EU referendum are you in or out

[Absolute_Zero]

https://twitter.com/shaunjlawson/status/1195591241276313600?s=21

So the answer remains: nowhere
(free full-fibre broadband for everyone)

[phattslagg]

Yes, it would be awful. I love having to pay for it, then shopping around for a better deal every couple of years. I really wish I could pay a toll for all the roads I drive on, too.

[Barney]

No I don’t think we should be more paranoid about our data in Labour’s hands, vs a fascistic far right government running a virtual police state with a figurehead who can’t utter a true statement.

It's not Labour I'm worried about. It's the inevitable shift from Labour back to the Tories once Labour fall out of favour again.

[Cloudane]

I suppose it's worth a shot if it's Openreach they're on about, they can't do much more of a half-arsed job. Mind, the Tories are promising full fibre as well which is my main grumble (FTTC was always stupid), I don't really care how it's done except that I'd rather it's funded by the rich than the poor which is where voting Labour comes in.

While they're at it they should nationalise some electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Start with Ecotricity's Electric Highway and put something decent in the motorway services, they can't possibly do a worse job (unless they decide to abandon AC Type 2 or hand the keys to Instavolt, from my perspective)

[Rubisco]

Yes, it would be awful. I love having to pay for it, then shopping around for a better deal every couple of years. I really wish I could pay a toll for all the roads I drive on, too.

You do pay a toll, it's called petrol.

[gilesgoat]

Why wait. when investment now would stimulate enterprise and make us more competitive.. ?

To be clear, it's not BT but Openreach that bonds would be traded on.

Which is pretty much a monopoly service anyway.

Right now we've got sub-Romania standard internet infrastructure, and Openreach aren't exacgtly enamoured by the IT community - who seem to be responding positively to the proposals.

Really ??

... but but ... we are in Wales in the middle of nowhere and we have fibre .. and it even works quite well !

Yep..

Well according to variouos metrics.. UK seems to be eclispsed by South Korea.. horrible " communist " scanivdnivian coutnries, and some eastern european nations..

https://www.speedtest.net/global-index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ion_speeds

Well .. "maybe I am thinking old" but I think that 30 Mbits are NOT a bad speed at all .. I would dare to say "enough for most uses".

One thing I DEFINTELY would reccomed is DO NOT LOOK AT SPEED ALONE !

Look about "reliability" "service" "support" ..

I am NOT at all a believer of "things for free" as I REALLY believe that "there's NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH" ..

Also broadband itself is not really "that expensive/bad" .. what is LOT worse are all those BLOODY FIXED TAXES JUST TO HAVE THE LINE !!! that are INDEPENDENT of your usage or not of the internet.

Sure ... "they can give you internet for free", all they have to do is put 10 pounds more on those fixed taxes and voila' ...

But anyway really "those things cominf from the government for free" are NEVER free, time will come you'll have to pay HARD for them in one way or another trust me ...

And then "you can't complain a thing" .. because they are free ...

[gilesgoat]

I suppose it's worth a shot if it's Openreach they're on about, they can't do much more of a half-arsed job. Mind, the Tories are promising full fibre as well which is my main grumble (FTTC was always stupid), I don't really care how it's done except that I'd rather it's funded by the rich than the poor which is where voting Labour comes in.

While they're at it they should nationalise some electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Start with Ecotricity's Electric Highway and put something decent in the motorway services, they can't possibly do a worse job (unless they decide to abandon AC Type 2 or hand the keys to Instavolt, from my perspective)

Remember nationalisation is good as long as there's a government really capable to manage properly all the things for the greater good .. otherwise is HELL .. ..

.. do you trust the current government and the others that possibly will come ? .. With Boris at the horizon ? ..

[Rubisco]

I don't really care how it's done except that I'd rather it's funded by the rich than the poor which is where voting Labour comes in.

Corporation tax isn't a tax on the rich.

[Dio]

Indeed. The rich "avoid" CT enthusiastically.

[Cloudane]

If only there was some way to address tax avoidance, rather than shrugging and just voting for Tories.

Still, one of my best mates who is quite poor / low paid and is going to be utterly fucked in a year or two when his office is due to close (he works in the public sector in the face of heavy culling under the Tories) is also a keen Tory voter so.... whatever. People will learn their lessons in another decade or two.

[Rubisco]

Indeed. The rich "avoid" CT enthusiastically.

They avoid income tax too. Even if they didn't it also isn't a tax on the rich, it's a tax on the getting-richer. A social mobility tax.

And people wonder why the gap between rich and poor is widening when all we have are arguments over the degree to which social mobility is taxed.

[tufty]

Remember nationalisation is good as long as there's a government really capable to manage properly all the things for the greater good .. otherwise is HELL .. ..

.. do you trust the current government and the others that possibly will come ? .. With Boris at the horizon ? ..

Done in any way sensibly, nationalisation doesn't mean boris running everything. A nationalised company, at its most basic, is a company where the only shareholder is the state, and where the shareholder does what a real shareholder should do - takes a part of the benefits whilst not bleeding the company dry in good times, and feeds money back into the company in bad times.

It can be said that nationalised companies become, by the fact that they have the state propping them up, naturally loss-making, but one has to ask if some infrastructure functions *should* be profit-making enterprises, particularly when the massive investment in base infrastructure has been made, not by private investors, but by our, and our parents', and our grandparents', taxes.

So whilst the carving up and privatisation of, for example, British Leyland, was reasonable, doing the same to basic infrastructure such as water, electricity, gas, the railways and telecommunications most certainly was not.

But, y'know, bloody trotskyist...

[merman]

Look at how slow the roll-out of fibre broadband has been with the privatised BT/OpenReach.

Then search online for the article showing how Thatcher's privatisation means we are years behind other countries on Internet speeds.

Now read the economist who says Labour's free broadband plan (£20 billion paid for by taxing the big tech companies, remember) will boost the economy by £60 billion by 2030.


So is "broadband Communism" really so bad?

[Dio]

Well, to a reasonable approximation it's because fibre broadband isn't actually necessary or particularly useful at the moment.

[(o)(o)]

It's a 10 year program.

To level us up with the competition.