• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

'Third of UK postcodes' have slow broadband speeds

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    'Third of UK postcodes' have slow broadband speeds

    BBC News - 'Third of UK postcodes' have slow broadband speeds

    Britain might be riding the wave of a super-fast broadband revolution, but for 49% who get less than the national average broadband speed, the wave isn't causing so much a splash as a ripple," said Julia Stent, director of telecoms at uSwitch.

    Well why don't we try to reduce the percentage of those who get less than average broadband speeds? (I wonder who will be the first pedant to post something involving mean, median and mode?)

    And I bet most of those with below average speeds live outside in rural areas. I they want better speed then why not move to an urban area?

    #2
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    BBC News - 'Third of UK postcodes' have slow broadband speeds

    Britain might be riding the wave of a super-fast broadband revolution, but for 49% who get less than the national average broadband speed, the wave isn't causing so much a splash as a ripple," said Julia Stent, director of telecoms at uSwitch.

    Well why don't we try to reduce the percentage of those who get less than average broadband speeds? (I wonder who will be the first pedant to post something involving mean, median and mode?)

    And I bet most of those with below average speeds live outside in rural areas. I they want better speed then why not move to an urban area?
    How about forcing the service providers to only charge for the speed achieved. That way the provider has an incentive to provide.
    Just saying like.

    where there's chaos, there's cash !

    I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!

    Lowering the tone since 1963

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
      BBC News - 'Third of UK postcodes' have slow broadband speeds

      Britain might be riding the wave of a super-fast broadband revolution, but for 49% who get less than the national average broadband speed, the wave isn't causing so much a splash as a ripple," said Julia Stent, director of telecoms at uSwitch.

      Well why don't we try to reduce the percentage of those who get less than average broadband speeds? (I wonder who will be the first pedant to post something involving mean, median and mode?)

      And I bet most of those with below average speeds live outside in rural areas. I they want better speed then why not move to an urban area?
      I live in an Urban'ish area and I would be lucky to get 0.5Mbit via ADSL. Went to V****n Media and am now on 10Mbit and will be upgraded to 20Mbit in a few months time. If I get a new modem (for free), I hope to upgrade to the 120Mbit service when I boom again.
      If your company is the best place to work in, for a mere £500 p/d, you can advertise here.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Arturo Bassick View Post
        How about forcing the service providers to only charge for the speed achieved. That way the provider has an incentive to provide.
        Or move to billing by volume, or 95th percentile utilization like the big boys.
        While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
          49% ... get less than the national average broadband speed
          I see you already commented but it's nice to see the majority already get better than average

          Originally posted by Arturo Bassick View Post
          How about forcing the service providers to only charge for the speed achieved. That way the provider has an incentive to provide.
          If they are responsible for the infrastructure, sure. Otherwise, it's hardly your ISP's fault your road has a dodgy old cable. You wouldn't expect Bugatti to give you a discount on your Veyron because you live in London and can never get above 30mph.
          Originally posted by MaryPoppins
          I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
          Originally posted by vetran
          Urine is quite nourishing

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by d000hg View Post
            If they are responsible for the infrastructure, sure. Otherwise, it's hardly your ISP's fault your road has a dodgy old cable. You wouldn't expect Bugatti to give you a discount on your Veyron because you live in London and can never get above 30mph.
            It would be my choice to buy the Veyron though wouldn't it. The analogy would be better if I had hired a Veyron to thrash at a race track only to find the track was a muddy field about 1/4 mile around.
            The providers in my area now only offer 8M packages but I am lucky to get 1/2M. Looked at virgin speed checker and best they can do is 5, but they will only provide that if I pay for 20.
            Just saying like.

            where there's chaos, there's cash !

            I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!

            Lowering the tone since 1963

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
              [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17130367]
              And I bet most of those with below average speeds live outside in rural areas. I they want better speed then why not move to an urban area?
              I bet they don't. The countryside, by its nature is sparsely populated. Half the population therefore do not live there. I live a fair distance from the exchange and we get 3mb. I live on a fairly large estate in a village which is about 3 miles from the main town centre. What is needed is for BT to get its @rse into gear and deliver the infrastructure.

              In our town, FTTC rollout dates have been slipping constantly. Every 3 months BT seem to put the date back another 3 months.
              Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

              I preferred version 1!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
                BBC News - 'Third of UK postcodes' have slow broadband speeds

                Britain might be riding the wave of a super-fast broadband revolution, but for 49% who get less than the national average broadband speed, the wave isn't causing so much a splash as a ripple," said Julia Stent, director of telecoms at uSwitch.

                Well why don't we try to reduce the percentage of those who get less than average broadband speeds? (I wonder who will be the first pedant to post something involving mean, median and mode?)

                And I bet most of those with below average speeds live outside in rural areas. I they want better speed then why not move to an urban area?
                In my urban area I get a smidge over 3mb.

                I don't want to move closer to London (which I suspect is what this article actually means...)
                "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
                - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Arturo Bassick View Post
                  It would be my choice to buy the Veyron though wouldn't it. The analogy would be better if I had hired a Veyron to thrash at a race track only to find the track was a muddy field about 1/4 mile around.
                  The providers in my area now only offer 8M packages but I am lucky to get 1/2M. Looked at virgin speed checker and best they can do is 5, but they will only provide that if I pay for 20.
                  You have a choice with your ISP too. You can buy cheap broadband offering lower maximum speeds if you want to.

                  You're NOT paying for 20 anyway... you're paying for them to make 20 available if you have the ability to use it. If people with good exchanges are not getting the maximum that's bad, but a different matter.
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The thing is, ADSL was good because it made use of the existing phone lines that have been lying in the dirt for donkeys' years, and that makes it cheap. If they'd had to dig up the entire country to install proper cabling, everybody would have better / faster / more reliable connections, but we'd all be paying a whole lot more for broadband than we do.

                    So it's crap for some because it's cheap, but also it's cheap because it's crap for some.
                    Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X