General Election 2019

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Just now, Mudface said:

That already happens, and is why the best VPNs don't operate within the 14 eyes jurisdiction.

 

Indeed. I keep telling mates not to use free VPN's or those based in Countries which come under the 14 eyes, but many don't listen. They all say they wouldn't pass on data, yeah....like they have grounds to tell the authorities to fuck off when they come calling with a warrant. I personally use Express VPN, one of the better ones, but mainly because of where they are based. 

[moof]

8 minutes ago, Mudface said:

And why would you need different tiers of service anyway- you'd be getting giga-bit FTTH for free, not looking to save a few quid because you only want 'up to' 10 mega bit bandwidth with a 5 gig monthly cap.

Quite. You’re just creating a hierarchical system where the lower rungs are left behind. As per. The dogma of private companies and market competition naturally providing better outcomes was well and truly debunked, or so I thought 

[SasaS]

You a re a strange lot, you use VPNs and worry about security, but are more than happy to live in a county where the state is the only Internet provider, if you are not happy, you cannot change, if you run a small business and need different customer service, you have only one company offering it etc. The government not only does not recoup any of the money invested in building the network, it has to bear the full cost of the customer service, so more and more money is needed to run things, in the period where costs of state pensions and socialized healthcare are projected to keep increasing due to the aging population and ever higher demands. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Nope, I think Labour's idea of a free service for all is a bit crazy myself. The main reason would be the shit customer service due to a Monopol and the fact you have to like it or lump it. Imagine the wait you'd have calling them? People don't just use VPN's for security reasons BTW. 

 

Just to add to this. The Government should be building infrastructure for all, especially since they are getting money back from the providers for using it. They should also ensure that prices are not OTT. That is where the major problems lie. 

[aRdja]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

You a re a strange lot, you use VPNs and worry about security, but are more than happy to live in a county where the state is the only Internet provider, if you are not happy, you cannot change, if you run a small business and need different customer service, you have only one company offering it etc. The government not only does not recoup any of the money invested in building the network, it has to bear the full cost of the customer service, so more and more money is needed to run things, in the period where costs of state pensions and socialized healthcare are projected to keep increasing due to the aging population and ever higher demands. 

The telecoms would still be able to provide other types i’d imagine e.g., ADSL, and those who want to pay for it, would be able to.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

4 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

The telecoms would still be able to provide other types i’d imagine e.g., ADSL, and those who want to pay for it, would be able to.

 

That wouldn't work well though, if something is for nothing then people would use it in the main, regardless of social standing. With a small fraction of users then Telecoms companies would soon go bankrupt, or nobody would use them due to them cutting corners to ensure a profit for the shareholders. 

[SasaS]

29 minutes ago, moof said:

Why would it create a better quality of service? And what of the millions of people who don’t have consistent online access or those who can’t afford a broadband subscription?

In theory at least, competition creates better quality of service. Presumably, the new network will give everybody the possibility of a consistent Internet access and those who cannot afford the subscription can still be serviced by the state in some basic package, or you can make the Internet access a right and than give people who cannot afford it Internet allowance.

[A Red]

Free internet seems like a pretty good thing for Labour to be offering. I'm not entirely sure of the ins and outs of the whole thing, therefore its the most stupid thing i've ever heard and will most definitely lose them the election

[moof]

12 minutes ago, SasaS said:

The government not only does not recoup any of the money invested in building the network, it has to bear the full cost of the customer service, so more and more money is needed to run things, in the period where costs of state pensions and socialized healthcare are projected to keep increasing due to the aging population and ever higher demands. 

What are you basing this on? Just because it’s free at end point does not mean they won’t recoup any money from it. 

[moof]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

In theory at least, competition creates better quality of service. Presumably, the new network will give everybody the possibility of a consistent Internet access and those who cannot afford the subscription can still be serviced by the state in some basic package, or you can make the Internet access a right and than give people who cannot afford it Internet allowance.

Does this apply in practice? It’s faaaar from a given, to say the least 

[ZonkoVille77]

A practical option would be anything up to say 10mb (arbitrary figure) is free and if anyone wants better they can pay for it. 10mb is enough for living in the modern world - email etc. 

[Barrington Womble]

I can think of better things for any government to spend 20bn on than broadband for all. There should just be greater control of BT openreach to ensure they deliver into rural areas and control of basic access pricing due to their almost monopoly they have today. It feels almost like a joke what labour have presented today. And with 5g coming along, is getting a fibre cable past every door really the most economical way to deliver broadband? 

[aRdja]

Just now, Pistonbroke said:

 

That wouldn't work well though, if something is for nothing then people would use it in the main, regardless of social standing. With a small fraction of users then Telecoms companies would soon go bankrupt, or nobody would use them due to them cutting corners to ensure a profit for the shareholders. 

Maybe, but they would just have to be a bit more creative with their produce offerings. Bupa are still making profits here in the UK for example.

[aRdja]

3 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

A practical option would be anything up to say 10mb (arbitrary figure) is free and if anyone wants better they can pay for it. 10mb is enough for living in the modern world - email etc. 

Yeah that sounds pretty reasonable.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, viRdjil said:

Maybe, but they would just have to be a bit more creative with their produce offerings. Bupa are still making profits here in the UK for example.

 

Bupa is a non-profit organisation.

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Bupa is a non-profit organisation.

Bupa is a for-profit company. 

 

Its parent company is non-profit. 

 

Thanks. 

[aRdja]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Bupa is a non-profit organisation.

Erm, okay. Let me look up there accounts from last year.

[moof]

Full digital connectivity is a necessity in order to be able to participate meaningfully in the economy, especially for future generations. Is there any reason why one infrastructure provider should be any more expensive than the current piss poor service whereby there are multiple private companies selectively building infrastructure and creaming billions off the top for dividends?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

When all is said and done it all comes down to the cost and who would pay for it. Labour have said they would Tax big businesses (which should happen regardless) to pay for it all. we all know they would have the best lawyers working to find loopholes to get around paying more than they can get away with. You would then be left with a high maintenance project relying on them paying up, otherwise the money would have to come from somewhere else, and we all know who would end up paying for it. More important areas to make peoples lives better than making sure everybody has high speed Broadband and free access. If people have more money in their pocket then paying a private company to get their product is less of a hassle. 

[aRdja]

Even better H1 2019.

 

https://www.bupa.com/~/media/files/site-specific-files/our performance/pdfs/financial-results-half-year-2019/bupa-hy-results-announcement-financial-statements.pdf

[Anubis]

4 hours ago, Mudface said:

 

Spot on. Was driving back from Bradford this afternoon and was listening to Kermode and Mayo’s film review, and when the news intervened in both occasions they led with ‘Boris Johnson has said Lanour’s plans for free broadband are a Communist fantasy’ rather than report the policy first.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

5 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Maybe, but they would just have to be a bit more creative with their produce offerings. Bupa are still making profits here in the UK for example.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with the shit state of the NHS and people who can afford to use their services. If the NHS was working better then BUPA would be fucked, or very close to it. 

[moof]

The NHS would be working a lot better if we had a proper nationwide fibre optic broadband network 

[cloggypop]

3 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Spot on. Was driving back from Bradford this afternoon and was listening to Kermode and Mayo’s film review, and when the news intervened in both occasions they led with ‘Boris Johnson has said Lanour’s plans for free broadband are a Communist fantasy’ rather than report the policy first.

 

Sounds like the USA describing the NHS. 

[SasaS]

9 minutes ago, moof said:

What are you basing this on? Just because it’s free at end point does not mean they won’t recoup any money from it. 

Well, if you are giving something for free to end users, it's difficult to see how would you recoup the costs, at least directly.

 

8 minutes ago, moof said:

Does this apply in practice? It’s faaaar from a given, to say the least 

 

Usually it does, unless the providers form a cartel and divided the market up between themselves, but there are always risks and the need for government oversight. Competition or choice somehow sounds better than a monopoly.