On 23/04/2021 11:10, Andrew wrote:
On 23/04/2021 00:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2021 11:44, nightjar wrote:
...
Disadvantaging the 20% of households with one adult over the age of
65 without internet access; a group that also has the lowest
ownership of smart phones, at just 53%

I know many pensioners (I am surrounded by them, as we live in a
slightly odd road, with a mix of housing - our house is
semi-detached, 2-storey, while our neighbours on one side and all
down the opposite side of the road have bungalows, plus our
relatives, relatives of friends, etc.). Only a tiny proportion
drive, but do not have broadband or a smartphone. ...

That does demonstrate an urban mindset. It is very difficult to live
in rural areas without a car and those are the areas where broadband
service is worst.

It does not need a high speed connection to login and update a mileage
figure. With a smartphone it can always be done on the phone and it
can transmit when you happen to be somewhere with a signal.

Yet people like turnip and his mate java jive in rural scotchland
believe that 'other people' should pay the tens of thousands of
pounds required to connect a rural hamlet of a few moaning minnie
pensioners, living in million pound houses (that they only paid a
few thousand, or less, back in the 50's and 60's)Â* to fast internet.

Back in the days of the last Labour government, the proposal was to add
a sum (then it was 50p per month) onto everyone's broadband bills to
fund providing broadband to hard to reach places. As someone who has
never voted Labour in a General Election and who lives in a place with a
choice of Fibre to the Cabinet and Virgin Media, I thought it a very
good idea. It is hardly the fault of country dwellers that government,
council and commercial companies have all moved to the internet, making
it nigh on essential.