GrahamH wrote:Jumping this out of the Brexit topic...

ronmcd wrote:See, this is a problem. "full-fibre". Boris incidentally was slated a couple of months ago for promising everyone would have full fibre.

Because of what full fibre actually is. I make my living on the internet, I don't have full fibre, it's not required and it's not cost effective. How do you replace the copper from the central cabinets with fibre to every single premises? Yikes. But that is apparently what Corbyn is promising, for free?

Only 8-10% of premises in the UK are connected to full-fibre broadband. It's 97% in Japan.

8 in 10 of us experienced internet problems in the last year.

So we'll make the very fastest full-fibre broadband free to everybody, in every home in our country.

That's real change.

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status ... 3059582979

Obviously he doesn't mean "full fibre" is the sense you suggest there. The likely sense is that everyone (hence "full") would get what is currently called "fibre broadband". I've got "fibre broadband" but there's no fibre optic cable terminating on my property.

BT offer "fibre broadband" with speeds from 36Mb to 300mB.

Yes, fibre broadband, but the figures Boris and then Corbyn have used have been about "Full Fibre" explicitly, ie fibre to the cabinet, AND fibre to the property.

I have "fibre" now, I don't have full fibre. The 8 - 10% figures Corbyn is using are Full Fibre.

Btw he's right, we are way behind on full fibre, but it was extremely ambitious when Boris promised everyone could get it - they won't, see the Geography of Scotland for example - and it's even more impossible what Corbyn is proposing. Fibre yes, well most people, but full fibre no.

How feasible is Labour's free broadband plan and part-nationalisation of BT?

Labour’s pledge to provide free full-fibre broadband to every home and business in the UK, including part-nationalising BT and introducing a tax on the tech giants to help pay for it, is an eye-catching offer to potential voters – but raises a host of questions about the feasibility of such a move.

So what is full-fibre broadband and why is it important to the UK?
Full-fibre networks use fibre optic cables to deliver broadband directly to homes and business premises at speeds of more than one gigabit per second – which allows an HD movie to be downloaded in less than 50 seconds.

Until recently the government had been focused on rolling out only “superfast” broadband, which uses a slower mix of part-fibre, part-copper wire to homes, which has much slower download speeds.

They are explicitly talking full fibre.

Boris rolled back on his previous proposals:

When Boris Johnson came to power earlier this year he made a bold pledge to accelerate the rollout of full fibre, which the government has referred to as the gold standard of broadband, across the UK by 2025. His £5bn plan – to deliver full fibre nationwide eight years quicker than original government planning – was criticised by experts as not achievable.

Johnson subsequently watered down the plan to achieve “gigabit” speeds, which would allow the inclusion of speed upgrades by companies including Virgin Media, which are not actually full fibre.

Broadband is already a sore topic in Scottish politics. It's a UK govt responsibility, but they don't give a fuck about the landscape and problems of implementing broadband for all here. So the Scottish govt have had to invest more to make up the shortfall, and then Scottish Tories and Theresa May claimed the Scottish govt werent doing enough. lol.

So the idea that Boris or Corbyn from #10 Downing St would magic up "FULL" fibre broadband for all, in Scotland?

Okay.

I see Boris - the very same one who wants to build a bridge to Ireland through a trench filled with unexploded munitions and to build an island in the Thames from scratch, then put a third Heathrow runway on it - is calling Labour's plan a crackpot scheme.

I assume that means he loves it then.

With the backdrop of the difficulty getting fibre broadband across Scotland currently, and the political football it became (for a reserved issue), you can imagine the scepticism over "full fibre".

Thommo wrote:I see Boris - the very same one who wants to build a bridge to Ireland through a trench filled with unexploded munitions and to build an island in the Thames from scratch, then put a third Heathrow runway on it - is calling Labour's plan a crackpot scheme.

I assume that means he loves it then.

Big Boris announcement tomorrow - Full Fibre connected to every person*! Take it with you everywhere*!

*restrictions may apply

All politicking aside, serious investment in broadband (and yes, it will overrun its budget like all infrastructure projects do, and yes remote areas will have extra complications and undoubtedly shortfalls in end result like they usually do) is actually a sound policy. The internet is the cornerstone of the digital economy and the UK is well behind on rolling out new technology.

Of course there are political issues with who one trusts to get it done and whether one thinks it will be competently managed, or will provide fuel for a bevy of legal disputes and disincentives for investment, but at least it's a sensible thing to be talking about and aiming to get done one way or another.

THIS, is what labour are facing whenever you hear anyone claim that labour supporters are antisemitic. If you question the state of Israel you're accused of Jew hatred.

The question that the EHRC will answer in due course is whether that is fairly representative or not. Are all accusations unfair, or just some of them.

You may be right about "full fibre broadband" Ron, but there does seem to be some ambiguity about the promise.

The Guardian reported:

The scheme would be a radical shift in provision of broadband services, which are currently provided by companies at an average cost per household of about £30 a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sses-in-uk

That isn't for "full fibre" to your door, is it?
I don't even see such a service on offer from BT.
And it seems clear that BT OpenReach is the entity to be nationalised.

Here is one provider of Gb broadband, but that is at £200 /month ans seems to be FTTC

An of course there is a lot of non-fibre broadband about.

Providing 67Mb to all is one thing, FTTP 1Gb is quite a different proposition.

I don't get much of a sense that the politicians or journalists know the difference.


South Korea was mentioned.

As of 2017, South Korea had the fastest average internet connection in the world at 28.6 Mbit/s, according to the report State of the Internet published by Akamai Technologies.[7] South Korea's speed is four times faster than the world average of 7.0 Mbit/s.[8] It is important to note that 100 Mbit/s services are the average standard in urban South Korean homes and the country is rapidly rolling out 1Gbit/s connections or 1,024 Mbit/s, at $20 per month,[9] which is roughly 142 times as fast as the world average and 79 times as fast as the average speed in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_ ... rnet_speed

That average 28.6 Mb/s would fit FTTC in the main with a move to FTTP into the future.

A good mix might be free 30Mb/s for all and the option of 500mb or 1Gb on subscription.

Thommo wrote:The question that the EHRC will answer in due course is whether that is fairly representative or not. Are all accusations unfair, or just some of them.

I have no doubt that it is not representative of labour MEMBERS. I recall hearing an interview with someone on the topic of how labour had dealt with complaints. Of 10 complaints raised, I think 8 were just comments from randomers on social media who had no link to the party beyond claiming support. I'm sure someone with the time and interest could either clarify or correct me on that.

mattthomas wrote:THIS, is what labour are facing whenever you hear anyone claim that labour supporters are antisemitic. If you question the state of Israel you're accused of Jew hatred.

AS.png

Does that fall under this IHRA example?

 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Is calling Israel "an apartheid state" anti-Semitic by the IHRA definition?
If so, should it be?

GrahamH wrote:

mattthomas wrote:THIS, is what labour are facing whenever you hear anyone claim that labour supporters are antisemitic. If you question the state of Israel you're accused of Jew hatred.

AS.png

Does that fall under this IHRA example?

 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Is calling Israel "an apartheid state" anti-Semitic by the IHRA definition?
If so, should it be?

I'm not so sure that "Claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" can be neatly transposed with referring to the current state of the country as operating a form of apartheid. Israel itself is not a Jews only country so I wouldn't ever see the state itself as a racist endeavor. But the way they operate certainly irks me to the nth degree.

Re: BT & Internet

via The Register

BT launches all-singing converged 5G product for... oof... £58 a month

Home broadband, mobile data package part of IP-only move

BT has launched a new 5G mobile and fixed-line home broadband service, dubbed Halo, in a bid to muscle into the converged market.

The service is available from a mere £57.99 per month, although existing 5G customers with BT Plus plans will be automatically upgraded to benefit from Halo.

It is the latest move towards BT's plan for an all-IP network, with plans under way to decommission its copper cables by 2027.

... more @ link

5G networks run at 10 Gb/s.

mattthomas wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

mattthomas wrote:THIS, is what labour are facing whenever you hear anyone claim that labour supporters are antisemitic. If you question the state of Israel you're accused of Jew hatred.

AS.png

Does that fall under this IHRA example?

 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Is calling Israel "an apartheid state" anti-Semitic by the IHRA definition?
If so, should it be?

I'm not so sure that "Claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" can be neatly transposed with referring to the current state of the country as operating a form of apartheid. Israel itself is not a Jews only country so I wouldn't ever see the state itself as a racist endeavor. But the way they operate certainly irks me to the nth degree.

The exact phrase was "Israel's apartheid state" followed up with "...adjudicate what is racist..."
Apartheid is racist. An "apartheid state" == a "racist state".
Isn't a "racist state" a "racist endeavour"?

IF it is true that Israel is an apartheid state that must mean the state of Israel treats its people in a racially discriminatory way.

Apartheid South Africa was never "a whites only country" so I don't think "a Jews only country" is relevant here.

I'm not saying that I think Israel is or is not racist or endorsing particular definitions of anti-Semitism. I'm wondering of the tweet you referenced falls under a particular definition of anti-Semitism or not.

Presumably you think it absolutely does not or should not, given your post.

GrahamH wrote:

mattthomas wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

mattthomas wrote:THIS, is what labour are facing whenever you hear anyone claim that labour supporters are antisemitic. If you question the state of Israel you're accused of Jew hatred.

AS.png

Does that fall under this IHRA example?

 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Is calling Israel "an apartheid state" anti-Semitic by the IHRA definition?
If so, should it be?

I'm not so sure that "Claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" can be neatly transposed with referring to the current state of the country as operating a form of apartheid. Israel itself is not a Jews only country so I wouldn't ever see the state itself as a racist endeavor. But the way they operate certainly irks me to the nth degree.

The exact phrase was "Israel's apartheid state" followed up with "...adjudicate what is racist..."
Apartheid is racist. An "apartheid state" == a "racist state".
Isn't a "racist state" a "racist endeavour"?

IF it is true that Israel is an apartheid state that must mean the state of Israel treats its people in a racially discriminatory way.

Apartheid South Africa was never "a whites only country" so I don't think "a Jews only country" is relevant here.

I'm not saying that I think Israel is or is not racist or endorsing particular definitions of anti-Semitism. I'm wondering of the tweet you referenced falls under a particular definition of anti-Semitism or not.

Presumably you think it absolutely does not or should not, given your post.

The definition was "the existence of a state of Israel" being racist. To my mind it is the way in which Israel is run that I have issues with, I have no issues with there being a state of Israel, nor did that poster allude to the same; and I think the disconnect between the two is where many claims like the screenshot I posted find their sweet spot to label anyone as antisemitic.

mattthomas wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

mattthomas wrote:The definition was "the existence of a state of Israel" being racist.

I was reading it as Israel existing as a racist state, the endeavour being the maintenance of the state. But it could be meant that the racism is the endeavour.
That could be taken to mean that Israel exists in order to be racist that, say, the state was founded, is maintained, in order to persecute Palestinians. That would be absurd but it would count as anti-Semitic. That is not at all what anyone criticising Israel as an "apartheid state" is likely to mean, is it?

Perhaps the IHRA could be clearer in their examples of what is and is not anti-semitic.

Thommo wrote:All politicking aside, serious investment in broadband (and yes, it will overrun its budget like all infrastructure projects do, and yes remote areas will have extra complications and undoubtedly shortfalls in end result like they usually do) is actually a sound policy. The internet is the cornerstone of the digital economy and the UK is well behind on rolling out new technology.

Of course there are political issues with who one trusts to get it done and whether one thinks it will be competently managed, or will provide fuel for a bevy of legal disputes and disincentives for investment, but at least it's a sensible thing to be talking about and aiming to get done one way or another.

True, I don't have any problems with governments prioritising it.

GrahamH wrote:You may be right about "full fibre broadband" Ron, but there does seem to be some ambiguity about the promise.

The Guardian reported:

The scheme would be a radical shift in provision of broadband services, which are currently provided by companies at an average cost per household of about £30 a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sses-in-uk

That isn't for "full fibre" to your door, is it?

It's in the first paragraph

Labour has promised to provide free “full-fibre” broadband for every home and business by part-nationalising BT.

There's no ambiguity about what Full Fibre is. Fibre broadband is what most of us already have, not Full Fibre:

... 95% can get 30Mbit/s "superfast" downloads

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49728302

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:You may be right about "full fibre broadband" Ron, but there does
It's in the first paragraph

Labour has promised to provide free “full-fibre” broadband for every home and business by part-nationalising BT.

There's no ambiguity about what Full Fibre is. Fibre broadband is what most of us already have, not Full Fibre:

I wasn't suggesting ambiguity in in what full fibre is but in whether people using the term actually meant that. Indeed, you don't need FTTP to get the speeds some are discussing, as the article you linked mentions.


But I think you are right. They do mean that. It is already the goal of Open Reach for 2025
https://www.openreach.com/full-fibre-impact

But:

"[Deployment of] fibre will need to grow at a faster rate if it is to reach the 100% target in the next six years," said Fiona Vanier from the consultants CCS Insight.

So Labour are probably intending to nationalise that very program that exists to ensure a full and rapid roll-out and prevent serious inequalities that a pricy private business model would create.

Johnson promises subsidies to the private companies to get FFTP to the Tories in the villages in the leafy shires, but most won't be able to afford it. That could be a problem.

95% can get 30Mbit/s "superfast" downloads, the same as four months ago

But:

How many premises have subscribed to superfast connections?
Superfast broadband availability doesn’t mean that all lines are actually receiving superfast speeds, because this often requires consumers to subscribe to specific packages: Ofcom reported that in 2018, while 94% of UK homes and businesses were in areas where superfast, or better, broadband is available, only 45% of homes are subscribing to these services.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/sc ... band-faqs/

So there's the big potential gain by increasing from 45% connected, more than the 6% that don't have access.