Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
Not really.
Sky Stream UHD with low latency mode recommends 40. I think 100 is the sweet spot for a home. Above that I agree.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Because the latency on FTTP will always be superior as will the reliability. Also the speeds that can be offered.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The amount of date used by Youtubers can be startling. I saw a video recently by Evan Edinger about how he was recently poleaxed on holiday by internet service, and was unable to download the 1.2 Gigabytes of video files he had accumulated.
That is a LOT.
The curve is quite interesting - nearly everyone uses very little, but there is a tail of mega consumers of bandwidth
At your 50 Mbps running full bore, 1.2Gb is, according to my mental arithmetic, a 3 hour download.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
I didn't phrase that very well. I don't think either of them should be abolished, but if it had to be one, private schools would have been the better option because grammar schools are what helped bright children from poor families to get ahead far more than private schools.
Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!
Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.
It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.
Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
Yep. Parliament Act applies to all 'public bills'. That can be Government or Private.
This is the Bill which gives a central role to psychiatrists whose professional body has said that, while neutral on the principle, they do not support this Bill. And which every other professional organisation looking at it - from every disabled charity to the former head of the NHS, the Chief Coroner, palliative care specialists, those dealing with anorexia, domestic violence and coercive behaviour, the anti-suicide Tsar etc etc - has said they do not support and/or the Bill as drafted is unsafe.
Meanwhile my local hospice has to raise money through plant sales because government won't fund the sector properly. But, hey, it's only grannies like me - as per Henry Marsh - or the poor (as per Lord Falconer) - who'll get bumped off so that important people like him get what they want. So who cares.
There was a time when Labour saw its mission as alleviating poverty not using it as a reason to offer suicide from a health service. They may as well call it the Useless Mouths (Abolition Of) Law.
I actually agree with you on this. I was simply making a point of law since I know many are not clear on this. If it gets to that point and Starmer wants to force this through, the Parliament Act does apply and, for better or worse, the Lords cannot stop him
Listening to the MP who has reintroduced it, I think she envisages the Parliament Act power as a bargaining chip - fine to amend the Bill in the Lords to improve it, but impose another artificial block and the original gets forced through. Seems a reasonable approach given the Lords willingness to talk it out.
Yep. Which is how the Lords should have behaved a year ago and how the law is phrased.
Interestingly this has happened a lot over the past century too. Very rarely is the PA actually used, as the Lords has a tendency to become much more reasonable once the Commons asserts its primacy.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The amount of date used by Youtubers can be startling. I saw a video recently by Evan Edinger about how he was recently poleaxed on holiday by internet service, and was unable to download the 1.2 Gigabytes of video files he had accumulated.
That is a LOT.
The curve is quite interesting - nearly everyone uses very little, but there is a tail of mega consumers of bandwidth
At your 50 Mbps running full bore, 1.2Gb is, according to my mental arithmetic, a 3 hour download.
I think 100 is the sweet spot. I like my gigabit because I can download very large files. But most people don’t do that.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
There’s other satellite internet companies, Amazon are trying to do the same, but when compared to the total failure of telecoms companies to connect the most rural communities to the internet, it’s obvious why this company is now worth $2trn.
On the social media ban, it’s baffling to me that the government aren’t encouraging Apple and Google to do on-device age verification which is extremely secure and would only have to be done once.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
There’s other satellite internet companies, Amazon are trying to do the same, but when compared to the total failure of telecoms companies to connect the most rural communities to the internet, it’s obvious why this company is now worth $2trn.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
What router have you got?
Eero Pro 7.
Found the range on that pants. I’m going to try the Max next.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The amount of date used by Youtubers can be startling. I saw a video recently by Evan Edinger about how he was recently poleaxed on holiday by internet service, and was unable to download the 1.2 Gigabytes of video files he had accumulated.
That is a LOT.
The curve is quite interesting - nearly everyone uses very little, but there is a tail of mega consumers of bandwidth
At your 50 Mbps running full bore, 1.2Gb is, according to my mental arithmetic, a 3 hour download.
I think 100 is the sweet spot. I like my gigabit because I can download very large files. But most people don’t do that.
Just having checked, I am getting 15 Mbps up, and 10 Mbps down.
But my discount just finished, so I may upgrade.
Full fibre went down the road this spring, so it may be an option, and will mean I have about 3 different connections coming in.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The amount of date used by Youtubers can be startling. I saw a video recently by Evan Edinger about how he was recently poleaxed on holiday by internet service, and was unable to download the 1.2 Gigabytes of video files he had accumulated.
That is a LOT.
The curve is quite interesting - nearly everyone uses very little, but there is a tail of mega consumers of bandwidth
At your 50 Mbps running full bore, 1.2Gb is, according to my mental arithmetic, a 3 hour download.
I think 100 is the sweet spot. I like my gigabit because I can download very large files. But most people don’t do that.
Just having checked, I am getting 15 Mbps up, and 10 Mbps down.
But my discount just finished, so I may upgrade.
Full fibre went down the road this spring, so it may be an option, and will mean I have about 3 different connections coming in.
Openreach has been a private company working properly. Properly regulated they’ve become a world leader in build and the UK has one of the fastest FTTP rollouts in history.
First day of Royal Ascot today, an event that sticks in my mind.
I had a small role in the redevelopment two decades ago now, as IT contractor to the caterers. I was the guy who made sure all of those fancy touch screen tills worked properly, and could proces credit cards, something that was very new at the time.
There exists a photo of me, aged 28, with a radio earpiece in one ear, a phone earpiece in the other, and a keyboard under my arm, wearing a morning suit because the staff still have to comply with the dress code in the Royal Enlcosure.
That Champagne bar in the concourse, it turned over £100k a day two decades ago when a bottle was £50 or £60, God only knows what it makes today.
Last job before I moved to Dubai, headhunted by the Ascot guy who’d moved the year before.
I remember trying out touch screens for the first time at a Florida theme park in the 1980s. It was called the World Key Information System IIRC. Worked just as well as modern touch screens.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Because the latency on FTTP will always be superior as will the reliability. Also the speeds that can be offered.
Starlink will never be a majority.
You are preaching to the choir. Latency is important for betting. However, most people don't bet and don't care about latency apart from wondering once every four years why their neighbours celebrate a World Cup goal five seconds before it is scored. For most people, latency does not matter and nor does upload speed. Starlink is good enough for 99 per cent of people, including the ones using it to blow up Russian tanks.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
More bandwidth in fibre.
At least for the moment. direct laser links between satellites is one thing. But you need to traverse the atmosphere was radio waves and convert to and from light. That requires lots of radio bandwidth and lots of big, powerful electronics.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
What router have you got?
Eero Pro 7.
Found the range on that pants. I’m going to try the Max next.
I live in a big house with walls thicker than Richard Burgon.
I had to spend a decent amount of money to relocate the CSP/ONT to help optimise my WiFi.
I have two young gamers who never complain about the WiFi/speed now.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
60 devices in a house? WTF.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Because the latency on FTTP will always be superior as will the reliability. Also the speeds that can be offered.
Starlink will never be a majority.
You are preaching to the choir. Latency is important for betting. However, most people don't bet and don't care about latency apart from wondering once every four years why their neighbours celebrate a World Cup goal five seconds before it is scored. For most people, latency does not matter and nor does upload speed. Starlink is good enough for 99 per cent of people, including the ones using it to blow up Russian tanks.
Why would you migrate to Starlink when you have FTTP to your front door already? It’s not cheaper.
If you don’t have FTTP I get it but that’s not going to be the case for 99% of people by 2035.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
What router have you got?
Eero Pro 7.
Found the range on that pants. I’m going to try the Max next.
I live in a big house with walls thicker than Richard Burgon.
I had to spend a decent amount of money to relocate the CSP/ONT to help optimise my WiFi.
I have two young gamers who never complain about the WiFi/speed now.
Luckily in my new build flat they put Cat6 in the walls when it was built. Forward thinking for 2014.
It was the threat under a TORY government that Openreach would be removed that changed their thinking from “FTTP can’t possibly be profitable we must do G.Fast” to “FTTP at all costs and rip out the copper and sell it”.
That is regulation working properly. No need to nationalise.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Because the latency on FTTP will always be superior as will the reliability. Also the speeds that can be offered.
Starlink will never be a majority.
You are preaching to the choir. Latency is important for betting. However, most people don't bet and don't care about latency apart from wondering once every four years why their neighbours celebrate a World Cup goal five seconds before it is scored. For most people, latency does not matter and nor does upload speed. Starlink is good enough for 99 per cent of people, including the ones using it to blow up Russian tanks.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
You are correct about gateway benefits but two issues here. To get social tariffs they have to be able to provide an Income and Expenditure statement showing they are poor enough to qualify. Having UC is not enough as half the working population are on UC.
Second issue is that Pension Credit is a gateway benefit and will actually provide more income than those on full state pension (Have covered this before). Resolving welfare won't reduce costs as not everyone claims their entitlement so a closer look at poverty will likely increase the welfare bill
Source: 6 years helping people on benefits. 2 years helping people with debt.
Openreach has been a private company working properly. Properly regulated they’ve become a world leader in build and the UK has one of the fastest FTTP rollouts in history.
Burnham should study it.
Openreach is basically BT which is basically the old state-owned GPO. What matters is its common carrier or shared infrastructure roll-out. As mentioned before, this was criticised from America who claim their model where Verizon and AT&T (say) each build independently has led to faster innovation and better service (at least to most of the country).
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
Openreach has been a private company working properly. Properly regulated they’ve become a world leader in build and the UK has one of the fastest FTTP rollouts in history.
Burnham should study it.
Openreach is basically BT which is basically the old state-owned GPO. What matters is its common carrier or shared infrastructure roll-out. As mentioned before, this was criticised from America who claim their model where Verizon and AT&T (say) each build independently has led to faster innovation and better service (at least to most of the country).
Openreach is not “basically BT” anymore. That is one of the things that changed in their agreement with Ofcom.
They operate independently of BT Group with their own board and direction.
My point is that, we can have what is basically one national infrastructure company that works properly as long as it is properly regulated.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Because the latency on FTTP will always be superior as will the reliability. Also the speeds that can be offered.
Starlink will never be a majority.
You are preaching to the choir. Latency is important for betting. However, most people don't bet and don't care about latency apart from wondering once every four years why their neighbours celebrate a World Cup goal five seconds before it is scored. For most people, latency does not matter and nor does upload speed. Starlink is good enough for 99 per cent of people, including the ones using it to blow up Russian tanks.
Why would you migrate to Starlink when you have FTTP to your front door already? It’s not cheaper.
If you don’t have FTTP I get it but that’s not going to be the case for 99% of people by 2035.
I'm not migrating to Starlink. I'm saying that when weighing up future investment, up to and including at the national level, Starlink will be a significantly cheaper option, and so will grow to have a dominant if not monopoly position.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich insists Trump's “deal” does not bind Israel: “We are not a banana republic."
Iran insists Trump has agreed to a draft framework recognising Iranian and Omani authority over navigation services in the Strait of Hormuz with transit fees to begin after a 60-day waiver period, Fars News reports.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
Because the latency on FTTP will always be superior as will the reliability. Also the speeds that can be offered.
Starlink will never be a majority.
You are preaching to the choir. Latency is important for betting. However, most people don't bet and don't care about latency apart from wondering once every four years why their neighbours celebrate a World Cup goal five seconds before it is scored. For most people, latency does not matter and nor does upload speed. Starlink is good enough for 99 per cent of people, including the ones using it to blow up Russian tanks.
Why would you migrate to Starlink when you have FTTP to your front door already? It’s not cheaper.
If you don’t have FTTP I get it but that’s not going to be the case for 99% of people by 2035.
I'm not migrating to Starlink. I'm saying that when weighing up future investment, up to and including at the national level, Starlink will be a significantly cheaper option, and so will grow to have a dominant if not monopoly position.
But Openreach already has a committed build plan to 2030. This is without any state subsidy at all.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
60 devices in a house? WTF.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
These days you get devices like internet enabled lightbulbs, thermostatic valves on radiators, and windows - though not me. It can soon add up, if these are all connected in that way.
Plus TSE has his 14 shoe cupboards and 8 televisions.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
60 devices in a house? WTF.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
I watch YouTube videos on history and current events all the time, including on my PS5. For the latter, no way I'm uploading any documents, ever (PSN, alas, does not have the best safety record), It's fucking stupid that to keep watching videos about the history of China or Rome I might have to prove I'm over 16. Such a fucking stupid move by the Labour luddites. Even charities oppose this hammer to crack a nut, which will miss the nut and hit the innocent bystander who just wants to watch cat memes on X.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
60 devices in a house? WTF.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich insists Trump's “deal” does not bind Israel: “We are not a banana republic."
Iran insists Trump has agreed to a draft framework recognising Iranian and Omani authority over navigation services in the Strait of Hormuz with transit fees to begin after a 60-day waiver period, Fars News reports.
Trump goes to war and, at the end of it, Iran is in a better position, getting to charge transit fees?
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
60 devices in a house? WTF.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich insists Trump's “deal” does not bind Israel: “We are not a banana republic."
Iran insists Trump has agreed to a draft framework recognising Iranian and Omani authority over navigation services in the Strait of Hormuz with transit fees to begin after a 60-day waiver period, Fars News reports.
Trump goes to war and, at the end of it, Iran is in a better position, getting to charge transit fees?
Iran is in the same position but now its leaders have realised they can make money from the Strait of Hormuz.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
It's all about haggling, EE offered me 500 Mbps for £35 a month, and I managed to get 1.6 Gbps for £33.99.
Given that you won't use a tithe of that, a good deal for them :-)
Oh I do.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
60 devices in a house? WTF.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
This goes back a long way - to the incident in 2021 - which is a very concerning aspect, and is very serious. The Chief Constable of Northants is on a sticky wicket.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
There is a middling position between those two cliches.
Old world: young people had the same dangerous instincts as today but our access to addictive, deadly and dangerous things was restricted by a mixture of law, regulation, the constraints of technical reality, parenting and conscience.
So, for one example out of an infinity of evils, viewing a graphic high quality film of a real beheading would have been virtually impossible, and to do so repeatedly and all day and night even more so.
New world: It is not currently possible to police either a young person's personal activity, nor their activity with others, as the entire panoply of dangers is in their pocket and their friends' pockets, whether you like it or not. This renders traditional parenting impossible.
A 'ban' really means (if it were effective) that the outlet - You Tube or whatever - is to some extent in the parental hands to grant permission. So that (back to the old world) a 13 year olds watered down bit of wine at a family meal is possible, but unfettered unsupervised access to a bottle of brandy is not.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Recently I cancelled my Independent subscription (or maybe one of the others). It said OK. Then it said why not press this button to rollover your subscription at a third of the price, so I'm now only wasting a third of the money on a news outlet I barely read. But the point is there was no haggling. They've automated the human touch out of the process.
It is only fairly recently that providers can even compete on speed as previously it was limited by line length for most people.
Even if your speed is identical on FTTP, latency and reliability is much better. I would suggest everyone migrates.
How long before Starlink has a de facto monopoly on the internet, or at least a dominant market position? Why invest billions in undersea cables when you can just point at the sky.
There’s other satellite internet companies, Amazon are trying to do the same, but when compared to the total failure of telecoms companies to connect the most rural communities to the internet, it’s obvious why this company is now worth $2trn.
Openreach plan to cover 99% of all homes.
And that 1% is 300,000 homes who are all in on Starlink.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
PS I hate UC in the way it provides subsidies for companies that should pay a better wage. Most people want to work and want to earn more but pay rates in the UK are pretty poor.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
Yes, there is plenty of research on the poverty trap.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
Yes, there is plenty of research on the poverty trap.
PS I hate UC in the way it provides subsidies for companies that should pay a better wage. Most people want to work and want to earn more but pay rates in the UK are pretty poor.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Recently I cancelled my Independent subscription (or maybe one of the others). It said OK. Then it said why not press this button to rollover your subscription at a third of the price, so I'm now only wasting a third of the money on a news outlet I barely read. But the point is there was no haggling. They've automated the human touch out of the process.
Telegraph I had to ring up but was instantly allowed to renew for £30 for the year not £300.
At £30 I don’t mind paying for a paper I don’t really read at £300 I can find better things to spend the money on
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Recently I cancelled my Independent subscription (or maybe one of the others). It said OK. Then it said why not press this button to rollover your subscription at a third of the price, so I'm now only wasting a third of the money on a news outlet I barely read. But the point is there was no haggling. They've automated the human touch out of the process.
But also... nobody knows how much anything is supposed to cost these days. How much should a newspaper subscription cost? The sticker price? A third of the sticker price?
The free-market economics answer is 'whatever price the buyer and seller agree', but that leads to the world we live in, and I'm not sure we like it much.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
With modern social media we have not yet begun to work out how to give some protection to young people in environments lacking a realistic degree of familial self control without constraining completely innocent activities. SFAICS currently the path from short videos about my hamster is only seconds and clicks away from materials deadly, addictive and psychologically damaging. I don't think the government can see a solution that lacks controversy. Is there one?
So why isn’t ZTE banned? Virtually identical situation to Huawei.
ZTE is banned in Europe so perhaps it is a Brexit benefit or maybe they are still banned here too. Is there much ZTE kit in use?
You can still buy mobiles phones . I think it’s in terms of telecoms infrastructure where the EU has recommended they shouldn’t be allowed . Indeed I own a ZTE mobile which I bought in Cyprus . This is after the sales person tried to direct me to the high end section of ridiculously overpriced ones . I simply refuse to shell out a lot of money for a phone . I’m happy to pay the extra for an IPad but I don’t need bells and whistles for a phone .
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
I didn't phrase that very well. I don't think either of them should be abolished, but if it had to be one, private schools would have been the better option because grammar schools are what helped bright children from poor families to get ahead far more than private schools.
Most private schools offer scholarships but they largely replicate what grammar schools did anyway.
There are still grammar schools around but mostly only in a few select towns, cathedral cities and suburbs like Chelmsford, Redbridge, Bromley, Poole, Ripon, Cheltenham, Trafford with only Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire still fully selective with only grammars, high schools and academies and no comprehensives
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
Yes, there is plenty of research on the poverty trap.
PS I hate UC in the way it provides subsidies for companies that should pay a better wage. Most people want to work and want to earn more but pay rates in the UK are pretty poor.
UC does not provide subsidies for any companies.
A childless couple working full time minimum wage is not entitled to any UC.
Indeed, a single person in most of the country working full time minimum wage is not entitled to any UC either.
UC subsidises part timers and children, not jobs.
Do you think someone working 20 hours a week with 2 children should be getting all their income from their job? What pay rate would that require? And which countries are offering that pay rate?
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
Yes, there is plenty of research on the poverty trap.
PS I hate UC in the way it provides subsidies for companies that should pay a better wage. Most people want to work and want to earn more but pay rates in the UK are pretty poor.
UC does not provide subsidies for any companies.
A childless couple working full time minimum wage is not entitled to any UC.
Indeed, a single person in most of the country working full time minimum wage is not entitled to any UC either.
UC subsidises part timers and children, not jobs.
Do you think someone working 20 hours a week with 2 children should be getting all their income from their job? What pay rate would that require?
I suspect in a lot of cases working full time with their children in a (subsidized) nursery would be better all round.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Another middle class moral panic promoted by lobbyists, aided and abetted by the old media railing against the new media and using people with sad real life experiences to act as emotional blackmail. Support this change or you support children being shown bad stuff.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on much of detail.
For FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Given the tax-free threshold is above that, then post-tax is moot. There is no tax on the first £7,400 of income (for the employee at least).
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
This goes back a long way - to the incident in 2021 - which is a very concerning aspect, and is very serious. The Chief Constable of Northants is on a sticky wicket.
I'm interested why this has resurfaced now. Is it perhaps a new programme or similar, or has the process moved on?
I am very much reminded of the case of Caroline Farrow I mentioned at the weekend.
I presume the sharing of the footage has been coordinated with/by her lawyers.
The case is an utter disgrace - the Police were breaking the law, were in contempt of court and it wasn't just an accident - it was deliberate and over a long period of time. The idea that the police simply pay a fine out the budget and keep on rolling is wrong.
Banning under-16s from using YouTube is absolutely batshit crazy Luddism.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
Are we sure they don't mean YouTube Shorts / Youtube Live?
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
My daughter loves making short videos for TikTok. It is a nice, healthy, hobby for her and she gets very creative. She first did it to earn a badge with either Brownies or Guides.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Another middle class moral panic promoted by lobbyists, aided and abetted by the old media railing against the new media and using people with sad real life experiences to act as emotional blackmail. Support this change or you support children being shown bad stuff.
Clown country.
Note that the problem relates to algorithms and doom scrolling.
My 17 year old (younger) daughter will give a clear and articulate case as to why those issue need to be dealt with.
Incidentally, she says there is some nasty stuff targeting those with ADHD and similar - trying to make them into rebels against "the system that has abandoned you" etc.
This probably doesn't matter to others, but apparently a Chicago VPN does let me watch YouTube. Huzzah, I'll still be able to watch the history of China (Gates of Kilikien[sp] and History of China channels, for those interested) when this mentally subnormal effluence of legislation gets slopped atop the nation.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
Yes, there is plenty of research on the poverty trap.
Yes, there is. However, at the same time, Sandpit's claim that "you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary" is balderdash.
"Police denied this arrest video existed - but it actually did
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
That wasn’t my point.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Could you cite some proof of this?
Yes, there is plenty of research on the poverty trap.
Yes, there is. However, at the same time, Sandpit's claim that "you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary" is balderdash.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Recently I cancelled my Independent subscription (or maybe one of the others). It said OK. Then it said why not press this button to rollover your subscription at a third of the price, so I'm now only wasting a third of the money on a news outlet I barely read. But the point is there was no haggling. They've automated the human touch out of the process.
But also... nobody knows how much anything is supposed to cost these days. How much should a newspaper subscription cost? The sticker price? A third of the sticker price?
The free-market economics answer is 'whatever price the buyer and seller agree', but that leads to the world we live in, and I'm not sure we like it much.
Modern capitalism has become efficient at getting different people to pay different prices in a way that maximises profits, but which doesn't feel fair.
Comments
Sky Stream UHD with low latency mode recommends 40. I think 100 is the sweet spot for a home. Above that I agree.
I WFH, I have two gamers, my parents are silver surfers, and I watch 99% of content in 4K.
Last time I checked there were 60 devices connected to our routers.
Starlink will never be a majority.
Interestingly this has happened a lot over the past century too. Very rarely is the PA actually used, as the Lords has a tendency to become much more reasonable once the Commons asserts its primacy.
Surely for 95% of users the limiting factor is the device (and software slowing that down) rather than the connection?
Apple already has the technology to do this.
But my discount just finished, so I may upgrade.
Full fibre went down the road this spring, so it may be an option, and will mean I have about 3 different connections coming in.
Just for those who were happy to mention it every time it went above 5%.
Upload to hub - 926
Download - 89
Upload to device - 612
Download - 93
As just measured on my EE app
Burnham should study it.
At least for the moment. direct laser links between satellites is one thing. But you need to traverse the atmosphere was radio waves and convert to and from light. That requires lots of radio bandwidth and lots of big, powerful electronics.
I had to spend a decent amount of money to relocate the CSP/ONT to help optimise my WiFi.
I have two young gamers who never complain about the WiFi/speed now.
I have five, my wife has four, and we have a printer. That’s 10.
If you don’t have FTTP I get it but that’s not going to be the case for 99% of people by 2035.
Parents should be parenting, not the nanny state.
That is regulation working properly. No need to nationalise.
Second issue is that Pension Credit is a gateway benefit and will actually provide more income than those on full state pension (Have covered this before). Resolving welfare won't reduce costs as not everyone claims their entitlement so a closer look at poverty will likely increase the welfare bill
Source: 6 years helping people on benefits. 2 years helping people with debt.
I don't often agree with Mr R, but Youtube seems a useful system to me. Some rubbish, some very useful material.
I don't know enough about the other channels to really comment.
BBC London
Body-worn video of a woman's "degrading" arrest, which police falsely told a court did not exist, has been shared exclusively with the BBC. Nadine Buzzard-Quashie is claiming millions in damages from Northamptonshire Police and the Met over her treatment. Both forces told a court the use of force was lawful."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep2Vgo2MoV8
They operate independently of BT Group with their own board and direction.
My point is that, we can have what is basically one national infrastructure company that works properly as long as it is properly regulated.
Apart from anything else, this will spoil children's creative lives - since so many want to create video for YouTube not just watch it. A lot of money and cultural power in content creation about to be cut off.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich insists Trump's “deal” does not bind Israel: “We are not a banana republic."
Iran insists Trump has agreed to a draft framework recognising Iranian and Omani authority over navigation services in the Strait of Hormuz with transit fees to begin after a 60-day waiver period, Fars News reports.
Plus TSE has his 14 shoe cupboards and 8 televisions.
A generation of kids is going to know how to set up VPNs very rapidly, if they don't already.
I would far rather be able to monitor what my kids are doing, with them doing it openly using official apps, than masked via browsers and VPNs.
Utter insanity.
Those are the ones I can think of right now.
Her videos are set to be private and only her mother and grandmother and a select few others even see it, because we exercise parental controls, but she gets very creative and has been learning skills.
All to be banned due to Luddites who want to roll the clock back on technology and want the nanny state to stop parents from parenting.
Are the parents to be held criminally liable for this law ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Social_Media_Minimum_Age)_Act_2024#Platforms_affected has the full list.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Tempted to potentially sign up for Now just to get HBO Plus, but not really fussed enough to do so yet.
Besides Sports and the HBO stuff, don't see anything on Sky that's worth it nowadays. Not sure if I'm missing anything great, but don't see anything.
A BBC report from late April, including video:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx21gl29qweo
I'm interested why this has resurfaced now. Is it perhaps a new programme or similar, or has the process moved on?
I am very much reminded of the case of Caroline Farrow I mentioned at the weekend.
Old world: young people had the same dangerous instincts as today but our access to addictive, deadly and dangerous things was restricted by a mixture of law, regulation, the constraints of technical reality, parenting and conscience.
So, for one example out of an infinity of evils, viewing a graphic high quality film of a real beheading would have been virtually impossible, and to do so repeatedly and all day and night even more so.
New world: It is not currently possible to police either a young person's personal activity, nor their activity with others, as the entire panoply of dangers is in their pocket and their friends' pockets, whether you like it or not. This renders traditional parenting impossible.
A 'ban' really means (if it were effective) that the outlet - You Tube or whatever - is to some extent in the parental hands to grant permission. So that (back to the old world) a 13 year olds watered down bit of wine at a family meal is possible, but unfettered unsupervised access to a bottle of brandy is not.
However I am not filled with optimism.
My point is that being inside the ‘gateway’ unlocks so much subsidy that it’s almost impossible to get out of with a regular job.
So people get stuck on the inside.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
PS I hate UC in the way it provides subsidies for companies that should pay a better wage. Most people want to work and want to earn more but pay rates in the UK are pretty poor.
At £30 I don’t mind paying for a paper I don’t really read at £300 I can find better things to spend the money on
The free-market economics answer is 'whatever price the buyer and seller agree', but that leads to the world we live in, and I'm not sure we like it much.
There are still grammar schools around but mostly only in a few select towns, cathedral cities and suburbs like Chelmsford, Redbridge, Bromley, Poole, Ripon, Cheltenham, Trafford with only Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire still fully selective with only grammars, high schools and academies and no comprehensives
A childless couple working full time minimum wage is not entitled to any UC.
Indeed, a single person in most of the country working full time minimum wage is not entitled to any UC either.
UC subsidises part timers and children, not jobs.
Do you think someone working 20 hours a week with 2 children should be getting all their income from their job? What pay rate would that require? And which countries are offering that pay rate?
https://www.gov.uk/apply-free-school-meals
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
https://www.japanesefoodguide.com/japanese-school-lunch/
https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2066455395309089209
Including YouTube in the list of banned 'social media' websites is going to be the governments biggest single own goal.
More people watch YouTube than the BBC.
Clown country.
So if you work 12 hours per week or more at minimum wage then you are ineligible. At least via that criteria.
The number of working age households, let alone parents individually, doing less than 12 hours of work a week should be pretty close to zero, not a quarter or more in many areas.
Good advice from Nigey to under 16s. Use a VPN.
The case is an utter disgrace - the Police were breaking the law, were in contempt of court and it wasn't just an accident - it was deliberate and over a long period of time. The idea that the police simply pay a fine out the budget and keep on rolling is wrong.
My 17 year old (younger) daughter will give a clear and articulate case as to why those issue need to be dealt with.
Incidentally, she says there is some nasty stuff targeting those with ADHD and similar - trying to make them into rebels against "the system that has abandoned you" etc.
Hopefully.
Which is counterproductive in many ways.
I used to do that and my algorithm became all the stuff my kids liked.
Plus it means kids will have unrestricted access, whereas my kids profiles are more restricted.
Insanity.
But the poverty trap is bloody real.