Surely it should go on the ISP? Why should little old granny have to pay for it, probably ain't got a 'puter.
Sorry, but if you chose to live in the back end of nowhere, thats your choice. Accept your 512k speeds. Or move.
There are quite a few parts of the country that don't have broadband, and they ain't the back of beyond either.
If anybody needs the kick up the backside, it should be BT.
Why BT? Why not Virgin? Tiscali? Your beloved Be/O2?
None of them will do it becuase its commercial suicide!
BT have been better than most in getting decent speed broadband to many, but at the end of the day, its a private company who's out to make money for its shareholders.
....and there's the problem TB, that's why we are in the dark ages concerning this and that's where we will remain, as the bottom line will always be - shareholders before R&D and subscribers.
A prime example of everything that's bad about a monopoly business.
Do you think it would be better as a public company run by the government? I think we would still think ISDN was good if that was the case. The previous head honcho their, old Dutchboy, did wonders for UK broadband in fairness, putting it in significant areas at a loss. Remember, BT are still constrained by OFCOM, stiffling innovation. This constraint also makes them have to provide a lot of stuff at a loss in some cases, and not allow competitive pricing in others.
Ever wondered why the UK has probably one of the cheapest broadband in the world?
Why pick on BT? Nobody is complaining about any of the other providers?
I know its nice to follow the sheppard and slag of BT, but they have done an awful lot to improve internet connectivity in the UK (probably made some mistakes along the way), and at a loss...........BT have been in the chair for some considerable time and we
still have this confusing and erratic policy concerning broadband connectivity, if that isn't an indication of their lack of drive to establish a network second to none I don't know what is.
It seems to be the case that organisations such as BT won't get off their corporate arses until presented with the threat of competition and the subsequent loss of revenue.
Remember how they had their asses handed to them by Racal back in the early eighties when the two were developing the cellular network? Rather than developing the transmitter site profile in a way to give the best cover available, they simply used their existing inventory of property to site the cell towers thus losing out to Racal, in the race to provide the most widespread signal quality possible.
Another example of backward thinking, driven by financial parochialism and lack of imagination.
Ever wondered why the UK has probably one of the cheapest broadband in the world?Competition. Had there been an absence of it I have no doubt that ISDN would still be considered to be an acceptable standard
Do you think it would be better as a public company run by the government? Not entirely, but I think that the regulatory body should be able to have a greater say in how they conduct their day to day business and have the power to sanction them severely, when concern for shareholders overrode that of subscribers and continued development.
Whether an essential provision such as telecommunications should be entrusted in its entirety to a private body is worthy of continued argument. (As is the provision of energy and of transport)
In my view BT is an able enough sheppard and is quite adept on herding the flock of subscribers to impart an unreasonable amount, for what amounts to an adequate service at best
Author
Topic: Government Levy (Read 4517 times)