DS9 on blu ray?

[USS KG5]

If you note I said sure it made sense to concentrate on the more urban areas first but as part of the license for 4G, 5G etc.. technology the operators had to expand coverage to 95% of the population. Sure the more rural areas might have to wait longer but they wouldn't be left out.

The reality is, basically everyone has electricity, telephones and roads, so eventually basically everyone will have reasonably capable internet. The infrastructure just has to catch up.

As you correctly stated, the mobile industry is pushing 4G and 5G when it hasn't rolled out 3G properly yet. BT has no incentive whatsoever to put fibres out to villages in Cornwall, and the government schemes have really just turned into BT slush funds.

Multiple screw ups and issues, but the inevitable should happen, eventually...

 

[MacLeod]

Well the BDUK project is rectifing the years of underinvestment in the less populated areas. Still waiting for it to hit me, my last speed improvement was 9 years ago to ASDLMax but my excahnge area is down for FTTC/P so it looks like they are future proving it to a cerain degree.

 

[Squiggy]

As you correctly stated, the mobile industry is pushing 4G and 5G when it hasn't rolled out 3G properly yet.

What do you mean "properly"? Who said that 100% of a population has to have 3G before you can start rolling out the next tier?

As of 2013, EE, Three, O2 covered 90% of the UK. Vodaphone covered just under 89%.

What do you expect them to do?

BT has no incentive whatsoever to put fibres out to villages in Cornwall, and the government schemes have really just turned into BT slush funds.

Well, laying down any sort of communications line isn't cheap. It has to be cost effective for a company (even with the help of the government) to do it at all.

It isn't a charity. When the process gets cheap enough to run it out to low populated areas, then it will get run out to unpopulated areas.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I was told about 2 years ago by BT Openreach that my very rural exchange was going to be upgraded to FTTC before now. Nothing's happened. The exchange isn't shown for any tech improvements at all. My village doesn't have cable and never will.

I'm stuck with 5mpbs if I'm lucky. Some days I can barely stream HD on BBC iPlayer.

 

[MacLeod]

As you correctly stated, the mobile industry is pushing 4G and 5G when it hasn't rolled out 3G properly yet.

What do you mean "properly"? Who said that 100% of a population has to have 3G before you can start rolling out the next tier?

As of 2013, EE, Three, O2 covered 90% of the UK. Vodaphone covered just under 89%.

What do you expect them to do?

BT has no incentive whatsoever to put fibres out to villages in Cornwall, and the government schemes have really just turned into BT slush funds.

Well, laying down any sort of communications line isn't cheap. It has to be cost effective for a company (even with the help of the government) to do it at all.

It isn't a charity. When the process gets cheap enough to run it out to low populated areas, then it will get run out to unpopulated areas.

In most cases you pay same for line rental no matter where you live. It is not unreasnonable to expect to have the same level of service available. Sure it might cost more to upgrade in varying locations, and yes those areas might have to wait longer but it's not unreasnable to say those locations should be upgraded at some point. Now if we had differential pricing that would be a different matter. So those areas which aren't invested in the cost to the end user decreases over time. Which would provide an incentive to upgrade those areas.

In general the more you pay the higher the quality you expect, in the case of rural broadband the opposite is often true you pay a higher cost and recieve an inferior service.

Both rural and urban areas deserve to be treated equally as they both need each other. We talk about things like the North/South devide, the digital divide etc.. but if you are on the haves side many have the opinion I've got mine which is all that matters, whilst those on the have nots are simple asking for the same as the haves. And what is really wrong with that? If companies won't step upto the mark then it's upto the regulators and Government to step in and make sure they do.

I was told about 2 years ago by BT Openreach that my very rural exchange was going to be upgraded to FTTC before now. Nothing's happened. The exchange isn't shown for any tech improvements at all. My village doesn't have cable and never will.

I'm stuck with 5mpbs if I'm lucky. Some days I can barely stream HD on BBC iPlayer.

Count yourself lucky, during peak times I struggle to stream even low quality SD content. And it has nothing to do with distance from exhcnage because in the early hours 03:00ish I can easily get 7Mbs and as I'm on ADSLMAx my top speed is 8Mbs so it's more likely to be congestion.

It might yet still come Bear, it seems as those areas where Openreach have come across issues during a survey have been moved towards the end of the rollouts. In the case of mine I expect is down to blockages in the ducts as power provision isn't an issue for the new fibre cabinet which is located only a dozen or so yards away from the electricity substation. There might also have been some cherry picking invovled as well to get the easier areas done first to make the figures look good. Whilst what really should have happend with BDUK rollout is the slower/more underinvested areas should have been first.

 

[DragonQ]

As HEVC takes hold over the next year or two, bandwidth requirements will actually decrease for anything below UHD. Decent quality SD can be had at ~1 Mbps, 1080p at ~4 Mbps.

Although if Netflix 1080p is already only 5 Mbps AVC that sounds pretty crap.

 

[USS KG5]

As you correctly stated, the mobile industry is pushing 4G and 5G when it hasn't rolled out 3G properly yet.

What do you mean "properly"? Who said that 100% of a population has to have 3G before you can start rolling out the next tier?

In my experience, even where the area has officially got 3G coverage, it is often spotty intermittent and still quite slow. This even applies in the larger areas. This is partly to do with the technology, to work reliably the 3G technology requires a ridiculous density of masts.

Also, there are three networks, for the same money you could easily have covered 99% of the population with a single network.

As of 2013, EE, Three, O2 covered 90% of the UK. Vodaphone covered just under 89%.

What do you expect them to do?

So glad you asked!

1. Develop the 5G network as infrastructure, i.e. ONE network covering all practical areas of the UK, maybe not 100% of the population, but everywhere with mains electricity.

2. Combine the above with service offerings for landline broadband, essentially providing seamless network connectivity across all devices.

3. The industry should also be regulated as infrastructure. While OFGEN are almost as useless as OFCOM they are taken more seriously by the industry. Internet access at sensible speed is becoming an essential in the home and already is beyond essential for business. It should be treated as such.

Well, laying down any sort of communications line isn't cheap. It has to be cost effective for a company (even with the help of the government) to do it at all.

Well that is basically what I was saying. Eventually, the connectivity will come, just like the telephone network did and the electricity grid did.

It isn't a charity. When the process gets cheap enough to run it out to low populated areas, then it will get run out to unpopulated areas.

I draw the line at unpopulated areas personally

 

[MacLeod]

Well the Universal Service Commitment(USC) is for 2Mbps, yet a recent report says it should be 10Mbps.

But perhaps taking the network out of the hands of the operators might be the way to go like Network Rail (though that might not be the best example) NAtional Grid might be a better example. So in theory all areas which are covered by 2G would eventually recieve 3G then 4G then 5G and so on. But remember these telecom companies make billions in post-tax profits. So yes they could easily afford to upgrade all areas over a period of years. So instead of making £2bn a year they make £1.8bn a year.

All the government has to do is pass a law that says companies must provide the same level of service to all customers regardless of location.

 

[BillJ]

All the government has to do is pass a law that says companies must provide the same level of service to all customers regardless of location.

Then either rates will skyrocket for everyone or the companies will get out of the business. It isn't fair to make a company run lines to eight houses out in the middle of nowhere. They'll never recover the costs.

Having limitations is the cost of living anywhere.

 

[USS KG5]

I think BillJ is right, a law to provide the same service everywhere is Overkill. It is also a bit impractical, simple limitations of technology apply as well - current broadband technologies are almost totally limited by distance, they will always return higher speeds in densely populated areas with lots of telephone exchanges.

There are two things that mitigate the entire issue anyway, as I touched on earlier: -

1. The baseline will improve with technology, currently as has been stated we are all promised 2Mbps and probably need 10Mbps. Current technology limits us in this respect, but BT are currently testing new technologies that should deliver far better average speeds over the years. Combined with new compression technology used for streaming, expect basically everyone to have access to HD streaming within the decade.

2. The various networks will eventually have to converge and work together because in order to sell their products they will need to provide what they promise - i.e. universal, fast access to online content. In the end, the reality that no-one can provide this economically by themselves will cause a greater level of co-operation.

All IMHO of course.

 

[Squiggy]

All the government has to do is pass a law that says companies must provide the same level of service to all customers regardless of location.

Oh? Is that all? They might as well pass a saying everyone gets a 6-core Mac Pro for free and if you're too far from an Apple Store to pick it up they'll deliver it, install it, and train you how to use it.

 

[Lance]

We're seeing different cultures at play in this discussion.

In Britain (and in most Commonwealth countries), government regulation is the way things get done. MacLeod speaks from this perspective. We've come to accept, albeit grudgingly, that there are times when our government says "You are all are gonna do it *THIS WAY* from now on, got it?". And we obey meekly, like sheep. That can be good. It can be bad, but it has benefits too.

For most of you (I'm assuming most of you), being Americans, the idea of government stepping in and telling an industry, or the public, how it should do business is tantamount to fascism. It's a very different cultural frame-work. I'm sure it all stems from all those 'Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!' birth pangs. There's an innate sense of distrust of government regulation in America.

As a demonstration, it's like the whole discussion I remember we had on here a few years ago about measurement systems: here in our Commonwealth nations, we all switched to Metric because our governments told us to. Simple as that. In the USA, however, when the Federal government tried something similar in the 1970s, the general public told the government to shove their Metric system up their ass. That's the cultural difference I refer to.

 

[Squiggy]

Au contraire...I think the US government doesn't regulate enough. But saying "all the government has to do is pass a law" is simplifying everything to the extreme.

Her Majesty's government passed a law saying that 90% had to have 3G by whatever date. That didn't happen. It almost happened, but it didn't happen.

They can pass whatever laws they want but if these companies don't do it they'll pay whatever paltry fine the government will throw out and continue doing whatever they were doing.

So, while "the government has to do is pass a law" might be true, all the company has to do is actually do it. And if you're unfortunate enough to live in an area mostly populated by sheep then you're not going to be on the forefront of technology. You might be last on the list to get whatever the government said to do.

 

[Lance]

It's true what you say, and (sadly) rather regrettable. It does tend to lead towards another discussion about the decline of rural communities and the influx of people towards living in urbanised population centres... possibly to the detriment of the human race... because why wouldn't people choose to live in a city when they can't get access to something as fundamental as decent internet speeds in the country? Of course, there's a massive socialogical impact there. And ultimately, that is a purview of government. I'm not sure there's a government on this Earth that has the balls to look far enough into the future to see the impact that the short-term-solutions of today will bring with them...

I used to live in a place enough distance from anywhere that I had no option but dial-up. I couldn't even get a mobile phone signal, let alone anything else. While that is becoming increasingly less common, there are still areas on Earth where this is true, and people living there who look enviously at their urban neighbours and say, "Y'know what, I'mma move my wagon to town". (I can say this with a sense of irony; it's exactly what I did )

There needs to be something done to bring non-urbanised areas along for the ride. If nothing else, I hope that media companies don't jump on the 'digital only' bandwagon, without realising that a potentially sizable portion of their current consumer base may still not yet be able to make that journey with them. Then we shall see whether physical media is really dead or not...

 

[BillJ]

It's true what you say, and (sadly) rather regrettable. It does tend to lead towards another discussion about the decline of rural communities and the influx of people towards living in urbanised population centres... possibly to the detriment of the human race... because why wouldn't people choose to live in a city when they can't get access to something as fundamental as decent internet speeds in the country?

I wouldn't say internet is a fundamental need.

But it all comes down to tradeoffs when choosing where to live. I live in the city parking can be shitty at times, people are too close, there's no school bus to take my kid to school in the bad weather because school is less than a half-mile away. But I have great internet speeds and am usually first in line when streets need to be cleared or utilities go down.

 

[Lance]

It's true what you say, and (sadly) rather regrettable. It does tend to lead towards another discussion about the decline of rural communities and the influx of people towards living in urbanised population centres... possibly to the detriment of the human race... because why wouldn't people choose to live in a city when they can't get access to something as fundamental as decent internet speeds in the country?

I wouldn't say internet is a fundamental need.

But it all comes down to tradeoffs when choosing where to live. I live in the city parking can be shitty at times, people are too close, there's no school bus to take my kid to school in the bad weather because school is less than a half-mile away. But I have great internet speeds and am usually first in line when streets need to be cleared or utilities go down.

I agree, provisionally, but with the caveat that I do think the internet has become increasingly more essential as many functional parts of society now assume some degree of internet access on a basic level already.

For example, a friend of mine recently applied for something. Upon seeing a section of the form that required an email address, and informing the relevant officer that she did not have one, she was told point-blank that she'd need to find a way to create one, otherwise her application will be rejected. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. It was straight down the line.

I don't see this as a happy development. But it is, unfortunately, ever increasingly a part of the world we now live in.

 

[BillJ]

I agree, provisionally, but with the caveat that I do think the internet has become increasingly more essential as many functional parts of society now assume some degree of internet access on a basic level already.

I can agree to that. The internet for running streaming video at 1080p isn't a fundamental need.

 

[Lance]

I agree, provisionally, but with the caveat that I do think the internet has become increasingly more essential as many functional parts of society now assume some degree of internet access on a basic level already.

I can agree to that. The internet for running streaming video at 1080p isn't a fundamental need.

I'm with you 100% on that one, friend.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I agree, provisionally, but with the caveat that I do think the internet has become increasingly more essential as many functional parts of society now assume some degree of internet access on a basic level already.

I can agree to that. The internet for running streaming video at 1080p isn't a fundamental need.

Hence why physical media still has plenty of life left in it, although only for people who don't know how to download torrents. That said, I'll admit to buying two Blu-rays for £10 on one of Amazon.co.uk's specials the other day. First non Trek Blu discs I've bought in a loooooooooooong time, and only cos War Games wasn't available on BR rip from the good ship Lollipop.

 

[Relayer1]

I wouldn't say internet is a fundamental need.

Are you the parent of a teenager ?