Heard on Radio 4 a spokesman for a Tech industry trade body say its a very bad policy. Can't find any details online though as to exactly why.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
What do you expect them to say when something goes against their interests?
Not going to win any votes with stuff like this. Nobody in this miserable country of Gollums wants to spend any money on anything except soldiers and nurses. They’d rather pay through the nose for shit service and this is why we can’t have nice things
Their interest is to advance the tech industry, which is actually a crown jewel industry for us currently and one of the best in the world. It is an industry that will be central to our future prosperity. The one thing they did say is that the roll out alone would cost twice of labours whole spending commitment on the plan. Their concerns should absolutely be listened to.
What rubbish. Content control is the same across all providers as it’s enacted by law. No provider restricts content based on their choosing. So the government doesn’t need to provide you something to control it as it’s done only by legislation.
The policy may change and develop as broadband becomes a necessity to run basic services and it could be just like your utilities which are provided to every household and you can the choose the provider, it’s completely in its infancy and I doubt you have read anything beyond “government provides broadband” before giving it your inaccurate judgement.
Government control is governed by law. If they pass laws to block certain content it doesn’t matter who your provider is laws will still be enacted.
You say that based on what?
No actually, their sole interest is profit, this is why they exist, to make money. BT has chronically underfunded rollouts in order to protect its profits. This is why we’re at the very bottom when it comes to ultrafast broadband household connectivity and lingering on a shameful 1.5% whilst there are countries in Europe on 50%. Much poorer and less developed countries like Macedonia are on 11%, Bulgaria on 32%, Romania on 38% Latvia on 50%.
For a so called leader in tech industry we’re leading the wrong way round. It’s just proud British bluster backed up with nothing of note.
Fair enough. Finally some good news for once, thanks for sharing that.
I can't see any reason why it's a good policy. It'll end up costing poor people more for a worse service. That's before even considering that 5G coverage will be widespread by 2030 anyway so it'll be the government investing billions and billions on a technology that will be antiquated by the time it's come to fruition.
Do you trust the government of the last 25 years to implement this policy without detriment to the end user? The likes of Johnson, May, Cameron, Blair, Brown, Major and potentially Coybyn/McDonnell etc? Even if the details on day 1 look promising, would you really trust politicians over the next 25 years with something so sensitive?
I'm against government collecting data. My point is having a government monopoly of internet service means they will be able to collect data and restrict services without enacting those laws that are at least a check and balance against government infringement of civil liberties; likely under the guise of national security. Current private providers only provide to the government what they legally are obligated to.
Whilst I agree with the UK's broadband being pathetic, I really do find you to have striking resemblances to a Brexiteer when it comes to the subject of the Corbyn political movement. Instead of bleating on about 'project fear' you bleat on about 'evil capitalists' to defend whatever Corbyn does, regardless of the merits of the argument. You pooh poohed the concerns of the tech industry without even knowing what their concerns are about this policy! I'd wager a rather high bet that you weren't crying 'evil capitalists' when numerous industries were warning of how dangerous Brexit will be for the economy, rather you were deriding Brexiteers and for a lack of intelligence and rationality.
The UK is a world leader in the tech, this is a fact not bluster.
5g is going to make fibre antiquated eh?
You don't even know what their concerns are either to be fair.
The tech industry are concerned with how much it is going to cost the government?
I'm very wary of this from a privacy perspective. It sounds at first blush like the Government is entering the consumer space, and that opens up a big can of worms. Even if we assume Labour have the best possible intentions right now, will every Government in the future always respect privacy the same way? It's not like we have a great record on privacy in this country at the moment.
This a good article from the FT, concluding that Labour's spending plans are possible but suggesting that ideologically driven spending is a recipe for waste.
https://www.ft.com/content/49d73a86-0622-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca
It highlights the economic inefficiency of big spending on communication infrastructure to bring higher speed broadband to a small number of rural beneficiaries.
https://www.ft.com/content/49d73a86-0622-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca
It highlights the economic inefficiency of big spending on communication infrastructure to bring higher speed broadband to a small number of rural beneficiaries.
@Classical Mechanic which tech industry body is it?
It's going to make the "free WiFi" pledge that might seem attractive now seem like an antiquated, costly and mostly superfluous proposal in 11 years.
That's what I'm looking for, I heard it on the Today show on Radio 4 on the way to work this morning.
[
Probably ispa which is definitely going to be against openreach being nationalised for obvious reasons.
Stranger things have happened.
When he nationalises the utilities you should get gas, water and electricity for free and then the railways - all fares will be free.
So he is preparing for Brexit, everything will be free as no-one will have any money.
What the feck are you on about.
It was Philip Jansen, the CEO of BT. He'd obviously have zero vested interest in the Government not nationalising their Openreach fibre network.
We can't run out of internet.
Just stepped through the looking glass.
So. Boris Johnson isn't doing himself any favours this morning on BBC News and 5Live, is he?
I think your post was a bunch of Jabberwocky myself.
Thanks. Granted that he will be bias against but he will also have a handle on the costs and practicality of the proposals.
Is there anywhere in the world where broadband is free? I've never come across it.
It amazes me that people don't see through these blatant bribes. It will cost 30b to deploy to all homes and a few hundred million per year to run, all from the magic money tree.
From taxation.
Do you actually believe this crap from Labour?
So guys. Boris Johnson...not looking good huh? Guys?
Or are we still arguing over a Labour policy that the Tories also pledged in September?
Or are we still arguing over a Labour policy that the Tories also pledged in September?
They'll likely turn out like most governments which is keep some manifesto promises, break others but generally move in the direction that they say they will. This internet policy makes sense and will be good for the economy, I reckon they'll mostly end up doing it but some rural areas will still have issues.
This is more than I can say for the Tories who seem have broken almost every promise they've made (with the unfortunate exception of running an EU referendum).
I forgot the Tories promised to do it by 2025 for a quarter of the cost.Representative of the IOD on SkyNews saying that basically the offering of broadband to all would be a huge boost but they think you only need to nationalise the bits the private sector fail on and not everything else.
Which sounds a lot like let us continue to take money in the cities and you pick up all the less profitable bits we can't be arsed with. Problem is we've seen that subsidy model fail time and time again.
Which sounds a lot like let us continue to take money in the cities and you pick up all the less profitable bits we can't be arsed with. Problem is we've seen that subsidy model fail time and time again.
Hence its not free... except if you don't actually pay tax then obviously its free to that person as the rest of us pay for it
That said free in ten years is pretty much the same as saying its not a real commitment its more an aspiration as it wouldn't happen in this parliament - and quite possibly not even the next one
Interesting question, if Labour fail to get all this additional revenue from multinationals and the top 5% of earners, do these policies still happen? Is spending in any way linked to actual performance in terms of getting this income in the door?
Because if you’re taxing the general population you can be pretty sure of your income, but much less so from the groups that Labour are targeting.
- Status