In all seriousness, borrowing to fund FTTP seems like a completely sensible decision to me. I don't know who could not support it.
Why if we borrow money, should we not have ownership of the asset? Why does BT get to own it?
Because it would cost us more money to purchase Openreach. It would make Openreach less productive. It would generate fewer taxes.
There is no good reason to do that.
If we want to pay to incentivise FTTP then we would be paying for a service not an asset which can be done at a fraction of the cost - and Openreach can competitively tender for that at a fraction of the cost. Why would you spend far more money to do it a different way?
And that's before getting into whether universal FTTP is even a good idea, which it probably isn't given 5G and Satellite Internet developments.
Make Openreach less productive?
Seriously?
They could only be less productive if they were actually cutting phone lines and blowing up telegraph poles.
You could have written Philip's post about any public sector company, it's just classic Tory anti public sector spiel.
BT has been run into the ground, its share price has dropped from a high of nearly £500 to under £100!
Fine but France is the nation most visited by tourists in the world, the UK is only the 10th most visited nation (though London is the 3rd most visited city)
We had and arguably still have a bigger economy but they have Paris, the Alps for skiing, the south of France with better weather for their beaches as well as more countryside and still history like we have with their chateaux and museums
But they don’t have the Queen, so they can’t have more visitors, surely.
People go to the South of France for sunnier weathier, to the Alps for Skiing etc, none of which we have. There are not that many celebrities taking their yachts to the North Sea and English Channel compared to the Mediterranean
As I posted too more people go to London than to Paris, so if we did not have the Royal Family and royal weddings and jubilees etc centred on London we would have even fewer visitors relative to France
That makes no sense at all.
You do realise don't you that Versailles is not in Paris? So Versailles is regularly getting tourists precisely because France doesn't have a monarch clogging up the Palace and blocking it from access to tourists? But they don't appear in Paris's tourism figures precisely because its not in Paris. That undermines your argument and goes to why the whole of France gets more tourism than we do.
If we had no monarchy we could open up Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace to tourism every day of the year just like Versailles gets.
Which do you think gets more annual visits by tourists - Versailles, Buckingham or Windsor? Its not even close.
Have you been to any of those places? I've only seen Windsor from the outside, but B Palace is like a 5 star hotel in East Berlin in 1985 only shabbier and not so funny. I don't think de-monarching it is going to enhance its appeal as much as you think it is.
I've been to Versailles and the Louvre in France, to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland. Walked past Buckingham Palace but not been into it - if we were a Republic I would have paid to go in, just like did to get into Versailles.
The Elysee Palace is the official residence and office of the French President and that means it restricts when you can visit it despite the fact it was once owned by Louis XVth.
Even the Irish President lives at Aras an Uachtrain, once the summer residence of the lord lieutenant of Ireland and then the British Governor general.
Despite the fact it has 95 rooms and is well worth a visit it is also limited to visitors as the President's official residence and workplace
The only thing BT can be credited with in recent history - and whether this is because of Openreach legal separation or not I am not sure - is finally accepting copper is doomed and stopping the inane G.Fast rollout in favour of proper FTTP.
There's a lot of New York Real Estate types who are tugging their collars nervously. They are worried that Trump is about to fuck it up for all of them by having a spot light shone on their blatantly illegal activity (properties having wildly different value depending on the form being filed in).
In all seriousness, borrowing to fund FTTP seems like a completely sensible decision to me. I don't know who could not support it.
Why if we borrow money, should we not have ownership of the asset? Why does BT get to own it?
Because it would cost us more money to purchase Openreach. It would make Openreach less productive. It would generate fewer taxes.
There is no good reason to do that.
If we want to pay to incentivise FTTP then we would be paying for a service not an asset which can be done at a fraction of the cost - and Openreach can competitively tender for that at a fraction of the cost. Why would you spend far more money to do it a different way?
And that's before getting into whether universal FTTP is even a good idea, which it probably isn't given 5G and Satellite Internet developments.
5G and satellite will never match or out-compete FTTP, to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of knowledge.
I'm not suggesting in this case we do purchase Openreach, I am suggesting if we are to get Openreach to build a nationwide FTTP network (which we should do), we should co-finance it in a new joint company where the Government gives the majority of the funding but retains ownership of at least part/all of the asset.
Why on earth should the taxpayer be on the hook for the majority of the funding?
Openreach should be able to fund the overwhelming majority of the project all by itself. The taxpayer will probably be on the hook for subsidising the niche cases not all or most of it - and its those niche cases to which Satellite could be a better solution.
I'm sorry but if a farmer in Sticksville has a bit of latency I don't see what the problem with that is.
In all seriousness, borrowing to fund FTTP seems like a completely sensible decision to me. I don't know who could not support it.
Why if we borrow money, should we not have ownership of the asset? Why does BT get to own it?
Because it would cost us more money to purchase Openreach. It would make Openreach less productive. It would generate fewer taxes.
There is no good reason to do that.
If we want to pay to incentivise FTTP then we would be paying for a service not an asset which can be done at a fraction of the cost - and Openreach can competitively tender for that at a fraction of the cost. Why would you spend far more money to do it a different way?
And that's before getting into whether universal FTTP is even a good idea, which it probably isn't given 5G and Satellite Internet developments.
5G and satellite will never match or out-compete FTTP, to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of knowledge.
I'm not suggesting in this case we do purchase Openreach, I am suggesting if we are to get Openreach to build a nationwide FTTP network (which we should do), we should co-finance it in a new joint company where the Government gives the majority of the funding but retains ownership of at least part/all of the asset.
Why on earth should the taxpayer be on the hook for the majority of the funding?
Openreach should be able to fund the overwhelming majority of the project all by itself. The taxpayer will probably be on the hook for subsidising the niche cases not all or most of it - and its those niche cases to which Satellite could be a better solution.
I'm sorry but if a farmer in Sticksville has a bit of latency I don't see what the problem with that is.
Then you don't know what you're talking about, not surprising.
I'm a Brexiteer. I think both the UK and the EU (not just the UK, and not just the EU either) are being pricks over the full FTA.
State Aid and Fish (WTF?) are silly hills to die-on for a full FTA that is in both parties interests, and where both have come so far already.
Both need to put their cocks away, get round the negotiating table, eat some humble pie where necessary, and do a f--king deal.
It's not state aid, it's the level playing field and it absolutely is a hill worth dying on. We absolutely can't agree to the mechanism the EU has proposed.
The taxpayer funded the majority of the FTTC rollout, BT can't fund the majority of FTTP, if you left it to the private sector we'd have (I believe) best 50% FTTP coverage. At best.
The other half of the country is completely unviable without public sector funding.
But it's clear you don't know what you're arguing, to somehow think satellite is on any level of FTTP is absurd.
Satellite can't deliver 1Gb, it doesn't scale and the latency is crap. SpaceX is slightly better but if it can push less than 100Mb in 10 years it will be useless.
FTTP now for all, and it scales to 10Gb with no problem. Fit forever.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
Fine but France is the nation most visited by tourists in the world, the UK is only the 10th most visited nation (though London is the 3rd most visited city)
We had and arguably still have a bigger economy but they have Paris, the Alps for skiing, the south of France with better weather for their beaches as well as more countryside and still history like we have with their chateaux and museums
But they don’t have the Queen, so they can’t have more visitors, surely.
People go to the South of France for sunnier weathier, to the Alps for Skiing etc, none of which we have. There are not that many celebrities taking their yachts to the North Sea and English Channel compared to the Mediterranean
As I posted too more people go to London than to Paris, so if we did not have the Royal Family and royal weddings and jubilees etc centred on London we would have even fewer visitors relative to France
That makes no sense at all.
You do realise don't you that Versailles is not in Paris? So Versailles is regularly getting tourists precisely because France doesn't have a monarch clogging up the Palace and blocking it from access to tourists? But they don't appear in Paris's tourism figures precisely because its not in Paris. That undermines your argument and goes to why the whole of France gets more tourism than we do.
If we had no monarchy we could open up Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace to tourism every day of the year just like Versailles gets.
Which do you think gets more annual visits by tourists - Versailles, Buckingham or Windsor? Its not even close.
Have you been to any of those places? I've only seen Windsor from the outside, but B Palace is like a 5 star hotel in East Berlin in 1985 only shabbier and not so funny. I don't think de-monarching it is going to enhance its appeal as much as you think it is.
I've been to Versailles and the Louvre in France, to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland. Walked past Buckingham Palace but not been into it - if we were a Republic I would have paid to go in, just like did to get into Versailles.
The Elysee Palace is the official residence and office of the French President and that means it restricts when you can visit it despite the fact it was once owned by Louis XVth.
Even the Irish President lives at Aras an Uachtrain, once the summer residence of the lord lieutenant of Ireland and then the British Governor general.
Despite the fact it has 95 rooms and is well worth a visit it is also limited to visitors as the President's official residence and workplace
Why can’t they live in a four bed detached with an annex for visitors?
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
As a fill in for FTTP fine, if it it's needed to hit 100% coverage then I get it. But not in place of FTTP, it doesn't work.
I'm a Brexiteer. I think both the UK and the EU (not just the UK, and not just the EU either) are being pricks over the full FTA.
State Aid and Fish (WTF?) are silly hills to die-on for a full FTA that is in both parties interests, and where both have come so far already.
Both need to put their cocks away, get round the negotiating table, eat some humble pie where necessary, and do a f--king deal.
It's not state aid, it's the level playing field and it absolutely is a hill worth dying on. We absolutely can't agree to the mechanism the EU has proposed.
Fine but France is the nation most visited by tourists in the world, the UK is only the 10th most visited nation (though London is the 3rd most visited city)
We had and arguably still have a bigger economy but they have Paris, the Alps for skiing, the south of France with better weather for their beaches as well as more countryside and still history like we have with their chateaux and museums
But they don’t have the Queen, so they can’t have more visitors, surely.
People go to the South of France for sunnier weathier, to the Alps for Skiing etc, none of which we have. There are not that many celebrities taking their yachts to the North Sea and English Channel compared to the Mediterranean
As I posted too more people go to London than to Paris, so if we did not have the Royal Family and royal weddings and jubilees etc centred on London we would have even fewer visitors relative to France
That makes no sense at all.
You do realise don't you that Versailles is not in Paris? So Versailles is regularly getting tourists precisely because France doesn't have a monarch clogging up the Palace and blocking it from access to tourists? But they don't appear in Paris's tourism figures precisely because its not in Paris. That undermines your argument and goes to why the whole of France gets more tourism than we do.
If we had no monarchy we could open up Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace to tourism every day of the year just like Versailles gets.
Which do you think gets more annual visits by tourists - Versailles, Buckingham or Windsor? Its not even close.
Have you been to any of those places? I've only seen Windsor from the outside, but B Palace is like a 5 star hotel in East Berlin in 1985 only shabbier and not so funny. I don't think de-monarching it is going to enhance its appeal as much as you think it is.
I've been to Versailles and the Louvre in France, to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland. Walked past Buckingham Palace but not been into it - if we were a Republic I would have paid to go in, just like did to get into Versailles.
The Elysee Palace is the official residence and office of the French President and that means it restricts when you can visit it despite the fact it was once owned by Louis XVth.
Even the Irish President lives at Aras an Uachtrain, once the summer residence of the lord lieutenant of Ireland and then the British Governor general.
Despite the fact it has 95 rooms and is well worth a visit it is also limited to visitors as the President's official residence and workplace
Why can’t they live in a four bed detached with an annex for visitors?
As you cannot host the Presidents of the USA, France, Russia and China, the Kings of Spain, Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan etc in a four bed detached with an annex and expect to be taken seriously
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
As a fill in for FTTP fine, if it it's needed to hit 100% coverage then I get it. But not in place of FTTP, it doesn't work.
Why? What's your obsession with FTTP? FTTP will be a total waste of money for a lot of people.
We have 40mpbs in our house currently and can have three different TVs all streaming HD shows simultaneously while having 2 laptops and 2 children online too. 100mbps will be plenty for the overwhelming majority.
And as for "needing to hit 100% coverage" - that's precisely what Openreach needs support for. If you're happy with 80-90% coverage the taxpayer needn't pay a penny.
I'm a Brexiteer. I think both the UK and the EU (not just the UK, and not just the EU either) are being pricks over the full FTA.
State Aid and Fish (WTF?) are silly hills to die-on for a full FTA that is in both parties interests, and where both have come so far already.
Both need to put their cocks away, get round the negotiating table, eat some humble pie where necessary, and do a f--king deal.
It's not state aid, it's the level playing field and it absolutely is a hill worth dying on. We absolutely can't agree to the mechanism the EU has proposed.
We can't agree.
But at the same time, there are things that we will actually want from an LPF agreement, such as rules on taxation (hello Ireland) and on subsidies of export industries.
There is also nowhere near enough discussion about dispute resolution processes, compared to scope.
What is likely to happen (IMHO) is that we end up with a basic LPF agreement, which doesn't cover environmental or workers rights, and nor does it cover tax or export subsidies. We will then have environmental and workers rights way above the levels required by any LPF agreements, but will get incredibly angry about the French subsidising businesses that export to the UK to the detriment of UK producer.
In other words, we'll end up with the worst of all worlds.
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
As a fill in for FTTP fine, if it it's needed to hit 100% coverage then I get it. But not in place of FTTP, it doesn't work.
Why? What's your obsession with FTTP? FTTP will be a total waste of money for a lot of people.
We have 40mpbs in our house currently and can have three different TVs all streaming HD shows simultaneously while having 2 laptops and 2 children online too. 100mbps will be plenty for the overwhelming majority.
And as for "needing to hit 100% coverage" - that's precisely what Openreach needs support for. If you're happy with 80-90% coverage the taxpayer needn't pay a penny.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about Philip, this is embarrassing.
10 years ago 10Mbps would have been enough, it's now not.
4K is 25Mbps per stream x4 you've already exceeded your bandwidth allowance. VR/AR, WFH, all of these have higher bandwidth requirements.
It's not what about you use today, it's what you will use in the future.
100Mbps will not be enough in a decade.
You're good on some things but on others, you don't have a clue and it shows.
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
As a fill in for FTTP fine, if it it's needed to hit 100% coverage then I get it. But not in place of FTTP, it doesn't work.
Why? What's your obsession with FTTP? FTTP will be a total waste of money for a lot of people.
We have 40mpbs in our house currently and can have three different TVs all streaming HD shows simultaneously while having 2 laptops and 2 children online too. 100mbps will be plenty for the overwhelming majority.
And as for "needing to hit 100% coverage" - that's precisely what Openreach needs support for. If you're happy with 80-90% coverage the taxpayer needn't pay a penny.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about Philip, this is embarrassing.
10 years ago 10Mbps would have been enough, it's now not.
4K is 25Mbps per stream x4 you've already exceeded your bandwidth allowance. VR/AR, WFH, all of these have higher bandwidth requirements.
It's not what about you use today, it's what you will use in the future.
100Mbps will not be enough in a decade.
You're good on some things but on others, you don't have a clue and it shows.
YouTube streams 4K in about half that bandwidth (albeit with some noticeable compression artifacts).
Also, Starlink is scalable: you simply put up more satellites.
Now, will it replace FTTP for high density urban areas? No. Does it provide the most sensible way to get 100mb/second to rural areas? Yes, probably.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Fine but France is the nation most visited by tourists in the world, the UK is only the 10th most visited nation (though London is the 3rd most visited city)
We had and arguably still have a bigger economy but they have Paris, the Alps for skiing, the south of France with better weather for their beaches as well as more countryside and still history like we have with their chateaux and museums
But they don’t have the Queen, so they can’t have more visitors, surely.
People go to the South of France for sunnier weathier, to the Alps for Skiing etc, none of which we have. There are not that many celebrities taking their yachts to the North Sea and English Channel compared to the Mediterranean
As I posted too more people go to London than to Paris, so if we did not have the Royal Family and royal weddings and jubilees etc centred on London we would have even fewer visitors relative to France
That makes no sense at all.
You do realise don't you that Versailles is not in Paris? So Versailles is regularly getting tourists precisely because France doesn't have a monarch clogging up the Palace and blocking it from access to tourists? But they don't appear in Paris's tourism figures precisely because its not in Paris. That undermines your argument and goes to why the whole of France gets more tourism than we do.
If we had no monarchy we could open up Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace to tourism every day of the year just like Versailles gets.
Which do you think gets more annual visits by tourists - Versailles, Buckingham or Windsor? Its not even close.
Have you been to any of those places? I've only seen Windsor from the outside, but B Palace is like a 5 star hotel in East Berlin in 1985 only shabbier and not so funny. I don't think de-monarching it is going to enhance its appeal as much as you think it is.
I've been to Versailles and the Louvre in France, to Edinburgh Castle in Scotland. Walked past Buckingham Palace but not been into it - if we were a Republic I would have paid to go in, just like did to get into Versailles.
The Elysee Palace is the official residence and office of the French President and that means it restricts when you can visit it despite the fact it was once owned by Louis XVth.
Even the Irish President lives at Aras an Uachtrain, once the summer residence of the lord lieutenant of Ireland and then the British Governor general.
Despite the fact it has 95 rooms and is well worth a visit it is also limited to visitors as the President's official residence and workplace
Why can’t they live in a four bed detached with an annex for visitors?
As you cannot host the Presidents of the USA, France, Russia and China, the Kings of Spain, Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan etc in a four bed detached with an annex and expect to be taken seriously
Not all at once of course not, they have embassies they can stop there.
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
As a fill in for FTTP fine, if it it's needed to hit 100% coverage then I get it. But not in place of FTTP, it doesn't work.
Why? What's your obsession with FTTP? FTTP will be a total waste of money for a lot of people.
We have 40mpbs in our house currently and can have three different TVs all streaming HD shows simultaneously while having 2 laptops and 2 children online too. 100mbps will be plenty for the overwhelming majority.
And as for "needing to hit 100% coverage" - that's precisely what Openreach needs support for. If you're happy with 80-90% coverage the taxpayer needn't pay a penny.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about Philip, this is embarrassing.
10 years ago 10Mbps would have been enough, it's now not.
4K is 25Mbps per stream x4 you've already exceeded your bandwidth allowance. VR/AR, WFH, all of these have higher bandwidth requirements.
It's not what about you use today, it's what you will use in the future.
100Mbps will not be enough in a decade.
You're good on some things but on others, you don't have a clue and it shows.
Frankly the kids streaming Come Play With Me on YouTube don't need 4k resolution, not that YouTube's 4k streaming is 25Mbps anyway.
Fine if you want to sing along at home you can do, or not. Hopefully the new arrangement means the words no longer fit.
I don't think it's the Prime Minister's place to intervene in what should and shouldn't be played at a concert. It's also not for him to define patriotism for the rest of us.
No one is forced to watch the Last Night of the Proms but this non-Conservative has no problem with patriotic music and if that's what the people want, fine.
The whole flag-waving and singing along doesn't bother me - why should it?
In all seriousness, borrowing to fund FTTP seems like a completely sensible decision to me. I don't know who could not support it.
Why if we borrow money, should we not have ownership of the asset? Why does BT get to own it?
I wouldn’t support it. Not when we are going to get private sector low earth orbit satellite internet within about a year. For densely populated areas that will still need fibre, it’s the regulation that’s the problem, not a lack of funds.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
Quite. There's quite a high PB correlation, even within the very comments, of thick posts by people using the word 'thick'.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
I know its simplistic, that's why I said its never going to happen. But if he wants to be silly and pretend that trade would stop overnight then only looking at one side of the fence is madness.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
It's a simplistic answer to a simplistic proposition. You can't just say 'we lose 300bn of our exports' without realising that on the other end of an export is an import. Of course it isn't a true reflection of what will happen, but nor is 'we lose 300bn'. If you accept that crude logic as an illustration, you must also accept the net loss figures above.
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Quite what? Without Bercow, there was a general election so that point is moot. Until then, it was possible (if unlikely) to construct a Labour government to revoke Article 50 and call an election.
No it wasn't. Do the maths and show how you get a majority behind a Labour government.
It depends how busy were dentists on the day of the vote.
There wouldn't be one day of a vote, for there to be a functioning government there are votes practically every day. You can't rely on the dentist for all of them.
The numbers weren't there in the last Parliament for what you propose.
The offer from Labour was purdah terms.
Purdah can exist during an election campaign. Purdah can't exist for the approximately ten months it would take to pass second referendum legislation, hold a referendum campaign, hold the referendum, then have a General election.
I really hope the rain doesn't ruin tomorrow - for Anderson as much as anything else. Even if its a draw if Anderson can get 1 more wicket tomorrow I'll be happy, he deserves to make the 600 total and if not tomorrow then who knows if he'll be playing in the Southern Hemisphere or next summer.
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Here in Newham we are being encouraged to download the Test & Trace App and both Mrs Stodge and I have done so. Our risk is currently LOW.
Anecdotal evidence from a friend restaurants in Surrey Quays very busy again tonight - who'd have thought people would dash out for cheap eats?
The taxpayer funded the majority of the FTTC rollout, BT can't fund the majority of FTTP, if you left it to the private sector we'd have (I believe) best 50% FTTP coverage. At best.
The other half of the country is completely unviable without public sector funding.
But it's clear you don't know what you're arguing, to somehow think satellite is on any level of FTTP is absurd.
Satellite can't deliver 1Gb, it doesn't scale and the latency is crap. SpaceX is slightly better but if it can push less than 100Mb in 10 years it will be useless.
FTTP now for all, and it scales to 10Gb with no problem. Fit forever.
As I said earlier, I'm not sure taking Openreach into the state sector is a very good idea. A low interest secured loan works better for everyone, it keeps the board in line because they need to repay the debt interest and it stops any major largesse.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
All of these telephone number sums flying about rather miss the central point, which is that a force wall is not going to appear between Dover and Calais on January 1st next year, regardless of any agreement or lack thereof.
Trade may very well be a mess but it's not just going to stop.
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
I think that's actually the UK system for testing. Not the Scotland-specific one which operates in parallel in Scotland. The news story doesn't make sense otherwise.
I'm a Brexiteer. I think both the UK and the EU (not just the UK, and not just the EU either) are being pricks over the full FTA.
State Aid and Fish (WTF?) are silly hills to die-on for a full FTA that is in both parties interests, and where both have come so far already.
Both need to put their cocks away, get round the negotiating table, eat some humble pie where necessary, and do a f--king deal.
It's not state aid, it's the level playing field and it absolutely is a hill worth dying on. We absolutely can't agree to the mechanism the EU has proposed.
Fish are a hill?
How did fish become a hill?
I am losing track of all this.
Fish I don't care about, but the LPF is a very important part of the deal and we can't sign what the EU are asking for.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
All of these telephone number sums flying about rather miss the central point, which is that a force wall is not going to appear between Dover and Calais on January 1st next year, regardless of any agreement or lack thereof.
Trade may very well be a mess but it's not just going to stop.
I'm a Brexiteer. I think both the UK and the EU (not just the UK, and not just the EU either) are being pricks over the full FTA.
State Aid and Fish (WTF?) are silly hills to die-on for a full FTA that is in both parties interests, and where both have come so far already.
Both need to put their cocks away, get round the negotiating table, eat some humble pie where necessary, and do a f--king deal.
I may not have expressed it that way but I agree entirely
If Fish is such a silly hill to die on, then why are the EU intent on dying on it?
Fish is hugely totemic and important way, way beyond its economic significance. For both sides
If the UK concedes control of our waters, then whatever the merits of the case, the political impact will quite simply be colossal.
Discontent with the tory government is building among the the brexit faithful. You can sense it on the twitter feeds, the call in programmes, the comments below the Mail articles.
A bad brexit that betrays the brexiteers' idea of the sturdy honest British trawler man is lethal for the tories. Lethal.
Classic misdirection - get your enemy to defend a molehill, while you defend a mountain.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
Quite. There's quite a high PB correlation, even within the very comments, of thick posts by people using the word 'thick'.
You just used it twice in one sentence so perhaps you are right,
Which country has most to lose from a no deal BREXIT?
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
Quite. There's quite a high PB correlation, even within the very comments, of thick posts by people using the word 'thick'.
You just used it twice in one sentence so perhaps you are right,
Which country has most to lose from a no deal BREXIT?
Probably Ireland.
Which country has most to gain from a no deal BREXIT?
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
Quite. There's quite a high PB correlation, even within the very comments, of thick posts by people using the word 'thick'.
You just used it twice in one sentence so perhaps you are right,
Which country has most to lose from a no deal BREXIT?
Probably Ireland.
Which country has most to gain from a no deal BREXIT?
I am not knocking SpaceX as a technology either - but it's nowhere close to delivering 1Gb and beyond and it simply will not scale as FTTP can.
5G as I say in theory could work but Vodafone (source: myself) amongst others concluded about three years ago 5G would never be a goer for 1Gb across the country.
You would need to more than double the amount of sites and with NIMBYism you'll never get them all built.
The biggest problem with 5G is for 1Gb+ speeds you need very high frequency and the range on it is terrible. You'd have to in effect put them on top of every telegraph pole to get anything close to resembling FTTP speed. You'd have to lay the fibre or use microwave (which cuts the speed) and it falls down very quickly.
For large cities yes, for the countryside absolutely not.
Openreach and UK Gov have accepted that, it's one of the few wise decisions BT has made lately.
I've got FTTP but Starlink's ability to bypass all ground based infrastructure save your receiving box makes the company amazingly valuable.
As a fill in for FTTP fine, if it it's needed to hit 100% coverage then I get it. But not in place of FTTP, it doesn't work.
Why? What's your obsession with FTTP? FTTP will be a total waste of money for a lot of people.
We have 40mpbs in our house currently and can have three different TVs all streaming HD shows simultaneously while having 2 laptops and 2 children online too. 100mbps will be plenty for the overwhelming majority.
And as for "needing to hit 100% coverage" - that's precisely what Openreach needs support for. If you're happy with 80-90% coverage the taxpayer needn't pay a penny.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about Philip, this is embarrassing.
10 years ago 10Mbps would have been enough, it's now not.
4K is 25Mbps per stream x4 you've already exceeded your bandwidth allowance. VR/AR, WFH, all of these have higher bandwidth requirements.
It's not what about you use today, it's what you will use in the future.
100Mbps will not be enough in a decade.
You're good on some things but on others, you don't have a clue and it shows.
YouTube streams 4K in about half that bandwidth (albeit with some noticeable compression artifacts).
Also, Starlink is scalable: you simply put up more satellites.
Now, will it replace FTTP for high density urban areas? No. Does it provide the most sensible way to get 100mb/second to rural areas? Yes, probably.
YouTube 4K is pretty awful though, Netflix 4K is 25Mbps minimum, Amazon Prime is 20 (I think), Apple TV+ is more.
Starlink does not scale to 1Gb as is my understanding, FTTP is far more future proof.
I completely agree Starlink as an infill solution is a goer, completely agree with that. But as a replacement for FTTP, no it isn't.
100Mbps will simply not be enough within a decade, I stand by that but feel free to check in 10 years time.
One of my responsibilities at the red company was involved in this area - and I can assure you we looked into the viability of all of the above and FTTP was the clear winner. Albeit this was a few years ago.
Personally I *want* no trade deal with the EU, because it gives us maximum freedom to compete appropriately. But I don't think for a second they will let us no trade deal. So for me, we should give only those concessions that they absolutely *need* from us to sell a deal at their end. And that, only because of the political benefit to the Government of not having to deal with the psychological meltdown there would be over no trade deal.
The taxpayer funded the majority of the FTTC rollout, BT can't fund the majority of FTTP, if you left it to the private sector we'd have (I believe) best 50% FTTP coverage. At best.
The other half of the country is completely unviable without public sector funding.
But it's clear you don't know what you're arguing, to somehow think satellite is on any level of FTTP is absurd.
Satellite can't deliver 1Gb, it doesn't scale and the latency is crap. SpaceX is slightly better but if it can push less than 100Mb in 10 years it will be useless.
FTTP now for all, and it scales to 10Gb with no problem. Fit forever.
As I said earlier, I'm not sure taking Openreach into the state sector is a very good idea. A low interest secured loan works better for everyone, it keeps the board in line because they need to repay the debt interest and it stops any major largesse.
If it results in decent FTTP I'm all for it. I'm pragmatic on how it's achieved.
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Scottish Labour's Monica Lennon said the problem was part of a wider issue over testing. She said: "We've had months to boost capacity and testing and we're still not getting it right. "It is, frankly, astonishing that people in Glasgow are having to travel over the border to England for a Covid-19 test. "Something has gone badly wrong and the Scottish government has to fix it rapidly." Scottish Conservative health spokesperson Donald Cameron said: "I urge the Scottish government to find out what's gone wrong here and work quickly to maintain public confidence in the testing system."
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
To some degree, shortening the supply chain is probably a long term cost saving but would require upfront investment, at least onshoring it from Western Europe where the cost base isn't hugely different.
In a no deal I think the low end car manufacturing and assembly industry is gone within 3 years, but I expect a deal would be signed within that time. It also wouldn't be Europe's gain IMO, it would be Asia's gain for countries like Japan and Korea which include tariff elimination for motor vehicles.
This is what I think the EU are missing, the loss of trade on both sides in a no deal won't be our or their gain, it will be Asia's gain. We'll end up seeing huge value chains simply move from the UK/Germany/France to Japan/Korea/SE Asia. We'll all lose collectively rather than one side gaining from the other side's loss.
What penny needs to drop in Brussels? No Deal will be no problem for the UK, why do we even care what they think now?
That the UK is going to be an equal sovereign nation and not a supplicant colony subjugated to their rules.
Equal my arse
You're right we're not equal, we're better than them. But I'm being polite.
We can be splendid. But equality is about the maths.
The EU is roughly 5 times the GDP, 7 times the population.
Any reciprocal deal is worth a lot more to us than it is to them, and that matters in a negotiation.
It's nothing personal, it's just maths. Or, to quote BoJo's favourite film, "It's not personal Sonny, it's strictly business."
I don't think you're fully appreciating the situation. The UK has a 72 billion dollar trade deficit (pa) with the EU. To take it to the extreme; if all trade between our blocs ceases, the UK is 72 bn a year richer, the EU 72 bn poorer.
So the one EU country with whom we do have a trade surplus has us by the short and curlies? PS it's Ireland.
Doesn't that trade surplus come from Tesco in Newry and Derry and Asda in Strabane and Enniskillen ?
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Scottish Labour's Monica Lennon said the problem was part of a wider issue over testing. She said: "We've had months to boost capacity and testing and we're still not getting it right. "It is, frankly, astonishing that people in Glasgow are having to travel over the border to England for a Covid-19 test. "Something has gone badly wrong and the Scottish government has to fix it rapidly." Scottish Conservative health spokesperson Donald Cameron said: "I urge the Scottish government to find out what's gone wrong here and work quickly to maintain public confidence in the testing system."
Graun says it's a software failure in the UK system - happening all over the UK.
I don't know what the figures are but one of the few benefits of FTTC has been burying fibre closer to the last mile, I would be interested to see how close fibre is now to the majority of homes. It's certainly closer than it was even five years ago.
To be honest I am long out of being remotely close to these kind of decisions but I would be surprised if BT had not seriously considered 5G/satellite as a goer and came to a similar conclusion as we did.
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Scottish Labour's Monica Lennon said the problem was part of a wider issue over testing. She said: "We've had months to boost capacity and testing and we're still not getting it right. "It is, frankly, astonishing that people in Glasgow are having to travel over the border to England for a Covid-19 test. "Something has gone badly wrong and the Scottish government has to fix it rapidly." Scottish Conservative health spokesperson Donald Cameron said: "I urge the Scottish government to find out what's gone wrong here and work quickly to maintain public confidence in the testing system."
If it is the case the people in Scotland have been tested for COVID-19 in England, I'm glad. We're one state and that's what we do for each other.
FTTP in remote rural areas is not hard. I have headed a project that has put it into farmhouses miles from the nearest road at an average investment of £600 per property. You stick a mole plough on the back of a tractor, and a reel of 7mm duct, and you cross the moorland ploughing the duct at a rate of about 2km per day - bit lower if you have to cross a deep ghyll or drill under a river. The network requires a green cabinet for every 500 or so properties that have a running cost of £100 per quarter electricity. Network maintenance is minimal until some unsuspecting farmer accidentally digs up the fibre, but that is almost always fixed same day.
The big issue is wayleave rates to landowners which community projects negotiate away. That’s where the government needs to pay attention. Oh, and making sure that BT give access to its own conduits and poles where that avoids duplicate road, bridge or river crossings. And leaning on Network Rail to open up its fibre to other operators.
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
Sky is waiting for more prolific FTTP coverage before it releases a non-satellite based TV product. Based on today's storms it might well be more reliable.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
FTTP in remote rural areas is not hard. I have headed a project that has put it into farmhouses miles from the nearest road at an average investment of £600 per property. You stick a mole plough on the back of a tractor, and a reel of 7mm duct, and you cross the moorland ploughing the duct at a rate of about 2km per day - bit lower if you have to cross a deep ghyll or drill under a river. The network requires a green cabinet for every 500 or so properties that have a running cost of £100 per quarter electricity. Network maintenance is minimal until some unsuspecting farmer accidentally digs up the fibre, but that is almost always fixed same day.
The big issue is wayleave rates to landowners which community projects negotiate away. That’s where the government needs to pay attention. Oh, and making sure that BT give access to its own conduits and poles where that avoids duplicate road, bridge or river crossings. And leaning on Network Rail to open up its fibre to other operators.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
To some degree, shortening the supply chain is probably a long term cost saving but would require upfront investment, at least onshoring it from Western Europe where the cost base isn't hugely different.
In a no deal I think the low end car manufacturing and assembly industry is gone within 3 years, but I expect a deal would be signed within that time. It also wouldn't be Europe's gain IMO, it would be Asia's gain for countries like Japan and Korea which include tariff elimination for motor vehicles.
This is what I think the EU are missing, the loss of trade on both sides in a no deal won't be our or their gain, it will be Asia's gain. We'll end up seeing huge value chains simply move from the UK/Germany/France to Japan/Korea/SE Asia. We'll all lose collectively rather than one side gaining from the other side's loss.
Worth remembering, though, that lower end (sub $25,000) motor vehicles aren't shipped massive distances anyway, simply because everything is made to order and while people might be prepared to wait three or four months to get their perfect McLaren 720s, they aren't going to be prepared to do that for the Qashqai.
It's why - even though tariffs on autos in the US are just 2.5% - pretty much any car worth less than $30,000 (including everything but the really high end Mercedes) is made in the US.
So, I'm not convinced that there will be a lot of low end Nissans shipped to Europe direct from Japan, irrespective of the prevailing tariffs.
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
Sky is waiting for more prolific FTTP coverage before it releases a non-satellite based TV product. Based on today's storms it might well be more reliable.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
Sky has a non-satellite based TV product, and has had one for about five years.
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Scottish Labour's Monica Lennon said the problem was part of a wider issue over testing. She said: "We've had months to boost capacity and testing and we're still not getting it right. "It is, frankly, astonishing that people in Glasgow are having to travel over the border to England for a Covid-19 test. "Something has gone badly wrong and the Scottish government has to fix it rapidly." Scottish Conservative health spokesperson Donald Cameron said: "I urge the Scottish government to find out what's gone wrong here and work quickly to maintain public confidence in the testing system."
If it is the case the people in Scotland have been tested for COVID-19 in England, I'm glad. We're one state and that's what we do for each other.
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
Sky is waiting for more prolific FTTP coverage before it releases a non-satellite based TV product. Based on today's storms it might well be more reliable.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
Sky has a non-satellite based TV product, and has had one for about five years.
Do you refer to NowTV?
It doesn't provide equivalence to Sky's satellite, I should have said offer the same package as they offer over satellite. They do not offer that, as far as I am aware
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
Sky is waiting for more prolific FTTP coverage before it releases a non-satellite based TV product. Based on today's storms it might well be more reliable.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
I don't know what the latency is like, satellite has never been good at that. For gamers it's a must have.
If the rain could bugger off to Taunton, that would be immensely helpful.
Disappointing to abandon our discussion about large organs in favour of a thread about the world's largest organ.
Talking about disappointment I’m shocked that a fine upstanding historian such as yourself doesn’t know your Chretien de Troyes from your Robert de Boron
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
Quite. There's quite a high PB correlation, even within the very comments, of thick posts by people using the word 'thick'.
You just used it twice in one sentence so perhaps you are right,
Which country has most to lose from a no deal BREXIT?
Which country has the most to *save* from a no deal BREXIT? I'll answer if you do.
The fact is, you've been getting away with specious nonsense by listing off exports without taking into account that every export from one country is money spent on imports by another. Well done and everything, but it got called out in this thread, so I'd be tempted leave this and come back another day.
I imagine that it is a wave of school children picking up their first colds of the term.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
Quite possibly not given the ineptitude of the UK Government, but that's hardly the point.
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Scottish Labour's Monica Lennon said the problem was part of a wider issue over testing. She said: "We've had months to boost capacity and testing and we're still not getting it right. "It is, frankly, astonishing that people in Glasgow are having to travel over the border to England for a Covid-19 test. "Something has gone badly wrong and the Scottish government has to fix it rapidly." Scottish Conservative health spokesperson Donald Cameron said: "I urge the Scottish government to find out what's gone wrong here and work quickly to maintain public confidence in the testing system."
If it is the case the people in Scotland have been tested for COVID-19 in England, I'm glad. We're one state and that's what we do for each other.
Why would you have ‘new’ orchestral arrangements of orchestral pieces?
Utter madness.
Any excuse for the BBC to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse
Just because it is one teams anthem shouldn’t preclude it, the words are quite appropriate for current circumstances.
It will thoroughly ruin what is an excellent night of songs. I expect it will be broadcast simultaneously on Radio one with Paul O Grady commentating.
Its been included very frequently for many years now. It is a great song from a musical long before it became associated with the football champions. Oh and its a song that has been adopted by the NHS too this year.
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
Sky is waiting for more prolific FTTP coverage before it releases a non-satellite based TV product. Based on today's storms it might well be more reliable.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
I don't know what the latency is like, satellite has never been good at that. For gamers it's a must have.
Starlink latency is not bad, because the satellites are so low. (So low, in fact, that they burn up again in the atmosphere after only three or four years.)
But it's still a lot worse than FTTP.
Off topic: have you used GeForce Now? I tried OnLive, Stadia, etc., and they were all shit. But GeForce Now is remarkably good, at least where I am in LA.
Why would you have ‘new’ orchestral arrangements of orchestral pieces?
Utter madness.
Any excuse for the BBC to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse
Just because it is one teams anthem shouldn’t preclude it, the words are quite appropriate for current circumstances.
It will thoroughly ruin what is an excellent night of songs. I expect it will be broadcast simultaneously on Radio one with Paul O Grady commentating.
Its been included very frequently for many years now. It is a great song from a musical long before it became associated with the football champions. Oh and its a song that has been adopted by the NHS too this year.
It is a classic example of how out of touch the BBC are. Other than a small group of elderly liverpudlians the country/NHS does not want to be associated with that song. I expect they will broadcast one hour highlights of Hibernian v Aberdeen to the whole country as well followed by the Gaelic football final of Northern Ireland too. It's daylight license fee extreme left garbage
On topic. @Luckyguy1983 is absolutely correct that many countries (like Taiwan) survive perfectly well with no - or very few - FTAs.
However, there are certain industries (in particular automotive and its supply chain) who would struggle pretty hard to adjust. So, while there's nothing wrong with No Deal as a planned destination, we would be well advised to have contingency plans in place for those industries, and in particular their employees.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Otherwise all countries would be raising tariffs all the time as "import substitution" would be such a big benefit. Don't forget, too, that many UK export industries have lots of imports. The cost to manufacture that Aston Martin just rose, so the sale price it needs to achieve in Los Angeles just got higher.
To some degree, shortening the supply chain is probably a long term cost saving but would require upfront investment, at least onshoring it from Western Europe where the cost base isn't hugely different.
In a no deal I think the low end car manufacturing and assembly industry is gone within 3 years, but I expect a deal would be signed within that time. It also wouldn't be Europe's gain IMO, it would be Asia's gain for countries like Japan and Korea which include tariff elimination for motor vehicles.
This is what I think the EU are missing, the loss of trade on both sides in a no deal won't be our or their gain, it will be Asia's gain. We'll end up seeing huge value chains simply move from the UK/Germany/France to Japan/Korea/SE Asia. We'll all lose collectively rather than one side gaining from the other side's loss.
Worth remembering, though, that lower end (sub $25,000) motor vehicles aren't shipped massive distances anyway, simply because everything is made to order and while people might be prepared to wait three or four months to get their perfect McLaren 720s, they aren't going to be prepared to do that for the Qashqai.
It's why - even though tariffs on autos in the US are just 2.5% - pretty much any car worth less than $30,000 (including everything but the really high end Mercedes) is made in the US.
So, I'm not convinced that there will be a lot of low end Nissans shipped to Europe direct from Japan, irrespective of the prevailing tariffs.
You say that but Japanese companies are withdrawing from manufacturing in Europe due to the trade deal, it seems like it's better for them to manufacture in Japan and ship to Europe rather than manufacture some parts in Japan, some in Europe and assemble in Europe.
Even low margin cars still make a fairly reasonable absolute profit so shipping costs aren't a huge concern compared to the savings in rationalising the supply chain.
The main losers of a No Deal outcome are consumers in the UK and in the EU. The main beneficiaries are inefficient industries that are feather-bedded by tariffs that protect them.
"The EU has more to lose than us if there is no trade deal"
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads) Germany £78bn (chicken feed) France £47bn (bugger all) Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean) Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
All trade is never going to cease but were it to do so there would be import substitutions.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads) Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost France £40bn - net loss Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
To some extent this is the case, but those substitutions are more costly than the EU Single Market ones being substituted*. Which will make us about 6% poorer on estimates I have seen. The biggest cost of Brexit in fact and it doesn't make a big difference if we have a deal or not.
* They won't always be substituted as exporters will go out of business and can't supply the domestic market either, eg for cars.
Amazon Prime is 15Mbps I stand corrected, although I think they recommend 20 minimum.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
Not even a decade, I'd guess just a few years. We're heading into the 9th console generation, that alone is going to change the way gamers use the internet.
Sky is waiting for more prolific FTTP coverage before it releases a non-satellite based TV product. Based on today's storms it might well be more reliable.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
I don't know what the latency is like, satellite has never been good at that. For gamers it's a must have.
Starlink latency is not bad, because the satellites are so low. (So low, in fact, that they burn up again in the atmosphere after only three or four years.)
But it's still a lot worse than FTTP.
Off topic: have you used GeForce Now? I tried OnLive, Stadia, etc., and they were all shit. But GeForce Now is remarkably good, at least where I am in LA.
I have tried it, not a huge fan tbh. I'm unconvinced that game streaming will ever become a thing. The compromises compared to the £350 box under the TV are just too big. Stadia was also very disappointing.
Why would you have ‘new’ orchestral arrangements of orchestral pieces?
Utter madness.
Any excuse for the BBC to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse
Just because it is one teams anthem shouldn’t preclude it, the words are quite appropriate for current circumstances.
It will thoroughly ruin what is an excellent night of songs. I expect it will be broadcast simultaneously on Radio one with Paul O Grady commentating.
Music snobbery is so boring. Just accept that there are different tastes. (I wouldn't ban Land of hope and glory either, despite its adoption by one party.)
Why would you have ‘new’ orchestral arrangements of orchestral pieces?
Utter madness.
Any excuse for the BBC to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse
Just because it is one teams anthem shouldn’t preclude it, the words are quite appropriate for current circumstances.
It will thoroughly ruin what is an excellent night of songs. I expect it will be broadcast simultaneously on Radio one with Paul O Grady commentating.
Its been included very frequently for many years now. It is a great song from a musical long before it became associated with the football champions. Oh and its a song that has been adopted by the NHS too this year.
It is a classic example of how out of touch the BBC are. Other than a small group of elderly liverpudlians the country/NHS does not want to be associated with that song. I expect they will broadcast one hour highlights of Hibernian v Aberdeen to the whole country as well followed by the Gaelic football final of Northern Ireland too. It's daylight license fee extreme left garbage
I don’t want to be associated with the words to rule Britannia and land of hope and glory, , I’m sure I’m not alone but know it’s a minority view. Where you get your ‘small handful of elderly Liverpudlians’ from or the view the country don’t want to be associated its ‘that song’ does not hold water, people on the whole join in whenever it’s played and only a sad Man Utd fan, not representative of those I know would hold such views. There’s nothing left wing about the BBC it’s just you are so far to the right that is how it appears.
Comments
The Covid-19 testing system has been hit by "exceptional demand" which has seen some people in Scotland only offered tests in England....
It has led to some people in Glasgow and the central belt being directed as far afield as Penrith in Cumbria.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53888797
BT has been run into the ground, its share price has dropped from a high of nearly £500 to under £100!
Even the Irish President lives at Aras an Uachtrain, once the summer residence of the lord lieutenant of Ireland and then the British Governor general.
Despite the fact it has 95 rooms and is well worth a visit it is also limited to visitors as the President's official residence and workplace
Openreach should be able to fund the overwhelming majority of the project all by itself. The taxpayer will probably be on the hook for subsidising the niche cases not all or most of it - and its those niche cases to which Satellite could be a better solution.
I'm sorry but if a farmer in Sticksville has a bit of latency I don't see what the problem with that is.
The other half of the country is completely unviable without public sector funding.
But it's clear you don't know what you're arguing, to somehow think satellite is on any level of FTTP is absurd.
Satellite can't deliver 1Gb, it doesn't scale and the latency is crap. SpaceX is slightly better but if it can push less than 100Mb in 10 years it will be useless.
FTTP now for all, and it scales to 10Gb with no problem. Fit forever.
If trade with the EU ceases
UK loses £300bn of exports (shit loads)
Germany £78bn (chicken feed)
France £47bn (bugger all)
Spain £34bn (a drop in the Mediterranean)
Italy £26bn (complete irrelevance)
Hence we hold all the carders are deluded thick f**kers
We had this debate 10 years ago and we had the wrong conclusion then. Please let's not go down the wrong road again, even BT are in favour of FTTP now
How did fish become a hill?
I am losing track of all this.
We have 40mpbs in our house currently and can have three different TVs all streaming HD shows simultaneously while having 2 laptops and 2 children online too. 100mbps will be plenty for the overwhelming majority.
And as for "needing to hit 100% coverage" - that's precisely what Openreach needs support for. If you're happy with 80-90% coverage the taxpayer needn't pay a penny.
Will England be ready for the same happening?
But at the same time, there are things that we will actually want from an LPF agreement, such as rules on taxation (hello Ireland) and on subsidies of export industries.
There is also nowhere near enough discussion about dispute resolution processes, compared to scope.
What is likely to happen (IMHO) is that we end up with a basic LPF agreement, which doesn't cover environmental or workers rights, and nor does it cover tax or export subsidies. We will then have environmental and workers rights way above the levels required by any LPF agreements, but will get incredibly angry about the French subsidising businesses that export to the UK to the detriment of UK producer.
In other words, we'll end up with the worst of all worlds.
10 years ago 10Mbps would have been enough, it's now not.
4K is 25Mbps per stream x4 you've already exceeded your bandwidth allowance. VR/AR, WFH, all of these have higher bandwidth requirements.
It's not what about you use today, it's what you will use in the future.
100Mbps will not be enough in a decade.
You're good on some things but on others, you don't have a clue and it shows.
Also, Starlink is scalable: you simply put up more satellites.
Now, will it replace FTTP for high density urban areas? No. Does it provide the most sensible way to get 100mb/second to rural areas? Yes, probably.
UK gains £372bn of import substitution (more than shit loads) - net £72bn gain (shit loads)
Germany gains £57bn - net £21bn lost
France £40bn - net loss
Spain £16bn - net £15bn loss
Italy £19bn - net £7bn loss
Hence we all hold all the cards funny f**ker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tuu5YtkPIo
PS ten years ago I had 40mpbs then too.
No one is forced to watch the Last Night of the Proms but this non-Conservative has no problem with patriotic music and if that's what the people want, fine.
The whole flag-waving and singing along doesn't bother me - why should it?
Draw 1.56
The Scottish Government can't keep threatening to close its borders to the unclean foreigner for months, and then export its own Plague cases to be tested by the unclean foreigners, without looking extremely silly.
If Scotland had a functioning Opposition then this is just the sort of thing they'd put Sturgeon and Freeman through the blender for.
Anecdotal evidence from a friend restaurants in Surrey Quays very busy again tonight - who'd have thought people would dash out for cheap eats?
Trade may very well be a mess but it's not just going to stop.
Which country has most to lose from a no deal BREXIT?
Which country has most to gain from a no deal BREXIT?
Starlink does not scale to 1Gb as is my understanding, FTTP is far more future proof.
I completely agree Starlink as an infill solution is a goer, completely agree with that. But as a replacement for FTTP, no it isn't.
100Mbps will simply not be enough within a decade, I stand by that but feel free to check in 10 years time.
One of my responsibilities at the red company was involved in this area - and I can assure you we looked into the viability of all of the above and FTTP was the clear winner. Albeit this was a few years ago.
Anyway, I stand by my comments above, 100Mbps will not be enough in a decade's time, not with how bandwidth requirements are scaling
She said: "We've had months to boost capacity and testing and we're still not getting it right.
"It is, frankly, astonishing that people in Glasgow are having to travel over the border to England for a Covid-19 test.
"Something has gone badly wrong and the Scottish government has to fix it rapidly."
Scottish Conservative health spokesperson Donald Cameron said: "I urge the Scottish government to find out what's gone wrong here and work quickly to maintain public confidence in the testing system."
In a no deal I think the low end car manufacturing and assembly industry is gone within 3 years, but I expect a deal would be signed within that time. It also wouldn't be Europe's gain IMO, it would be Asia's gain for countries like Japan and Korea which include tariff elimination for motor vehicles.
This is what I think the EU are missing, the loss of trade on both sides in a no deal won't be our or their gain, it will be Asia's gain. We'll end up seeing huge value chains simply move from the UK/Germany/France to Japan/Korea/SE Asia. We'll all lose collectively rather than one side gaining from the other side's loss.
To be honest I am long out of being remotely close to these kind of decisions but I would be surprised if BT had not seriously considered 5G/satellite as a goer and came to a similar conclusion as we did.
The big issue is wayleave rates to landowners which community projects negotiate away. That’s where the government needs to pay attention. Oh, and making sure that BT give access to its own conduits and poles where that avoids duplicate road, bridge or river crossings. And leaning on Network Rail to open up its fibre to other operators.
Of course applications like Steam with games in the 100GB range are a slog to download even on a 100Mb connection.
For me FTTP offers choice, if you want a slow connection you can have one. The scaling is the important thing.
SpaceX simply does not scale in anything like the same fashion, I do not believe it will ever do 1Gb
It's why - even though tariffs on autos in the US are just 2.5% - pretty much any car worth less than $30,000 (including everything but the really high end Mercedes) is made in the US.
So, I'm not convinced that there will be a lot of low end Nissans shipped to Europe direct from Japan, irrespective of the prevailing tariffs.
It doesn't provide equivalence to Sky's satellite, I should have said offer the same package as they offer over satellite. They do not offer that, as far as I am aware
It's been shelved indefinitely.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1297961939939794947?s=20
The fact is, you've been getting away with specious nonsense by listing off exports without taking into account that every export from one country is money spent on imports by another. Well done and everything, but it got called out in this thread, so I'd be tempted leave this and come back another day.
But it's still a lot worse than FTTP.
Off topic: have you used GeForce Now? I tried OnLive, Stadia, etc., and they were all shit. But GeForce Now is remarkably good, at least where I am in LA.
However, there are certain industries (in particular automotive and its supply chain) who would struggle pretty hard to adjust. So, while there's nothing wrong with No Deal as a planned destination, we would be well advised to have contingency plans in place for those industries, and in particular their employees.
Even low margin cars still make a fairly reasonable absolute profit so shipping costs aren't a huge concern compared to the savings in rationalising the supply chain.
* They won't always be substituted as exporters will go out of business and can't supply the domestic market either, eg for cars.
Likely to be a vaccine out before then lol