I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK.

I have 80/20Mbps FTTC (and actually get the rated speed) this street is
also cabled for virgin's 350/35Mbps FTTH but guess what? I don't
remotely feel the need for it.

Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

I do agree, filling in the non-spots with whatever combination of FTTC,
GPON, 4G, etc would be better sense than increasing the speeds for
anyone who's already got more than e.g. 20Mbps.

Andy Burns presented the following explanation :
I have 80/20Mbps FTTC (and actually get the rated speed) this street is also
cabled for virgin's 350/35Mbps FTTH but guess what? I don't remotely feel the
need for it.

Same here, but 40/10 and Virgin have fibred the whole village, to every
door. 40/10 does more than I need, my copper at 15/5 did more than I
needed.

On 17/11/2019 12:50, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Andy Burns presented the following explanation :
I have 80/20Mbps FTTC (and actually get the rated speed) this street
is also cabled for virgin's 350/35Mbps FTTH but guess what? I don't
remotely feel the need for it.

Same here, but 40/10 and Virgin have fibred the whole village, to every
door. 40/10 does more than I need, my copper at 15/5 did more than I
needed.
Virgin have failed here in North Staffordshire. If you put the post code
in they say we have it. But in fact it stops a few houses down, they
have no intention of expanding it, sadly.

On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.


So we are told we are supposed to be wary of Huawei becuase of alleged
ties to it's governemnt - and then fully embrace the idea of our own
government providing "free" broadband to us all?

Even if the various government agencies already have more surveillance
data than they can handle, this is still a step too far.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:44:48 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not
expanding fast enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England,
and hardly miles from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite
very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

Totally agree.

Build out the core network to everywhere, however remote, to allow local
provision of fixed line broadband or the building of mobile towers to
provide good quality 4G. If necessary build the towers as well.

It would do wonders for remote communities and especially farmers. Not to
mention the emergency services.

Offering "free" broadband is just mindless click bait.
No mention of current added value and infrastructure service providers.
I haven't yet seen if the ISPs will be free.

Good initial idea but a step way too far.


Cheers


Dave R

--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.



I assume you mean Lewes:

https://labs.thinkbroadband.com/loca...rict,E07000063


If you think Corbyn, or anyone else, will achieve 100% coverage- ie no
property in the UK without 'fast' (define fast) internet, I advise you
to avoid any to good to be true offers involving millions of pounds/
dollars going unclaimed etc.

On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.


And, of course, it is not free. There's a capital cost for installation
and an on-cost for maintenance.

The only money that the IT giants have is what they take from their
customers directly or indirectly. Tax that, and they will replace it
somehow.

I *do* agree that it is in the national interest to get decent bandwidth
to small and remote communities.

David wrote:

I haven't yet seen if the ISPs will be free.

Given that they said that the Plusnet part of BT would not be
privatised, it seems they assume it could survive by some other means

https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-of-john-mcdonnells-speech-on-labours-british-broadband-announcement

On 17/11/2019 12:53, Broadback wrote:
On 17/11/2019 12:50, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Andy Burns presented the following explanation :
I have 80/20Mbps FTTC (and actually get the rated speed) this street
is also cabled for virgin's 350/35Mbps FTTH but guess what? I don't
remotely feel the need for it.

Same here, but 40/10 and Virgin have fibred the whole village, to
every door. 40/10 does more than I need, my copper at 15/5 did more
than I needed.
Virgin have failed here in North Staffordshire. If you put the post code
in they say we have it. But in fact it stops a few houses down, they
have no intention of expanding it, sadly.

You may find that the take-up of Virgin fibre (for phone/TV/Internet)
hasn't necessarily been that great in areas where its already in the
pavement outside peoples homes. I keep getting bombarded with offers
saying I could save perhaps £400 on their usual prices for the first 2
years but for me it isn't a saving - I don't watch sport and get TV via
aerial and dish (Freeview/Freesat) and my Internet is fast enough with
fibre to the local cabinet.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m used his keyboard to write :
I keep getting bombarded with offers saying I could
save perhaps £400 on their usual prices for the first 2 years but for me it
isn't a saving

Exactly the same here, I feel rather sorry for them and the amount they
have invested locally.

- I don't watch sport and get TV via aerial and dish
(Freeview/Freesat) and my Internet is fast enough with fibre to the local
cabinet.

I only use it for text, email and a bit of streaming - it does that
fine.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

alan_m wrote:

I keep getting bombarded with offers saying I could save perhaps £400
on their usual prices

Except I only spend £300/year in the first place

Exactly the same here, I feel rather sorry for them and the amount they
have invested locally.

If virgin had planted their fibre a year before BT, rather than a year
afterwards (or strung their coax a few miles further out of the city any
time in the previous 20 years) they'd have probably got my business over BT.

"newshound" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding
fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.


And, of course, it is not free. There's a capital cost for installation
and an on-cost for maintenance.

The only money that the IT giants have is what they take from their
customers directly or indirectly. Tax that, and they will replace it
somehow.

I *do* agree that it is in the national interest to get decent bandwidth
to small and remote communities.

Why ? They mostly chose to be there and they mostly
dont even get a decent bus service anymore.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:44:48 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not
expanding fast enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England,
and hardly miles from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite
very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

When was *any* policy - especially one floated to win an election -
delivered exactly as promised ?

Never, that's when.

So if we strip away the frothing, maybe there's a case for some sort of
universal provision of broadband at a basic level. Enough to access the
services provided online by government ? And if the subscriber wants
and can afford more, they upgrade to full fat HD streaming levels of
broadband ?

Why does that make sense when it didnt with a basic phone service ?

And "free" broadband covering the entire UK makes a **** of a lot more
fair use of tax money than the ¿is-it-isn't-it? saga that HS2 has become.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:44:48 +0000 (GMT)
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not
expanding fast enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England,
and hardly miles from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC,
despite very slow BB.

I think it's an excellent Idea!

I've been in touch with Corbyn's office to recommend that they include
a Usenet account as part the broadband bundle and a preconfigured Usenet
client on the setup disc.


The future is Bright!

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:50:11 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I *do* agree that it is in the national interest to get decent bandwidth
to small and remote communities.

Why ? They mostly chose to be there and they mostly
don¢t even get a decent bus service anymore.

You sick asshole from Oz simply HAVE to auto-contradict. Guess why you got
NOBODY in real life to talk to, senile pest!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On 17/11/2019 18:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding
fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.


And, of course, it is not free. There's a capital cost for
installation and an on-cost for maintenance.

The only money that the IT giants have is what they take from their
customers directly or indirectly. Tax that, and they will replace it
somehow.

I *do* agree that it is in the national interest to get decent
bandwidth to small and remote communities.

Why ?Â* They mostly chose to be there and they mostly
dont even get a decent bus service anymore.

But it's not about the "they" who are there now. With decent
connectivity all sorts of businesses could operate in these locations.
That would open up employment opportunities for local youngsters who
currently have to move away to find work. The UK is quite different to
Australia because of the different geography.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:54:40 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


So if we strip away the frothing, maybe there's a case for some sort of
universal provision of broadband at a basic level. Enough to access the
services provided online by government ? And if the subscriber wants
and can afford more, they upgrade to full fat HD streaming levels of
broadband ?

Why does that make sense when it didn¢t with a basic phone service ?

Because it was made a policy, senile idiot?

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

Andy Burns presented the following explanation :
Exactly the same here, I feel rather sorry for them and the amount they
have invested locally.

If virgin had planted their fibre a year before BT, rather than a year
afterwards (or strung their coax a few miles further out of the city any time
in the previous 20 years) they'd have probably got my business over

I think they probably saw this as an affluent area, with likely good
take up prospects. I've not seen many actually take it up. We've them
twice knocking on doors and three or four mailings.

On 17/11/2019 18:54, Ray wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:44:48 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not
expanding fast enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England,
and hardly miles from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite
very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

When was *any* policy - especially one floated to win an election -
delivered exactly as promised ?

Never, that's when.

So if we strip away the frothing, maybe there's a case for some sort of
universal provision of broadband at a basic level. Enough to access the
services provided online by government ? And if the subscriber wants
and can afford more, they upgrade to full fat HD streaming levels of
broadband ?

Why does that make sense when it didnt with a basic phone service ?

Possibly because so many government services are going online and not
having access puts people at a significant disadvantage - and costs
government departments at lot of time and money providing phone support
instead.

SteveW

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 05:54:40 +1100, Ray wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is
not
expanding fast enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of
England,
and hardly miles from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC,
despite very slow BB.


But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky
and
silly to boot.

Agreed.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy
votes.

Well this one is a minus point. But then the two main partys seem to
be engaging in a spensing war. That won't be good, I don't like the
"boom and bust" but it's preferable "bust and bust".

So if we strip away the frothing, maybe there's a case for some
sort of
universal provision of broadband at a basic level.

Already moving towards that with the Universal Service Obligation.
From 20 March 2020 (currently...!) people will have the legal right
to request a minimum 10 Mbps down 1 Mbps up 'net connection and BT
(or KCOM in Hull) will be obliged to provide it.

There are a few gotchas though to be eligable:

No access to a service offering greater than 10 Mbps down 1Mbps up
and other parameters like latency which rules out geostationary
satellite systems.

If the only service available costs £45/month.(*)

Property not due to be connected to a publicly funded roll out scheme
within 12 months of the date of request.

No more than £3400 to build, though the customer can choose to pay
any excess.

(*) This is the one that may rule a lot of people out as 4G will
deliver the technical aspects. The USO has a minimum data allowance
of 100 GB, are there any 4G data tarrifs that give 100 GB for
£45/month?

Why does that make sense when it didn t with a basic phone service ?

Telephone has a USO as well, that's why it costs a standard
installation fee rather than something based on the true cost of
providing service. Though again there is a limit to the maximum build
cost for the standard installation fee.

Curiously I can't find anything that mentions an installation fee in
relation to a USO 'net connection only the monthly cost. No
installation fee would fit "free proviosn of broadband"...

Weasel words, somthing that politicians are extremely good at.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 17/11/2019 14:03, alan_m wrote:

You may find that the take-up of Virgin fibre (for phone/TV/Internet)
hasn't necessarily been that great in areas where its already in the
pavement outside peoples homes. I keep getting bombarded with offers
saying I could save perhaps £400 on their usual prices for the first 2
years but for me it isn't a saving - I don't watch sport and get TV via
aerial and dish (Freeview/Freesat) and my Internet is fast enough with
fibre to the local cabinet.

I used to get those at our old house. Since ADSL was crap, I was really
interested.

Trouble is Virgin didn't serve our housing estate... not within a mile.

Andy

On 17/11/2019 14:03, Andy Burns wrote:
David wrote:

I haven't yet seen if the ISPs will be free.

Given that they said that the Plusnet part of BT would not be
privatised, it seems they assume it could survive by some other means

https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-of-john-mcdonnells-speech-on-labours-british-broadband-announcement

I thought he must be being misquoted, but

"Well deliver that free full-fibre broadband in tranches, beginning
with those with the worst quality broadband: including rural and remote
regions"

So he'll start with those people who don't even have mains power or water?

Andy

On 17/11/2019 15:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

alan_m wrote:

I keep getting bombarded with offers saying I could save perhaps £400
on their usual prices

Except I only spend £300/year in the first place

£400 over a 2 year contract

The headline saving was the cost of the box, phones (landline and
mobile), Internet and TV including premium premium packages etc.

I looked at it and assume that if I'm taking all those packages it will
be £200 a year more in year 3.

In common with BT offers, they always assumed that people wanted the
sport packages.
If virgin had planted their fibre a year before BT, rather than a year
afterwards (or strung their coax a few miles further out of the city any
time in the previous 20 years) they'd have probably got my business over
BT.

Telepest (now Virgin) did install fibre a long time before BT got around
to fibre to the cabinet. There was a lot of objections to the disruption
caused by the contractors digging up pavements and restoring them in a
**** state. In my case they sent a letter out approx 6 weeks in advance
of the work saying it would commence "sometime" in that 6 week period -
that was the only notification. I woke up late one morning to find a
trench and a pile of debris across my driveway and I couldn't get my car
out! This was followed up by cold calling foot in the door scum posing
as Telepest salespeople!


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/11/2019 18:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding
fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.


And, of course, it is not free. There's a capital cost for installation
and an on-cost for maintenance.

The only money that the IT giants have is what they take from their
customers directly or indirectly. Tax that, and they will replace it
somehow.

I *do* agree that it is in the national interest to get decent bandwidth
to small and remote communities.

Why ? They mostly chose to be there and they mostly
dont even get a decent bus service anymore.

But it's not about the "they" who are there now. With decent connectivity
all sorts of businesses could operate in these locations.

Why should the taxpayers be paying for that ?

That would open up employment opportunities for local youngsters who
currently have to move away to find work.

That will always be the case even if the taxpayer
does pay for decent communications services there.

The UK is quite different to Australia because of the different geography.

It isnt actually with those small and remote comminitys.
We in fact have far more of those than you lot do and
a far worse problem with nothing useful for the kids
and adults to do at all with an immense suicide problem
for that reason. And criminal activity in spades.

And full scale war the likes of which you never see at all.

And a murder rate that is much worse than
in the worst of the urban ghettos in the USA,

On 17/11/2019 21:15, Steve Walker wrote:

Possibly because so many government services are going online and not
having access puts people at a significant disadvantage - and costs
government departments at lot of time and money providing phone support
instead.

and to give them some praise my online dealings with government
departments online in the past few years (national insurance, tax
rebates, pension and passport renewal) have been very favourable and
must in the long run save a fortune in bureaucracy.

My recent passport renewal took a total of 7 days from submitting the
details and electronic photo on line to having the document in my hand.
Two days of that were reliant on Royal mail delivering my old passport
back to them. I got text messages telling me that the process had
started, the photo had been approved as acceptable, that they had
received the old passport and the new one was going to be printed and
couple telling me of the delivery slot.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

alan_m wrote :
I woke up late one morning to find a trench and a pile of debris across my
driveway and I couldn't get my car out! This was followed up by cold calling
foot in the door scum posing as Telepest salespeople!

All done with an absolute minimum of disruption here, maybe they got
there act together?

They had a machine cut narrow trenches in the tarmac, followed quickly
by the fibre into the trench, then the back fill. My drive was only
obstructed for an hour or so. The back fill has stood the test of time,
except in a few places, which were quickly marked up for their repair
team.

newshound expressed precisely :
But it's not about the "they" who are there now. With decent connectivity all
sorts of businesses could operate in these locations. That would open up
employment opportunities for local youngsters who currently have to move away
to find work. The UK is quite different to Australia because of the different
geography.

The smaller and more remote the area, then the it becomes more and more
expensive to get services to them. That includes ALL the services, gas,
electric, water, phones, buses and broadband. Should the rest of the
population really help to financially support people who choose to live
remotely?

You want a good selection of services, you make a lifestyle choice of
where to live where the services are available. I long ago, I almost
bought a house in the next village along, until I realised they had no
gas and decided against it.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2019 18:54, Ray wrote:


"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 11:44:48 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all
premises in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not
expanding fast enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England,
and hardly miles from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC,
despite
very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

When was *any* policy - especially one floated to win an election -
delivered exactly as promised ?

Never, that's when.

So if we strip away the frothing, maybe there's a case for some sort of
universal provision of broadband at a basic level. Enough to access the
services provided online by government ? And if the subscriber wants
and can afford more, they upgrade to full fat HD streaming levels of
broadband ?

Why does that make sense when it didnt with a basic phone service ?

Possibly because so many government services are going online and not
having access puts people at a significant disadvantage

But even if it was free, the worst of those that use govt
services still wouldnt use the broadband for that because
they wouldnt have the laptop or tablet to use it.

It would make more sense to give them a free cheap smartphone
and even then the dregs wouldnt use that instead of talking either.

? - and costs government departments at lot of time
and money providing phone support instead.

I dont believe that it would be instead with most of
the users of govt services or even just with tax returns
that most would have to do.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2019 15:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

alan_m wrote:

I keep getting bombarded with offers saying I could save perhaps £400
on their usual prices

Except I only spend £300/year in the first place

£400 over a 2 year contract

The headline saving was the cost of the box, phones (landline and mobile),
Internet and TV including premium premium packages etc.

I looked at it and assume that if I'm taking all those packages it will be
£200 a year more in year 3.

In common with BT offers, they always assumed that people wanted the sport
packages.
If virgin had planted their fibre a year before BT, rather than a year
afterwards (or strung their coax a few miles further out of the city any
time in the previous 20 years) they'd have probably got my business over
BT.

Telepest (now Virgin) did install fibre a long time before BT got around
to fibre to the cabinet. There was a lot of objections to the disruption
caused by the contractors digging up pavements and restoring them in a
**** state. In my case they sent a letter out approx 6 weeks in advance of
the work saying it would commence "sometime" in that 6 week period - that
was the only notification. I woke up late one morning to find a trench and
a pile of debris across my driveway and I couldn't get my car out!

We didn't get that when natural gas was added with no gas previously.
They jacked the pipe under the driveways. Same with the fiber added
to the capital citys.

This was followed up by cold calling foot in the door scum posing as
Telepest salespeople!

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2019 21:15, Steve Walker wrote:

Possibly because so many government services are going online and not
having access puts people at a significant disadvantage - and costs
government departments at lot of time and money providing phone support
instead.

and to give them some praise my online dealings with government
departments online in the past few years (national insurance, tax rebates,
pension and passport renewal) have been very favourable and must in the
long run save a fortune in bureaucracy.

Yeah, I do my annual car rego and insurance that way.
You still have to get the equivalent of your MOT in
person with your car but that isnt done by govt operations.

Us geriatrics dont have to do tax returns anymore unless you have
a high level of taxable income. Pensions and similar arent taxed here.
We are free to do out tax returns online and even vote online too.

My recent passport renewal took a total of 7 days from submitting the
details and electronic photo on line to having the document in my hand.
Two days of that were reliant on Royal mail delivering my old passport
back to them. I got text messages telling me that the process had started,
the photo had been approved as acceptable, that they had received the old
passport and the new one was going to be printed and couple telling me of
the delivery slot.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:05:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the clinically insane trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:54:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


We didn't get

There's NO "we" for you, you delusional, clinically insane, senile pest!
NOBODY, but NOBODY wants anything to do with a quarrelsome senile pest like
you! And you know it's true! BG

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:58:45 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yeah, I do

NOBODY gives a ****, senile cretin! BG

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:45:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But even if it was free, the worst of those that use govt
services still wouldn¢t use the broadband for that because
they wouldn¢t have the laptop or tablet to use it.

PROVE it, you "all-knowing" senile bull**** artist!

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 14:03:17 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

David wrote:

I haven't yet seen if the ISPs will be free.

Given that they said that the Plusnet part of BT would not be
privatised, it seems they assume it could survive by some other means

https://labour.org.uk/press/full-text-of-john-mcdonnells-speech-on-labours-british-broadband-announcement

Did you mean 'nationalised?

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 21:37:01 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

"We ll deliver that free full-fibre broadband in tranches, beginning
with those with the worst quality broadband: including rural and remote
regions"

So he'll start with those people who don't even have mains power or
water?

Whats that got to do with broadband? Several places around here don't
have mains electricity or mains water but that doesn't mean the don't
have those two services, they make their own arrangements.

Mains water only arrived here in the mid 80's, mains electricity a
little before but not much.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

I imagine the long term aim includes losing broadcast TV.

Cheers
--
Clive

On 18/11/2019 14:23, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 17/11/2019 11:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I'm all in favour of a government initiative to get fibre to all premises
in the UK. Given the current purely commercial setup is not expanding
fast
enough. A mate who lives in Lewis (S coast of England, and hardly miles
from 'civilisation') still hasn't got even FTC, despite very slow BB.

But the idea of making it totally free to use just pie in the sky and
silly to boot.

Just another example of the political parties trying to buy votes.

I imagine the long term aim includes losing broadcast TV.


That may be the aim of some. Others may be thinking more of the
leverage a trade union can have in a public sector monopoly that
provides a key service.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/11/2019 22:19, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
alan_m wrote :
*I woke up late one morning to find a trench and a pile of debris
across my driveway and I couldn't get my car out! This was followed up
by cold calling foot in the door scum posing as Telepest salespeople!

All done with an absolute minimum of disruption here, maybe they got
there act together?

They had a machine cut narrow trenches in the tarmac, followed quickly
by the fibre into the trench, then the back fill. My drive was only
obstructed for an hour or so. The back fill has stood the test of time,
except in a few places, which were quickly marked up for their repair team.

Around here they run in ducts that telewest installed.
The BT stuff runs in ducts installed by the builders when the estate was
built and before the footpaths were tarmacked.
I watched them do some of it.