|
||||||||
Should rural residents expect the same service? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,885
|
Should rural residents expect the same service?
I ask this in light of a recent PR from EE announcing 4G coverage in Shetlands and Scilly Isles. Now in this instance I think is it fair to argue that its competition that has influenced the roll out of modern networks to these areas. EE I believe is taking the lead and Vodafone to follow soon after.
What I find telling is that its the market at work helping modern communications spread further a field, bringing more rural communities online. This is largely done at the expense of the operators usually in partnership with one or several others. EE trailblazing seems to have given a much needed kick up the arse to the rest of the market, least of all O2 and Vodafone. Mobile network communications seem to work well competitively in this country and has brought many benefits. So has required very little public funding (exception of the failed MIP), yet for those outside of busy cities, towns, villages or motorways it can seem a snails pace waiting for the 4G revolution. Now converse that with fixed line Broadband and the opposite is true, save the niche providers BT/Openreach is willing to roll out FTTC in rural areas mostly at the tax payers expense (licence fee payer really). In some instances FTTP is rolled out giving a better service than the majority of users in cities and towns get. Areas like Cornwall seem to have managed and run a better superfast project than neighbouring counties like Devon and maybe Somerset and Dorset. Telecoms in rural areas can seem to be more of a long spiders web when distance between some properties and cabinets are taken into account. BT is now apparently proposing a 10Mb USO, it hopes to resolve many of the complaints made from rural customers. Will that be enough? Openreach has already openly committed to the rolling out of G.Fast, again another "stop gap" technology (as one member frequently says) instead of full FTTP. G.Fast at present seems to be an evolving technology at the moment and it seems under lab conditions they may be able to deliver ultrafast speeds over lines longer than 500m from the cab. Given this evolving nature, if Openreach follows through with it will FTTDP help customers with long lines or living in rural locations? I personally think the future for mobile telecoms in bright in this country, if as EE promises to rollout 95% coverage then Vodafone will surely follow. That will then at least give customers true alternatives given the separate networks. It seems public appetite and market forces are influencinng the direction of travel for mobile networks. It in essence is working well. Fixed line Broadband is a bit of a tough cookie, seeing as the majority of people are stuck with a BT line in order to get broadband. In some rural areas like Cornwall, LAs have worked well with BT to rollout superfast as widely as possible. Others that isn't the case, yet I wonder does G.Fast have the potential to overcome many long line issues through FTTDP? So I ponder this, do those who live rurally have a right to expect the same level of service(s) as those in dense conurbations? Should rural customers be right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise the cost of rolling our superfast services where the market isn't working? Taking are more single minded view, why should those who live in less pretty places pay for the lifestyle choices of those that do?* *not my true feelings |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
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. Myself, I have about 2mb ADSL and that is just about OK at the moment. Keeps me alive. Frustrating at times but OK. I have to pay for 2 lines as the kids want to watch youtube and stuff and that shuts me down from work. So that, in itself, is a rural tax. We are on the cusp where I live of seeing a 4G alternative and I think that is the way it will go. I certainly won't be looking to BT to fibre us up anytime in the next 100 years. I think it will be 4G/5G and so on for the future, realistically. 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. Anyway, I'm rambling. In answer to the basic question, no, we don't expect the same speeds as urban folk. We just want something that works well enough and so will you when you come and stay here. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,645
|
AFAIK G.Fast still hasn't been proven to be a panacea. The only way it can possibly work is by making the copper part very short - that means nailing "micro nodes" to every telegraph pole. They can't just upgrade the FTTC cabinets and give everyone 500Mbit (FTTC is dead-end - the only upgrade path is FTTP or G.fast, and ignoring the FTTC cabinets entirely) I think that given that the internet is an essential utility, that yes, it should be subsidised and provided to as many people as possible, urban or rural, with minimal use of short sighted bodges. That may mean 4G for the very very very rural (though hopefully with sensible prices or usage limits) but ideally FTTsomething. That may also mean using FTTP even in the middle of nowhere - as BT has already done in places like Cornwall. We did it with electricity, water, telephony (and in some areas) gas. Internet is the new "rural electrification" IMO - and it should be an ambitious target, fit for the needs of the future, not 2Mbps. And definitely not satellite internet - that shouldn't even be considered fit for rural broadband! I wonder what people consider to be "rural" anyway. I live in what has become a large village - the density is there for an FTTP rollout to be successful and even profitable (and parts of it are on FTTP). It's not remote, it's about 3 minutes from a major A road. But we're still "rural" because we aren't a town or city - we're in the same pigeon hole as people who willingly choose to live on 50 acres In terms of places like Cornwall, the bulk of the population is rural, so it's only fair that their taxes are spent on rural things. We don't have major cities that make all the money. But I suspect you knew my opinion anyway... Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Leicester
Posts: 203
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,645
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
Quote:
As if... you need to remortgage your house to buy anything from his restaurants ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,885
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
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. Oops. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,645
|
Quote:
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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Leicester
Posts: 203
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,645
|
Quote:
Because you can cover more population with the same amount of money if you start with urban areas..
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?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,577
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Leicester
Posts: 203
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Not leaving the EU (quite yet)
Posts: 300
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 592
|
Quote:
pretty much everywhere that isn't completely in the middle of nowhere has FTTC now, which is good enough really.
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. |
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,645
|
Quote:
No idea if it would be workable in any form, but seems a fair compromise to me.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,645
|
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. .
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,378
|
Quote:
Can't you get a Vodafone sure signal? There must be some cheap ones on eBay now.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 592
|
Quote:
Hopefully CDS's "solution" for you isn't to give you a cheap satellite dish...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,885
|
Quote:
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.
PM me if you want it, can get it to you later this week. |
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:55.



