I think those commenters below who say that you generally dont need ultra fast 5G for most tasks, in business terms at least, are correct.
The reality is that the staple of connectivity in business will remain cabled connections with 5G used for mobile applications, just as 4G is now and 3G before it. There is a reason for that, coming in on a wire is more reliable and predictable than over the air.
NI has some of the largest percentage penetration of ultra Fibre to the Premises in urban and rural, both Openreach and Alt Nets through a mix of Openreach often using the region as a test bed and a lot of public subsidy for build. Place is still a public sector dominated economy and probably will be for as far as the time eye can see. It hasnt exactly made us any more dynamic in these parts. Whilst good connectivity does matter for economies, its standalone benefits may somewhat be oversold.
I would have thought that masts will be superseded by satellites fairly soon anyway.
The excitement over lots of new development is going to lead to some serious misallocations of cash - for example, the Scottish Government has a similar attitude to Horse about masts, but this has lead them to spend millions in remote areas where you might get one or two hillwalkers or estate workers a day if you're lucky.
A waste. Those masts would be better placed in remote towns. Better still, cash for rural areas would be devolved to local councils so they can the decide the best way to spend it.
I doubt satellites will take over from masts, except in very rural areas.
As for Scotland.... When I was walking the coast just over twenty years ago, there was a Scottish scheme to connect up every village with t'Internet. It meant that wherever I want, I could go into a local village building and connect cheaply to the Internet. Mobile coverage was also good - better, in fact, than many places in England. For this and other reasons, I'd ague that Scotland has a better view on rural connectivity than England do.
That's great, and where you want more masts.
It's just that they have a policy if covering every spot in the country (including areas without road access), which seems inefficient use of cash to me.
I'm currently digging into whether the Labour reforms will help with walking and cycling provision in England. It's not just housing and energy that suffers from NIMBYism!
AIUI (and my native in-house expert is asleep) the problem comes with 5G which, whilst it can handle humongous data rates, has one set of frequencies that can be stopped by the tears of a passing canary.
IMHO 5G isn't suitable for general roll out. 4G connections are usually reliable if you get one, 5G is temperamental as anything. The number of times I've been in city centres and had 5G signal and no actual data connection is embarrassing.
I'm not sure what the point of faster mobile data rates is either for most users. Once you can stream 4K video reliably (which IIRC 4G will do), what else is there that really needs a faster connection?
It's more a question of efficient use of frequency in crowded areas.
I think those commenters below who say that you generally dont need ultra fast 5G for most tasks, in business terms at least, are correct.
The reality is that the staple of connectivity in business will remain cabled connections with 5G used for mobile applications, just as 4G is now and 3G before it. There is a reason for that, coming in on a wire is more reliable and predictable than over the air.
NI has some of the largest percentage penetration of ultra Fibre to the Premises in urban and rural, both Openreach and Alt Nets through a mix of Openreach often using the region as a test bed and a lot of public subsidy for build. Place is still a public sector dominated economy and probably will be for as far as the time eye can see. It hasnt exactly made us any more dynamic in these parts. Whilst good connectivity does matter for economies, its standalone benefits may somewhat be oversold.
I would have thought that masts will be superseded by satellites fairly soon anyway.
The excitement over lots of new development is going to lead to some serious misallocations of cash - for example, the Scottish Government has a similar attitude to Horse about masts, but this has lead them to spend millions in remote areas where you might get one or two hillwalkers or estate workers a day if you're lucky.
A waste. Those masts would be better placed in remote towns. Better still, cash for rural areas would be devolved to local councils so they can the decide the best way to spend it.
I doubt satellites will take over from masts, except in very rural areas.
As for Scotland.... When I was walking the coast just over twenty years ago, there was a Scottish scheme to connect up every village with t'Internet. It meant that wherever I want, I could go into a local village building and connect cheaply to the Internet. Mobile coverage was also good - better, in fact, than many places in England. For this and other reasons, I'd ague that Scotland has a better view on rural connectivity than England do.
Satellites aren't going to take over from masts because - even when deployed in clusters of tens of thousands - they offer relatively limited bandwidth. They're amazing for rural areas, but they'd be terrible in London. (Doubly so because you really need a clear line-of-sight for Starlink type systems.)
That 2G Starlink direct to cellphone is pretty rad though. Ruins the plot of Alive, Castaway and the like
Yep: the ability to get SMS communication when out of cell service range is pretty amazing.
What's interesting about those polling numbers is that apart from Nevada and Pennsylvania, the other 4 states have the same lead for Trump as the previous Emerson poll held before the debate in mid-June.
Also the more recent Morning Consult poll has these numbers: Wisconsin Biden by 3 Michigan Biden by 5 Arizona Trump by 3 Pennsylvania Trump by 7 Nevada Trump by 3 Georgia Trump by 1
The previous Morning Consult state polling seems to have been in May. Wisconsin Trump by 1 Michigan Biden by 1 Arizona Trump by 5 Pennsylvania Trump by 2 Nevada Even Georgia Trump by 3
So Biden polling better in 4 states now than in May, and worse in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
It's entirely possible that Biden could still win. (And given the choice between him and Trump I'd vote fur him without hesitation.)
But that doesn't change my opinion that he ought to have stepped down. As it stands, he's given the Democrats little option but to rally round him - and there's a sizeable chunk of the party who would have (and had) done so anyway.
But if he has another couple of episodes like the debate night...
He is on a downward mental spiral. (As for that matter is Trump, but Trump is probably a year or two behind Biden.)
And that means that the next debate will probably be worse.
Fear of Trump alone won't win the election for the Democrats. Biden's inability to recognize his mental frailties - which is not uncommon - is a major problem for the Dems.
It's a huge problem, and a huge gamble that Biden is taking, out of what is likely plain stubbornness.
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk. As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
The median Lib Dem MP is a now a woman called Sarah who studied at a polytech and went on to set up a small charity in Wessex. With a few exceptions, they don’t look especially promising. Nor, to my way of thinking, classically liberal.
As Starmer has done, Davey needs a few choice Lords appointments.
"Polytechnics" haven't existed under that name since 1992. They'd've been born on/before 1974. Are they all fifty years old or older?
There’s a LD MP who rowed the Pacific solo, there’s another who was a soldier and then wrote a PhD on Afghanistan, another who is blind, another who is a millionaire entrepreneur, another who was in the RAF and then became a mental health nurse… They’re a varied group.
Served with him in Basra. Sound bloke (for a Snowdrop, lol). He was involved in the clean up after the 1 Para fuelled Majar al-Kabir catastrofuck. After that, the venomous intrigures of the LibDems must seem like nothing.
From now on, call me CorrectHorseBuildMastsBattery
Your earlier posts seemed disproportionate but if you're prepared to change the only name you've ever had on this site then you must be serious. I'm convinced. Let's mast over the cotswolds.
We absolutely should. Why should any area of the UK be left behind? Masts everywhere to ensure full coverage, it is essential for growth.
I know people think I am taking the piss but our neighbours manage it. Planning in this country is a joke for masts and connectivity in general.
I am "obsessed" as it's my area of expertise, having worked for both Vodafone and O2.
Im certainly not opposed to more masts. But I'm skeptical that there are many places left (on a population weighted basis) where we need them for growth. Without going too much into me, I'm both tech savvy and in need of internet to do my job. But I don't need 5g speeds and am unlikely to do so in the next few years. And if I did need it, I have other options such as starlink or extremely recently virgin cable (I won't be signing up with latter tho; waiting for openreach to install full fibre so I can keep zen).
This probably goes for at least 95% of those who need internet to work remotely / set up a business.
The chap I mentioned before - farming family, now turning to solar + small business - setup 1Gb symmetrical fibre for each business unit, Starlink backup *and* is getting 5G from as many networks as he can persuade (running micro cells for some of them at the moment)
Says it’s a deal sealer. Someone looking always asks about the connectivity when looking.
What's interesting about those polling numbers is that apart from Nevada and Pennsylvania, the other 4 states have the same lead for Trump as the previous Emerson poll held before the debate in mid-June.
Also the more recent Morning Consult poll has these numbers: Wisconsin Biden by 3 Michigan Biden by 5 Arizona Trump by 3 Pennsylvania Trump by 7 Nevada Trump by 3 Georgia Trump by 1
The previous Morning Consult state polling seems to have been in May. Wisconsin Trump by 1 Michigan Biden by 1 Arizona Trump by 5 Pennsylvania Trump by 2 Nevada Even Georgia Trump by 3
So Biden polling better in 4 states now than in May, and worse in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
It's entirely possible that Biden could still win. (And given the choice between him and Trump I'd vote fur him without hesitation.)
But that doesn't change my opinion that he ought to have stepped down. As it stands, he's given the Democrats little option but to rally round him - and there's a sizeable chunk of the party who would have (and had) done so anyway.
But if he has another couple of episodes like the debate night...
He is on a downward mental spiral. (As for that matter is Trump, but Trump is probably a year or two behind Biden.)
And that means that the next debate will probably be worse.
Fear of Trump alone won't win the election for the Democrats. Biden's inability to recognize his mental frailties - which is not uncommon - is a major problem for the Dems.
It's a huge problem, and a huge gamble that Biden is taking, out of what is likely plain stubbornness.
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk. As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
The word 'gamble' implies some uncertainty over the outcome.
Biden would rather lose to Trump than hand over to Harris. Such preening vanity and stubbornous.
What's interesting about those polling numbers is that apart from Nevada and Pennsylvania, the other 4 states have the same lead for Trump as the previous Emerson poll held before the debate in mid-June.
Also the more recent Morning Consult poll has these numbers: Wisconsin Biden by 3 Michigan Biden by 5 Arizona Trump by 3 Pennsylvania Trump by 7 Nevada Trump by 3 Georgia Trump by 1
The previous Morning Consult state polling seems to have been in May. Wisconsin Trump by 1 Michigan Biden by 1 Arizona Trump by 5 Pennsylvania Trump by 2 Nevada Even Georgia Trump by 3
So Biden polling better in 4 states now than in May, and worse in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
It's entirely possible that Biden could still win. (And given the choice between him and Trump I'd vote fur him without hesitation.)
But that doesn't change my opinion that he ought to have stepped down. As it stands, he's given the Democrats little option but to rally round him - and there's a sizeable chunk of the party who would have (and had) done so anyway.
But if he has another couple of episodes like the debate night...
He is on a downward mental spiral. (As for that matter is Trump, but Trump is probably a year or two behind Biden.)
And that means that the next debate will probably be worse.
Fear of Trump alone won't win the election for the Democrats. Biden's inability to recognize his mental frailties - which is not uncommon - is a major problem for the Dems.
It's a huge problem, and a huge gamble that Biden is taking, out of what is likely plain stubbornness.
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk. As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
The word 'gamble' implies some uncertainty over the outcome.
Biden would rather lose to Trump than hand over to Harris. Such preening vanity and stubbornous.
I definitely see this as vanity to some degree. But self awareness of cognitive decline can be very difficult. His family should step in.
Not all but under AV most Reform voters would have given the Tories their second preferences and vice versa and the Tories would probably have got over 200 seats as a result and Reform 50-100.
In different circumstances, maybe, but not this time. More Reform voters (marginally) would have gone for opposition parties than the Tories. And if Tories are willing to transfer to reform, how come the guy in Rotherham didn’t do much better?
They wouldn't, the polls showed most Reform voters this time voted Conservative in 2019. Rotherham may have gone Reform with AV
You are missing the point. A Poll specifically asked how they would vote if there wasn't a Reform candidate, which is effectively their second preference. Fewer were Conservative than were Lab/Lib/Green/Other.
What's interesting about those polling numbers is that apart from Nevada and Pennsylvania, the other 4 states have the same lead for Trump as the previous Emerson poll held before the debate in mid-June.
Also the more recent Morning Consult poll has these numbers: Wisconsin Biden by 3 Michigan Biden by 5 Arizona Trump by 3 Pennsylvania Trump by 7 Nevada Trump by 3 Georgia Trump by 1
The previous Morning Consult state polling seems to have been in May. Wisconsin Trump by 1 Michigan Biden by 1 Arizona Trump by 5 Pennsylvania Trump by 2 Nevada Even Georgia Trump by 3
So Biden polling better in 4 states now than in May, and worse in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
It's entirely possible that Biden could still win. (And given the choice between him and Trump I'd vote fur him without hesitation.)
But that doesn't change my opinion that he ought to have stepped down. As it stands, he's given the Democrats little option but to rally round him - and there's a sizeable chunk of the party who would have (and had) done so anyway.
But if he has another couple of episodes like the debate night...
He is on a downward mental spiral. (As for that matter is Trump, but Trump is probably a year or two behind Biden.)
And that means that the next debate will probably be worse.
Fear of Trump alone won't win the election for the Democrats. Biden's inability to recognize his mental frailties - which is not uncommon - is a major problem for the Dems.
It's a huge problem, and a huge gamble that Biden is taking, out of what is likely plain stubbornness.
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk. As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
The word 'gamble' implies some uncertainty over the outcome.
Biden would rather lose to Trump than hand over to Harris. Such preening vanity and stubbornous.
I think his failure to recognise his increasing frailty is the strongest evidence of decreasing intellect. Being stubborn is a strength up to a point but the rigidity of age has made it a major fault.
He should trust in Kamala, and give her the best chance by making her an incumbent POTUS.
What's interesting about those polling numbers is that apart from Nevada and Pennsylvania, the other 4 states have the same lead for Trump as the previous Emerson poll held before the debate in mid-June.
Also the more recent Morning Consult poll has these numbers: Wisconsin Biden by 3 Michigan Biden by 5 Arizona Trump by 3 Pennsylvania Trump by 7 Nevada Trump by 3 Georgia Trump by 1
The previous Morning Consult state polling seems to have been in May. Wisconsin Trump by 1 Michigan Biden by 1 Arizona Trump by 5 Pennsylvania Trump by 2 Nevada Even Georgia Trump by 3
So Biden polling better in 4 states now than in May, and worse in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
It's entirely possible that Biden could still win. (And given the choice between him and Trump I'd vote fur him without hesitation.)
But that doesn't change my opinion that he ought to have stepped down. As it stands, he's given the Democrats little option but to rally round him - and there's a sizeable chunk of the party who would have (and had) done so anyway.
But if he has another couple of episodes like the debate night...
He is on a downward mental spiral. (As for that matter is Trump, but Trump is probably a year or two behind Biden.)
And that means that the next debate will probably be worse.
Fear of Trump alone won't win the election for the Democrats. Biden's inability to recognize his mental frailties - which is not uncommon - is a major problem for the Dems.
It's a huge problem, and a huge gamble that Biden is taking, out of what is likely plain stubbornness.
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk. As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
The word 'gamble' implies some uncertainty over the outcome.
Biden would rather lose to Trump than hand over to Harris. Such preening vanity and stubbornous.
Except the latest JL Partners poll shows Trump crushing Harris by a massive 11% margin while Biden is just 5% behind. So Biden is right
What's interesting about those polling numbers is that apart from Nevada and Pennsylvania, the other 4 states have the same lead for Trump as the previous Emerson poll held before the debate in mid-June.
Also the more recent Morning Consult poll has these numbers: Wisconsin Biden by 3 Michigan Biden by 5 Arizona Trump by 3 Pennsylvania Trump by 7 Nevada Trump by 3 Georgia Trump by 1
The previous Morning Consult state polling seems to have been in May. Wisconsin Trump by 1 Michigan Biden by 1 Arizona Trump by 5 Pennsylvania Trump by 2 Nevada Even Georgia Trump by 3
So Biden polling better in 4 states now than in May, and worse in Pennsylvania and Nevada.
It's entirely possible that Biden could still win. (And given the choice between him and Trump I'd vote fur him without hesitation.)
But that doesn't change my opinion that he ought to have stepped down. As it stands, he's given the Democrats little option but to rally round him - and there's a sizeable chunk of the party who would have (and had) done so anyway.
But if he has another couple of episodes like the debate night...
He is on a downward mental spiral. (As for that matter is Trump, but Trump is probably a year or two behind Biden.)
And that means that the next debate will probably be worse.
Fear of Trump alone won't win the election for the Democrats. Biden's inability to recognize his mental frailties - which is not uncommon - is a major problem for the Dems.
It's a huge problem, and a huge gamble that Biden is taking, out of what is likely plain stubbornness.
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk. As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
The word 'gamble' implies some uncertainty over the outcome.
Biden would rather lose to Trump than hand over to Harris. Such preening vanity and stubbornous.
Except the latest JL Partners poll shows Trump crushing Harris by a massive 11% margin while Biden is just 5% behind. So Biden is right
And lots of other latest polls show massively different outcomes but you don't like them.
Comments
I'm just pointing out the dynamics of the situation.
And it wouldn't just be 'fear of Trump'. The Democrats have governed pretty well. If Biden were a decade younger the election would be a slam dunk.
As it is, he's odds against, and another major episode away from disaster.
Says it’s a deal sealer. Someone looking always asks about the connectivity when looking.
Biden would rather lose to Trump than hand over to Harris. Such preening vanity and stubbornous.
NEW THREAD
He should trust in Kamala, and give her the best chance by making her an incumbent POTUS.
Biden is deteriorating rapidly.