Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Broadband provided by GPO was definitely slower.
No. Waiting 3-4 weeks for a telephone to turn up and be connected...you couldn't just go to a shop and buy one.
Big but not ridiculous infrastructure investment, massive economic benefit.
Let’s all wait to see Laura K’s take.
In 2030....after they have nationalized OpenReach and imploded the UK tech sector by imposing massive new taxation. Other than that, all good.
So basically come 2030, the only way you will be able to get your home broadband is from the government, because Virgin etc are not going to offer it if they are being undercut by the government giving it away.
Broadband for all would be a massive boost for the tech sector, as you know. You are usually refreshingly non-partisan. Wake up.
On this you are just wrong. I can't operate my business from home on the crap BT offers. With the Commie Cable Co , one size fits all, that model just won't work.
It will be fine for the massive companies as they hook directly into the backbone infrastructure and pay through the nose for that. For smaller companies, they rely on the options out there. There will be no consumer / prosumer option other than Commie Cable.
You've no real argument against it, you just don't like it.
I have given you my argument. Different folks have wildly different broadband needs. The Commie Cable Co will offer you one option, that's it. As its free, there will be no other business in the market other than for provision to the big companies.
Will I be able to pay if I want gigabit? Or will all incentive to provide me with a better / more expensive service have been remvoed.
Big but not ridiculous infrastructure investment, massive economic benefit.
Let’s all wait to see Laura K’s take.
In 2030....after they have nationalized OpenReach and imploded the UK tech sector by imposing massive new taxation. Other than that, all good.
So basically come 2030, the only way you will be able to get your home broadband is from the government, because Virgin etc are not going to offer it if they are being undercut by the government giving it away.
Broadband for all would be a massive boost for the tech sector, as you know. You are usually refreshingly non-partisan. Wake up.
On this you are just wrong. I can't operate my business from home on the crap BT offers. With the Commie Cable Co , one size fits all, that model just won't work.
It will be fine for the massive companies as they hook directly into the backbone infrastructure and pay through the nose for that. For smaller companies, they rely on the options out there. There will be no consumer / prosumer option other than Commie Cable.
You've no real argument against it, you just don't like it.
Corbyn and McDonnell running our broadband and telecommunications at the cost of billions in lost pension investments and union dictated workforce, closing competition, and facing billions in R & D is for the birds
After almost 10 years of austerity politics, I'm enjoying the 'batshit crazy public spending pledges' election.
Will the debate just be Boz v Jez riffing on what they're going to give away?
Genuinely, it could be. Neither seems great at being on script when it comes to policy detail, and if one goes 'I'll give 90bn to pensioners because they are the greatest voters, I mean, generation' the other might up it to 100bn just to counter.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Nope really stupid. People want choice when it comes to consumer items like Broadband. Tell them it is the Government version or nothing (which is what this will mean) and they will run a mile.
But the choice is an illusion is it not? You are either using Virgin lines or OpenReach.
Not that I don’t think this is a silly policy.
No because whoever's lines are being used by your provider, they fight on your behalf for a better service. So where I live Openreach provide all the lines but the difference in service between the various companies is huge. The best example of this is EE and BT. The BT service is absolutely dire but the EE service is brilliant. And yet they have been the same company for the last couple of years.
The competition matters even when they are using the same basic infrastructure.
"And yet they have been the same company for the last couple of years."
You've defeated your own argument there.
No I honestly haven't. They keep their two parts separate even now. When I renewed my mobile phone two weeks ago they were asking if I wanted to switch from EE to BT broadband as there was an offer on. Not in a million years thankyou very much. I need my broadband to be reliable for work and BT simply isn't. It relied for far too long on being the Government supplier of choice for rolling out broadband and has treated its customers like shit.
Now it may be that BT will drag EE down to its level. But if it does that I will go elsewhere. Unless Corbyn's fucking lunatics get in and ruin it for everyone.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Broadband provided by GPO was definitely slower.
No. Waiting 3-4 weeks for a telephone to turn up and be connected...you couldn't just go to a shop and buy one.
And they were connected by wires to the wall. How backward!
I think there is a real risk Labour is entering into “I don’t believe you, this isn’t all possible” territory.
Alternatively, they may have twigged that bribing folk with "free" everything could be really popular.
Free absolutely everything, paid for magically by the "1%", whom, as we all know, have literally infinite supplies of money that they are cruelly and greedily hiding from the people.
Now you're getting into the swing of things. Even if people think it won't all come through, they'll know Labour want to be on 'their side' and give them money, while the Tories won't. Even though per HYUFD the Tories have given up on persuding people of that, hence the need to splurge as well, but not as much.
I imagine the intent is indicate Labour regard broadband as a key utility like water and electricity, which is best kept out of the hands of rapacious private companies who treat you like crap. Whatever the merits or not of nationalising various utlilities, its generally not an unpopular policy, and a lot of people think their broadband service is crap and I'd think won't dislike the suggestion. Plus compared to other cash splurges it doesn't even sound like a lot.
Nationalising trains might be popular. Anything tech related I can't see it being popular myself.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Broadband provided by GPO was definitely slower.
I miss teletext and oracle.
Which were provided by ITV - wireless broadband!
Shurely Prestel, with an acoustic coupler to sit your home phone receiver on.
The only reason we have FTTC at all is because we spent money on it.
The reason everyone has a phone line is because we spent money on it.
If everyone wants FTTP, we need to spend money on it. We're going to spend money either directly or via BT. So why not do it ourselves with lower costs via Government and we can own it ourselves?
This is incredibly sensible. It's the most sensible policy I've seen from Labour this election in all honesty.
Very, very good idea. And deliverable. The PB Tories will now go into sophistry about paying for it, forgetting that their anti European isolationism costs a fucking fortune. Telephones for all yesterday = broadband for all today. Great, great idea.
I imagine the intent is indicate Labour regard broadband as a key utility like water and electricity, which is best kept out of the hands of rapacious private companies who treat you like crap. Whatever the merits or not of nationalising various utlilities, its generally not an unpopular policy, and a lot of people think their broadband service is crap and I'd think won't dislike the suggestion. Plus compared to other cash splurges it doesn't even sound like a lot.
I am pretty sure nationalised companies will be much better at treating you like crap when they have no competition for you to run off to.
A nationalised BT would have a long way to go to treat its customers as atrociously as TalkTalk, Vodafone and Three all do.
I imagine the intent is indicate Labour regard broadband as a key utility like water and electricity, which is best kept out of the hands of rapacious private companies who treat you like crap. Whatever the merits or not of nationalising various utlilities, its generally not an unpopular policy, and a lot of people think their broadband service is crap and I'd think won't dislike the suggestion. Plus compared to other cash splurges it doesn't even sound like a lot.
I am pretty sure nationalised companies will be much better at treating you like crap when they have no competition for you to run off to.
That's why I said merits or not, its about disliking current situations not whether it would actually help. I, for instance, don't have a visceral disdain for the idea of nationalising the trains as whenever i use them it seems expensive and not great, and I have no memory of what it was like before so even though I'm told it is better than it was, I do not know that, as a feeling.
We know from polling that nationalisation as a concept is not feared by plenty of people, majorities in some cases, so Tories need to be careful how they attack any individual nationalisation proposal.
I'm so old I remember every single othetr time PB Tories have worked themselves into a lather about Labour talking about nationalising something and how that shows Labour's credibility is totally shot and then the torturous walk backs when the polling then shows the majority of the electorate agree with the policy.
After almost 10 years of austerity politics, I'm enjoying the 'batshit crazy public spending pledges' election.
Will the debate just be Boz v Jez riffing on what they're going to give away?
One thing's for sure - the Overton window's shifted on spending.
If nothing else good comes out of this election, at least we should see some increased investment in infrastructure and public services.
I'd just like a properly functioning rail system, and schools in rural areas which aren't falling down (after Gove cancelled the rebuilding programme).
Do any countries currently have a nationalised ISP with a monopoly? A had a quick Google and nothing came up.
In many rural parts of the US, many towns have a single monopoly supplier....and guess what the speeds / service is utter shit. And if you don't like / need more speed for a business, tough shit, you have to move to a bigger town.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Broadband provided by GPO was definitely slower.
I miss teletext and oracle.
Which were provided by ITV - wireless broadband!
Shurely Prestel, with an acoustic coupler to sit your home phone receiver on.
Oh yes, sorry that’s right. We’ve gone back a generation. I can’t even play bamboozle via my broadband.
Can I remind people that it is Government money that means we have majority FTTC coverage at all? BT didn't invest that money, we did.
And BT managed to fuck that up pretty well as well. They spent 18 months telling me I could not have Fibre broadband to my house because it wasn't available in my area. What they actually meant was it was available to the box but they were not in a position at the time to do the final loop to my property. EE then contacted me about my mobile and in passing asked if I wanted Fibre broadband. When I told them it was not available in my area they said yes it was and had been for 18 months. They had me connected within a week.
Do any countries currently have a nationalised ISP with a monopoly? A had a quick Google and nothing came up.
In many rural parts of the US, many towns have a single monopoly supplier....and guess what the speeds / service is utter shit. And if you don't like / need more speed for a business, tough shit, you have to move to a bigger town.
Prices are also shit, so a plus for the nationalise option.
I imagine the intent is indicate Labour regard broadband as a key utility like water and electricity, which is best kept out of the hands of rapacious private companies who treat you like crap. Whatever the merits or not of nationalising various utlilities, its generally not an unpopular policy, and a lot of people think their broadband service is crap and I'd think won't dislike the suggestion. Plus compared to other cash splurges it doesn't even sound like a lot.
I am pretty sure nationalised companies will be much better at treating you like crap when they have no competition for you to run off to.
That's why I said merits or not, its about disliking current situations not whether it would actually help. I, for instance, don't have a visceral disdain for the idea of nationalising the trains as whenever i use them it seems expensive and not great, and I have no memory of what it was like before so even though I'm told it is better than it was, I do not know that, as a feeling.
That's basically Labour's whole trick isn't it? Selling the 1970s to a generation born in the late 1990s (at the earliest).
I imagine the intent is indicate Labour regard broadband as a key utility like water and electricity, which is best kept out of the hands of rapacious private companies who treat you like crap. Whatever the merits or not of nationalising various utlilities, its generally not an unpopular policy, and a lot of people think their broadband service is crap and I'd think won't dislike the suggestion. Plus compared to other cash splurges it doesn't even sound like a lot.
I am pretty sure nationalised companies will be much better at treating you like crap when they have no competition for you to run off to.
A nationalised BT would have a long way to go to treat its customers as atrociously as TalkTalk, Vodafone and Three all do.
You have no idea. They practically invented crap service.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
Kevin Bacon will be appalled!
No it doesn't.
Openreach is already legally seperate from BT. They won't touch EE.
Presumably BT - the actual BT - will be forced to drop its broadband offering, so, er, definitely an effect on EE...
Where does it say that?
BT will be able to compete as they do today, they'll just have to use the infrastructure right now they charge everyone else to use. Seems a lot fairer to me.
Oh you really don't remember the GPO do you? How sweet.
Broadband provided by GPO was definitely slower.
I miss teletext and oracle.
Which were provided by ITV - wireless broadband!
Shurely Prestel, with an acoustic coupler to sit your home phone receiver on.
Oh yes, sorry that’s right. We’ve gone back a generation. I can’t even play bamboozle via my broadband.
This is the content I come to PB for.
I'll miss this when I'm trying to surf the net on my party line cable connection, in the brief breaks between power outages.
What is with Corbyn wanting to nationalise companies whose best days have long since passed. Royal Mail. Centralised electricity providers. Fibre broadband.
Forget 2030, by 2025 and probably much earlier, anyone in a rural area without fibre (and many others besides) will be getting fast and affordable satellite internet from SpaceX. Corbyn’s response: “let’s renationalise the company likely to be most financially impacted by this!”.
And these clowns have floated the idea of nationalising the management of my pension because it’s “too important to leave in the hands of asset managers”.
At least someone has taken Boris aside and let him know he doesn’t need to dig thousands of miles of trenches to achieve the same result.
In German life, there are two complaints shared by nearly everyone: the internet is too slow, and the mobile network too patchy...Germany now ranks 34th in the world for its broadband speed, and 42nd in mobile speed.
I honestly think this is going to go over extremely well.
"You love internet access? Labour will give it to you for 'free'" "Labour want to spend money giving you broadband, the devils"
Someone speculated Labour were using the 350m strategy, of getting opponents to repeatedly mention their wild promises, amplifying as pointing out the counter argument doesn't erase the impact of the initial wild promise. I can believe it.
Nope really stupid. People want choice when it comes to consumer items like Broadband. Tell them it is the Government version or nothing (which is what this will mean) and they will run a mile.
But the choice is an illusion is it not? You are either using Virgin lines or OpenReach.
Not that I don’t think this is a silly policy.
No because whoever's lines are being used by your provider, they fight on your behalf for a better service. So where I live Openreach provide all the lines but the difference in service between the various companies is huge. The best example of this is EE and BT. The BT service is absolutely dire but the EE service is brilliant. And yet they have been the same company for the last couple of years.
The competition matters even when they are using the same basic infrastructure.
"And yet they have been the same company for the last couple of years."
You've defeated your own argument there.
No I honestly haven't. They keep their two parts separate even now. When I renewed my mobile phone two weeks ago they were asking if I wanted to switch from EE to BT broadband as there was an offer on. Not in a million years thankyou very much. I need my broadband to be reliable for work and BT simply isn't. It relied for far too long on being the Government supplier of choice for rolling out broadband and has treated its customers like shit.
Now it may be that BT will drag EE down to its level. But if it does that I will go elsewhere. Unless Corbyn's fucking lunatics get in and ruin it for everyone.
My experience, with a small but well-regarded provider, was that when I had an ongoing reliability issue I got stuck between them and BT (who my provider blamed for the issues). In the end, in desparation I switched to BT, figuring that they had no one else to blame. BT sorted the problem out within days, fix an incidental issue with our internal wiring foc and I have had great service ever since.
In German life, there are two complaints shared by nearly everyone: the internet is too slow, and the mobile network too patchy...Germany now ranks 34th in the world for its broadband speed, and 42nd in mobile speed.
Big but not ridiculous infrastructure investment, massive economic benefit.
Let’s all wait to see Laura K’s take.
In 2030....after they have nationalized OpenReach and imploded the UK tech sector by imposing massive new taxation. Other than that, all good.
So basically come 2030, the only way you will be able to get your home broadband is from the government, because Virgin etc are not going to offer it if they are being undercut by the government giving it away.
Broadband for all would be a massive boost for the tech sector, as you know. You are usually refreshingly non-partisan. Wake up.
On this you are just wrong. I can't operate my business from home on the crap BT offers. With the Commie Cable Co , one size fits all, that model just won't work.
It will be fine for the massive companies as they hook directly into the backbone infrastructure and pay through the nose for that. For smaller companies, they rely on the options out there. There will be no consumer / prosumer option other than Commie Cable.
You've no real argument against it, you just don't like it.
Corbyn and McDonnell running our broadband and telecommunications at the cost of billions in lost pension investments and union dictated workforce, closing competition, and facing billions in R & D is for the birds
German Government owns 32% of it and the German Gov has a lot of say over the direction of the company by having a say in the directors of the company.
German Government owns 32% of it and the German Gov has a lot of say over the direction of the company by having a say in the directors of the company.
Ok but that’s not quite the same as what Labour are proposing.
The Labour leaflet I have received doesn't mention this one, sadly. According to it the Labour election pledges are:
Free prescriptions Free personal care for the elderly Living wage of £10 per hour for all from age 16 Introduce a working Fair Rents Act 30 hours of free childcare for 2-4 year olds End of tuition fees End fracking and create 400,000 green jobs to do our bit for climate change Take rail, mail and water into public hands Referendum with 'leave on a defined deal' and 'remain' on the ballot The misery of Universal Credit will be scrapped
Nope really stupid. People want choice when it comes to consumer items like Broadband. Tell them it is the Government version or nothing (which is what this will mean) and they will run a mile.
But the choice is an illusion is it not? You are either using Virgin lines or OpenReach.
Not that I don’t think this is a silly policy.
No because whoever's lines are being used by your provider, they fight on your behalf for a better service. So where I live Openreach provide all the lines but the difference in service between the various companies is huge. The best example of this is EE and BT. The BT service is absolutely dire but the EE service is brilliant. And yet they have been the same company for the last couple of years.
The competition matters even when they are using the same basic infrastructure.
"And yet they have been the same company for the last couple of years."
You've defeated your own argument there.
No I honestly haven't. They keep their two parts separate even now. When I renewed my mobile phone two weeks ago they were asking if I wanted to switch from EE to BT broadband as there was an offer on. Not in a million years thankyou very much. I need my broadband to be reliable for work and BT simply isn't. It relied for far too long on being the Government supplier of choice for rolling out broadband and has treated its customers like shit.
Now it may be that BT will drag EE down to its level. But if it does that I will go elsewhere. Unless Corbyn's fucking lunatics get in and ruin it for everyone.
My experience, with a small but well-regarded provider, was that when I had an ongoing reliability issue I got stuck between them and BT (who my provider blamed for the issues). In the end, in desparation I switched to BT, figuring that they had no one else to blame. BT sorted the problem out within days, fix an incidental issue with our internal wiring foc and I have had great service ever since.
Maybe I just got lucky?
I have great service with BT and do not want Corbyn anywhere near it
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
German Government owns 32% of it and the German Gov has a lot of say over the direction of the company by having a say in the directors of the company.
None of your examples provide free broadband coverage to all, which is of course the headlien grabbing part of the annoucnement.
The much more boring part, the nationalisation of Openreach and the fibre network, is much less controversial.
German Government owns 32% of it and the German Gov has a lot of say over the direction of the company by having a say in the directors of the company.
Ok but that’s not quite the same as what Labour are proposing.
It essentially is because the part ownership they're taking is in Openreach, which is essentially 20% of BT.
The practical effect is the same.
My point was that Governments being involved in broadband isn't a Communist idea.
On the upfront costs of Labour's renationalisations, we should pause to remember that they are unlikely to be nearly as large as projected.
The assets won't be bought back at market rates, they will be expropriated. Either through straightforward confiscation, or bought for a fraction of their value at some arbitrary price set by Parliament.
The Government will justify this through claiming that formerly nationalised firms were sold off at too low a price, or frame it as some form of wealth tax on shareholders (who, as we know, are all cold, heartless billionaire scroungers,) or claim that those businesses grew partly as the result of some form of state investment (real or, more likely, imaginary,) the value of which the Treasury is cashing in. Or some combination of all of these things.
The Far Left doesn't believe in private property. Whatever we have, we hold (a little like feudal peasants) at the pleasure of the central authority. They can claim public necessity to take any or all of it away at any time.
What is with Corbyn wanting to nationalise companies whose best days have long since passed. Royal Mail. Centralised electricity providers. Fibre broadband.
Forget 2030, by 2025 and probably much earlier, anyone in a rural area without fibre (and many others besides) will be getting fast and affordable satellite internet from SpaceX. Corbyn’s response: “let’s renationalise the company likely to be most financially impacted by this!”.
And these clowns have floated the idea of nationalising the management of my pension because it’s “too important to leave in the hands of asset managers”.
At least someone has taken Boris aside and let him know he doesn’t need to dig thousands of miles of trenches to achieve the same result.
Tiresome.
Satellite Internet? Yes, I'm sure gamers will be satisfied with half second latency in perfect conditions with no clouds . Flocking to it they will be.
In German life, there are two complaints shared by nearly everyone: the internet is too slow, and the mobile network too patchy...Germany now ranks 34th in the world for its broadband speed, and 42nd in mobile speed.
What about South Korea, it was state owned from my understanding. That's how they got to 100% coverage of FTTP.
Yes, South Korea invested heavily in the infrastructure from the get-go. BT were tasked with this and did a very poor job. I am glad Virgin are about, otherwise I would be stuck with BT's crap offering...I doubt the Commie Cable Co is suddenly going to get better and there is no incentive to develop the tech.
As for ISPs, in South Korea there are multiple and I believe all private companies. Certainly KT Corporation, SK Broadband and LG Uplus are.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Remember part nationalising BT means you're part nationalising the UK's largest mobile operator, EE.
This would be nationalising Openreach surely? Not BT itself.
But if the nationalised company is offering “free broadband to every home and business”, there is no business for BT (or any other ISP), and Virgin Media’s rival network goes out of business. There’ll also be questions over rationing if price is no longer an issue, and whether the grandchildren of British Leyland’s management have the ability to make it work (or Union permission to do so).
The size of the state doesn’t particularly worry me... but this feels a bit like the “nationalising Tesco” type stuff which I’ve used as a metaphor for things which would frighten the moderate Labour horses.
Must log on to state internet to arrange meeting with comrade in authorised British Restaurant for cup of Corbyn Coffee and nourishing bowl of Thornberry gruel.
Can I remind people that it is Government money that means we have majority FTTC coverage at all? BT didn't invest that money, we did.
And BT managed to fuck that up pretty well as well. They spent 18 months telling me I could not have Fibre broadband to my house because it wasn't available in my area. What they actually meant was it was available to the box but they were not in a position at the time to do the final loop to my property. EE then contacted me about my mobile and in passing asked if I wanted Fibre broadband. When I told them it was not available in my area they said yes it was and had been for 18 months. They had me connected within a week.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
They want to nationalise Openreach, not the entirety of BT.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
They want to nationalise Openreach, not the entirety of BT.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
They want to nationalise Openreach, not the entirety of BT.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
I found it striking that nearly half the population either wants to see the BBC privatised or doesn’t case. Roll forward ten years and people who’ve grown up with streaming services may tip the scales.
What is with Corbyn wanting to nationalise companies whose best days have long since passed. Royal Mail. Centralised electricity providers. Fibre broadband.
Forget 2030, by 2025 and probably much earlier, anyone in a rural area without fibre (and many others besides) will be getting fast and affordable satellite internet from SpaceX. Corbyn’s response: “let’s renationalise the company likely to be most financially impacted by this!”.
And these clowns have floated the idea of nationalising the management of my pension because it’s “too important to leave in the hands of asset managers”.
At least someone has taken Boris aside and let him know he doesn’t need to dig thousands of miles of trenches to achieve the same result.
Tiresome.
Satellite Internet? Yes, I'm sure gamers will be satisfied with half second latency in perfect conditions with no clouds . Flocking to it they will be.
Yep. Satellite is bullshit. A fat commie-standard pipe to every household is what we need. Lock and load.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
They want to nationalise Openreach, not the entirety of BT.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
Broadband was invented in the public sector!
Nationalising Openreach isn't a revolutionary idea. Labour could have pledged a connection to every home by 2030 at whatever speed. That would have been difficult to achieve within EU rules, but viable coneptually.
They've got a lot further by saying that customers will get free broadband. There's no equivalent of that, as far as I am aware, anywhere in the world. Orange and DT are two good examples which really provide that point - they sell their services to the consumer.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
They want to nationalise Openreach, not the entirety of BT.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
Broadband was invented in the public sector!
Most people think Labour are tossers anyway, so the discussion is moot.
>The Orange group is governed by a board of directors composed of a minimum of twelve members and a maximum of twenty-two members, divided as follows: three are appointed by the French State,
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
If Labour are simply wanting to invest government money into the private company that is BT then that’s fine.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
They want to nationalise Openreach, not the entirety of BT.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
Broadband was invented in the public sector!
But Openreach does not sell to the consumer so how are they planning to give everyone free broadband?
Out of interest, for those who support the policy, why not nationalise the Virgin Media infrastructure on the same basis? After all it was once the nationalised telegraph (I think you can draw a line back through Cable and Wireless).
I imagine the intent is indicate Labour regard broadband as a key utility like water and electricity, which is best kept out of the hands of rapacious private companies who treat you like crap. Whatever the merits or not of nationalising various utlilities, its generally not an unpopular policy, and a lot of people think their broadband service is crap and I'd think won't dislike the suggestion. Plus compared to other cash splurges it doesn't even sound like a lot.
I am pretty sure nationalised companies will be much better at treating you like crap when they have no competition for you to run off to.
A nationalised BT would have a long way to go to treat its customers as atrociously as TalkTalk, Vodafone and Three all do.
You have no idea. They practically invented crap service.
Did they try to rob dead and bereaved people, as TalkTalk do? Did they have store staff saying things like "Dunno. You'll have to ask BT", as staff in Vodafone stores often say in relation to Vodafone? Did they lyingly say they wouldn't assume they had a continuing direct debit authority and then "assume" precisely that, as Vodafone do? I'm not saying state-owned BT weren't crap, but I never had anything like any of that from them. "Utilities work better when they're privatised" is Tory propaganda from the 1980s. At one point the rail sector was receiving five times as much public money after privatisation as when it was state-owned.
I once instructed TalkTalk over the phone to disconnect me and the guy refused, saying I'd lose money getting reconnected with someone else so he wouldn't do it.
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1195099753060671488
If nothing else good comes out of this election, at least we should see some increased investment in infrastructure and public services.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Trimphone.jpg
Now it may be that BT will drag EE down to its level. But if it does that I will go elsewhere. Unless Corbyn's fucking lunatics get in and ruin it for everyone.
Labour are no longer trying to win this election.
Shurely Prestel, with an acoustic coupler to sit your home phone receiver on.
The reason everyone has a phone line is because we spent money on it.
If everyone wants FTTP, we need to spend money on it. We're going to spend money either directly or via BT. So why not do it ourselves with lower costs via Government and we can own it ourselves?
This is incredibly sensible. It's the most sensible policy I've seen from Labour this election in all honesty.
Labour isn't just calling for the nationalisation of the metaphorical track (ie. Openreach), it wants to hand out free tickets for the trains.
We know from polling that nationalisation as a concept is not feared by plenty of people, majorities in some cases, so Tories need to be careful how they attack any individual nationalisation proposal.
I can pay for my own broadband.
I'll miss this when I'm trying to surf the net on my party line cable connection, in the brief breaks between power outages.
Forget 2030, by 2025 and probably much earlier, anyone in a rural area without fibre (and many others besides) will be getting fast and affordable satellite internet from SpaceX. Corbyn’s response: “let’s renationalise the company likely to be most financially impacted by this!”.
And these clowns have floated the idea of nationalising the management of my pension because it’s “too important to leave in the hands of asset managers”.
At least someone has taken Boris aside and let him know he doesn’t need to dig thousands of miles of trenches to achieve the same result.
Tiresome.
In German life, there are two complaints shared by nearly everyone: the internet is too slow, and the mobile network too patchy...Germany now ranks 34th in the world for its broadband speed, and 42nd in mobile speed.
https://www.thelocal.de/20190829/germanys-disconnectivity-can-the-broadband-gap-be-bridged-internet
https://www.wsj.com/articles/germans-grow-frustrated-with-their-slow-poke-internet-11565002666
"Labour want to spend money giving you broadband, the devils"
Someone speculated Labour were using the 350m strategy, of getting opponents to repeatedly mention their wild promises, amplifying as pointing out the counter argument doesn't erase the impact of the initial wild promise. I can believe it.
Maybe I just got lucky?
I notice you missed Orange, I wonder why.
What about South Korea, it was state owned from my understanding. That's how they got to 100% coverage of FTTP.
Get in there!!
Hmm.
Free prescriptions
Free personal care for the elderly
Living wage of £10 per hour for all from age 16
Introduce a working Fair Rents Act
30 hours of free childcare for 2-4 year olds
End of tuition fees
End fracking and create 400,000 green jobs to do our bit for climate change
Take rail, mail and water into public hands
Referendum with 'leave on a defined deal' and 'remain' on the ballot
The misery of Universal Credit will be scrapped
Again, Government has a lot of say over how it's run.
Personally think that's what we should have done with BT.
Essentially that is what Labour is doing, they're owning about 20% of BT.
The much more boring part, the nationalisation of Openreach and the fibre network, is much less controversial.
(I mean, it didn't go well in Australia, but there you go https://www.ft.com/content/5e709192-b983-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852)
The practical effect is the same.
My point was that Governments being involved in broadband isn't a Communist idea.
The assets won't be bought back at market rates, they will be expropriated. Either through straightforward confiscation, or bought for a fraction of their value at some arbitrary price set by Parliament.
The Government will justify this through claiming that formerly nationalised firms were sold off at too low a price, or frame it as some form of wealth tax on shareholders (who, as we know, are all cold, heartless billionaire scroungers,) or claim that those businesses grew partly as the result of some form of state investment (real or, more likely, imaginary,) the value of which the Treasury is cashing in. Or some combination of all of these things.
The Far Left doesn't believe in private property. Whatever we have, we hold (a little like feudal peasants) at the pleasure of the central authority. They can claim public necessity to take any or all of it away at any time.
As for ISPs, in South Korea there are multiple and I believe all private companies. Certainly KT Corporation, SK Broadband and LG Uplus are.
The impression though is that they want to bring the whole company into state ownership.
Which is it?
The size of the state doesn’t particularly worry me... but this feels a bit like the “nationalising Tesco” type stuff which I’ve used as a metaphor for things which would frighten the moderate Labour horses.
And save you £30 a month.
If you look at the percentage ownership of say Orange by the French Government, that percentage is effectively what Labour would take out of BT by owning Openreach.
So it is different yes - but my point is that it's not unusual for Governments to own broadband companies.
Broadband was invented in the public sector!
They've got a lot further by saying that customers will get free broadband. There's no equivalent of that, as far as I am aware, anywhere in the world. Orange and DT are two good examples which really provide that point - they sell their services to the consumer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that broadband Internet has never been delivered by a nationalised BT/Post Office.
I once instructed TalkTalk over the phone to disconnect me and the guy refused, saying I'd lose money getting reconnected with someone else so he wouldn't do it.