[Normal_gaussian]

The history of Internet provision "for all" in the UK is atrocious. Massive government handouts followed by private companies that had lobbied for them failing to meet their promises is a summary.

I can't see a nationalisation resolving the issues though, especially not with the paltry numbers being bandied around.

I could see better regulation and forced separation of concerns achieving a lot however.

That said, Internet issues are not the major problem of our times. These issues are a distraction from those of first past the post voting and a collapse in journalistic quality.

[pjc50]

> Massive government handouts followed by private companies that had lobbied for them failing to meet their promises is a summary.

That's basically it. OpenReach is the Network Rail of ADSL. Often Openreach would take millions of subsidy for rural broadband buildouts and then do .. nothing.

While I think nationalisation may be a step too far, I think it's useful to move the conversation away from endless privatised failure. If nothing else has worked, let's try threatening Openreach until service improves.

[johnnycab]

>That's basically it. >If nothing else has worked, let's try threatening Openreach until service improves.

That is basically NOT it and issuing random threats to incumbent telcos, whilst contemporaneously empowering them is definitely not the solution. The shameless politicking does not address how to fund the empty promises. The article in essence is debating whether or not, Labour (2030) vs Cons (2025) pledge of "full-fibre Broadband" is a plausible one ie. the former is offering free access to the walking dead, and the latter shamelessly targeting it's base minority of curtain twitching shires, and neither of these parties know how to solve the wider and complex implications of engaging with businesses or how to implement any technical plans.

Meanwhile the idea of nationalising Openreach (BT) under public ownership is a much more complicated issue (i.e. its impact upon pensions, the question of who takes on BT’s massive debt pile (the public?), shareholders, competition etc.) and one that is likely to result in plenty of legal challenges (this could hamper the fibre rollout until settled). Not to mention a lengthy debate over whether that by itself would result in a better market.

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/11/2020-labour-pa...

[randomsearch]

This is a well researched policy based on the government’s own analysis. I know people familiar with the current policy framework and (despite not being Corbyn fans) they think this is a good idea.

[johnnycab]

Ah, yes, of course, the super-secret 'CuRrEnT FrAmEwOrK PoLiCy' which you can't link to or share? By attributing any authority to what is essentially a loose collection of a government's ambitions, aspirations, pipe dreams and a random wish list of sorts, is rather fanciful, to say the least. The current talk of full-fibre broadband is just a manifesto pledge, which has already been downgraded to upto 'Gigabit broadband' by the Tories. This rhetoric is reminiscent of 'information superhighway/superfast broadband' buzzwords from the previous decades to capture urban/rural votes. Similarly, there are no detailed plans available on how it will be implemented or how any of this going to get funded ─ which could cost over £30 billion; then the Labour party are pledging to give it all away for free?!? In the absence of any hard facts, putting stock in any of these words uttered by someone, who knows somebody else, who then conducted some research and everybody thought it was a jolly good idea ─ rings alarm bells and means forgoing privacy in return for something perceived to be 'free', yet still being majority funded by the taxpayer.

I will leave you with the USO [Universal Service Obligation] from DCMS (Dept. for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport) as an amuse bouche on delusions of grandeur.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

[randomsearch]

By “current policy framework”, I meant the way things are working right now. The person I was referring to has been involved with policy making all over the UK, and knows a great deal about the subject. I believe you misinterpreted this as “labour’s detailed plans.” Just wanted to make that clear.

If you’d have been civil, I would have been happy to ask my contact for appropriate reading and share them with you. As it is, I feel even responding is giving a nasty troll too much of my time.

[johnnycab]

Firstly, I apologise sincerely, if you felt in anyway whatsoever, that I was being uncivil. Secondly, it is extremely unfair to label someone a 'nasty troll', when they have diligently provided official sources as a basis to conduct a conversation from, versus hearsay.

Last but not least, I accept your offer of sharing the views of your legitimate contact and a source, which can be used to confirm what you say.

[ollie87]

I suppose one argument for it is that it's easier to regulate it if you own it.