back to article UK.gov commits to rip-and-replacing Blighty's wheezing internet pipes

The Ministry of Fun* is wheeling out a new national telecoms strategy (PDF) that aims to slather the UK in healthy full-fat broadband fibre by 2033. Under the plans, the whole of Blighty's copper network will be ripped out and replaced by fibre-optic cables to enhance broadband speeds, as was suggested by a recent survey. New …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not wanting to state the obvious

    How about we turn off Digital TV transmitters simultaneously and use fixed full fibre broadband for streaming HDTV channels and use the redundant frequencies to provide further mobile data bandwidth as part of the rollout of full fibre as each area comes online?

    You could enforce the BBC licence fee 100% too, giving the choice of offering subscription, in funding the BBC, as opposed to the licence fee.

    There, I've raised the BBC funding hot potato and about time.

    Just a thought Ofcom. 10 years too late too, in starting this. Both BT and Ofcom knew this was the outcome in 2009, but kicked the inevitable funding can with FTTC.

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      AJ on, "...streaming HDTV..."

      Eventually, H.269.99 will encode movies down to just a kilobyte. The transmitted data would be something like this: "Movie Action, 2h3m, starring Steven Seagal. 7 fist fights, 2 car chases Bentley Turbo R and Jeep YJ, set in Vienna, Mongolia and Cleveland, character development optional, plot not the slightest bit critical. ..." They'd send this lengthy ASCII string to the next generation of Set Top Box, and a perfectly acceptable movie would come out of the HDMI socket.

      With this, the fight for bandwidth will end.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        @JeffeyPoooh

        Just put the reply in plain English, what you're attempting to say.

        Netflix already streams content to several million customers in UK. By the time Ofcom and Openreach ever get this plan off the ground, pretty much everything will be on-demand/streamed. Those watching scheduled TV will be a very small minority.

        Scheduled TV is pretty much "dead Jim". Pretty stupid to waste the airwaves broadcasting Digital TV, duplicating what can be done by fibre, when hardly anyone will be watching Digital TV broadcasts.

        Remember we're talking a fair few years.

        It's called planning ahead, making the best use of resources.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          Of course with streaming you can only receive what your supplier provides - expect the market to keep fragmenting until you're paying for individual channels.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

            " with streaming you can only receive what your supplier provides"

            Assuming net neutrality has been kicked to the curb, yes.

            In a competitive environment (unlike the US markets), any provider who actually filtered 3rd party streams would find they'd cut their own throats.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          > Scheduled TV is pretty much "dead Jim"

          And for those who want to continue with it, there's always the 12GHz signal.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      Why not just scrap the BBC licence fee and let them behave and compete like every other company?

      1. Tom Chiverton 1

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Because you shouldn't have to be rich to be informed.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          Informed?

          BBC news is entertainment for the liberal left.

      2. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Why not just scrap the BBC licence fee and let them behave and compete like every other company?

        Because ITV.

        Look at the ITV of the 1960s and 1970s and compare with the ITV of today. Without the licence fee, that is what the BBC will turn into.

        M.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          "Look at the ITV of the 1960s and 1970s and compare with the ITV of today. Without the licence fee, that is what the BBC will turn into."

          I grew up in New Zealand. We had license fees AND commercial paid advertising - 22 minutes per hour of it.

          In the end there was a mass revolt, only 1/3 of viewers were paying their license and it had to be abolished - it had been known since around 1970 that on a technical level that the advent of transistorisation meant that TV licenses were unenforceable anyway, just as radio ones had become (which is why they were abolished here and across most of the commonwealth in the 1950s-60s).

          the BBC isn't "advertising free" - those endless "promotional spots" (self-advertising) are used in other regions for commercial content inserted by local rebroadcasters. They insert as many of those as they can get away with. There's a lot of weasel wording going on.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

            Commercial TV is a wasteland, Political interference firstly robbed the ITV network of a major producer of quality - Thames, This allowed the trojan horse of Carlton, the name was a clue this was never intended to be a regional company but was designed to consolidate the "Independent" areas into one mess of low buck low brow TV. For all its many faults, the BBC does provide a small backstop against the crud broadcast by Sky/ITV.

            There is no benefit to going full fibre if we then fill that up with 20 million people all streaming various output steams at the same time because there is no longer a broadcast network, like everything else in UKPLC, the fibre net is lileky to be built to a minimal cost (+ profit margin) rather than up to a quality (+redundancy)

            Dont kid yourself that nutrality is guaranteed, once the providers lock us in they will nickle and dime us on content, a captive market awaits whoever buys the neccessary regulatory structure, just because the UK Govt. isnt quite as blatantly corrupt as other countries, dont assume that the strteaming utopia of which you speak can or will happen, commecial interests will see that we pay for all the output. so its lose-lose for many.

            1. Dr. Mouse

              Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

              Almost everyone told BT that this is what they should do 10 years ago. Instead, they've flogged the dead horse (copper/aluminium) as far as it will go, and will continue to resist a full FTTP rollout as long as they can.

              1. jason 7

                Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

                No BT were canny.

                You get big Govt money to roll out a compromise solution.

                You then get more Govt money to roll out yet another compromise solution.

                You then get massive amounts of Govt money to rollout the solution they should have rolled out originally.

                But you got three big bites of the cherry rather than one.

                If nothing had been thrown at BT over the years they would still be happy to push ISDN to every home.

              2. onefang

                Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

                "Instead, they've flogged the dead horse (copper/aluminium) as far as it will go, and will continue to resist a full FTTP rollout as long as they can."

                Sounds like what the Aussie NBN, er sorry nbn, became after the Liberals came into government. The original was supposed to be FTTP everywhere (almost). If I recall correctly the nbn kept claiming they where following best in the world practice, with BT as a shining example. Will BT now follow nbn in a race to the bottom? The Kiwis are laughing at us.

              3. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

                >Almost everyone told BT that this is what they should do 10 years ago.

                However, the ones that didn't, namely Ofcom and the government, who wanted to "create a market", were the ones who had the clout to make things happen or not as is the case...

                Remember Ofcom is still debating whether to allow BT to replace the POTS over copper provision with fibre. I expect them to fudge it and to come up with some formula that only permits them to roll out FTTP to those areas with a competitive 'fibre' service, just as they did with broadband.

        2. Pangasinan Philippines

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          Haven't seen any UK broadcasts for 3 years.

          Back then ITV were ALL about pushing premium rate phone-ins.

          Plus the commercials.

          But at least it was provided for free.

          Sky customers pay through the nose to be abused.

        3. EnviableOne

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          I see your 1960s and 70s different world ITV and raise you Channel4 a public Comercially funded network with quality public intrest programming and a thriving film finance division.

          1. jason 7

            Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

            "I see your 1960s and 70s different world ITV and raise you Channel4 a public Comercially funded network with quality public intrest programming and a thriving film finance division."

            But we still don't watch it though...

          2. Martin an gof Silver badge

            Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

            raise you Channel4

            Hmmm... I'll grant you that C4 is these days in a better position than ITV as a whole, but it has come from a completely different place (always a "national" broadcaster rather than many "local" ones), and you only have to look at the absolute dross it produced in the 1980s and 1990s (when it was part-funded by the ITV companies) to see how far it has come as (now) a self-funding, non-profit concern.

            I'd still contend it doesn't have the breadth of content that the BBC does, particularly when it comes to commercially difficult stuff like children's TV. News is now a lot better than it once was though.

            M.

          3. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: Not wanting to state the obvious @EnviableOne

            Your argument falls down, because Channel 4 take a slice of the license fee.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Not wanting to state the obvious @EnviableOne

              C4 is completely self funded.

            2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

              Re: Not wanting to state the obvious @EnviableOne

              C4 and the license fee.

              I see my mistake. There was a plan 10 years ago for C4 to receive some TV license money, but it was never carried out.

              S4C, which is not C4 does receive license payers money, though.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        They already “compete” like every other company... when it comes to paying themselves fat-cat salaries

      4. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Why not just scrap the BBC licence fee and let them behave and compete like every other company?

        Because by having at least one large producer of content that doesn't have to watch the viewing figures quite so tightly, they are able to make some darned good stuff. Commercial TV is effectively forced to produce an endless stream of "ad income fodder" - never mind the quality, feel the width" as the saying went.

        Even if you never watch any BBC content at all, you benefit from it being there. By having some high quality content, it shows up the dross and means that the rest have to at least keep up some pretence at caring about quality.

        If you want to see what an all-commercial TV setup looks like, try going to the USA. I haven't seen it myself, but you can see the effect if you watch an imported show. You can tell from the (at first) illogical "coming up"/scene cut/"now happening" comments where they would have had commercial breaks even before you've got to the opening titles. The "cold entry" mode is annoying, but just think, instead of (for say an 1 hour program) of having :

        cold entry/titles/10 minutes action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        action/denouement/credits

        You would have :

        cold entry

        ad break

        titles

        ad break

        action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        further action

        ad break

        denouement

        ad break

        credits

    3. JDeaux

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      Why should I have to pay for a BBC licence fee when I don't watch any TV, I do stream Netflix, but I shouldn't have to pay for a defunct and corrupt corporation to survive.

      1. jason 7

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Indeed. The BBC just isn't value for money for what I watch on it a year. I watch maybe 6 hours of BBC live programming a year. Not enough quality.

        Hence Why I have cancelled my license. Removed the old Topfield and removed iPlayer from my FireTV box.

      2. Fiddler on the roof

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Totally agree, I don't want fund anyone else's viewing habits. If you don't watch you shouldn't be obliged to pay.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        "You can't go forcing the TV license on everyone. It's probably true that the current model isn't sustainable, but forcing it on everyone isn't the way to go."

        You don't force it on everyone. That's the whole point. FTTP could make enforcement, via subscription very effective if you removed the free to air broadcasts simultaneously as switching off copper and rolling out pure fibre FTTP, in each transmitter area.

        If you want to watch, you pay the BBC Netflix style subscription, if you don't, you don't.

        It's about time the BBC stood by the (mostly dross celeb based) content it produced and stood on its own two feet. The problem is their senior management don't believe in the content they produce, quite obviously.

        Not against the BBC, maybe it needs a 7-10-year safety net during the transition, but I think the BBC should be told subscription enforcement is coming with the rollout of pure FTTP across the UK.

      4. LessAnonymousCoward

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        "Why should I have to pay for a BBC licence fee when I don't watch any TV, I do stream Netflix, but I shouldn't have to pay for a defunct and corrupt corporation to survive."

        You don't? If you don't watch TV (i.e. watching any live programme) and you don't use iPlayer, then you don't have to pay for a licence fee..

        1. shaunhw

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          LessAnonymousCoward wrote:

          "You don't? If you don't watch TV (i.e. watching any live programme) and you don't use iPlayer, then you don't have to pay for a licence fee"

          You should only have to pay the BBC if you WATCH the BBC.

          Of course if you we all that option hardly anybody would watch it. But WHY should those who don't, have to subsidise those that do ? If someone wants advert free so called "quality" television, and it's precious to them why don't they simply pay for it themselves ?

          Oh, because there won't be enough people willing to pay would there ? So we all have to, if we watch any normal "television" (whatever that means these days) at all. Well I am sorry to say that this simple ISN'T FAIR or equitable.

          Assuming you are gainfully employed then should I pay towards your water use, energy use, and everything else YOU use too ?

          There should be a place for a broadcaster like the BBC. But paid for by those who want to watch its programmes. I actually love the BBC. I watch BBC4 most of all. But I wouldn't expect other people to pay for it, regardless of the cost. If I can't afford it, I'd do without, just like I've done without that Bentley I've always wanted.

          Personally I wouldn't really care if the BBC went off the air tomorrow, if it meant the end of the repressive past its "sell by date" telly tax.

      5. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious @JDeaux

        I'm pretty certain that you do not need a TV license to watch Netflix. You only need one to watch broadcast TV.

        There is a concise wording of what broadcast means in the TV license, but I can't be bothered to dig it out, but it's basically along the lines of watching a program at the same time as it is being broadcast, whatever transmission media you're using.

        So, for example, if you watch something that is being served out using one of the catch-up services before it's finished in it's broadcast (it has to overlap the broadcast), then you need a TV license. If you wait until it's finished, and then watch it on a catch-up service, then a TV license is not needed (but remember the +1 TV channels).

        They've also broadened the scope, as they've defined computers and other devices as TVs for the purpose of watching broadcast programmes.

        As far as I am aware, Netflix do not broadcast any content, so it is all on-demand. No TV license needed. If Netflix were to start carrying 'Live' programs, sent to multiple users simultaneously, you may need one, however.

        NowTV, which carries channels that are broadcast along side their catch-up content does require a license.

        BBC iPlayer is a bit of an exception though, as they have added a specific requirement to have a TV license in order to use any aspect of iPlayer. This is actually more like a no-fee commercial contract. They justify this because you can watch programs on iPlayer at the same time as they are broadcast, but I actually object quite strongly to what the BBC is doing in this area.

        I can see the nature of 'broadcast' being changed or challenged again in the near future, because of the nature of multicast services on the Internet. For example, many road traffic cameras provide real-time video to whoever wants to see them. Does this count as a 'broadcast'? And of course, as the technology gets cheaper, we are beginning to see small live TV stations being run out of bedrooms using cloud services, in the same way that we get small Internet radio stations. Will these count? Who knows.

      6. jantill

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Perhaps you have not seen TV abroad. e.g. view New Zealand TV and you come to appreciate the BBC.

    4. Martin an gof Silver badge

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      How about we turn off Digital TV transmitters simultaneously and use fixed full fibre broadband for streaming HDTV channels and use the redundant frequencies to provide further mobile data bandwidth as part of the rollout of full fibre as each area comes online?

      Because we've already sold off (or are about to sell off) around a half of the UHF TV spectrum that we originally had and the remaining bit is useful for more than just TV (I have 24MHz of licences for radio microphones at work, for example).

      Because "broadcast" is far, far more efficient than streaming and although people are gradually watching more on-demand and less "linear", it's not something that'll disappear any time soon.

      M.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        "Because "broadcast" is far, far more efficient than streaming"

        A single transmitter 36,000km up that virtually everyone has line of sight to is far more efficient that thousands of little ones dotted all over the countryside where terrain gets in the way most of the time anyway.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

          "is far more efficient that thousands of little ones dotted all over the countryside where terrain gets in the way most of the time anyway."

          Far more efficient in what way? If you want to cover a large area with homogeneous programming, you're right. If you want to address smaller areas independently then it's not so good.

          To take a terrestrial example, when TV broadcasting started Holme Moss (band I) covered both sides of the Pennines and was picked up and relayed to the Isle of Man; in fact I think the Manx transmitter was in turn picked up at Divis and relayed to NI. When ITV came along their band III transmitters were Emley Moor & Winter Hill, east & west of the Pennines respectively so that they could have different franchises. When UHF came along the Beeb's transmitters were colocated with ITV which allowed the Beeb to have some regional broadcasting, Holme Moss band I was closed; these days it's FM on band II. Try to do the same thing with satellite and you end up using a lot of bandwidth to provide different channels instead of the regional separation that a terrestrial network provides naturally.

          1. Martin an gof Silver badge

            Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

            Try to do the same thing with satellite and you end up using a lot of bandwidth to provide different channels instead of the regional separation that a terrestrial network provides naturally.

            Of course, that is already the way it works. I believe the BBC now broadcasts every regional opt-out on satellite so that the receiver can give you your local news (etc.) when you give it your postcode. Certainly there's a lot of BBC1 choice in the 900-range on Freesat, though I can't be definite that everything is there. Not sure about Sky since we don't have it - presumably as well as paying for the bandwidth they would have to pay Sky listing fees?

            M.

            1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

              Re: Not wanting to state the obvious @Martin an gof

              That's true for standard definition, but BBC HD channels do not carry any local content. It's national, with local content slots showing a message saying that the content is not available in your region.

              1. Martin an gof Silver badge

                Re: Not wanting to state the obvious @Martin an gof

                BBC HD channels do not carry any local content

                That's true, but for the benefit of our non-local readers I feel I must point out that what the BBC counts as "national" and "local" may not be obvious. For example, BBC1 Wales, BBC1 Scotland and BBC1 Northern Ireland are "national" stations and are available in HD, so I can watch channel 101 on Freesat and after the Six O'clock News, I get Wales Today. If I were watching BBC1 West Midlands I'd have to tune into the SD version to get Midlands Today (or whatever it's called).

                The situation's not quite the same on BBC2; Wales does do BBC2 Wales in HD with (usually, but not always) the same programming as BBC2 Wales SD, but I don't think Scotland and NI do.

                Is it a broadcast bandwidth problem (not enough space on HD multiplexes, or simply too expensive for a couple of hours opt-out a day) or is it simply that it's not worth it as very few regional studios are HD-capable?

                M.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        > although people are gradually watching more on-demand and less "linear"

        How about we get footy games to kick off when I feel like watching them too.

      3. Stuart Castle Silver badge

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        "Because "broadcast" is far, far more efficient than streaming and although people are gradually watching more on-demand and less "linear", it's not something that'll disappear any time soon.

        "

        It is. A program on a linear channel takes up the same bandwidth on the transmission channel whether one person watches it, or 20 million people watch it. The likes of Netflix use unicast, so each viewer has their own bandwidth. The can reduce the bandwidth requirement on certain parts of the connection by ensuring at least the popular stuff is locally cached, but programs on any on demand service still use a *lot* more bandwidth than broadcast.

      4. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

        Mag noted, "...we've already sold off (or are about to sell off) around a half of the UHF TV spectrum..."

        Do *NOT* sell spectrum. Governments should retain ownership and *lease* it to those that require it.

        The terms can be lengthy and endlessly renewable (required for their investment security and ROI) upon meeting conditions, but the threat of eventual eviction in the long term can be used to assist with enforcing good behaviour, as well as ensuring long term PICON (Public Interest, COnvenience, and Necessity).

        Selling spectrum is insanity. You'd end up with exactly the sort of poor customer service and overly high prices that you're seeing from many mobile telcos. They seem to think that they own the joint....oh - they do.

        Lease, do not sell.

        Renationalise the spectrum if required to correct this policy error.

    5. aTree

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      You can't go forcing the TV license on everyone. It's probably true that the current model isn't sustainable, but forcing it on everyone isn't the way to go.

      I don't know what the solution is, but that definitely isn't it.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      Alternatively, make DVB-S support mandatory on new TVs and eventually sell off the freeview airspace altogether.

    7. Mark2410

      Re: Not wanting to state the obvious

      The reason, Blue Planet.

      commercial tv doesnt fund stuff that takes years to make, is expensive and may be a total flop economically speaking. It dosent care if it generates views and money for the next 20 years, it needs to be almost immediately financially viable or the go bust.

      licence fee means BBC can go fund things that are works of art rather than prostitute themselves to The Sun reading classes.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    15 years from now?

    That's a pretty long timeline, and easy to add further delays and blame previous governments for them.

    The US went to the Moon is less time than that...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 15 years from now?

      The US went to the Moon is less time than that...

      But by some margin, not every US household went to the moon. You win the Spurious Comparison of the Week Award, and the prize would be a raspberry icon (as in thplssssst!, not pi), but we still have the same miserable undersupply of icons we've always had.

      1. a_yank_lurker

        Re: 15 years from now?

        It is not the goal but is there a real commitment to see the goal through. In the 60's there was a real commitment by the US government to put a man on the moon. And they did it quite successfully. So the question with this plan, is there a real commitment to see it through or is another in a long line of babblings that produce a few sound bites and quickly are forgotten. Given governments everywhere rarely have the will to see anything through, which makes the Apollo project an anomaly, this sounds like nice babblings that will be forgotten in a couple on news cycles. We have plenty of the same over here and I have seen it done many times by America's 'native criminal class' and the minor leagues (Congress and the state legislatures).

  3. robidy

    scrap HS2 use the "savings" to get BT's fibre network up to scratch

    Why don't we -

    1. Scrap HS2 and the others in its collection.

    2. Take the money and FORCE BT Open Reach to take it as a loan.

    3. Charge a decent interest rate like ventre capitalists do.

    4. Require BTOpenReach to deliver 1GBps connections to anyone that orders it for the same price as current FTTP.

    5. Also require them to upgrade all exchanges and active lines to FTTP starting with rural areas slowly working into the cities to reduce rural brain drain.

    If BT object, take back the national network and cancel the BAD sale and lease back deal(s) on all the exchanges and other bits then properly open access the network.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: scrap HS2 use the "savings" to get BT's fibre network up to scratch

      You can't scrap HS2, there are wealthy people in Wilmslow that don't wan't to pay London house prices. Funny that out of all the places a train to London can stop Wilmslow is one that's currently used and also I might add direct bar Milton Keynes.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like