Musk is not a fascist. He’s high as a kite and I believe mentally ill.
From the lab experiments a family member undertook on rat brains and K, there is a high probability of damage from the long term use of K. (See PhD research into this area at Leeds Uni)
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Buying Starlink when Musk can turn it off if he does not like you is not a smart move. In fact, buying any US-made or owned defence/security related product is probably not a great idea if there is any residual after-sale reliance on the manufacturer. Buying a Tesla is different because there are no real post-purchase dependency concerns but there is the association with Musk and that will clearly affect the choices a lot of people make.
I'm one consumer. My business bought Starlink a couple of years ago and despite claims to the contrary it is consistently faster than any other option available.
Lets assume that Musk switches it off tomorrow. I revert back to an alternative. Same if he turns it off next month. Next year. If that happens then we revert back to the slower laggier alternatives, but have had the benefit of the superior faster product.
I'm unclear where the downsides are.
In politics there is a real problem with dismissing real world lived experience because actually I know more than you and actually the stats show that what you have in the real world you actually don't actually.
I think Horse is a great poster but repeatedly he has told me that my lived experience of using Starlink isn't real. Translate that into politics and we have the Tories putting up taxes and trying to tell people that the big tax rise eating into their net pay on their payslip is actually a cut actually, or one of a myriad of Labour topics where they are right and the voters are wrong. I can still picture the Momentum activist literally finger jabbing at a guy on his doorstep berating him about how he was wrong about the stuff he was saying about his life.
The header is about Reform - and they're doing very well by not falling into this trap of telling people they are wrong when they describe their lives. We can disagree with a political or philosophical perspective, but when that translates into insisting that lived experience is wrong then you've lost.
I think that’s unfair. I am very glad Starlink works for you. My point was simply that the latency is not reliable and not comparable to other solutions. If it works for you then great.
I am not trying to deny your lived experience, what I am denying is that it is a solution that can work for the vast majority. That is all.
Once again, this is purely a technical argument. I’d make the same arguments about OneWeb.
As I’ve said repeatedly: use Starlink as you wish. The fact you’re being told not to by a bunch of virtue signallers is becoming very boring.
There is a problem though. Your industry take is pro cellular. Great - we all want faster and more reliable service.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
Buying Starlink when Musk can turn it off if he does not like you is not a smart move. In fact, buying any US-made or owned defence/security related product is probably not a great idea if there is any residual after-sale reliance on the manufacturer. Buying a Tesla is different because there are no real post-purchase dependency concerns but there is the association with Musk and that will clearly affect the choices a lot of people make.
I'm one consumer. My business bought Starlink a couple of years ago and despite claims to the contrary it is consistently faster than any other option available.
Lets assume that Musk switches it off tomorrow. I revert back to an alternative. Same if he turns it off next month. Next year. If that happens then we revert back to the slower laggier alternatives, but have had the benefit of the superior faster product.
I'm unclear where the downsides are.
In politics there is a real problem with dismissing real world lived experience because actually I know more than you and actually the stats show that what you have in the real world you actually don't actually.
I think Horse is a great poster but repeatedly he has told me that my lived experience of using Starlink isn't real. Translate that into politics and we have the Tories putting up taxes and trying to tell people that the big tax rise eating into their net pay on their payslip is actually a cut actually, or one of a myriad of Labour topics where they are right and the voters are wrong. I can still picture the Momentum activist literally finger jabbing at a guy on his doorstep berating him about how he was wrong about the stuff he was saying about his life.
The header is about Reform - and they're doing very well by not falling into this trap of telling people they are wrong when they describe their lives. We can disagree with a political or philosophical perspective, but when that translates into insisting that lived experience is wrong then you've lost.
I think that’s unfair. I am very glad Starlink works for you. My point was simply that the latency is not reliable and not comparable to other solutions. If it works for you then great.
I am not trying to deny your lived experience, what I am denying is that it is a solution that can work for the vast majority. That is all.
Once again, this is purely a technical argument. I’d make the same arguments about OneWeb.
As I’ve said repeatedly: use Starlink as you wish. The fact you’re being told not to by a bunch of virtue signallers is becoming very boring.
There is a problem though. Your industry take is pro cellular. Great - we all want faster and more reliable service.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
I’ve already explained to you. It’s not usable at scale. It cannot in any way replace a mast with a 10Gb fibre running to it. That would be one the largest industrial applications for it. I suspect with a full train you’d run into capacity issues very quickly but that’s only a guess.
I don’t think you are wrong to use it. I am happy it works for you. I think you are wrong to advocate for it as something that can replace 4G/5G or FTTP for more than a few hundred people.
After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.
The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.
In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department.
Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform.
Incidentally, as Tesla cars are highly connected, how easy would it be for them or another actor to get mad at a country or individual and either disallow the car's use, or brick them via an over-the-air update?
I'm not saying they would do this; just asking if it is a reasonable attack vector.
I can fix that. Disable the eSim and disable WIFI. Make the car dumb, so it can't be remotely instructed to do anything.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
And other options were available the other option was 2 masts both outside the national park but that cost more money
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
Horse - you dislike Starlink. We get that. But so far you’ve made a series of strident statements which get rapidly demolished. Terrible latency? Nope. Can’t do meetings? Nope. Slower than 5G? Nope. Everyone is getting FTTP (Stop and Think about the practicalities of that one). Nope. Can’t work on a train. Nope.
Starlink may turn into a cul-de-sac technology. But here and now it offers genuinely fast and usable connectivity to people who literally have no other options. Where you insist the other options actually do exist and actually are faster and better actually.
I don’t work in the industry. You appear to do. Which means you know more that I do. But keep posting things that are demonstrably wrong in the real world because you’ve set your mind against it. Why is that? In my industry I start with the facts on the ground and build a narrative to explain them. Not decide on the narrative and be selective and manipulate of the “facts” to prove me right
Starlink's capabilities don't matter a jot if you are a non-MAGA government, or in a business which in any way competes with any of Musk's. Because you cannot rely on the service.
And I'd just say I find your constant hyping of Musk's products to be very much against what I thought were your values and morals.
How am I constantly hyping? Some products, yes. Partially. My latest Just Get A Tesla video slags off "FSD Capability" and describes it as "a con". Am I hyping FSD Capability? I'm saying that Tesla are being outrageous selling this thing which they know doesn't work. Is that me hyping them?
I've repeatedly poked a stick at autonomous vehicles - I fully expect they to get banned after the first nasty automation crash. I think the robot thing is absurd. I've attacked Neuralink.
What I don't do is adjust the facts to match what you insist should be "values and morals". Horse laid down a list of things that Starlink cannot do and was factually wrong. Stating that is neither hyping nor not hyping - it is what it is.
My morality is my morality. When I was younger and more strident I drank the cool-aid where my morality should be everyone's morality. I grew out of that long ago - and had to change party to best reflect that. What I think isn't necessarily what you think. Why do you think that what you think should be inviolate and adopted by others? If I want a lecture on morality I could go to church. Oh year, I stopped doing that as well...
What's the title of your channel again? Is it "Don't get a Tesla"?
No?
And my post commented on the technical merits of Starlink being pointless given the political shenanigans that Musk is performing with it.
And as for morality and values: wait until Musk and MAGA come after gay people. Or bisexuals. See my point now?
It's a car. It's not a man.
Starlink is a service. Should Starlink abruptly get switched off then I would have to revert back to shonky slow options. Are you saying that because of a theoretical event maybe in the future that shonky and slow is my best option now?
And MAGA are *already* going after anyone who isn't white Christian and straight. So what? Jenrick was foaming on about straight white Christians the other day. If I want to pay attention to homophobia I don't need to bother with MAGA.
What's your point? Which technologies / companies / political platforms are morally acceptable to you? I converted to Apple a couple of years ago - does that make me liable for the Uighurs too?
The car is giving the man much of his power. And he is using that power in ways that are, in my view, very bad. I'd hope that was your view as well. People promoting his brands are helping him. You are doing so - and I guess you're making a little money out of it.
And your comparison of Jenrick with what is going on in America is ludicrous and wrong.
My point was not about whether it is acceptable to *me*. My point - as I stated above - is that if you are a country or organisation that might annoy Musk for some reason, then any of his services are unreliable. That will be a major drag against the use of those services anywhere outside MAGAland.
We disagree but that is ok. Yes I'm promoting multiple Musk brands. Do you think Musk cares one way or another? The notion that a consumer boycott will sink him is for the birds - its having an impact on sales, but its not the collapse that some are hoping for. Anyone see the sales numbers in February here? Shows that the bigger drops in a few markets in Europe are not universal which means little impact - especially on a company whose bonkers share price is based on AI and automation hopium rather than reality.
As for Jenrick, he said that criminal justice was biased against "Christians" and "Straight White Men". We call out dog whistle racism when its MAGA doing it, but don't want to call it out when its the Tories? And you talk about morality?
This just makes my point. "Morality" talks of absolutes. Right and wrong. I've used that kind of language in the past which was wrong. With very very few exceptions there are no absolutes - only shades of grey. What we have here is one shade of grey addressing another shade of grey and saying "ha, you are grey"
Well the fact is you use cars and services that are provided by a company whose main shareholder has been discovered to be a facist loving ketamine addicted billionaire.
You also make videos (for which you earn money and seem to derive benefits from) that promote those products.
Now it’s up to you as to whether you continue to do so but given your previous posts I suspect an accurate description for you would be hypocrite
He's a kethead, without question.
Is he a fascist? Really? What's the evidence of it - and don't say the salute.
If you actually examine Musk's positions they are often at the opposite end of the spectrum from fascism. Musk is a free speech absolutist. That's an absurd position btw, but fascists don't want free speech, they want to stop free speech. Musk wants industry to be unencumbered by state regulation. Fascism shackles industry to deliver what the state wants. Musk thinks there's lots of penpusher bureaucrats and whole departments that can be done away with. Fascism regulates every aspect of life to the nth degree. Musk wants more migration. MAGA and especially some of the far right parties he has hyped want zero or negative migration.
"Musk is a fascist" doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny once you drop the emotional response and actually look at it.
He's retweeted far-right accounts promoting civil war in the UK. He was reintrointruced to Trump's canpaign by Peter Thiel, an open techno-fascist, who is the kingmaker, and also promoted fascist ideologues like Curtis Yarvin to Vance.
He was named by his father after a character in a Nazi rocket scientists novel about a benign dictator who took over Mars. I would say the signs are pretty clear.
He has been ramping Yaxley-Lennon which made me very angry. But he isn't ramping it because he supports that mindset. SYL wants to remove migrants. Musk is in America saying that migration is a good thing (which enrages many MAGA activists).
So basically your argument is he is ramping right wing people for the lols not because he agrees with their viewpoint.
While mine is that Trump is posting those item because he does agree with their viewpoint
My argument is that he is ramping people who he thinks have been censored - SYL, AfD etc etc. It's bloody stupid, but it isn't fascism.
Do you think he gave Nazi salutes?
No, though I have been hugely entertained by the various side by side video clips. We don't even need to pull apart the mechanics of the salute and the very odd angle he was pulling vs the ramrod straight execution of the nazis doing it.
The proof that so many people offer for Musk being a fascist is those salutes. You yourself appear to have fallen back onto them as the last redoubt of an argument that falls apart under scrutiny.
Go back to my list of Musk vs Fascism positions. Discuss those point by point - those are relevant and would be whether or not a toddler moron has bounced around a stage like a 5 year old doung dodgy salutes, thumping the dias in excitement and doing absurd flag planting gestures complete with sounds.
"But he did a salute". Yeah. Harry dressed up as one. Cosplaying fascism doesn't make you actually fascist.
Interestingly I think Musk is a fascist - or maybe proro-fascist is a better description given he hasn't really got going yet. But I think the salute is entirely irrelevant and misleading. Far more important are Algakirk's list of 14 indicators, most of which I think Trump and Musk are ticking to a greater or lesser degree.
So the salute argument is pointless and ultimately wrong. You can find lots of examples of people we know are not fascists doing similar salutes and of course there are plenty of examples of people who we would happily class as fascists who have never been photographed making salutes. So it is rather daft to concentrate on this one irrelevant action.
I can follow your argument but, taking a step back, the Nazi salute can hardly be taken as neutral as to whether Musk is a fascist or not. It's at the very least a teensy bit fascist.
More Il Duce than Der Fuhrer, I thought.
But still - dodgy as all fuck.
I have always thought the Trump-Mussolini similarities were uncanny. Particularly that 'head tilt stare into the distance whilst sticking out the bottom lip' thing.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
ASML will build a “reuse and repair” center in 🇨🇳 Beijing this year, showing its commitment to the world’s second-largest economy despite pressure from Washington.
The Dutch firm disclosed the plan for the facility in Beijing in its annual report published on Mar 5.
It is the only major project in the report’s “circular economy” section about parts and tools. The repair center mentioned in the plan is “an upgrade to our existing repair center in China. It is not an addition, it replaces the older repair center.”.. https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1898329491342278750
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
Buying Starlink when Musk can turn it off if he does not like you is not a smart move. In fact, buying any US-made or owned defence/security related product is probably not a great idea if there is any residual after-sale reliance on the manufacturer. Buying a Tesla is different because there are no real post-purchase dependency concerns but there is the association with Musk and that will clearly affect the choices a lot of people make.
I'm one consumer. My business bought Starlink a couple of years ago and despite claims to the contrary it is consistently faster than any other option available.
Lets assume that Musk switches it off tomorrow. I revert back to an alternative. Same if he turns it off next month. Next year. If that happens then we revert back to the slower laggier alternatives, but have had the benefit of the superior faster product.
I'm unclear where the downsides are.
In politics there is a real problem with dismissing real world lived experience because actually I know more than you and actually the stats show that what you have in the real world you actually don't actually.
I think Horse is a great poster but repeatedly he has told me that my lived experience of using Starlink isn't real. Translate that into politics and we have the Tories putting up taxes and trying to tell people that the big tax rise eating into their net pay on their payslip is actually a cut actually, or one of a myriad of Labour topics where they are right and the voters are wrong. I can still picture the Momentum activist literally finger jabbing at a guy on his doorstep berating him about how he was wrong about the stuff he was saying about his life.
The header is about Reform - and they're doing very well by not falling into this trap of telling people they are wrong when they describe their lives. We can disagree with a political or philosophical perspective, but when that translates into insisting that lived experience is wrong then you've lost.
I think that’s unfair. I am very glad Starlink works for you. My point was simply that the latency is not reliable and not comparable to other solutions. If it works for you then great.
I am not trying to deny your lived experience, what I am denying is that it is a solution that can work for the vast majority. That is all.
Once again, this is purely a technical argument. I’d make the same arguments about OneWeb.
As I’ve said repeatedly: use Starlink as you wish. The fact you’re being told not to by a bunch of virtue signallers is becoming very boring.
There is a problem though. Your industry take is pro cellular. Great - we all want faster and more reliable service.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
I’ve already explained to you. It’s not usable at scale. It cannot in any way replace a mast with a 10Gb fibre running to it.
I don’t think you are wrong to use it. I am happy it works for you. I think you are wrong to advocate for it as something that can replace 4G/5G or FTTP for more than a few hundred people.
That's not what you said. I am not using it at scale. I am using a single terminal. "How do you use Starlink for meetings" because "the latency is horrible"
But it isn't. If you are suggesting that it *might* be horrible and usable in the future if it scaled to millions of UK users then ok. But you didn't say that. You said it isn't usable today and proceeded to sell 4G/5G which as you just said it can't replace.
But it can replace. I have no 5G to replace, only 4G. And Starlink is waaaaay faster and more reliable.
Can it replace a mast with 10Gb fibre? No! Am I ever likely to get a mast with 10Gb fibre? No!
Starlink is not supposed to be a replacement for other systems. It's a supplement to those systems where they don't exist. And at no point have I suggested that someone like my Lincolnshire mate bin his 5G router for Starlink - that would be stupid.
Do you get it yet? "FTTP will cover 99% of households by 2030". OK, lets assume that's true. I can't wait until 2030. And neither can most people without it. And the alternatives you prefer don't exist here, and in all likelihood won't come here.
You are literally denying lived reality today to sell a future that is vapourware.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
Musk is not a fascist. He’s high as a kite and I believe mentally ill.
From the lab experiments a family member undertook on rat brains and K, there is a high probability of damage from the long term use of K. (See PhD research into this area at Leeds Uni)
And damage to the bladder & urethra, causing incontinence. Interesting whiff coming off the Trump cabinet.
Buying Starlink when Musk can turn it off if he does not like you is not a smart move. In fact, buying any US-made or owned defence/security related product is probably not a great idea if there is any residual after-sale reliance on the manufacturer. Buying a Tesla is different because there are no real post-purchase dependency concerns but there is the association with Musk and that will clearly affect the choices a lot of people make.
I'm one consumer. My business bought Starlink a couple of years ago and despite claims to the contrary it is consistently faster than any other option available.
Lets assume that Musk switches it off tomorrow. I revert back to an alternative. Same if he turns it off next month. Next year. If that happens then we revert back to the slower laggier alternatives, but have had the benefit of the superior faster product.
I'm unclear where the downsides are.
In politics there is a real problem with dismissing real world lived experience because actually I know more than you and actually the stats show that what you have in the real world you actually don't actually.
I think Horse is a great poster but repeatedly he has told me that my lived experience of using Starlink isn't real. Translate that into politics and we have the Tories putting up taxes and trying to tell people that the big tax rise eating into their net pay on their payslip is actually a cut actually, or one of a myriad of Labour topics where they are right and the voters are wrong. I can still picture the Momentum activist literally finger jabbing at a guy on his doorstep berating him about how he was wrong about the stuff he was saying about his life.
The header is about Reform - and they're doing very well by not falling into this trap of telling people they are wrong when they describe their lives. We can disagree with a political or philosophical perspective, but when that translates into insisting that lived experience is wrong then you've lost.
I think that’s unfair. I am very glad Starlink works for you. My point was simply that the latency is not reliable and not comparable to other solutions. If it works for you then great.
I am not trying to deny your lived experience, what I am denying is that it is a solution that can work for the vast majority. That is all.
Once again, this is purely a technical argument. I’d make the same arguments about OneWeb.
As I’ve said repeatedly: use Starlink as you wish. The fact you’re being told not to by a bunch of virtue signallers is becoming very boring.
There is a problem though. Your industry take is pro cellular. Great - we all want faster and more reliable service.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
I’ve already explained to you. It’s not usable at scale. It cannot in any way replace a mast with a 10Gb fibre running to it.
I don’t think you are wrong to use it. I am happy it works for you. I think you are wrong to advocate for it as something that can replace 4G/5G or FTTP for more than a few hundred people.
That's not what you said. I am not using it at scale. I am using a single terminal. "How do you use Starlink for meetings" because "the latency is horrible"
But it isn't. If you are suggesting that it *might* be horrible and usable in the future if it scaled to millions of UK users then ok. But you didn't say that. You said it isn't usable today and proceeded to sell 4G/5G which as you just said it can't replace.
But it can replace. I have no 5G to replace, only 4G. And Starlink is waaaaay faster and more reliable.
Can it replace a mast with 10Gb fibre? No! Am I ever likely to get a mast with 10Gb fibre? No!
Starlink is not supposed to be a replacement for other systems. It's a supplement to those systems where they don't exist. And at no point have I suggested that someone like my Lincolnshire mate bin his 5G router for Starlink - that would be stupid.
Do you get it yet? "FTTP will cover 99% of households by 2030". OK, lets assume that's true. I can't wait until 2030. And neither can most people without it. And the alternatives you prefer don't exist here, and in all likelihood won't come here.
You are literally denying lived reality today to sell a future that is vapourware.
Can you hold this discussion for about 20 minutes lads. I don't want to miss any of it but I've found something more important and interesting that I just need to do.
Thoughts and prayers with all the pb education experts.
That's other mince, sorry, by focussing on just year seven is a bit like deciding a football match result based on the first 10 minutes.
Spoiler alert: There are students in years other than year 7.
Surely you'd accept its less likely parents would take their kids out midway through their time at a school, and more likely they would make the switch before starting a new school?
My eldest has seen two kids leave his form since VAT kicked in.
If you're a parent with three kids in private schools you're going to have find on average nearly an extra grand a month to cover the VAT.
But if you are sending 3 kids to private school, you are already paying a lot of money, so that extra grand as a proportion of what you are already spending is not that high. An extra grand a month sounds a lot to most people, but most people couldn't ever afford to send 1, let alone 3 kids to private school.
I know a few people who sacrifice quite a bit for private education for their children. The question is proportion.
As to how many will switch? - it will take several years to work through the system. Moving a child on the "in years" is very disruptive and hence uncommon. So people will be trying to stay till the end of primary, for example.
If you send your kids to private school, your acquaintances will mostly be well off and the people impacted most by this policy will be among the less well off among that group, so it will seem like quite an unfair, even regressive, policy. Whereas, if you don't send your kids to private school, the people you know through school will be a broad mix, income wise, with fewer of the seriously rich than in the population as a whole, so the people impacted will seem relatively rich (which of course they are) and the policy will seem pretty fair. People live in their own bubble. I'm in the somewhat unusual position of being in both those bubbles at the same time (kids at state school but minted so most people I know through work send their kids private) and so it's quite evident to me how this is playing out.
It's interesting how the internet has undoubtedly made the "living in their own bubble" problem worse than it was before, which is the opposite of what nearly everyone expected to happen.
Yes, broadcasting has been replaced by narrowcasting.
Buying Starlink when Musk can turn it off if he does not like you is not a smart move. In fact, buying any US-made or owned defence/security related product is probably not a great idea if there is any residual after-sale reliance on the manufacturer. Buying a Tesla is different because there are no real post-purchase dependency concerns but there is the association with Musk and that will clearly affect the choices a lot of people make.
I'm one consumer. My business bought Starlink a couple of years ago and despite claims to the contrary it is consistently faster than any other option available.
Lets assume that Musk switches it off tomorrow. I revert back to an alternative. Same if he turns it off next month. Next year. If that happens then we revert back to the slower laggier alternatives, but have had the benefit of the superior faster product.
I'm unclear where the downsides are.
In politics there is a real problem with dismissing real world lived experience because actually I know more than you and actually the stats show that what you have in the real world you actually don't actually.
I think Horse is a great poster but repeatedly he has told me that my lived experience of using Starlink isn't real. Translate that into politics and we have the Tories putting up taxes and trying to tell people that the big tax rise eating into their net pay on their payslip is actually a cut actually, or one of a myriad of Labour topics where they are right and the voters are wrong. I can still picture the Momentum activist literally finger jabbing at a guy on his doorstep berating him about how he was wrong about the stuff he was saying about his life.
The header is about Reform - and they're doing very well by not falling into this trap of telling people they are wrong when they describe their lives. We can disagree with a political or philosophical perspective, but when that translates into insisting that lived experience is wrong then you've lost.
I think that’s unfair. I am very glad Starlink works for you. My point was simply that the latency is not reliable and not comparable to other solutions. If it works for you then great.
I am not trying to deny your lived experience, what I am denying is that it is a solution that can work for the vast majority. That is all.
Once again, this is purely a technical argument. I’d make the same arguments about OneWeb.
As I’ve said repeatedly: use Starlink as you wish. The fact you’re being told not to by a bunch of virtue signallers is becoming very boring.
There is a problem though. Your industry take is pro cellular. Great - we all want faster and more reliable service.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
I’ve already explained to you. It’s not usable at scale. It cannot in any way replace a mast with a 10Gb fibre running to it.
I don’t think you are wrong to use it. I am happy it works for you. I think you are wrong to advocate for it as something that can replace 4G/5G or FTTP for more than a few hundred people.
That's not what you said. I am not using it at scale. I am using a single terminal. "How do you use Starlink for meetings" because "the latency is horrible"
But it isn't. If you are suggesting that it *might* be horrible and usable in the future if it scaled to millions of UK users then ok. But you didn't say that. You said it isn't usable today and proceeded to sell 4G/5G which as you just said it can't replace.
But it can replace. I have no 5G to replace, only 4G. And Starlink is waaaaay faster and more reliable.
Can it replace a mast with 10Gb fibre? No! Am I ever likely to get a mast with 10Gb fibre? No!
Starlink is not supposed to be a replacement for other systems. It's a supplement to those systems where they don't exist. And at no point have I suggested that someone like my Lincolnshire mate bin his 5G router for Starlink - that would be stupid.
Do you get it yet? "FTTP will cover 99% of households by 2030". OK, lets assume that's true. I can't wait until 2030. And neither can most people without it. And the alternatives you prefer don't exist here, and in all likelihood won't come here.
You are literally denying lived reality today to sell a future that is vapourware.
Okay, I was wrong when I said you can’t use it for meetings. You can. Good for you.
Do I think you will be able to use it long term. No. I think you will run into contention very quickly if as many people use it as you suggest they will.
Does it work for you. Yes.
Will it work for most, no. I really stand by that.
As a backup or last resort, yes.
Will the alternatives come to you. Almost certainly. The SRN should see to that and as you said you have FTTC already you already have a fibre headend so you will get FTTP. I’d bet on it.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
No what you actually have said is screw the countryside build things wherever you want in the cheapest way possible.
Remember in my example - signal already existed - it could be improved by 2 masts in sane locations or 1 mast in an unsuitable location and you went for the cheap solution that would upset people
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
ASML will build a “reuse and repair” center in 🇨🇳 Beijing this year, showing its commitment to the world’s second-largest economy despite pressure from Washington.
The Dutch firm disclosed the plan for the facility in Beijing in its annual report published on Mar 5.
It is the only major project in the report’s “circular economy” section about parts and tools. The repair center mentioned in the plan is “an upgrade to our existing repair center in China. It is not an addition, it replaces the older repair center.”.. https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1898329491342278750
That's absolutely shocking for the US. They are literally handing over their economic leadership to China and companies are adjusting to the new reality wrt Trump/MAGA.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
No what you actually have said is screw the countryside build things wherever you want in the cheapest way possible.
Essentially yes. I accept it’s not a popular policy but it’s the right one. You aren’t going to get good coverage without putting masts up. There literally aren’t alternatives.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Or invest in a LEO satellite constellation that can handle mobile phone calls.....
(For those who don't know - already on the way. You can send/receive texts on certain phones already).
Yes, a lesser service. But if you block the alternatives....
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Or invest in a LEO satellite constellation that can handle mobile phone calls.....
(For those who don't know - already on the way. You can send/receive texts on certain phones already).
Yes, a lesser service. But if you block the alternatives....
That would only be considered as a last resort. The latency is not guaranteed and not particularly reliable for phone calls at any scale. There is a reason they are only used to cover black holes.
They are used for data because it’s not latency sensitive.
I agree, if we block the alternatives that is what we will end up with. It will be crap but I suppose technically you will have “coverage”.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
No what you actually have said is screw the countryside build things wherever you want in the cheapest way possible.
Essentially yes. I accept it’s not a popular policy but it’s the right one. You aren’t going to get good coverage without putting masts up. There literally aren’t alternatives.
I am afraid masts look like masts.
Sometimes they're built to look like trees, I believe.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
So presumably they offered to change the colour of the panels and received approval?
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Um as I’ve posted 3 times now - spend the extra money and put up 2 masts in locations where people dont object to them.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Um as I’ve posted 3 times now - spend the extra money and put up 2 masts in locations where people dont object to them.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
People object to them wherever they are placed. That’s literally the point I am making.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
So presumably they offered to change the colour of the panels and received approval?
They did not.
Why is one of the criteria even that the colour can be wrong. It’s a load of nonsense. It’s an urban area for goodness sake.
ASML will build a “reuse and repair” center in 🇨🇳 Beijing this year, showing its commitment to the world’s second-largest economy despite pressure from Washington.
The Dutch firm disclosed the plan for the facility in Beijing in its annual report published on Mar 5.
It is the only major project in the report’s “circular economy” section about parts and tools. The repair center mentioned in the plan is “an upgrade to our existing repair center in China. It is not an addition, it replaces the older repair center.”.. https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1898329491342278750
That's absolutely shocking for the US. They are literally handing over their economic leadership to China and companies are adjusting to the new reality wrt Trump/MAGA.
China currently has about 1% of its assets owned by the private sector. Their aim is to make that 10% within 5 years. Despite a reluctance to call it privatization, it is going to open up huge opportunities to those prepared to invest within China. It looks like that will not in large part be the US. But there will be much closer ties between Europe and China and the Middle East and China. (Abu Dhabi alone is currently buying top brands and assets around the world at the rate of $5 billion A DAY.)
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
No what you actually have said is screw the countryside build things wherever you want in the cheapest way possible.
Essentially yes. I accept it’s not a popular policy but it’s the right one. You aren’t going to get good coverage without putting masts up. There literally aren’t alternatives.
I am afraid masts look like masts.
Sometimes they're built to look like trees, I believe.
There are a few handfuls. But they are more expensive to build and maintain and the coverage from them is reduced and they support fewer bands so not good for long term usage.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Um as I’ve posted 3 times now - spend the extra money and put up 2 masts in locations where people dont object to them.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
People object to them wherever they are placed. That’s literally the point I am making.
No it wasn’t - but it also shows the problem. Planners will often better locations where approval would be granted but those suggestions are ignored - in the case above a combination of planners and a retired engineer did provide that details, the engineers calculations were confirm but the network still spent another year trying to save a few quidz
I would suggest pick an argument with someone who doesn’t have evidence to back up his statement
ASML will build a “reuse and repair” center in 🇨🇳 Beijing this year, showing its commitment to the world’s second-largest economy despite pressure from Washington.
The Dutch firm disclosed the plan for the facility in Beijing in its annual report published on Mar 5.
It is the only major project in the report’s “circular economy” section about parts and tools. The repair center mentioned in the plan is “an upgrade to our existing repair center in China. It is not an addition, it replaces the older repair center.”.. https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1898329491342278750
That's absolutely shocking for the US. They are literally handing over their economic leadership to China and companies are adjusting to the new reality wrt Trump/MAGA.
As the MAGAs I keep blocking on X tell me, FAFO.
And Curtis Yarvin has told JD that, as the US has a trade deficit with both China and Europe, ceasing to trade with them is by definition good for US economic growth...
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Um as I’ve posted 3 times now - spend the extra money and put up 2 masts in locations where people dont object to them.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
People object to them wherever they are placed. That’s literally the point I am making.
No it wasn’t - but it also shows the problem. Planners will often better locations where approval would be granted but those suggestions are ignored - in the case above a combination of planners and a retired engineer did provide that details, the engineers calculations were confirm but the network still spent another year trying to save a few quidz
I would suggest pick an argument with someone who doesn’t have evidence to back up his statement
They might occasionally do what you are saying but it’s certainly not wholesale how it works.
Can you provide some citations for the particular case so I can read up.
Where I agree with @BatteryCorrectHorse is that we need further investment into superfast fibre and mobile cellular connectivity. Too many places struggle for connection speeds - whether that is remote places or increasingly in city centres surrounded by masts.
There is a basic truth though about return on investment. When I lived on Teesside our estate (which ballooned to 900 houses in different phases) was denied fast broadband as Openreach refused to accept that we existed. Their fibre rollout survey being done before the estate was built, thus not enough demand for FTTC to our cabinet.
After years of waiting we got FTTP. But even then the roll-out was patchy. If you lived on the main street as we did you got it. On one of the little 2 or 3 house mini cul-de-sacs? No fibre for you.
This is the challenge for the vision that Horse advocates. I have a cabinet literally metres away from my house, but that was installed later and our house is connected to the other cabinet 1.5km away. We enquired about getting FTTP installed commercially and the cost was close to £10k. Reinstate the existing fixed line to the exchange? Close to £1k a month line rental.
The vision Horse insists will happen here by 2030 is this. Someone is going to come and dig up the whole village and install new connections. Not just along the roads, up every side lane between houses to reach the houses built at the back or could be built at the back.
And that's just my village. For the people at the edges of the village or on stand-alone farms a few kilometres outside - are they getting FTTP as well? Paid for by whom?
I've seen big holes in the roll-out plan in busy suburban areas. The "just build it without planning" proposal absolutely guarantees that lots of places are missed out because there is literally no roll-out plan.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
So presumably they offered to change the colour of the panels and received approval?
They did not.
Why is one of the criteria even that the colour can be wrong. It’s a load of nonsense. It’s an urban area for goodness sake.
Because fitting in with the locality (may not be phrased like that) is a material planning consideration in law, and has been forever.
It does seem like punching themselves in the face for the sake of punching themselves in the face.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
No what you actually have said is screw the countryside build things wherever you want in the cheapest way possible.
Essentially yes. I accept it’s not a popular policy but it’s the right one. You aren’t going to get good coverage without putting masts up. There literally aren’t alternatives.
I am afraid masts look like masts.
Sometimes they're built to look like trees, I believe.
Buying Starlink when Musk can turn it off if he does not like you is not a smart move. In fact, buying any US-made or owned defence/security related product is probably not a great idea if there is any residual after-sale reliance on the manufacturer. Buying a Tesla is different because there are no real post-purchase dependency concerns but there is the association with Musk and that will clearly affect the choices a lot of people make.
I'm one consumer. My business bought Starlink a couple of years ago and despite claims to the contrary it is consistently faster than any other option available.
Lets assume that Musk switches it off tomorrow. I revert back to an alternative. Same if he turns it off next month. Next year. If that happens then we revert back to the slower laggier alternatives, but have had the benefit of the superior faster product.
I'm unclear where the downsides are.
In politics there is a real problem with dismissing real world lived experience because actually I know more than you and actually the stats show that what you have in the real world you actually don't actually.
I think Horse is a great poster but repeatedly he has told me that my lived experience of using Starlink isn't real. Translate that into politics and we have the Tories putting up taxes and trying to tell people that the big tax rise eating into their net pay on their payslip is actually a cut actually, or one of a myriad of Labour topics where they are right and the voters are wrong. I can still picture the Momentum activist literally finger jabbing at a guy on his doorstep berating him about how he was wrong about the stuff he was saying about his life.
The header is about Reform - and they're doing very well by not falling into this trap of telling people they are wrong when they describe their lives. We can disagree with a political or philosophical perspective, but when that translates into insisting that lived experience is wrong then you've lost.
I think that’s unfair. I am very glad Starlink works for you. My point was simply that the latency is not reliable and not comparable to other solutions. If it works for you then great.
I am not trying to deny your lived experience, what I am denying is that it is a solution that can work for the vast majority. That is all.
Once again, this is purely a technical argument. I’d make the same arguments about OneWeb.
As I’ve said repeatedly: use Starlink as you wish. The fact you’re being told not to by a bunch of virtue signallers is becoming very boring.
There is a problem though. Your industry take is pro cellular. Great - we all want faster and more reliable service.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
So presumably they offered to change the colour of the panels and received approval?
They did not.
Why is one of the criteria even that the colour can be wrong. It’s a load of nonsense. It’s an urban area for goodness sake.
Because fitting in with the locality (may not be phrased like that) is a material planning consideration in law, and has been forever.
It does seem like punching themselves in the face for the sake of punching themselves in the face.
I’d argue though that a mast is never going to fit in with the locality perfectly. Because it’s a structure with a load of panels.
This is why they do try and use things that are already there. But I have driven past the site in question and it’s weird because it’s surrounded by all sorts of dodgy looking wiring, ugly buildings, satellite dishes, litter, etc. It was frankly a very odd refusal.
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Or invest in a LEO satellite constellation that can handle mobile phone calls.....
(For those who don't know - already on the way. You can send/receive texts on certain phones already).
Yes, a lesser service. But if you block the alternatives....
That would only be considered as a last resort. The latency is not guaranteed and not particularly reliable for phone calls at any scale. There is a reason they are only used to cover black holes.
They are used for data because it’s not latency sensitive.
I agree, if we block the alternatives that is what we will end up with. It will be crap but I suppose technically you will have “coverage”.
You're still making this absolutist argument. Lets reverse it. 4G and 5G is great apparently. Is latency guaranteed with that? How about reliability for phone calls?
Problem with cellular coverage in the UK is that it's still got massive holes in it. The only way to get reliable coverage is to have eSIMs from every network on your handset - and even then you can drop out of everything. Was better when 2G was everywhere...
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Um as I’ve posted 3 times now - spend the extra money and put up 2 masts in locations where people dont object to them.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
People object to them wherever they are placed. That’s literally the point I am making.
No it wasn’t - but it also shows the problem. Planners will often better locations where approval would be granted but those suggestions are ignored - in the case above a combination of planners and a retired engineer did provide that details, the engineers calculations were confirm but the network still spent another year trying to save a few quidz
I would suggest pick an argument with someone who doesn’t have evidence to back up his statement
They might occasionally do what you are saying but it’s certainly not wholesale how it works.
Can you provide some citations for the particular case so I can read up.
It was a case my wife worked on that we’ve discussed in the past.
I was just careful to drip feed the information bit by bit as you dug your argument into a bigger and bigger hole.
What I’ve picked out is that you want infrastructure above (screw) everything else at the cheapest cost possible.
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Um as I’ve posted 3 times now - spend the extra money and put up 2 masts in locations where people dont object to them.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
People object to them wherever they are placed. That’s literally the point I am making.
No it wasn’t - but it also shows the problem. Planners will often better locations where approval would be granted but those suggestions are ignored - in the case above a combination of planners and a retired engineer did provide that details, the engineers calculations were confirm but the network still spent another year trying to save a few quidz
I would suggest pick an argument with someone who doesn’t have evidence to back up his statement
They might occasionally do what you are saying but it’s certainly not wholesale how it works.
Can you provide some citations for the particular case so I can read up.
It was a case my wife worked on that we’ve discussed in the past.
I was just careful to drip feed the information bit by bit as you dug your argument into a bigger and bigger hole.
What I’ve picked out is that you want infrastructure above (screw) everything else at the cheapest cost possible.
So no citations and a one off case. Okay then.
I do think we should build everywhere and it should be as cheap as possible yes. I’ve not exactly hidden that argument. The company would have identified a suitable site and explained why they rejected the alternatives. So I suspect it’s not as clear cut as you are saying.
Your wife I am sure is very good at her job but in general the planning system obstructs development of masts. It does not support them.
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Being society is obsessed with mobile phones and social media, it would be rather good to have areas where there is no signal so people could be people again, children could play in the great outdoors and enjoy nature enriching their lives
On Saturday I was driving down Mostyn Street in Llandudno approaching a crossing on green when a young woman appeared fron nowhere immediately in front of my car, with her head glued to her phone oblivious to her surrondings
She jumped out of her skin, and I was able just about to stop, and in front of astonished onlookers she fled into a local shop
The world would be a lot better and our young people very much so if they got off their mobiles and looked around them
Okay so how about flying a series of drones equipped as telecoms relay stations, at high altitude over or on the edge of remote areas. Each stays up in the air until its battery runs low at which point it flies back to a base station where it recharges, while the others in the air continue to send the signal.
Okay so how about flying a series of drones equipped as telecoms relay stations, at high altitude over or on the edge of remote areas. Each stays up in the air until its battery runs low at which point it flies back to a base station where it recharges, while the others in the air continue to send the signal.
Actually this was something EE was looking into as part of its “5G for all guarantee”. It was mostly for use by first responders.
If what you want is fewer masts, the solution is to allow them to be built even taller.
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
Slightly problem - the application you wanted approved was in the AONB
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
I am saying it should have been approved. They shouldn’t be able to reject masts being built even in an ANOB.
Just confirming my previous comment about your understanding the value of nothing.
If you want coverage in an ANOB you need to build a mast. You obviously don’t want coverage there. I do. Mainly for safety reasons but also because in 2025 your phone should work anywhere.
No what you actually have said is screw the countryside build things wherever you want in the cheapest way possible.
Essentially yes. I accept it’s not a popular policy but it’s the right one. You aren’t going to get good coverage without putting masts up. There literally aren’t alternatives.
I am afraid masts look like masts.
Sometimes they're built to look like trees, I believe.
After years of waiting we got FTTP. But even then the roll-out was patchy. If you lived on the main street as we did you got it. On one of the little 2 or 3 house mini cul-de-sacs? No fibre for you.
Yes, that's a major issue. Openreach's network is very patchy. I live in a cul-de-sac with about 20 properties. Right now the best Openreach offers here is ADSL2 which gives about 14Mb down and 0.8Mb up.
Fortunately I have a relative living round the corner where VDSL is available, with 80Mb down and 20Mbit up, and I share their connection via a wireless link.
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
I don’t think Wandsworth Common is an AONB. They rejected it because of visual impacts on the landscape.
But as I have pointed out, there’s a railway line running through it. That should be taken into account when they reject these things but nope.
"David Amess’s family ‘in disbelief’ as Yvette Cooper rejects inquiry The ‘heartbroken’ daughter of the murdered MP will plead her case to the prime minister" (£)
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
I want infrastructure built cheaply. So yes, I make no bones about it.
Whether a site is visible or not is frankly irrelevant. If you want coverage a site is going to be visible. If you can’t accept that we need to tear down every mast in the country.
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
I want infrastructure built cheaply. So yes, I make no bones about it.
Whether a site is visible or not is frankly irrelevant. If you want coverage a site is going to be visible. If you can’t accept that we need to tear down every mast in the country.
So I talk about 1 poorly situated planned mast where alternative are available and you leap from that to - I don’t want any masts anywhere
@RochdalePioneers I do work in the industry and have worked with Starlink and others on deploying their technology to sites without other backhaul options. So I am talking purely from experience.
As I already said, I am not a Tesla or Starlink hater. I literally held Tesla stock for over five years, did very well out of it. Believed in what Elon and co were doing. I sold when he started becoming unhinged.
Nothing I have said is wrong.
I said the latency is terrible. It is. You posted one anecdotal example. I told you it is not consistent. It isn’t.
You said FTTP is not ubiquitous. It will be. It will cover 99%+ of premises by 2030. Will Starlink have a place to cover the minority of premises left behind. Yes but it is not a replacement.
Can it work on trains. I didn’t say it couldn’t, I said it was inferior in every way to trackside infrastructure and doesn’t work where there are obstructions. I also pointed out that Network Rail already has assessed it’s a non-starter and hence went for DAS and other trackside 4G/5G neutral host instead.
I have no issues with Starlink beyond pointing out its technical deficiencies. Now to be fair that is just the case for OneWeb which if you’d said that, I would have said the same things.
So what do you want from me? You said that Starlink was useless for business use because the latency was terrible and wouldn't work for meetings. I'm literally sat on a Teams meeting as I type this. I've just run speed test several times. Consistently 30ish MS latency and 100MB down speed.
I can't get maybe a third of that from 4G. There is no 5G. And FTTC broadband was woefully inconsistent where sitting in meetings like this I would get thrown out as it buffered. I have never had any buffer issues with Starlink.
So ok, from your technical perspective "latency is terrible". From mine it is great. You insisted that I can't do what I am doing. But I can...
I forget what BCH does for a living but I remember all his wailing about not being allowed to put phone masts anywhere and everywhere. So I assume, based solely on that and his current obsession with dissing Starlink at every opportunity, that he has some connection with the mobile industry.
I can diss OneWeb too if you’d like. It’s equally shite at scale.
Do you oppose my suggestion that planning should be liberalised especially for key infrastructure?
In the way you suggest, yes.
You are one of those who apparently knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
May I know why? Do you not think better coverage is important?
In the early days of broadband, the cable companies were able to use an opt out from planning to be able to lay cable in towns without planning permission or consultation. They simply had to register the work they were going to do and go out and dig the trenches and lay the cables. The result was a complete fucking disaster. In Newark, with lack of reference to the planning offices, they cut through existing service cables and pipes, cut through tree roots along roadsides resulting in trees dying and in a number of cases dug into the cellars of properties that extended out beneath the pavement. Eventually one of the worst companies was banned from any further broadband work in the town.
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
What you are saying is nice in principle but complete nonsense in practice. If the principle was reality I would support planning. But it isn’t.
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
What I 'said' was fact. It is exctly what happened in the way it happened. Now you might consider that acceptable but the vast majority of people - certainly not all NIMBYs - would not. You are an extremist on this.
I am absolutely an extremist on this but it is because of lived experience. What you advocate for doesn’t work.
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
Nope you’ve actually said you are a cheap stale willing to trash the countryside to save your employers a few quid
Then feel free to propose a solution that doesn’t involve putting up a mast.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Being society is obsessed with mobile phones and social media, it would be rather good to have areas where there is no signal so people could be people again, children could play in the great outdoors and enjoy nature enriching their lives
On Saturday I was driving down Mostyn Street in Llandudno approaching a crossing on green when a young woman appeared fron nowhere immediately in front of my car, with her head glued to her phone oblivious to her surrondings
She jumped out of her skin, and I was able just about to stop, and in front of astonished onlookers she fled into a local shop
The world would be a lot better and our young people very much so if they got off their mobiles and looked around them
It's also a lot easier to steal a mobile phone if the user is a) outside and b) oblivious to the world around them.
Musk is not a fascist. He’s high as a kite and I believe mentally ill.
From the lab experiments a family member undertook on rat brains and K, there is a high probability of damage from the long term use of K. (See PhD research into this area at Leeds Uni)
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
I want infrastructure built cheaply. So yes, I make no bones about it.
Whether a site is visible or not is frankly irrelevant. If you want coverage a site is going to be visible. If you can’t accept that we need to tear down every mast in the country.
So I talk about 1 poorly situated planned mast where alternative are available and you leap from that to - I don’t want any masts anywhere
You say it’s poorly situated but I don’t recall that it was? When you say poorly situated, you mean too visible?
Let’s ask a slightly different question then, how visible should a site be? What are the parameters by which you judge a site to be poorly sited?
"David Amess’s family ‘in disbelief’ as Yvette Cooper rejects inquiry The ‘heartbroken’ daughter of the murdered MP will plead her case to the prime minister" (£)
In a letter addressed to Lady Julia Amess and Katie Amess, Yvette Cooper said it was "hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond" killer Ali Harbi Ali's trial and recently published Prevent learning review.
I rather agree with Cooper. His death was a tragedy, but what would an inquiry do?
"David Amess’s family ‘in disbelief’ as Yvette Cooper rejects inquiry The ‘heartbroken’ daughter of the murdered MP will plead her case to the prime minister" (£)
In a letter addressed to Lady Julia Amess and Katie Amess, Yvette Cooper said it was "hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond" killer Ali Harbi Ali's trial and recently published Prevent learning review.
I rather agree with Cooper. His death was a tragedy, but what would an inquiry do?
You are either for infrastructure or you aren’t. People pretend they are until it’s built near them and suddenly they are up in arms.
Despite all the economic boosts a new site will deliver, people can’t see the wood for the trees.
Build one on my roof. I’d love it.
You can have a modestly successful career in local politics by opposing the construction of absolutely everything by any means necessary. I should know, I've done it. I once got a standing ovation at a parish council by saying I would hang myself from a proposed 5G tower if it got built.
"David Amess’s family ‘in disbelief’ as Yvette Cooper rejects inquiry The ‘heartbroken’ daughter of the murdered MP will plead her case to the prime minister" (£)
In a letter addressed to Lady Julia Amess and Katie Amess, Yvette Cooper said it was "hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond" killer Ali Harbi Ali's trial and recently published Prevent learning review.
I rather agree with Cooper. His death was a tragedy, but what would an inquiry do?
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
AKA "Further enquiries would just upset senior people. Look, all the blame has been placed on some expendable people - what do you want?"
The decline of reform requires a multicausal analysis. Sure internal strife is unpleasant to voters, but voters are also looking at the consequences of the reform style policies in the US and finding that it would not actually appeal to them (their old favourite Truss was at cpac just in time to associate herself brand with yet another economic meltdown and sellout of the working class... remember when the express described her fiscal event as the first true brexit budget. Reality is hammering home the lack of redibility in that fiscal stance). Also, the strong Putin ties are beginning to sit wrong with some populist voters, their cultural heritage just doesnt sit well with aggressors. Finally brexiteerism will have lost 1/6 of its voters to old age by 2029.
All in all there are multiple structural reasons why the future is bad for right wing populism in the UK.
You are either for infrastructure or you aren’t. People pretend they are until it’s built near them and suddenly they are up in arms.
Despite all the economic boosts a new site will deliver, people can’t see the wood for the trees.
Build one on my roof. I’d love it.
You can have a modestly successful career in local politics by opposing the construction of absolutely everything by any means necessary. I should know, I've done it. I once got a standing ovation at a parish council by saying I would hang myself from a proposed 5G tower if it got built.
I wonder if the ovation was at the prospect of the subsequent by-election.
I don't see Reformers going back to Labour - though obviously if they stay home it would help Labour.
Clearly they need to get their shit sorted out, and finding ever more inventive ways to discredit Rupert Lowe is an awful look that won't cut it.
Machiavalli said (I paraphrase) that if you can't completely destroy your enemy, don't attack them. It was an awful error to 'wound' Lowe's career with what look to be a series of half-baked allegations, leaving him resentful and on the warpath. There's lots of youthful energy in Reform it seems, but very little sage wisdom. Placating Lowe was really the only way forward. The same goes for any of the five MPs really. And now Nigel needs to eat humble pie and patch it up.
When the immigration figures come down some voters will return to Labour. Whether it will be enough remains to be seen.
Nah, I don't think they will. Not in any appreciable numbers. Labour won't be getting credit for any good thing they do from here on in I don't think. The die is cast. Even if 'immigration goes down' that won't mean less migrants, just like 'inflation going down' doesn't mean prices fall.
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
I want infrastructure built cheaply. So yes, I make no bones about it.
Whether a site is visible or not is frankly irrelevant. If you want coverage a site is going to be visible. If you can’t accept that we need to tear down every mast in the country.
So I talk about 1 poorly situated planned mast where alternative are available and you leap from that to - I don’t want any masts anywhere
You say it’s poorly situated but I don’t recall that it was? When you say poorly situated, you mean too visible?
Let’s ask a slightly different question then, how visible should a site be? What are the parameters by which you judge a site to be poorly sited?
Not my job to decide that.
But I note that you can’t grasp the difference between something horizontal where it’s hidden from view due to existing buildings and something vertical which would be visible over the existing buildings so it’s not going to be worth arguing the issue.
I’m curious to see how much your keep things as cheap as possible and screw every other consideration applies to other items though
"David Amess’s family ‘in disbelief’ as Yvette Cooper rejects inquiry The ‘heartbroken’ daughter of the murdered MP will plead her case to the prime minister" (£)
In a letter addressed to Lady Julia Amess and Katie Amess, Yvette Cooper said it was "hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond" killer Ali Harbi Ali's trial and recently published Prevent learning review.
I rather agree with Cooper. His death was a tragedy, but what would an inquiry do?
The "Prevent learning" review (unfortunate name) doesn't seem very comprehensive. An enquiry with a broader scope would make sense to examine other questions beyond procedural issues.
The decline of reform requires a multicausal analysis. Sure internal strife is unpleasant to voters, but voters are also looking at the consequences of the reform style policies in the US and finding that it would not actually appeal to them (their old favourite Truss was at cpac just in time to associate herself brand with yet another economic meltdown and sellout of the working class... remember when the express described her fiscal event as the first true brexit budget. Reality is hammering home the lack of redibility in that fiscal stance). Also, the strong Putin ties are beginning to sit wrong with some populist voters, their cultural heritage just doesnt sit well with aggressors. Finally brexiteerism will have lost 1/6 of its voters to old age by 2029.
All in all there are multiple structural reasons why the future is bad for right wing populism in the UK.
You are either for infrastructure or you aren’t. People pretend they are until it’s built near them and suddenly they are up in arms.
Despite all the economic boosts a new site will deliver, people can’t see the wood for the trees.
Build one on my roof. I’d love it.
You can have a modestly successful career in local politics by opposing the construction of absolutely everything by any means necessary. I should know, I've done it. I once got a standing ovation at a parish council by saying I would hang myself from a proposed 5G tower if it got built.
You might not quite be making the point that you think you are making.
I don't see Reformers going back to Labour - though obviously if they stay home it would help Labour.
Clearly they need to get their shit sorted out, and finding ever more inventive ways to discredit Rupert Lowe is an awful look that won't cut it.
Machiavalli said (I paraphrase) that if you can't completely destroy your enemy, don't attack them. It was an awful error to 'wound' Lowe's career with what look to be a series of half-baked allegations, leaving him resentful and on the warpath. There's lots of youthful energy in Reform it seems, but very little sage wisdom. Placating Lowe was really the only way forward. The same goes for any of the five MPs really. And now Nigel needs to eat humble pie and patch it up.
When the immigration figures come down some voters will return to Labour. Whether it will be enough remains to be seen.
Nah, I don't think they will. Not in any appreciable numbers. Labour won't be getting credit for any good thing they do from here on in I don't think. The die is cast. Even if 'immigration goes down' that won't mean less migrants, just like 'inflation going down' doesn't mean prices fall.
The problem with immigration is that it’s 2 different things
Legal immigration and Illegal immigration and a lot of people focused on the illegal (boat) kind as a proxy for the real story.
I suspect total immigration will depend on the economy and a willingness for locals to do the type of job that we are currently bringing people in to do.
@eek perhaps you’d like to justify why a site in a railway yard in Wandsworth Common was rejected for being unsightly? I don’t doubt it is unsightly but then so is the railway that runs through it…
Is it a national park or AONB? It’s not so Meh that’s up to local councilors
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate 2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
I want infrastructure built cheaply. So yes, I make no bones about it.
Whether a site is visible or not is frankly irrelevant. If you want coverage a site is going to be visible. If you can’t accept that we need to tear down every mast in the country.
So I talk about 1 poorly situated planned mast where alternative are available and you leap from that to - I don’t want any masts anywhere
You say it’s poorly situated but I don’t recall that it was? When you say poorly situated, you mean too visible?
Let’s ask a slightly different question then, how visible should a site be? What are the parameters by which you judge a site to be poorly sited?
Not my job to decide that.
But I note that you can’t grasp the difference between something horizontal where it’s hidden from view due to existing buildings and something vertical which would be visible over the existing buildings so it’s not going to be worth arguing the issue.
I’m curious to see how much your keep things as cheap as possible and screw every other consideration applies to other items though
Let me ask you a very simple question, what if there aren’t any buildings around the area you want to cover?
Networks will always try and use existing structures because frankly it’s cheaper.
I can’t recall if that was the case for the one you said but if they can use them, they will. They probably didn’t because they won’t support the required coverage.
As I said, I think you want to build masts and sites where you can’t see them. That’s impossible. Panels are massive things, even on a building. Go and stand next to one.
The decline of reform requires a multicausal analysis. Sure internal strife is unpleasant to voters, but voters are also looking at the consequences of the reform style policies in the US and finding that it would not actually appeal to them (their old favourite Truss was at cpac just in time to associate herself brand with yet another economic meltdown and sellout of the working class... remember when the express described her fiscal event as the first true brexit budget. Reality is hammering home the lack of redibility in that fiscal stance). Also, the strong Putin ties are beginning to sit wrong with some populist voters, their cultural heritage just doesnt sit well with aggressors. Finally brexiteerism will have lost 1/6 of its voters to old age by 2029.
All in all there are multiple structural reasons why the future is bad for right wing populism in the UK.
Hidden from view = won’t deliver coverage. I really think you fundamentally don’t understand that if you hide a mast where nobody can see it, it won’t provide much usable coverage.
If that wasn’t the case, networks would have no need to pick this fight. But that’s reality. They look visible because they have to be. They can try and hide the physical equipment and if they can they do but it’s not as simple as you make out.
Has he told his leader, the 47th President? He seems to miss out on quite a few.
Maybe, as in Animal Farm, Louisianans will wake up from time to time with the nagging suspicion that one of the commandments on the wall has been edited or removed.
Anyway, as any fule kno, freedom of religion is for my good religion, not your evil cult.
Thoughts and prayers with all the pb education experts.
That's other mince, sorry, by focussing on just year seven is a bit like deciding a football match result based on the first 10 minutes.
Spoiler alert: There are students in years other than year 7.
Surely you'd accept its less likely parents would take their kids out midway through their time at a school, and more likely they would make the switch before starting a new school?
My eldest has seen two kids leave his form since VAT kicked in.
If you're a parent with three kids in private schools you're going to have find on average nearly an extra grand a month to cover the VAT.
But if you are sending 3 kids to private school, you are already paying a lot of money, so that extra grand as a proportion of what you are already spending is not that high. An extra grand a month sounds a lot to most people, but most people couldn't ever afford to send 1, let alone 3 kids to private school.
I know a few people who sacrifice quite a bit for private education for their children. The question is proportion.
As to how many will switch? - it will take several years to work through the system. Moving a child on the "in years" is very disruptive and hence uncommon. So people will be trying to stay till the end of primary, for example.
The how many will switch question was a really bad argument against putting VAT on school fees because it was dependent on an outcome that wasn't particularly likely to happen. Those implementing the policy had numbers to back them up, which seem to be panning out.
All this could be deducted. Almost anyone who could afford £LOTS would be able to afford £LOTS + 20%.
Should add the other main argument that VAT on school fees was an attack on aspiration was even worse. It implies anyone who can't afford £LOTS doesn't deserve aspiration.
Comments
Having a few masts next door to an ANOB is hardly going to destroy the landscape and is important for safety among other things. This has already been covered by the ESN which has built masts in these places already.
This is why we are in such trouble. Companies want to build but are prevented because of NIMBYs many of which seem to come on this board.
You went way beyond that. You've insisted that Starlink's latency is so horrible as to ask "How do you use Starlink for meetings"
I'm not sure what industrial uses you are considering it unsuitable for. For small business and consumer?
Again again. It is Fast. It is reliable. It has low latency. It does the things you say it can't do.
Whereas the things you are advocating cannot. But you've repeatedly and stridently insisted you're right on this subject. Yes - from your perspective with your chosen bias and your chosen selective usage model.
This is precisely the point I am making about politics. You cannot tell someone they are wrong when they're describing how things in their lives work for them - with the exception of someone insisting we're all controlled by aliens or something. For the rest, its qui bono?
I don’t think you are wrong to use it. I am happy it works for you. I think you are wrong to advocate for it as something that can replace 4G/5G or FTTP for more than a few hundred people.
https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1899021361797816325
After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.
The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.
In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department.
Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform.
Why else would a national park planning officer be dealing with a planning application
And other options were available the other option was 2 masts both outside the national park but that cost more money
Planning has a purpose. It is not, in spite of what you might think, to thwart development. It is to ensure that things are built in the right place for the right reasons rather than the cheapest and easiest place for the company concerned.
I do think revisions to planning are necessary. The proposals to reduce the number of statutory consultees to just those involved in safety, environment and heritage seems sensible to me. Removing planning or reducing the power of councils to prevent unsustainable development/construction is not sensible. Go to any country that does have lax planning controls and you will see what that is.
"A new round of talks between Russia and the United States in Saudi Arabia is NOT planned this week," — Zakharova
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1899018586502377672
The Dutch firm disclosed the plan for the facility in Beijing in its annual report published on Mar 5.
It is the only major project in the report’s “circular economy” section about parts and tools. The repair center mentioned in the plan is “an upgrade to our existing repair center in China. It is not an addition, it replaces the older repair center.”..
https://x.com/Byron_Wan/status/1898329491342278750
Recently a site was rejected in Tooting - TOOTING! - on an existing building with infrastructure on it because they didn’t like the colour of the panels. How on earth can you say that is planning working as expected?
But it isn't. If you are suggesting that it *might* be horrible and usable in the future if it scaled to millions of UK users then ok. But you didn't say that. You said it isn't usable today and proceeded to sell 4G/5G which as you just said it can't replace.
But it can replace. I have no 5G to replace, only 4G. And Starlink is waaaaay faster and more reliable.
Can it replace a mast with 10Gb fibre? No! Am I ever likely to get a mast with 10Gb fibre? No!
Starlink is not supposed to be a replacement for other systems. It's a supplement to those systems where they don't exist. And at no point have I suggested that someone like my Lincolnshire mate bin his 5G router for Starlink - that would be stupid.
Do you get it yet? "FTTP will cover 99% of households by 2030". OK, lets assume that's true. I can't wait until 2030. And neither can most people without it. And the alternatives you prefer don't exist here, and in all likelihood won't come here.
You are literally denying lived reality today to sell a future that is vapourware.
There is no way anyone non-biased could look at our planning system and conclude that it is working.
I speak to masts because it is what I know well. It doesn’t work there.
Interesting whiff coming off the Trump cabinet.
Do I think you will be able to use it long term. No. I think you will run into contention very quickly if as many people use it as you suggest they will.
Does it work for you. Yes.
Will it work for most, no. I really stand by that.
As a backup or last resort, yes.
Will the alternatives come to you. Almost certainly. The SRN should see to that and as you said you have FTTC already you already have a fibre headend so you will get FTTP. I’d bet on it.
Remember in my example - signal already existed - it could be improved by 2 masts in sane locations or 1 mast in an unsuitable location and you went for the cheap solution that would upset people
Or perhaps you can justify why a site gets rejected because it’s the wrong colour.
I am afraid masts look like masts.
We can build a taller one and build it further away. Currently not allowed by the planning system.
Realistically it’s probably in need of a new site near by.
(For those who don't know - already on the way. You can send/receive texts on certain phones already).
Yes, a lesser service. But if you block the alternatives....
They are used for data because it’s not latency sensitive.
I agree, if we block the alternatives that is what we will end up with. It will be crap but I suppose technically you will have “coverage”.
For those who don't know - the tree the solider is looking at is a fake. It was actually a British army observation post.
The fact you can’t grasp that idea tells me that all you care about is saving your employers a few quid
Why is one of the criteria even that the colour can be wrong. It’s a load of nonsense. It’s an urban area for goodness sake.
I would suggest pick an argument with someone who doesn’t have evidence to back up his statement
And Curtis Yarvin has told JD that, as the US has a trade deficit with both China and Europe, ceasing to trade with them is by definition good for US economic growth...
Can you provide some citations for the particular case so I can read up.
There is a basic truth though about return on investment. When I lived on Teesside our estate (which ballooned to 900 houses in different phases) was denied fast broadband as Openreach refused to accept that we existed. Their fibre rollout survey being done before the estate was built, thus not enough demand for FTTC to our cabinet.
After years of waiting we got FTTP. But even then the roll-out was patchy. If you lived on the main street as we did you got it. On one of the little 2 or 3 house mini cul-de-sacs? No fibre for you.
This is the challenge for the vision that Horse advocates. I have a cabinet literally metres away from my house, but that was installed later and our house is connected to the other cabinet 1.5km away. We enquired about getting FTTP installed commercially and the cost was close to £10k. Reinstate the existing fixed line to the exchange? Close to £1k a month line rental.
The vision Horse insists will happen here by 2030 is this. Someone is going to come and dig up the whole village and install new connections. Not just along the roads, up every side lane between houses to reach the houses built at the back or could be built at the back.
And that's just my village. For the people at the edges of the village or on stand-alone farms a few kilometres outside - are they getting FTTP as well? Paid for by whom?
I've seen big holes in the roll-out plan in busy suburban areas. The "just build it without planning" proposal absolutely guarantees that lots of places are missed out because there is literally no roll-out plan.
It does seem like punching themselves in the face for the sake of punching themselves in the face.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KZXRym3eBfeYrgtd9
This is why they do try and use things that are already there. But I have driven past the site in question and it’s weird because it’s surrounded by all sorts of dodgy looking wiring, ugly buildings, satellite dishes, litter, etc. It was frankly a very odd refusal.
Problem with cellular coverage in the UK is that it's still got massive holes in it. The only way to get reliable coverage is to have eSIMs from every network on your handset - and even then you can drop out of everything. Was better when 2G was everywhere...
I was just careful to drip feed the information bit by bit as you dug your argument into a bigger and bigger hole.
What I’ve picked out is that you want infrastructure above (screw) everything else at the cheapest cost possible.
https://x.com/dana916/status/1898487780369412255
I do think we should build everywhere and it should be as cheap as possible yes. I’ve not exactly hidden that argument. The company would have identified a suitable site and explained why they rejected the alternatives. So I suspect it’s not as clear cut as you are saying.
Your wife I am sure is very good at her job but in general the planning system obstructs development of masts. It does not support them.
My problem is
1) you are a cheapskate
2) you put everyone else into the same boat as either for or against you
Some locations are very visible - the example I picked was one they would be visible from a 30 mile radius given its location
On Saturday I was driving down Mostyn Street in Llandudno approaching a crossing on green when a young woman appeared fron nowhere immediately in front of my car, with her head glued to her phone oblivious to her surrondings
She jumped out of her skin, and I was able just about to stop, and in front of astonished onlookers she fled into a local shop
The world would be a lot better and our young people very much so if they got off their mobiles and looked around them
Fortunately I have a relative living round the corner where VDSL is available, with 80Mb down and 20Mbit up, and I share their connection via a wireless link.
But as I have pointed out, there’s a railway line running through it. That should be taken into account when they reject these things but nope.
The ‘heartbroken’ daughter of the murdered MP will plead her case to the prime minister" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/david-amess-yvette-cooper-inquiry-murder-h8dlcsvdp
Whether a site is visible or not is frankly irrelevant. If you want coverage a site is going to be visible. If you can’t accept that we need to tear down every mast in the country.
Despite all the economic boosts a new site will deliver, people can’t see the wood for the trees.
Build one on my roof. I’d love it.
And Good Morning everyone!
Ohio - "Which right is guaranteed by the first amendment?"
Freedom of religion: 62%
Right to bear arms: 11%
Right to remain silent: 10%
Right to privacy: 5%
Unsure: 11%
YouGov/Bowling Green / Feb 21, 2025 / n=800
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1898806604536975443
Let’s ask a slightly different question then, how visible should a site be? What are the parameters by which you judge a site to be poorly sited?
“If you want to respect the rule of law, you’ve got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses." (2024)
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1898775528623989255
Musk could try and bring him down again via Twitter, and as he tried to last year by promoting the riots.
Time would be needed to organise defence arrangements with France and Germany, and to make sure X can. Be blocked in the UK, if it came to that.
In a letter addressed to Lady Julia Amess and Katie Amess, Yvette Cooper said it was "hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond" killer Ali Harbi Ali's trial and recently published Prevent learning review.
I rather agree with Cooper. His death was a tragedy, but what would an inquiry do?
https://x.com/NAVSkandalen/status/1899062444640678080?t=k1PU0G_UEE3wonD6_uCajQ&s=19
AKA "Further enquiries would just upset senior people. Look, all the blame has been placed on some expendable people - what do you want?"
All in all there are multiple structural reasons why the future is bad for right wing populism in the UK.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2025/03/americans-arent-loving-trump-2-0
But I note that you can’t grasp the difference between something horizontal where it’s hidden from view due to existing buildings and something vertical which would be visible over the existing buildings so it’s not going to be worth arguing the issue.
I’m curious to see how much your keep things as cheap as possible and screw every other consideration applies to other items though
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-learning-review-sir-david-amess-attack/prevent-learning-review-ali-harbi-ali-accessible
Tanker carrying Jet A. Less of a problem environmentally than crude?
Legal immigration and Illegal immigration and a lot of people focused on the illegal (boat) kind as a proxy for the real story.
I suspect total immigration will depend on the economy and a willingness for locals to do the type of job that we are currently bringing people in to do.
Networks will always try and use existing structures because frankly it’s cheaper.
I can’t recall if that was the case for the one you said but if they can use them, they will. They probably didn’t because they won’t support the required coverage.
As I said, I think you want to build masts and sites where you can’t see them. That’s impossible. Panels are massive things, even on a building. Go and stand next to one.
If that wasn’t the case, networks would have no need to pick this fight. But that’s reality. They look visible because they have to be. They can try and hide the physical equipment and if they can they do but it’s not as simple as you make out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PT1922ye1w (21 mins)
Anyway, as any fule kno, freedom of religion is for my good religion, not your evil cult.
All this could be deducted. Almost anyone who could afford £LOTS would be able to afford £LOTS + 20%.
Should add the other main argument that VAT on school fees was an attack on aspiration was even worse. It implies anyone who can't afford £LOTS doesn't deserve aspiration.
BREAKING: Russia has accused the UK of being the "main instigator" of global conflict - and has appeared to blame the Second World War on Britain