So what does the Duke of York do now? Surely he’s done in a public capacity.
My advice? Shut up. Quietly dispense of the services of anyone who advised you this was a good idea. Drop charities before they drop you (a spokesman said, "The Prince doesn't want to be a distraction from the charity's wonderful work"). Don't plan any trips over the pond any time soon, or indeed ever.
There's no PR way around this that involves Andrew talking that doesn't fan the flames. He can't say now, "Oh, by the way, forgot to say in the interview, but I am genuinely desperately sorry for all Epstein's many victims, and will never forgive myself for my role in legitimising that vile excuse for a human being." It won't wash, and he hasn't the intellect or personality to pull it off. Only silence and absence can help him at all, and even then only to a limited extent.
I'm fairly confident that after last night's debacle was recorded His Royal Jowliness shot his cuffs and said to what ever underling was in attendance 'I think that went rather well.' Self awareness is certainly not one of his qualities.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
That’s a lot faster than mine (as in 33mbps faster) but TBH that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons my connection is quite slow is of course because every person in my street of 250 houses is using much the same copper line.
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.
Remarkably they said that they would do the major conurbations last because the major conurbations have the best as it stands so they wouldn't touch them until the end of the next decade 😒
Completely arse over tit and don't understand the technology. Nor cost/value. What a shocker.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
I’ve measured my 4G connection on my phone at about 50% more than that while sitting on a bus.
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
The easier way to beat major sports is DFS* (and even then you are against some super sharp people), because all markets for any sport people can put down really serious money on are extremely efficient.
If Tony Bloom only makes 1-3%, go figure.
* For those that don't know DFS, is Daily Fantasy Sports. It is basically a different way you can gamble on a days worth of a certain sports fixtures.
I have just read this piece in Business Insider about Tony Bloom. Had no idea the Asian market had such enormous liquidity. Presumably mainly from mug punters in the region?
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
I find cricket quite lucrative, because the market is driven by people who don’t understand it. But then I only bet on tens of pounds. I imagine they let me play around because I do no harm.
Cricket is also the most bent sports market around. Nobody who isn't involved with the Indian mafia and has any sense puts serious money on cricket matches.
Not in Tests, the volumes are idiots betting on who is “winning”, and if you play for small stakes like me that often offers up £100 or so per Test without risking too much. Fully appreciate you can’t scale that up, and that any IPL bet has to be backed by a squad of heavies with nutcrackers.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
That’s a lot faster than mine (as in 33mbps faster) but TBH that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons my connection is quite slow is of course because every person in my street of 250 houses is using much the same copper line.
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.
Remarkably they said that they would do the major conurbations last because the major conurbations have the best as it stands so they wouldn't touch them until the end of the next decade 😒
Completely arse over tit and don't understand the technology. Nor cost/value. What a shocker.
In that case, I’m starting to wonder if they’re right and their policy will slow things down. After all, the network is currently brutally busy and only going to get more so. If FTTP is not standard in ten years in every town of over five thousand people then the Internet could grind to a halt.
Put it this way, the fact that we’re even discussing that this might be a possible outcome of this policy shows that it’s a daft policy. It could easily become the dementia tax in the hands of competent opponents (it won’t, of course, as we’re talking Johnson here). And at least that was a sensible and pretty progressive policy when you studied the actual policy, which this one isn’t.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
Completely depends where the small village is, though. Quite often, small villages will be more expensive and harder to reach with high speed internet. But if you happen to basically sit on BT or Virgin core network, you're going to be fine.
It's like the fact that, generally, small villages are poorer for transport... but clearly they aren't if they happen to sit 50 yards off junction 10 of the M1.
In that case, I’m starting to wonder if they’re right and their policy will slow things down. After all, the network is currently brutally busy and only going to get more so. If FTTP is not standard in ten years in every town of over five thousand people then the Internet could grind to a halt.
Put it this way, the fact that we’re even discussing that this might be a possible outcome of this policy shows that it’s a daft policy.
It is will all most certainly make things worse / go backwards.
Matthew Howett, analyst and founder of Assembly, also said such a move would be extremely difficult to deliver.
"This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.
"The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.
"Only one other country in the world has come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention."
I don't think EPL is, I would say MLB or NBA are, because those sports can be really carefully and precisely mathematically modelled and people have been doing so for many many years.
The markets aren't really there for the American sports though, with the historical legal restrictions over there, and the limited appeal of their sports abroad. It's that weight of money that tends to refine markets - and thus you get much tighter margins in top football leagues than American sports.
For comparison, Vegas took about $6bn of bets last year, and the whole of the legal American market about double that. By comparison, bet365 alone took $65 billion, and there's another in Asia that takes even more.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
That’s a lot faster than mine (as in 33mbps faster) but TBH that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons my connection is quite slow is of course because every person in my street of 250 houses is using much the same copper line.
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.
Remarkably they said that they would do the major conurbations last because the major conurbations have the best as it stands so they wouldn't touch them until the end of the next decade 😒
Completely arse over tit and don't understand the technology. Nor cost/value. What a shocker.
I'm in central London - 12mbps from a test I've just run (boradbandspeedchecker), and I get regular periods of downtime. BT are hopeless, but I'd go with them any day rather than Corbyn-Connect. I remember the hopeless telephone system before BT was privatised. Most places where the string and tin can approach didn't work counted as long-distance calls. International calls were almost unknown.
I have to say I'm really very much looking forwards to the Allegro Mk2 though. Clearly Corbyn will want to have a nationalised British car industry leading the world in closed-shop Union rights. I imagine the Allegro Mk.2 will offer self-cleaning ashtrays as standard and have a 0-60 of about a decade. Available in red only.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
How can Labour retain this on 28.7% of the vote without tactical votes?
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
You did the detailed swing calculation last night on a 28.7% Labour share and it showed the Tories iirc about 300 ahead. I can't find your post at the moment. You then need to add the LD and Green tactical votes and it puts Labour just ahead. So yes, it is held based on assumed tactical votes. This is one of the few seats (about 20) where the tactical voting makes a difference.
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
OK we're getting somewhere. 342/205/31 sounds much more believable.
So can I ask please for this constituency without any tactical voting - bearing in mind there are 4 candidates - what the vote share for the 4 parties would be?
And then after tactical voting what the vote share would be?
Con/Lab/LD/BXP/Grn
No tactical voting 40/39/13/5/4 Tactical voting 42/44/11/2/1
Now I really need to get out canvassing instead of sitting in front of this spreadsheet!
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
That’s a lot faster than mine (as in 33mbps faster) but TBH that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons my connection is quite slow is of course because every person in my street of 250 houses is using much the same copper line.
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.
Remarkably they said that they would do the major conurbations last because the major conurbations have the best as it stands so they wouldn't touch them until the end of the next decade 😒
Completely arse over tit and don't understand the technology. Nor cost/value. What a shocker.
I'm in central London - 12mbps from a test I've just run (boradbandspeedchecker), and I get regular periods of downtime. BT are hopeless, but I'd go with them any day rather than Corbyn-Connect. I remember the hopeless telephone system before BT was privatised. Most places where the string and tin can approach didn't work counted as long-distance calls. International calls were almost unknown.
I have to say I'm really very much looking forwards to the Allegro Mk2 though. Clearly Corbyn will want to have a nationalised British car industry leading the world in closed-shop Union rights. I imagine the Allegro Mk.2 will offer self-cleaning ashtrays as standard and have a 0-60 of about a decade. Available in red only.
In Central London, your only option is BT? Really?
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
How can Labour retain this on 28.7% of the vote without tactical votes?
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
You did the detailed swing calculation last night on a 28.7% Labour share and it showed the Tories iirc about 300 ahead. I can't find your post at the moment. You then need to add the LD and Green tactical votes and it puts Labour just ahead. So yes, it is held based on assumed tactical votes. This is one of the few seats (about 20) where the tactical voting makes a difference.
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
OK we're getting somewhere. 342/205/31 sounds much more believable.
So can I ask please for this constituency without any tactical voting - bearing in mind there are 4 candidates - what the vote share for the 4 parties would be?
And then after tactical voting what the vote share would be?
Con/Lab/LD/BXP/Grn
No tactical voting 40/39/13/5/4 Tactical voting 42/44/11/2/1
Now I really need to get out canvassing instead of sitting in front of this spreadsheet!
No BXP candidate in this seat. Only candidates are Tory, Labour, Lib Dems and Green.
Does anybody think most of our MPs have any idea the difference between megabits and megabytes, let alone if 30 is a good number or not?
Not a chance. In my experience most people screw up such distinctions.
Similarly most people don't understand how GPS works (your phone is not sending anything to a satellite), or how catch-up video works (it has nothing to do with broadcast TV), or what Wi-Fi really is (it has nothing to do with your mobile network).
I was reading a book by David Hepworth and he made a good point about how in the past technology, like records players and tapes, had a mechanical aspect that revealed to a reasonable extent how the device worked. Now we live in a world where silent glass slabs perform inexplicable tricks as far as the majority of the population is concerned.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
How can Labour retain this on 28.7% of the vote without tactical votes?
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
You did the detailed swing calculation last night on a 28.7% Labour share and it showed the Tories iirc about 300 ahead. I can't find your post at the moment. You then need to add the LD and Green tactical votes and it puts Labour just ahead. So yes, it is held based on assumed tactical votes. This is one of the few seats (about 20) where the tactical voting makes a difference.
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
OK we're getting somewhere. 342/205/31 sounds much more believable.
So can I ask please for this constituency without any tactical voting - bearing in mind there are 4 candidates - what the vote share for the 4 parties would be?
And then after tactical voting what the vote share would be?
Con/Lab/LD/BXP/Grn
No tactical voting 40/39/13/5/4 Tactical voting 42/44/11/2/1
Now I really need to get out canvassing instead of sitting in front of this spreadsheet!
No BXP candidate in this seat. Only candidates are Tory, Labour, Lib Dems and Green.
Ok I'm assuming no BXP only in Tory seats. I'll have a look at that later.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
That’s a lot faster than mine (as in 33mbps faster) but TBH that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons my connection is quite slow is of course because every person in my street of 250 houses is using much the same copper line.
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.
61 in rural (-ish) N Essex. BT assures me that when they get themselves properly sorted they'll be faster.
Is it me or have the LD leaflets been even worse this election than usual?
They certainly seem more prolific, Jo4pm has gone to their heads. Having decent Euro results and polling (however selective) to work with probably inflates their tendency to exaggerate exponentially.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
A great series of articles on the likes of Bloom, Haralabos Voulgaris (the greatest ever NBA bettor), Billy Walters and others.
There was a really in-depth article about Tony Bloom somewhere on the interwebs but I can't find it at the mo. It was fascinating reading.
Yes but that £3 billion is turnover, not spend. I expect any of the regular punters on here will be turning over many times their income. Harry Findlay's book, Gambling For Life, is interesting on Bloom from the other side.
Yes I know its turn-over...but just to put into perspective the sort of scale of the amount of cash flowing through his network over the course of a year.
What is the most amazing thing is how he has managed to keep all of this so much in the shadows. He owns a Premier League team, but never gives interviews. He owns his modelling company, but it basically doesn't leak any info. Other than betting in Asia, specializing in Asian handicap score predictions, nothing more is public knowledge, despite having been doing this for years.
His employees are clearly *very* well looked after, and don’t tend to turn over too much.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
You did the detailed swing calculation last night on a 28.7% Labour share and it showed the Tories iirc about 300 ahead. I can't find your post at the moment. You then need to add the LD and Green tactical votes and it puts Labour just ahead. So yes, it is held based on assumed tactical votes. This is one of the few seats (about 20) where the tactical voting makes a difference.
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
OK we're getting somewhere. 342/205/31 sounds much more believable.
So can I ask please for this constituency without any tactical voting - bearing in mind there are 4 candidates - what the vote share for the 4 parties would be?
And then after tactical voting what the vote share would be?
Con/Lab/LD/BXP/Grn
No tactical voting 40/39/13/5/4 Tactical voting 42/44/11/2/1
Now I really need to get out canvassing instead of sitting in front of this spreadsheet!
No BXP candidate in this seat. Only candidates are Tory, Labour, Lib Dems and Green.
Ok I'm assuming no BXP only in Tory seats. I'll have a look at that later.
A quick cludge (I've turned Bristol NW into a Con seat in 2017. I must remember to turn it back again)
Con/Lab/LD/Grn
No tactical voting 43/40/13/4 Tactical voting 44/43/12/1
This is now a Tory gain in both cases. It shows the benefit to the Tories of BXP not standing in non-Tory seats. I'm going to have to go through all the non-Tory seats to find where the BXP is not standing. Anyone got a link to nominations?
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
I’m wondering if this is phase one, given the timeframe is 2022 not 2030. That would make more sense - everyone have FTTC, then later add the cables to the houses. Not much point doing it the other way around!
At the same time given I would have thought almost everywhere except absolutely the most rural and remote areas will have this by 2022 anyway under current circumstances. So it isn’t much of a benefit for a great deal of extra money.
I’m also dubious as to how useful it would be to extend FTTP to houses in such areas, given how expensive and difficult it is (we had three goes at putting a cable into our school and we still couldn’t get it right). Would it not be quicker and more cost effective to put in satellite tech oras you say increase 5G coverage?
I would love to think McDonnell and co have carefully thought this through about a phased rollout, conversed with experts in the industry etc...but I think more likely they googled, found some number that sounded ok and said right tell people our policy is...
If this was about best practise, they wouldn't be proposing a single state owned ISP.
In all the broadband discussions, don’t forget that SpaceX will be offering satellite broadband next year with much higher speeds and lower prices than have ever been seen before. To those genuinely in the middle of nowhere, it will be a complete game-changer and much cheaper than trying to get cables to them.
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
I’m wondering if this is phase one, given the timeframe is 2022 not 2030. That would make more sense - everyone have FTTC, then later add the cables to the houses. Not much point doing it the other way around!
At the same time given I would have thought almost everywhere except absolutely the most rural and remote areas will have this by 2022 anyway under current circumstances. So it isn’t much of a benefit for a great deal of extra money.
I’m also dubious as to how useful it would be to extend FTTP to houses in such areas, given how expensive and difficult it is (we had three goes at putting a cable into our school and we still couldn’t get it right). Would it not be quicker and more cost effective to put in satellite tech oras you say increase 5G coverage?
I would love to think McDonnell and co have carefully thought this through about a phased rollout, conversed with experts in the industry etc...but I think more likely they googled, found some number that sounded ok and said right tell people our policy is...
If this was about best practise, they wouldn't be proposing a single state owned ISP.
In all the broadband discussions, don’t forget that SpaceX will be offering satellite broadband next year with much higher speeds and lower prices than have ever been seen before. To those genuinely in the middle of nowhere, it will be a complete game-changer and much cheaper than trying to get cables to them.
Current sattelite Internet gets easily disrupted by heavy cloud cover/bad weather.
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
I’m wondering if this is phase one, given the timeframe is 2022 not 2030. That would make more sense - everyone have FTTC, then later add the cables to the houses. Not much point doing it the other way around!
At the same time given I would have thought almost everywhere except absolutely the most rural and remote areas will have this by 2022 anyway under current circumstances. So it isn’t much of a benefit for a great deal of extra money.
I’m also dubious as to how useful it would be to extend FTTP to houses in such areas, given how expensive and difficult it is (we had three goes at putting a cable into our school and we still couldn’t get it right). Would it not be quicker and more cost effective to put in satellite tech oras you say increase 5G coverage?
I would love to think McDonnell and co have carefully thought this through about a phased rollout, conversed with experts in the industry etc...but I think more likely they googled, found some number that sounded ok and said right tell people our policy is...
If this was about best practise, they wouldn't be proposing a single state owned ISP.
In all the broadband discussions, don’t forget that SpaceX will be offering satellite broadband next year with much higher speeds and lower prices than have ever been seen before. To those genuinely in the middle of nowhere, it will be a complete game-changer and much cheaper than trying to get cables to them.
Current sattelite Internet gets easily disrupted by heavy cloud cover/bad weather.
Does LEO satellites have this problem?
Apparently much less so, the closer distance (c.1% of GEO orbit) allows for a much shorter wavelength. Will be very interesting to see what it’s like in practice.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
Comments
Completely arse over tit and don't understand the technology. Nor cost/value. What a shocker.
Put it this way, the fact that we’re even discussing that this might be a possible outcome of this policy shows that it’s a daft policy. It could easily become the dementia tax in the hands of competent opponents (it won’t, of course, as we’re talking Johnson here). And at least that was a sensible and pretty progressive policy when you studied the actual policy, which this one isn’t.
It's like the fact that, generally, small villages are poorer for transport... but clearly they aren't if they happen to sit 50 yards off junction 10 of the M1.
Matthew Howett, analyst and founder of Assembly, also said such a move would be extremely difficult to deliver.
"This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.
"The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.
"Only one other country in the world has come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/15/labour_pledges_free_broadband_via_partnationalisation_of_bt/
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1196063216029310977?s=20
For comparison, Vegas took about $6bn of bets last year, and the whole of the legal American market about double that. By comparison, bet365 alone took $65 billion, and there's another in Asia that takes even more.
I have to say I'm really very much looking forwards to the Allegro Mk2 though. Clearly Corbyn will want to have a nationalised British car industry leading the world in closed-shop Union rights. I imagine the Allegro Mk.2 will offer self-cleaning ashtrays as standard and have a 0-60 of about a decade. Available in red only.
No tactical voting 40/39/13/5/4
Tactical voting 42/44/11/2/1
Now I really need to get out canvassing instead of sitting in front of this spreadsheet!
Similarly most people don't understand how GPS works (your phone is not sending anything to a satellite), or how catch-up video works (it has nothing to do with broadcast TV), or what Wi-Fi really is (it has nothing to do with your mobile network).
I was reading a book by David Hepworth and he made a good point about how in the past technology, like records players and tapes, had a mechanical aspect that revealed to a reasonable extent how the device worked. Now we live in a world where silent glass slabs perform inexplicable tricks as far as the majority of the population is concerned.
https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1196075532112154624?s=20
NEW THREAD
Having decent Euro results and polling (however selective) to work with probably inflates their tendency to exaggerate exponentially.
Con/Lab/LD/Grn
No tactical voting 43/40/13/4
Tactical voting 44/43/12/1
This is now a Tory gain in both cases. It shows the benefit to the Tories of BXP not standing in non-Tory seats. I'm going to have to go through all the non-Tory seats to find where the BXP is not standing. Anyone got a link to nominations?
Does LEO satellites have this problem?
Apparently it was at this exact point last time, the Tory vote started to reduce.