The Inquirer-Home

Tories backtrack on broadband

You probably were not expecting this
Fri Jul 16 2010, 09:28

THE GLOROUS RAINBOW ALLIANCE of the Tories and Liberal Democrats has decided that the great unwashed do not really need broadband after all.

Having previously believed that it could get big business to pay for connecting broadband to small rural communities, the government has finally admitted that its chums in the telecom industry laughed at the suggestion.

However facing up to the fact that a bit of government money was going to be needed if Broadband Britain was going to happen, the Coalition has said that there is no money at all for at least three years.

Minister for funding upper-class projects at the expense of things that working people need, Jeremy Hunt has blamed a lack of funds for the government's decision to delay the roll out of 2Mbps broadband in the UK.

Hunt said he "did not think" there was "sufficient funding in place" to meet that goal.
Steve Robertson, chief executive of BT Openreach, told BBC 5 Live's Drive programme that the goal could not be achieved without around £2bn in public funding.

Hunt said last month that he thought he could give everyone a universal service level of 2Mbps as the very minimum that should be available. However after looking at what his chums in treasury had given him he was not convinced that there is sufficient funding in place.

Hunt said that he will keep working towards that date, but he has set himself a "more realistic target of achieving universal 2 Mbps access within the lifetime of this Parliament".

Basically the policy still means asking industry to come up with the readies with a small amount of cash coming from the licence fee. This is something that they have consistently refused to do for years. µ

 

 

Share this:

Comments
How much would it really cost, and what is the most cost effective way?

Most countries have lower population densities than the UK so they must have worked out a cost effective method for connecting up countree folk!

How much would it cost, what would it deliver? And is it "fair" to stick a temporary tax on everyone else's broadband to pay for it?

Personally if you live in a remote area you're going to pay more for online products through higher postage costs. So maybe there should be a tax on postage profits? ;-)

posted by : interested_party, 17 July 2010 Complain about this comment
Sorely Insufficient

They can't afford to roll out 2 megabits per second nationwide? My goodness, stop buying solid gold/titanium/diamond stationary then you over-paid arrogant nit-wits (actually, it's probably the solid-uranium stationary that's to blame). By this point in time, we should be seeing at least TWENTY megabits per second nationwide!!

I remember BT claiming that their totally futuristic and awesome 21CN project would see speeds of "around" 8 megabits per second rolled out to my area... by 2014.

By 2014 I bloody well expect dual gigabit wireless links straight into my brain, fud-damnit.

posted by : Sev Covican, 17 July 2010 Complain about this comment
Riddle me this

In other EU countries the governments are not allowed to get into providing broadband (or its infrastructure) since that is anti-competitive according to EU rules from what I heard, so did the UK get yet another exemption or are they simply ignoring the deals they agreed to?

posted by : W.-, 16 July 2010 Complain about this comment
Attachments

The problem with people is that they do not have the desire for reality other than having the desire for relativity, oka vested interest. How much did that Iron Piling, now reduced to a gurgling pile of innocence, and her tag-alongs, got for BT, and we are talking about the “public coffers”. BT was/is a national interest for it necessitated the resources of a nation to erect. Geni-asses, oka real donkeys, pillaging through governance, should know by now, that the secret of the Digital Realm is within software and not so much within the hardware. A cow is there for expressing milk and not to moo. Power is there to flow and not for accumulating.

You can’t expect a thief to offer advice on others’ security so why give credence to what BT says about, “Broadband”, or anything relating to balancing the inequities that it had spawned. Cruelty’s/a-principle’s duty is to make others cruel/the-same-principle and nothing else. The relative expression of superficial infinity is to make others addicted to the consequences of their inequities whilst not forgetting that wants/greed are not satiable other than for spawning fear. There is enough for all but who bothers or care other than for a passing moment. It will be self and mutually benevolent to realise that Love has no notion of attachment be it Fame, Fortune or Immortality. A person’s reality/power/essence/essential-power is his Attention which is why once one’s Attention is “distracted”/”captured”/”diverted”/etc., one’s power departs until the Attention is retrieved. As such, where is your Attention – now?

posted by : rusty, 16 July 2010 Complain about this comment
aboutus
Advertisement
Subscribe to INQ newsletters
Advertisement
INQ Poll

Facebook starts selling shares

Will you buy Facebook shares?