| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:36 - Nov 15 with 4054 views | Deano69 |
A network with all your activity logged, owned by the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Possibly the daftest ‘put us in power’ promise, ever. |  |
|  |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:41 - Nov 15 with 4042 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:36 - Nov 15 by Deano69 |
A network with all your activity logged, owned by the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Possibly the daftest ‘put us in power’ promise, ever. |
The government can access this already if they want under the Investigatory Powers Bill:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-pow [Post edited 15 Nov 2019 21:42]
|  | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:49 - Nov 15 with 4019 views | longtimefan |
I like that they reference Australia as an example when their nationalised attempt at provision of full fibre Broadband has been an unmitigated disaster! They also seems to be totally misrepresenting what the DCMS report said. It certainly didn’t conclude that a monopoly approach was the best way forward. In fact it expressed a number of major concerns with that approach, namely, competition, innovation and implementation delay. The authors also don’t seem to be able to do basic maths - “As he became prime minister, Johnson promised there will be full-fibre broadband coverage by 2020. The pledge moved the deadline for full coverage forward by eight years, from 2033” [Post edited 15 Nov 2019 21:58]
|  | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:06 - Nov 15 with 3971 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:36 - Nov 15 by Deano69 |
A network with all your activity logged, owned by the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Possibly the daftest ‘put us in power’ promise, ever. |
Before you know it they’ll want to register our details for collecting tax, providing medical treatment, and I bet some Commie barsteward will be wanting details of all our cars soon and use cameras to track us on the roads.l, or to track us when we leave the country.
Come on, this is getting silly.
It’s a perfectly sensible idea to have 100% coverage of fast broadband as digital becomes more central to every aspect of our lives. As long as it’s future-proofed it will be an excellent investment.
If people were honest, I bet 90% of the whinging about it is purely because it’s Labour suggesting this and because we’ve been conned-itioned (see what I did there!) to think everything public is bad. Which is clearly bollox given how public ownership delivers better services in many cases on mainland Europe. |  |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:22 - Nov 15 with 3936 views | factual_blue |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:36 - Nov 15 by Deano69 |
A network with all your activity logged, owned by the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Possibly the daftest ‘put us in power’ promise, ever. |
But you're happy to let mark zuckerberg know more or less everything about you? |  |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:22 - Nov 15 with 3930 views | homer_123 |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:49 - Nov 15 by longtimefan |
I like that they reference Australia as an example when their nationalised attempt at provision of full fibre Broadband has been an unmitigated disaster! They also seems to be totally misrepresenting what the DCMS report said. It certainly didn’t conclude that a monopoly approach was the best way forward. In fact it expressed a number of major concerns with that approach, namely, competition, innovation and implementation delay. The authors also don’t seem to be able to do basic maths - “As he became prime minister, Johnson promised there will be full-fibre broadband coverage by 2020. The pledge moved the deadline for full coverage forward by eight years, from 2033” [Post edited 15 Nov 2019 21:58]
|
It is entirely correct to say that the current method and regulatory powers show no signs of ensuring 100% coverage anytime soon either.
So, an alternative isn't a bad idea.
Can't say I'm mad keen on rounds of nationalisation but the more I read up on this the more it's not as mad as it first sounds. |  |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:23 - Nov 15 with 3927 views | homer_123 |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:22 - Nov 15 by factual_blue |
But you're happy to let mark zuckerberg know more or less everything about you? |
Quite. | |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:42 - Nov 15 with 3901 views | longtimefan |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:22 - Nov 15 by homer_123 |
It is entirely correct to say that the current method and regulatory powers show no signs of ensuring 100% coverage anytime soon either.
So, an alternative isn't a bad idea.
Can't say I'm mad keen on rounds of nationalisation but the more I read up on this the more it's not as mad as it first sounds. |
An alternative approach isn’t a bad idea, this one is! It’s likely first impact would be to curtail the current rollout until all the legal wrangling was sorted. Personally I would prefer to see a solution that made sure Superfast Broadband was available everywhere within the next couple of years before concentrating on a full fibre approach. Let’s be honest, over the next few years how many people will really need gigabit connectivity. My office regularly makes use of international video conferencing and internationally hosted servers and we manage perfectly adequately with a 70M connection. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 23:49 - Nov 15 with 3842 views | factual_blue |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:06 - Nov 15 by Swansea_Blue |
Before you know it they’ll want to register our details for collecting tax, providing medical treatment, and I bet some Commie barsteward will be wanting details of all our cars soon and use cameras to track us on the roads.l, or to track us when we leave the country.
Come on, this is getting silly.
It’s a perfectly sensible idea to have 100% coverage of fast broadband as digital becomes more central to every aspect of our lives. As long as it’s future-proofed it will be an excellent investment.
If people were honest, I bet 90% of the whinging about it is purely because it’s Labour suggesting this and because we’ve been conned-itioned (see what I did there!) to think everything public is bad. Which is clearly bollox given how public ownership delivers better services in many cases on mainland Europe. |
Imagine what sort of mess this country would have been in if, during The Heyday Of Empire, the entire system of communications (and later telecommunications) were under state control.*
*The Post Office was founded in 1660 by Charles II. | |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 02:20 - Nov 16 with 3796 views | stonojnr |
if you actually read the research they published, youll see they concluded no nationalisation isnt the answer at all, they recommended the path the current or should we say previous government at the moment took.
but hey makes a "good" headline doesnt it... #fakenews | | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 05:51 - Nov 16 with 3743 views | IPS_wich |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:49 - Nov 15 by longtimefan |
I like that they reference Australia as an example when their nationalised attempt at provision of full fibre Broadband has been an unmitigated disaster! They also seems to be totally misrepresenting what the DCMS report said. It certainly didn’t conclude that a monopoly approach was the best way forward. In fact it expressed a number of major concerns with that approach, namely, competition, innovation and implementation delay. The authors also don’t seem to be able to do basic maths - “As he became prime minister, Johnson promised there will be full-fibre broadband coverage by 2020. The pledge moved the deadline for full coverage forward by eight years, from 2033” [Post edited 15 Nov 2019 21:58]
|
Good god - don’t go down the Australian route!!
We moved here in January 2014. Our broadband -which is supposedly on the new national network - is slower in speed than our house in the uk was in 2013. There are parts of regional Western Australia that are still on DSL. It’s a joke. | | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 08:21 - Nov 16 with 3634 views | gordon |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 05:51 - Nov 16 by IPS_wich |
Good god - don’t go down the Australian route!!
We moved here in January 2014. Our broadband -which is supposedly on the new national network - is slower in speed than our house in the uk was in 2013. There are parts of regional Western Australia that are still on DSL. It’s a joke. |
By going down the Australian route do you mean making the country 32 times bigger and having a third of the population? Not an expect on infrastructure projects but I'm guessing that might be a factor. |  | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 08:24 - Nov 16 with 3620 views | artsbossbeard |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:06 - Nov 15 by Swansea_Blue |
Before you know it they’ll want to register our details for collecting tax, providing medical treatment, and I bet some Commie barsteward will be wanting details of all our cars soon and use cameras to track us on the roads.l, or to track us when we leave the country.
Come on, this is getting silly.
It’s a perfectly sensible idea to have 100% coverage of fast broadband as digital becomes more central to every aspect of our lives. As long as it’s future-proofed it will be an excellent investment.
If people were honest, I bet 90% of the whinging about it is purely because it’s Labour suggesting this and because we’ve been conned-itioned (see what I did there!) to think everything public is bad. Which is clearly bollox given how public ownership delivers better services in many cases on mainland Europe. |
Add to this that any interaction with a government department is now online firstly then broadband to all is a necessity rather than a nice to have.
Fibre to the house is a nice to have not a necessity. |  |
| Please note: prior to hitting the post button, I've double checked for anything that could be construed as "Anti Semitic" and to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Anything deemed to be of a Xenophobic nature is therefore purely accidental or down to your own misconstruing. | | Poll: | Raining in IP8 - shall I get the washing in? |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 08:32 - Nov 16 with 3604 views | Deano69 |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:06 - Nov 15 by Swansea_Blue |
Before you know it they’ll want to register our details for collecting tax, providing medical treatment, and I bet some Commie barsteward will be wanting details of all our cars soon and use cameras to track us on the roads.l, or to track us when we leave the country.
Come on, this is getting silly.
It’s a perfectly sensible idea to have 100% coverage of fast broadband as digital becomes more central to every aspect of our lives. As long as it’s future-proofed it will be an excellent investment.
If people were honest, I bet 90% of the whinging about it is purely because it’s Labour suggesting this and because we’ve been conned-itioned (see what I did there!) to think everything public is bad. Which is clearly bollox given how public ownership delivers better services in many cases on mainland Europe. |
Ok. Technically and practically then
£20billion is wildly short of the implementation cost yet alone main ongoing maintenance and support costs
10 years time, much of the current technology will be obsolete, unsupported and not adequate in performance
A whole section of the ICT industry will be ruined
FTTC broadband would not be adequate for 10,000’s of businesses and they will need something different to that proposed. How does that work?
One if the most significant reasons our connectivity is slow is because it’s built in Victorian infrastructure, which was in the main installed under government ownership in much the same way.
Delivery of enormous projects a rarely successful as along the way it is discovered there’s a reason why it hasn’t been done before.
All the tech giants they intend to tax to fund will simply move out. | |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 08:51 - Nov 16 with 3583 views | factual_blue |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 08:32 - Nov 16 by Deano69 |
Ok. Technically and practically then
£20billion is wildly short of the implementation cost yet alone main ongoing maintenance and support costs
10 years time, much of the current technology will be obsolete, unsupported and not adequate in performance
A whole section of the ICT industry will be ruined
FTTC broadband would not be adequate for 10,000’s of businesses and they will need something different to that proposed. How does that work?
One if the most significant reasons our connectivity is slow is because it’s built in Victorian infrastructure, which was in the main installed under government ownership in much the same way.
Delivery of enormous projects a rarely successful as along the way it is discovered there’s a reason why it hasn’t been done before.
All the tech giants they intend to tax to fund will simply move out. |
I don't think most most of our telecommunications infrastructure is Victorian. And until about 1912 the phone system consisted of private companies.
And in 1970 only 35% of households had a phone. | |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 09:03 - Nov 16 with 3568 views | hampstead_blue |
Today on R4 had Paul Mason and an economics professor (name escapes me) talking this through.
Mason made a very good point....He pays £30pcm for what is a sunk cost, copper wire installed in his home some time ago.
He also claimed Labour could deliver this project for £20bn after it had paid for buying Openreach.
The professor returned with the argument that it is cheaper to regulate and let Openreach take the risk and operating costs.
Both sides put their point really well.
It's either
1) Labour nationalise, unionise, and run stuff - Very bad track record
2) Regulate and incentivise - Good track record, but could do better
It must be cheaper and more efficient to properly regulate. You can cap prices and fix minimum levels of investment.
Better that than unions ruling the country and everyone going home at 4pm |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 10:10 - Nov 16 with 3521 views | IPS_wich |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 08:21 - Nov 16 by gordon |
By going down the Australian route do you mean making the country 32 times bigger and having a third of the population? Not an expect on infrastructure projects but I'm guessing that might be a factor. |
I was more referring to making a promise to the population at large that everyone would have access to a national fast broadband network and then 10 years later still struggle to have first world speeds across a city fast approaching 2m residents (Perth).
I’m no infrastructure expert either but I have lived here for six years so I guess that makes me more qualified to comment on it than you d1ckhead!! | | | |
| gmpf on 10:16 - Nov 16 with 3518 views | Dyland |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:36 - Nov 15 by Deano69 |
A network with all your activity logged, owned by the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Possibly the daftest ‘put us in power’ promise, ever. |
The government or anyone really can track what you do right now. It makes no difference. Look at Facebook and the lovely peeps at Cambridge Analytica for example.
You're not one of the board gommies, have a word Deaners ;) |  |
| |
| aye (n/t) on 10:16 - Nov 16 with 3516 views | Dyland |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:22 - Nov 15 by factual_blue |
But you're happy to let mark zuckerberg know more or less everything about you? |
| |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 10:36 - Nov 16 with 3492 views | Dyland |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 09:03 - Nov 16 by hampstead_blue |
Today on R4 had Paul Mason and an economics professor (name escapes me) talking this through.
Mason made a very good point....He pays £30pcm for what is a sunk cost, copper wire installed in his home some time ago.
He also claimed Labour could deliver this project for £20bn after it had paid for buying Openreach.
The professor returned with the argument that it is cheaper to regulate and let Openreach take the risk and operating costs.
Both sides put their point really well.
It's either
1) Labour nationalise, unionise, and run stuff - Very bad track record
2) Regulate and incentivise - Good track record, but could do better
It must be cheaper and more efficient to properly regulate. You can cap prices and fix minimum levels of investment.
Better that than unions ruling the country and everyone going home at 4pm |
You were making some really good points until the last clause of your last sentence. | |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 10:39 - Nov 16 with 3466 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:22 - Nov 15 by factual_blue |
But you're happy to let mark zuckerberg know more or less everything about you? |
Well of course....cos buying stuff is cool! |  |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 10:46 - Nov 16 with 3450 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 09:03 - Nov 16 by hampstead_blue |
Today on R4 had Paul Mason and an economics professor (name escapes me) talking this through.
Mason made a very good point....He pays £30pcm for what is a sunk cost, copper wire installed in his home some time ago.
He also claimed Labour could deliver this project for £20bn after it had paid for buying Openreach.
The professor returned with the argument that it is cheaper to regulate and let Openreach take the risk and operating costs.
Both sides put their point really well.
It's either
1) Labour nationalise, unionise, and run stuff - Very bad track record
2) Regulate and incentivise - Good track record, but could do better
It must be cheaper and more efficient to properly regulate. You can cap prices and fix minimum levels of investment.
Better that than unions ruling the country and everyone going home at 4pm |
How about workers' cooperatives? [Post edited 16 Nov 2019 10:46]
| |
| |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 10:56 - Nov 16 with 3437 views | WD19 |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 10:36 - Nov 16 by Dyland |
You were making some really good points until the last clause of your last sentence. |
His last point was both wildly inaccurate and unfair.
No way would they leave early. What they would actually do is down tools and clock watch assiduously from 16:00-17:00, before leaving on the dot of 17:00. |  | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 11:09 - Nov 16 with 3425 views | BlueAsTory |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 21:36 - Nov 15 by Deano69 |
A network with all your activity logged, owned by the government, what could possibly go wrong?
Possibly the daftest ‘put us in power’ promise, ever. |
The way I see it depends on who you trust more to run the networks?
Government or Corporations, either of them will use to brainwash for their own benefit. | | | |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 11:20 - Nov 16 with 3412 views | NthQldITFC |
| Labour's nationalisation of BT...not so bonkers after all? on 22:06 - Nov 15 by Swansea_Blue |
Before you know it they’ll want to register our details for collecting tax, providing medical treatment, and I bet some Commie barsteward will be wanting details of all our cars soon and use cameras to track us on the roads.l, or to track us when we leave the country.
Come on, this is getting silly.
It’s a perfectly sensible idea to have 100% coverage of fast broadband as digital becomes more central to every aspect of our lives. As long as it’s future-proofed it will be an excellent investment.
If people were honest, I bet 90% of the whinging about it is purely because it’s Labour suggesting this and because we’ve been conned-itioned (see what I did there!) to think everything public is bad. Which is clearly bollox given how public ownership delivers better services in many cases on mainland Europe. |
Yes, yes, yes, but how can I buy shares in it and make money from the poorer members of society if it is in public ownership? |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
