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
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



