http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural area
where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are paying for
a 5:1 contention ratio?

Colin Bignell

On Dec 6, 3:48*pm, "Wesley" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost 1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. *Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. *It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. *I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. *Am
I missing something here??

On-line, on-demand TV?

Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??


well yes.

While broadband and fast broadband can't totally replace travelling, it
does a heck of a lot to help.

If someone's job is done in front of a computer and 90% of their daily
communication is through that, or a phone, it makes them totally
position independent - as Indian call centres have discovered.

Now the archaic British Management has yet to figure out how to manage a
remote workforce except by subcontracting it to a whole subcontinent,
but, if there is an ounce of common sense left in it, sooner or later
the penny will drop and people all over the country will e working in te
same virtual office on the same projects.

Now we do a lot here, and pushing up BIG graphic objects of several tens
of MB takes a long time at 448KBps.

Likewise its inadequate for quality video in the UP direction. If we
want to create virtual offices and VPNS we need high speed *symmetric*
transfers.

ADSL was created on the assumption that the domestic market would be net
consumers of data. However proper VPN working would be better served by
SDSL - 10Mbps bi-directional is very usable to access a file server,
though it feels slow by gigabit standards.

And finally, access to decent speed broadband for business to business
communications is almost mandatory these days.

So that's the business case.

Domestically, on-line shopping is already a significant player. If
anything CAN replace queuing up for car parks to find the store doesn't
have what you want, and then queuing to get out again, it has to be a
plus for the country. IF a decent way of paying for it can be sorted
out, there is also no reason why books, CDs and DVDS cant be online
downloads either, thus saving more transport, more plastic and more
trees etc.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download
massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote
it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural area
where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are paying for
a 5:1 contention ratio?


or better still, where the best you an get is a bloody expesnive 48kbps
modem?
most sites are simply unusable these days.
Colin Bignell

On 06/12/2010 16:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download
massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural area
where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are paying for
a 5:1 contention ratio?

Depends on the nature of the business, but surely the sensible thing is
to have the servers in a different place from the the people?

On Dec 6, 5:17*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. *Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. *It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. *I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. *Am
I missing something here??

well yes.

Hell no!

If they were going to get into bed with Microsoft like Tory B Liar did
at the start of his one man banned or like the other lot did with
whatever else they did, they wouldn't tell us how and why if we were
unsuspecting.

So no you were not missing something there.

But then when we all signed up to kill brown people in Iran and Iraq
we didn't know that Bush Co Newcopian Enterprises was going to get all
the contracts to bring technology to the poor benighted ancient
civilization; nor find unlimited mineral reserves in Afghanistan.

So I suppose there is a lot yet to be reported about the feeding of
the pigs etc.
I wonder who they will turn out to be once firmly established at the
trough.

On 06/12/2010 17:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost �1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download
massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote
it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural
area where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are
paying for a 5:1 contention ratio?

Have you got any ancient phones in your house? If not, have you tried
disconnecting the bell-wire at your BT master socket? We're some 2 miles
from the exchange, and speed went from 3.5-4 Mbps to 7.6Mbps (raw line
speed) when I had that done.

It was on an industrial estate, using a dedicated line installed for the
purpose and the BT engineer even by-passed the plug-in bit of the BT
master socket to try to improve the speed, without much effect.

Colin Bignell

On 06/12/2010 17:45, Clive George wrote:
On 06/12/2010 16:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download
massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote
it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural area
where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are paying for
a 5:1 contention ratio?

Depends on the nature of the business, but surely the sensible thing is
to have the servers in a different place from the the people?

It was exchanging data with the servers that was the problem.

Colin Bignell

If nothing else, the story did produce this little gem )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk

Cheers,

Colin.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost �1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located
abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download
massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote
it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural
area where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are
paying for a 5:1 contention ratio?

Have you got any ancient phones in your house? If not, have you tried
disconnecting the bell-wire at your BT master socket? We're some 2 miles
from the exchange, and speed went from 3.5-4 Mbps to 7.6Mbps (raw line
speed) when I had that done.

No bell wires here. PABX.#

Clive George wrote:
On 06/12/2010 16:23, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 06/12/2010 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download
massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote
it. Am
I missing something here??

Have you ever tried to run an internet based business from a rural area
where it can be a struggle to get 255kbps, even when you are paying for
a 5:1 contention ratio?

Depends on the nature of the business, but surely the sensible thing is
to have the servers in a different place from the the people?

doesn't help. Access is limited by he weakest link for the weakest link.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:17 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424
Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??
well yes.

Hell no!

If they were going to get into bed with Microsoft like Tory B Liar did
at the start of his one man banned or like the other lot did with
whatever else they did, they wouldn't tell us how and why if we were
unsuspecting.

So no you were not missing something there.

But then when we all signed up to kill brown people in Iran and Iraq
we didn't know that Bush Co Newcopian Enterprises was going to get all
the contracts to bring technology to the poor benighted ancient
civilization; nor find unlimited mineral reserves in Afghanistan.


Of course you did.

So I suppose there is a lot yet to be reported about the feeding of
the pigs etc.
I wonder who they will turn out to be once firmly established at the
trough.

BT is well snouted in at top level. its another way to bail their
pension plan disaster out.

Now I don't mind that IF they actually deliver..what is needed.

So far it's about 3/10 must try harder.

On 06/12/10 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

It costs around £5 for a local council to deal with a question by post.
If it's done via a web site it costs less than 20p. The government wants
everyone to use the web so they can shut down the expansive support
services used by fewer and fewer people.



--
Bernard Peek

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

BT is well snouted in at top level.
Now I don't mind that IF they actually deliver..what is needed.

BT had already committed to spending enough to cover 66% of the country,
funny that if the govt raids the BBC licence fee coffers for £800m, then
BT can find another £800m to take coverage to 90%

So why hadn't BT already committed to use the £800m they can now find to
take coverage to 78% ?

Bernard Peek wrote:
On 06/12/10 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

It costs around £5 for a local council to deal with a question by post.
If it's done via a web site it costs less than 20p. The government wants
everyone to use the web so they can shut down the expansive support
services used by fewer and fewer people.



That's why our MP told us to send letters..not a petition.*Individual*
letters.

It makes a mockery of all that cost saving. And they find it hard to
ignore. One petition only needs on 'Michael Mouse' on it to be entirely
discredited.

A thousand on line objections can vanish at the touch of a key.

Know thine enemy..registered post is even better as they have to sign
for the ruddy lot..

On 06/12/10 19:52, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 06/12/10 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

It costs around £5 for a local council to deal with a question by post.
If it's done via a web site it costs less than 20p. The government wants
everyone to use the web so they can shut down the expansive support
services used by fewer and fewer people.




Sub contracted to a bot like National Rail's "Ask Lisa"
( http://lisa.nationalrail.co.uk/NRE/bot.htm )

Q: "Why are SouthEastern so ****e?"
A: "Lisa says:
It appears that you might be asking about a specific train company, but
I haven't been able to tell exactly what you want. I'm loading the Train
Companies information page, which provides all the information you're
likely to need about their services – along with contact information.
Alternatively, simply type in the name of the company, and I will load
their details for you. "

Would have thought they'd at least have a rule for that after last week...


--
Tim Watts

In article ,
Colin Stamp wrote:
If nothing else, the story did produce this little gem )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk

Followed by http://audioboo.fm/boos/231625-jeremy-hunt-by-marr

Darren

Tim Watts wrote:

http://lisa.nationalrail.co.uk/NRE/bot.htm

Q: "What is the right type of snow?"
A: "The weather is an interesting topic, but one that I cannot comment
on myself. I can, however, provide a link to how to find out if weather
will affect services."

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:04:23 -0800 (PST) Owain wrote :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost 1 Bn on this is going
to generate too many jobs. *Most call centres etc seem to be located
abroad anyway. *It will be great for on-line gamers and people who
download massive files. *I can't understand why the Government is so
keen to promote it. *Am I missing something here??

Wooing voters for the next election?

Our government is spending $43bn (£27bn) on a National Broadband Network,
and that's for 20m people. In our recent election it was a major issue -
the Liberals (=UKCon) wanted to scrap it, and after a tied election,
Labor's commitment to it brought three Independents from rural seats on
side.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

On 06/12/10 20:24, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

http://lisa.nationalrail.co.uk/NRE/bot.htm

Q: "What is the right type of snow?"
A: "The weather is an interesting topic, but one that I cannot comment
on myself. I can, however, provide a link to how to find out if weather
will affect services."

[This is real BTW]

Q: "Fancy a shag?"
A: "Lisa says:
Whilst this might be a fascinating subject for you, I'd much rather talk
about travelling by train."

Q: "You look hot - fancy a shag?"
A: "Lisa says:
I don't think that has anything to do with travelling by train."

Q: "Fancy a shag?"
A: "Lisa says:
I won't warn you again – please just ask me a question about travelling
by train ..."

Q: "What about a handjob?"
A: "Lisa says:
I think I'll choose to ignore your last remark – that really wasn't nice."

Q: "Marry me?"
A: "Lisa says:
I'm not really one for commitment – except to National Rail Enquiries,
of course!"

Q: "You're beautiful."
A: "Lisa says:
It's very kind of you to say so."

Q: "Is your sister as hot as you?"
A: "Lisa says:
I find this subject a little too personal. Let's talk about trains instead."

Q: "How big are your breasts?"
A: "Lisa says:
What website do you think you've visited?!?!"


--
Tim Watts

Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

BT is well snouted in at top level.
Now I don't mind that IF they actually deliver..what is needed.

BT had already committed to spending enough to cover 66% of the country,
funny that if the govt raids the BBC licence fee coffers for £800m, then
BT can find another £800m to take coverage to 90%

So why hadn't BT already committed to use the £800m they can now find to
take coverage to 78% ?

Because it wouldn't be profitable.

The privatisation has been a complete mess.
BTY is still a de facto monopoly, but it cant be alowed to make a p[rofit.

They should spilt openreach entirely away, get it properly funded as a
national service on a not for profit basis, funded by bond issue,
underwritten by government and get OFCOM to draw up covenants for each
stage of the national rollout of whatever it is we want.

BT the wholesaler and retailer and business supplier can go to hell in a
bucket.

On Dec 6, 8:16*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Bernard Peek wrote:
On 06/12/10 15:48, Wesley wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. *Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. *It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. *I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. *Am
I missing something here??

It costs around £5 for a local council to deal with a question by post.

On 7 Dec 2010 11:28:05 GMT, Huge wrote:
On 2010-12-07, John Rumm wrote:

Having enough connectivity to work from home means be able to have
reliable use of a VPN for access to corporate data and resources, and
enough throughput to allow remote control of machines elsewhere.

Quite. I work from home and looking at the statistics on my firewall, I
move about 2Gb a month up and down my broadband. And I don't play
online games or steal^Wdownload any significant amount of digital media so
that's mostly work stuff. Running a quick speed test I get 1.19 Mb/s down
and 0.22 Mb/s up. It's not enough for videoconferencing (I've tried various
systems) or indeed, reliable VOIP. And I don't live somewhere *that* rural;
although we're surrounded by fields I can get a curry delivered ... )

My personal experience is that videoconferencing is vastly overrated.
Unless the other party simply *must* present charts that for some reason
(poor organisation?) can't be emailed ahead of time, almost all the
actual content comes from the "conference" part - not the "video". So
far as telecommuting goes, it depends on how efficiently your company
implements it. 2GB a month sounds like it's well within the capabilites
of a 2MBit/sec connection (since 2GB/mo = 10MB/day) or even a 3G link.
The crucial element is the reliability of the link, rather than its speed.



--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/07...1245282925.php

On Dec 7, 11:28*am, Huge wrote:
On 2010-12-07, John Rumm wrote:

Having enough connectivity to work from home means be able to have
reliable use of a VPN for access to corporate data and resources, and
enough throughput to allow remote control of machines elsewhere.

Quite. I work from home and looking at the statistics on my firewall, I
move about 2Gb a month up and down my broadband. And I don't play
online games or steal^Wdownload any significant amount of digital media so
that's mostly work stuff. Running a quick speed test I get 1.19 Mb/s down
and 0.22 Mb/s up. It's not enough for videoconferencing (I've tried various
systems) or indeed, reliable VOIP. And I don't live somewhere *that* rural;
although we're surrounded by fields I can get a curry delivered ... *)

--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 49th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3176
* * * I'd rather have a free press than a football tournament.

Having a windows client connected to a windows server over a VPN can
use phenonemal amounts of bandwith, if you're not careful. A lot of MS
software seems to be "always on", and boy, do thy like their indexing !

On 07/12/2010 11:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 06/12/2010 19:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
....
fantastic! Maybe I'm easily pleased, but I was getting ~3Kbps on
dial-up, so that's approximately a 500-fold increase, and I can't see
myself ever needing anything faster for what I use. I'm out in the

Rather like the oft quoted myth about 640K ought to be enough for anybody...

I recall one computer review asking whether anyone would really need the
extra speed of a 386 processor.

Colin Bignell

On 06/12/2010 20:24, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

http://lisa.nationalrail.co.uk/NRE/bot.htm

Q: "What is the right type of snow?"
A: "The weather is an interesting topic, but one that I cannot comment
on myself. I can, however, provide a link to how to find out if weather
will affect services."

It sounds as though someone has dusted off Eliza from the 1960s and
renamed her, without making any improvements.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:11:10 +0000 Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote :
I recall one computer review asking whether anyone would really need
the extra speed of a 386 processor.

There was a time when PCs had a turbo button so you could choose between
slow and really slow.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

On 07/12/2010 16:48, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:11:10 +0000 Nightjar"cpb"@ wrote :
I recall one computer review asking whether anyone would really need
the extra speed of a 386 processor.

There was a time when PCs had a turbo button so you could choose between
slow and really slow.

I even remember having to use it, so that older programmes would work.

Colin Bignell

On 06/12/2010 20:24, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

http://lisa.nationalrail.co.uk/NRE/bot.htm

Q: "What is the right type of snow?"
A: "The weather is an interesting topic, but one that I cannot comment
on myself. I can, however, provide a link to how to find out if weather
will affect services."

I can answer that one. It's stuff that isn't really fine and powdery,
like the stuff you get in the Alps and almost never in England, where
the snow is wet and soggy. The right kind of snow doesn't require you
to remove two seats from every carriage in order to fit roof mounted air
intakes which don't pick up this fine powdery snow from the track.

Mind, if you're talking about the Eurostar failure - that was just bad
design.

Andy

"Wesley" wrote in message o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

Some people clearly agree with you. ;-)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201012063323/

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:58:41 +0000, Andy Champ wrote:

It's stuff that isn't really fine and powdery, like the stuff you get in
the Alps and almost never in England, where the snow is wet and soggy.

Eh? We rarely get wet and soggy snow. It's nearly always powder and
dry. Makes building or snowball fights almost impossible as it
doesn't hold together. The inch and a half we had last night just
blew off the car. Just as well it wasn't windy or the roads would
have been interesting with the ensuing drifts, mind you being fresh,
light and dry you can pretend to be a boat and just drive through the
drifts and they flow like water. That doesn't last long though 24 to
48hrs after falling and it compacts down under it's own weight and
becomes much firmer. Still not much good for building though.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Dec 6, 6:16*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:17 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Wesley wrote:

I missing something here??

well yes.

Hell no!

Eh?

If they were going to get into bed with Microsoft like Tory B Liar did
at the start of his one man banned or like the other lot did with
whatever else they did, they wouldn't tell us how and why if we were
unsuspecting.

Eh?

I believe it was part of Tory B Liar's manifesto or anm announcement
made soon after he became labour Regis that Britain was going to get
all the help it needed to enter the computer age. And ALL our base
become WindUS.

So no you were not missing something there.

Well, you were. Maybe being young and silly at the tiemm and just
silly now?

But then when we all signed up to kill brown people in Iran and Iraq
we didn't know that Bush Co Newcopian Enterprises was going to get all
the contracts to bring technology to the poor benighted ancient
civilization; nor find unlimited mineral reserves in Afghanistan.

Eh?

Yep. Thought so.

So I suppose there is a lot yet to be reported about the feeding of
the pigs etc.
I wonder who they will turn out to be once firmly established at the
trough.

Eh?

What random-text generator did you use for this content-free post?

Wisdom of the ages, young chap. Live long and pester.
(You might learn something.)

On Dec 6, 7:52*pm, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 06/12/10 15:48, Wesley wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost 1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. *Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. *It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. *I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. *Am
I missing something here??

It costs around 5 for a local council to deal with a question by post.
If it's done via a web site it costs less than 20p. The government wants
everyone to use the web so they can shut down the expansive support
services used by fewer and fewer people.

Maybe but a substantial mileage of BT copper-ware is Victorian and
some of the neo classical stuff also wants upgrading so it isn't
really news. But it is a sugar coating for the bribe to come. I wonder
what that will be.

(Not really but will feign interest, though I don't watch TV or read
the papers. I've lived long enough to have learned the cycle.)

Tim Downie wrote:
"Wesley" wrote in message o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??

Some people clearly agree with you. ;-)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201012063323/



I haven't read the mash for a few days. Thanks for the link.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:58:41 +0000, Andy Champ wrote:

It's stuff that isn't really fine and powdery, like the stuff you get in
the Alps and almost never in England, where the snow is wet and soggy.

Eh? We rarely get wet and soggy snow.

We rarely get anything BUT.


The worst thing abut the UK is a typcal winters day goes above freeing
by day, so water trickles into stuff washing away any antifreeze, and
then below freezing at night so it freezes and jams...its harder to cpe
with than weeks of sub-zero.


It's nearly always powder and
dry. Makes building or snowball fights almost impossible as it
doesn't hold together. The inch and a half we had last night just
blew off the car. Just as well it wasn't windy or the roads would
have been interesting with the ensuing drifts, mind you being fresh,
light and dry you can pretend to be a boat and just drive through the
drifts and they flow like water. That doesn't last long though 24 to
48hrs after falling and it compacts down under it's own weight and
becomes much firmer. Still not much good for building though.

Last night was VERY cold indeed. I've only seen UK temps that low a few
times in my life.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:52 pm, Bernard Peek wrote:
On 06/12/10 15:48, Wesley wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424
Can't see how the government spending almost 1 Bn on this is going to
generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located abroad
anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who download massive
files. I can't understand why the Government is so keen to promote it. Am
I missing something here??
It costs around 5 for a local council to deal with a question by post.
If it's done via a web site it costs less than 20p. The government wants
everyone to use the web so they can shut down the expansive support
services used by fewer and fewer people.

Maybe but a substantial mileage of BT copper-ware is Victorian

It isn't.

Its not even edwardian.


Most of the main local loop work was done in the 30's and 40's which
makes it Georgian :-)

and
some of the neo classical stuff also wants upgrading so it isn't
really news. But it is a sugar coating for the bribe to come. I wonder
what that will be.

(Not really but will feign interest, though I don't watch TV or read
the papers. I've lived long enough to have learned the cycle.)

On 08/12/10 19:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
"Wesley" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11922424

Can't see how the government spending almost £1 Bn on this is going
to generate too many jobs. Most call centres etc seem to be located
abroad anyway. It will be great for on-line gamers and people who
download massive files. I can't understand why the Government is so
keen to promote it. Am I missing something here??

Some people clearly agree with you. ;-)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...-201012063323/


"Superfast broadband will mean that Britain could be having the most
nauseatingly idiotic conversation with itself just milliseconds after
someone has failed to read beyond the first paragraph of a news story
about immigrants."

The author obviously hasn't read The Daily Mail online reader comment
columns.

We're already there...

--
Tim Watts

In article ,
Colin Stamp writes:
If nothing else, the story did produce this little gem )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5mVoqJpUk

And also, I bet almost everyone knows who Jeremy Hunt is now.
I could not have told you last week - best publicity he could have got.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Huge" wrote in message
...


I suspect telepresence style of video conferencing is mostly vanity by
senior management.

Something else you have never used but feel the need to comment on then.
I can assure you that it is not just vanity being able to tell if someone is
lying which you can't do on slow video links.
Hence the reason it is used for virtual court appearances.