want more taxpayer cash to roll it out to non-urban areas? In theory, it should be just as viable to do it in places like my large village, than it is in any town or city - we have the same density and the existing FTTC network has laid the groundwork by bringing the fibre into the village

Farmers can't move to the cities - and as I said, there are a lot of "rural" areas that really shouldn't be considered rural anymore due to population growth. They should be seen as small towns.

We've got FTTC in our village but no FTTP to be seen. All the country piles around here are now multiple flats so where 1 bloke lived when I was a lad is now a small hamlet in effect. All on crap ADSL with no real hope of any change soon. As most of them are on benefits (source = landlord), you would have thought the govt would be falling over themselves to give them the best that tech can offer.

Thine Wonk · 25-04-2016, 20:01

Commercial operators will always go for mass market rollout where most of the money is though. Given the choice they wouldn't put any masts where there are few people, it is where government comes along and drives things like MIP or tries to benchmark coverage that incentivises companies to do their bit for rural areas.

We can either have a heavy handed state that regulates heavily which will inevitably lead to more cost overall, or a more free handed commercial approach that sometimes means rural communities get coverage later than everyone else.

I'd actually prefer more state mandated control when issuing licences for all radio spectrum services, based around public interest first and profit second, but not everyone feels that way and our government certainly don't.

hammy_y · 25-04-2016, 20:10

Quote:

But they already had it, or were planned to get it, before the rural broadband projects picked up steam. If they didn't have BT's fibre service, they either likely had pretty fast ADSL or Virgin cable.

These BDUK projects (or the independent one in Cornwall) are for rural areas. They don't cover urban areas (except the one in Cornwall which does cover almost all towns and the one city). It's really more that both rollouts are happening in parallel, than one side getting it before the other

Some places do. 10 minutes outside of my village is a boatload of FTTP for farmers and owners of country piles. I'm not opposed to that, though I think it's rather odd that they'll put FTTP out there but relegate the rest of us onto dead end FTTC (which is barely good enough today, and not close to future proof).

What will be interesting is how a future G.fast or FTTP rollout goes - will BT want more taxpayer cash to roll it out to non-urban areas? In theory, it should be just as viable to do it in places like my large village, than it is in any town or city - we have the same density and the existing FTTC network has laid the groundwork by bringing the fibre into the village

Farmers can't move to the cities - and as I said, there are a lot of "rural" areas that really shouldn't be considered rural anymore due to population growth. They should be seen as small towns.

Isn't the rural FTTP funded by the government though? I'm not opposed to rural places getting FTTP either, I think it's great for them, especially if before those areas had barely usable broadband.

Maybe this sounds a bit selfish, but for me and the other 90% of people who have superfast broadband now, would I rather get even faster broadband for me, or the same service I have now for the other 10%? It's not gonna benefit me in any way if the other 10% get faster broadband, but it is gonna benefit me if I get even faster broadband. And I guess that's why they upgrade more urban areas first.

There's farms near me that can get even faster FTTC than I can.

errea · 25-04-2016, 20:41

Yes and No.

There is no reason that the mobile networks can't be made to roll out lower frequency coverage (3G 900 MHz / 4G 800 MHz) in rural areas as part of their telecoms licence.

It probably isn't viable to roll out high capacity, higher frequency coverage (3G 2100 MHz, 4G 2600 MHz) in low density rurual areas.

CheshireBumpkin · 25-04-2016, 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheshireBumpkin

pretty much everywhere that isn't completely in the middle of nowhere has FTTC now, which is good enough really.

I'd agree if that was true - but it's not. There are a huge number of households who are rural (and not so rural) and not at all remote, whose cabinets are 'enabled' but they are too far from the cabinet to get FTTC. This often happens over relatively short geographical distances where the old BT copper lines follow sometimes bizarre and seemingly random routes to homes that make the actual line distance significantly longer.

Personally I think there should be something like a published list of 'installation cost caps', under which a new superfast connection would be provided from public funds. This would be a budget per household, and if the installation cost went over the cap the householder would be expected to pay the excess. There would need to be some sort of transparency around true installation costs for it to work otherwise BT would be claiming a suburban terrace cost £10K to connect to the cabinet at the end of the street.

To pluck a number from the air, it might be £1k per household. That way, if you live halfway up a Welsh mountain you would probably have to pay a sum yourself, but would receive a £1k contribution to the cost. If you're in a hamlet 2 miles from the nearest town, a group of four houses might not have to pay anything if they pooled their household 'allowance'.

No idea if it would be workable in any form, but seems a fair compromise to me.

moox · 25-04-2016, 23:18

Quote:

No idea if it would be workable in any form, but seems a fair compromise to me.

It certainly raises a valid point. There is a problem in that if you don't like what you're given, or it's rubbish, you can't pay for a modest upgrade (e.g. to consumer grade fibre to the premises), you have to go straight to the world of leased lines (which are obscenely expensive and not available to you unless you're a lottery winner - even smaller businesses are priced out of it).

FTTP on demand does "exist", but the prices are unreasonable for its intended audience, and there's no record of anyone successfully ordering that service. You also have to be in an FTTC area. It seems to exist solely so BT can claim it's an option, if challenged.

If it was simply about paying £1000 for installation then that would be more workable, but it's not - you will also be paying at least £300 a month for two years, on top of whatever BT decides the installation fee will be. Personally I would also resent paying so much for a service that people a couple of minutes down the road can get for £80 install and £30 a month.

It'd be like having an electricity supply that never gives enough voltage or current to meet modern residential needs, and if you ask the electricity co for a solution, they'll tell you that for £10k they'll come and install a substation and 3 phase supply just for you, like if you were a large office block or a factory. Totally over the top.

Stereo Steve · 26-04-2016, 11:22

Quote:

It certainly raises a valid point. There is a problem in that if you don't like what you're given, or it's rubbish, you can't pay for a modest upgrade (e.g. to consumer grade fibre to the premises), you have to go straight to the world of leased lines (which are obscenely expensive and not available to you unless you're a lottery winner - even smaller businesses are priced out of it).

FTTP on demand does "exist", but the prices are unreasonable for its intended audience, and there's no record of anyone successfully ordering that service. You also have to be in an FTTC area. It seems to exist solely so BT can claim it's an option, if challenged.

If it was simply about paying £1000 for installation then that would be more workable, but it's not - you will also be paying at least £300 a month for two years, on top of whatever BT decides the installation fee will be. Personally I would also resent paying so much for a service that people a couple of minutes down the road can get for £80 install and £30 a month.

It'd be like having an electricity supply that never gives enough voltage or current to meet modern residential needs, and if you ask the electricity co for a solution, they'll tell you that for £10k they'll come and install a substation and 3 phase supply just for you, like if you were a large office block or a factory. Totally over the top.

It's a can of worms innit? I live 7km from my cab, which is fibred and in the local town. We just about get stable ADSL. The fibre runs along the main road about 1.2km to the North of me. There is a small Hamlet just off the main road with maybe 20 properties in it. and I would guess something like 30-40 residences with 1km to the south of it, made up of flats and houses. So, say 50 viable properties could get FTTC at least if they put a cab there. That sort of seems worth doing on a per house basis. But there is nothing happening and no plan to do anything while CDS argue with BT etc.

So, what if we all chip in a few hundred and make it happen? First question is why should we? I know I would though. But there doesn't seem a decent mechanism for local groups to do that and you don't want to be setting a precident for others where BT think that if they ignore people, they will just stump up.

What's going to happen at some point is that it will get done out of shame as the governments vision of a superfast connected Britain is revealed as a bit of a joke.

It's 2016 for goodness sake. In my house I can get about 2mb ADSL on a good day. No 4G at all (although wifi calling fixes that.). No 3G of any kind. A sniff of VO2 2G if I'm lucky. I need 2 fixed phone lines to maintain enough service to run my business (ecommerce) and for the kids to use their stuff. If I do get a mobile call I usually end up running outside (VOD) to answer it, whatever the weather. I accept if I went on contract with EE, this particular issue would be sorted but then my phone wouldn't ring around my place once out of wifi range. So I end up with some naff Heath Robinson set up with 2 PAYG sims and 2 phone lines. Bit fed up with it to be honest. The thing is, very little seems to change year on year. I hope that the mobile networks at least are rolling out a product that will be of use to me.

moox · 26-04-2016, 12:09

Quote:

It's a can of worms innit? I live 7km from my cab, which is fibred and in the local town. We just about get stable ADSL. The fibre runs along the main road about 1.2km to the North of me. There is a small Hamlet just off the main road with maybe 20 properties in it. and I would guess something like 30-40 residences with 1km to the south of it, made up of flats and houses. So, say 50 viable properties could get FTTC at least if they put a cab there. That sort of seems worth doing on a per house basis. But there is nothing happening and no plan to do anything while CDS argue with BT etc. .

It is ridiculous. And not to mention that if you were in Cornwall, you'd/they'd be at a much greater chance of getting full fat FTTP when something is finally done, but on the other side of the Tamar they seem to be using a lot more FTTC, and BT didn't even get the contract for part of the CDS programme so someone else will be doing it using god knows what technology. There are many different "lotteries" at work.

Quote:

So, what if we all chip in a few hundred and make it happen? First question is why should we? I know I would though. But there doesn't seem a decent mechanism for local groups to do that and you don't want to be setting a precident for others where BT think that if they ignore people, they will just stump up.

I think BT already are in that mindset. That's why FTTP on demand exists. They won't even give you a rough example of the costs for your scenario, you live so far from the cabinet that BT just says "price on application". But for people who are "only" 2km away, the cost is an eyewatering £6k plus the fixed charge of £750. Plus VAT. Per household. (and then the eyewatering monthly costs). At BT's pricing it'd be cheaper for you to move than to pay them for an improved service. Hopefully CDS's "solution" for you isn't to give you a cheap satellite dish...

https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/hom...2e9%2Bmw%3D%3D

AFAIK there is no means for a group of people to negotiate with BT to do a special deal. It's take it leave it. That's probably why organisations like B4RN decided to leave it, and built a better network than BT would have done

Quote:

What's going to happen at some point is that it will get done out of shame as the governments vision of a superfast connected Britain is revealed as a bit of a joke.

When the government is only aiming for pedestrian targets like 2Mbps or 10Mbps that's already clear to see

Quote:

It's 2016 for goodness sake. In my house I can get about 2mb ADSL on a good day. No 4G at all (although wifi calling fixes that.). No 3G of any kind. A sniff of VO2 2G if I'm lucky. I need 2 fixed phone lines to maintain enough service to run my business (ecommerce) and for the kids to use their stuff. If I do get a mobile call I usually end up running outside (VOD) to answer it, whatever the weather. I accept if I went on contract with EE, this particular issue would be sorted but then my phone wouldn't ring around my place once out of wifi range. So I end up with some naff Heath Robinson set up with 2 PAYG sims and 2 phone lines. Bit fed up with it to be honest. The thing is, very little seems to change year on year. I hope that the mobile networks at least are rolling out a product that will be of use to me.

Can't you get a Vodafone sure signal? There must be some cheap ones on eBay now.

Stereo Steve · 26-04-2016, 13:39

Quote:

Can't you get a Vodafone sure signal? There must be some cheap ones on eBay now.

That was my original plan. Get a ZTE blade 6 dual SIM. 3 PAYG 321 sim for data. All calls come through my main number on VOD and I would get a Sure Signal for the house and my shed / office. Sorted. Except that the ZTE can only do 3/4G on SIM 1. SIM 2 is 2G only. Damn. I need the 3 Sim in slot 1 as that gives me a good and cheap data service around the South Hams. But I can't use the Sure Signal on SIM 2 as it can't do 3G.

Been looking around for a phone that can do 3/4G on both SIMs but haven't yet found one I like. Most are 5.5" which is too big for me. I don't want to carry around an iPad in my pocket.

So again, I have to choose. If I go dual SIM, I could have 2 sims on 3/4G with a phablet which I don't want. I can have good data from 3 but no sure signal usage. I can't go with O2 for calls as TuGo is not on PAYG. I can't switch fully to 3 and use TiT as the outdoor coverage around my 'place' is not good enough once out of wifi range. I could go to EE but again, a lot of not spots around the farm once I'm out of wifi.

Blah blah. I'm sort of hanging on the iPhone 7 and will most likely sign up with EE then and try to boost the wifi around the pit in which I live. The latest announcement makes me think they may add 800 to a lot more masts than previously planned which would sort me totally.

CheshireBumpkin · 26-04-2016, 15:07

Quote:

Hopefully CDS's "solution" for you isn't to give you a cheap satellite dish...

That winds me up so much. They're doing it here in Cheshire - offering a voucher scheme to subsidise installation. Once they've 'made superfast (!) available' in this way they seem to be able to mark you off as 'dealt with' and therefore no need to push harder for a more appropriate solution like fibre.

Satellite is no superfast solution as far as I'm concerned. On paper, the download is OK, but the upload and latency renders it a horrific experience. The satellite providers have struggled with contention and capacity for a while now already, so I can't imagine how poor the end-user experience will be for the poor buggers who excitedly sign up to it over the next few months and years.

It really irritates me when BDUK and the various regional gravy-trainers and money-milkers use the excuse that satellite BB is available to write off huge swathes of commercially unattractive properties.

Aye Up · 26-04-2016, 16:18

Quote: