We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
If a government can’t run a school meals service or a railway line .... how do expect it to be able to run a country?
sorry johnson36, that should have read danielh
Johnson36, you missed the point totally. Its nothing to do with the size of a country, its got all to do with proving, and there are multiple examples, of why governments should not be involved in running companies. Companies have a board of directors and a CEO who has the final say, governments are run by inept, arrogant, sheltered lives attention seekers which is why it take nearly 300 of them from both sides of the house to pass laws in the UK. Turns out Australia isn't that different.
--------------------------------------------
I don't get how you can compare a vast country like Australia to the the U.K. when it comes to nationalising broadband - johnson36
Fusion, I see you have 6 recommends for your post, so with respect ,I don't get how you can compare a vast country like Australia to the the U.K. when it comes to nationalising broadband. I am dead against Corbyn's idea, but don't compare it to Australia.
BT's Openreach is a legacy of when telecom was nationalised. Its was the golden egg for now parent company BT. Forcing rivals to overpay for its services or do expensive cap ex of installing their own. If I was BT I would have done the same!
That is partly the reason for the overall lack of investment although new cap ex does exist. The Regulator has taken some steps forcing BT to run Openreach as a separate company and things have improved slightly for all except BT and its shareholders. I suspect the logical next step is a forced spin off and to open it up to all. Maybe then the other companies might divert more funds into the upgrades rather than BT's divis.
Im not sure the state "stealing" companies and trying to run them is fair, possibly illegal and generally of poorer quality. Please list all the great nationalised run entities? Normally when the cap ex is needed from the state they have other priorities such as more NHS and Education not sticking a wire in the ground.
I wonder how much cap ex is being spent via all telecos and infrastructure in the UK and how much tax is being brought it too. Offset this against those claims for nationalisation. Extra jobs also seems a fallacy, some transfer of dismissed workers into the state run thing but not extra.
Still we all want more and faster tinternet at the cheapest price and most seem to prioritise this and are willing to pay. Those who dont pay, I suspect dont actually need it. (I did hear two pensioners discussing what would they do with the free broadband, no idea said the other.!) There might be a few who would use it but what not just issue a voucher to spend how you like. For the working person, most have probably got more than this back in personal tax rate changes.
I suspect for many a state controlled internet is a big no no and a privacy/big brother issue and would be happy to pay for the independent alternative that wont get switched off when you criticise the government.
Apart from the Aussies any one else done this?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/labour-free-broadband-threat-bt-155431434.html
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/labour-free-broadband-threat-bt-155431434.html
Fusion
No problem Corbyn getting the Broadband done but he wouldnt need to give it out for free. Likewise we don't get free petrol and free electric and water. We don't need it Free. I've never woke up one day, put my computer on, bought and sold some shares, checked my emails then thought ' I think I should get this broadband for free'. The guy is a complete nutcase.
Try googling Broadband in Australia who pay per MB downloaded, can not access specific sites, cant get speeds unless in cities, had a government that nationalised Broadband and make a total **** of it. Now they install copper and fibre depending upon where you live, no better than before only now its costs a lot more, takes a lot longer and is completely under funded making it next to useless. Yer great idea.
Oh, and would you pay 3p to 5p extra on income tax to pay for the roll out of fibre which will take decades? Instead of saying Government money, replace those words with Tax-payers money, which is the truth as Governments don't have any actual money.
---------------------------------
Free high speed broadband for every household in the UK is not a pipe dream, it's actually achievable with investment and the ability to recruit the best staff from around the globe. - David773
The argument falls apart when you realise corbyn and he's chums will nationalise at a 40% discount to market value if they get the chance. If it's such a good idea, pay shareholders the market rate. If you don't, your an asset striping commy
I understand what you are saying. I just don't understand why he wants to make it free along with all his other freebies. Broadband is not hugely expensive. If you say it is a good thing to Nationalise Openreach then I believe you, but he should collect the revenue from it otherwise it's a hell of a cost going forward. Everyone that is paying for it today will quite happily pay Corbyn for it. Why give done thing away free that doesn't need to be ?. What next Nationalise BP and give everyone £30 worth or free petrol a month ?
Johnson36 have you actually studied the proposals or have you just read the headlines in The Mail/Telegraph ?
I am not a Labour voter, that does not mean ( as a VF shareholder ) that I cannot give them credit when they are able to identify a problem and suggest a solution.
BT cannot, and clearly will not, provide the massive sums needed to fix Openreach. It is extremely unlikely another private company would do so either. This is massively impacting 4G rollout in rural areas. What we are essentially creating is a 2 tier system where high speed connectivity becomes the preserve of the City of London and a few other select places, when we need high speed connectivity for business nationwide.
Despite VF buying Cable and Wireless it still relies heavily on Openreach, as do most of the other companies that piggy back off its network. I am not sure if it is still the case, but as recently as 2017 it was reportedly the biggest customer Openreach had- so is essentially pumping money hand over fist into a rival business. That is commercial suicide in the long run.
As stated, most other operators would rejoice at Openreach leaving BT ownership, and have been lobbying the Government long and hard to force the break up, especially in the light of the BT purchase of EE.
In terms of cost, the loss to HMRC is dwarfed by the current cost to the UK of having to function on broadband speeds one would normally associate with Third Word countries, especially outside of our major cities.
All of this before one takes into consideration the loss to the industry of skilled workers from the EU who have packed up and gone elsewhere to work, either because of the weak pound or because they have no right to remain. There is now a chronic skills shortage across the board and it seems like a colleague is leaving to go and work in Germany or Spain every other week at present, staff we cannot afford to lose.
The proposals from Labour are not fully fleshed out, and some of their ideas are not fully formed, but at least they are actually listening to what people in the industry are saying rather than ignoring them as this government has done for the last 4 years. Free high speed broadband for every household in the UK is not a pipe dream, it's actually achievable with investment and the ability to recruit the best staff from around the globe.
Naturally there would be limits to the free offer, with charges proposed for households or businesses that exceed an initial limit. I have not seen anything that suggested unlimited date- that would be madness
As an industry we keep waiting for the Tories to respond, but all we get is some vague promise about investment around connectivity by 2025 ( which they have already rowed back from ) but with no explanation as to how that can be delivered.
Why didn't Corbyn just say that he would Nationalise BT openreach and finish rolling out high speed broadband much quicker than BT are doing it.
Why did he have to promise to give it free to everyone and every business ? That means companies like Amazon will get it free, right ?. An absolutely ridiculous promise. As well as the cost of doing it, what about the loss of corporation tax that the HMRC Currently collects on the whole of the UKs broadband payments. Also what about the job losses at the other broadband providers ?.
David,
A quality, balanced post. I'm not involved here since exiting for well known reasons as stated in my past comments. But I think you instil some much needed objectivity, rather than the usual scapegoating we see on most BBs. - Regards.
Some seriously misguided comments on this thread in relation to broadband. For the record
1) Openreach is a broken business, almost everyone in the industry knows this
2) Vodafone has long championed Openreach being separated from BT
3) The Vodafone rollout of 4G and 5G in the UK is largely dependent on Openreach upgrading Vodafone and Telefonica masts with fibre optic cable. This is done at a speed determined by Openreach, part of BT who also own EE. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see why VF are not happy with this arrangement.
4) Irrespective of you opinion on Corbyn, Labour at least fundamentally gets the problem here, and has proposed a solution to it. If we carry on with Openreach in BT ownership and being chronically underfunded, the UK will continue to lag behind the rest of the developed world in terms of connectivity. Everyone in the industry knows this which is why some are already openly stating that while privatisation may not resolve all of our problems it as at least an attempt to create a debate around how we solve it.
5) The only thing the Tories have done for the industry is introduce a new Electronic Communications Code. This was meant to make it easier and cheaper for the networks to locate sites and to build them. However it was such a dreadfully drafted piece of legislation it has had the exact opposite effect and caused complete stagnation across the industry as the courts are now having to interpret what the legislation actually means. The early cases that have had a determination have almost exclusively gone against the networks. When they should have been rolling out a 5G network, the operators have spent 18 months in court firefighting. Another defeat in court last week is more than likely the cause of the share price drop, something people on here seem completely oblivious to.
Anyone who thinks the Tories have been good for the industry would do well to look at their share price of the Telecoms companies over the last 4 years. They have actually been a nightmare for VF and the other networks, they don't understand the industry, and have made little or no effort to understand it.
Here we go again - another sudden change in the wrong direction