You have the right to 10Mbps
-
@dkf said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@pie_flavor said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
You are perfectly allowed to not create an ISP, but if you do create an ISP, it immediately has to be a good one or no dice.
It's a minimum service level for those ISPs that are providing last-mile infrastructure. Not all of them do; some rent the use of the last-mile stuff from the infrastructure providers. There are some subsidies to support the infrastructure providers, but the regulator was getting really fucked off with the ISPs that were taking the money but not doing the build-out that it was supposed to pay for, hence this switch to a model involving more legal coercion.
Yeah, fair enough. If they are getting paid for infrastructure build outs but not doing it then they should be persuaded to do so. What mandates such as this can also do is prevent internet from reaching rural areas where it may not be profitable. If a company assesses an area but determines that they cannot make money by providing 10Mbps service, but could do so on a 5Mbps service, mandates such as this will prevent them from extending service in to that area. 5Mbps service is infinitely better than no service at all.
Here in the USA where rural areas have sparse populations it is not uncommon for internet service to be pretty rubbish but that is just part of having sparse populations. Our means of distributing internet service are catered more towards higher population densities. When you get to rural areas where there is no cable television service at all and DSL needs less than 2km to guarantee 10Mbps service mandates such as these would just cause them to not get any service at all since there are a lot of places in the USA where it is well over 4km between homes. Each home would essentially need their own exchange.
-
@luhmann said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@cvi said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
In Switzerland
Oh yeah the place where the popular vote denied citizen ship to a vegan.
You say that as though it is a bad thing?
-
@onyx said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
And if they are building their own: who the fuck would build infrastructure that can't handle 10MBit/s in 20-fucking-17? It would be a waste of money and equipment if they did.
DSL in sparsely populated areas.
Don't think cities. Think shitholes.
-
@steve_the_cynic said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
This is worse than standard taxation for redistribution, because it caters to monopolies (the only ones who can absorb the profit hit) and punishes innovation and deters market entry. Thus making everyone poorer off.
Maybe, just maybe, it encourages innovation... You know, finding interesting solutions to the problem of "we have a legal obligation to provide unprofitable service to these people" by finding ways to reduce the cost.
Maybe, but not likely. You are not nearly as cynical as your username would lead a person to believe.
-
@thegoryone said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
A colleague of mine 6 miles away can't get more than 1.5mbps because the signal degrades so quickly once it hits about 5km of copper onwards that it's hardly worth their time.
Yep. And if the requirement is that if they are going to provide internet to a location it has to be at least 10Mbps to be in compliance then your friend will no longer have internet as they cannot do it legally.
-
@dkf said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
if a user is somewhere where they cannot currently get 10Mbps from any provider, whatever (reasonably priced) package they choose, then they have a right to get a court order compelling a relevant broadband infrastructure provider to get their excrement together and fix things.
That is a horrible idea and even worse than the way I originally interpreted it. Wait until people out in Bumfuck County who lives 50 miles from nowhere start filing these orders and it costs millions to connect them to 10Mbps connections. That will be fun for you guys.
Keep those regulations on your side of the pond please.
-
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Hence why this follows: "You have to right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you".
So how does that work if the defendant is Literally Hitler (tm) and no attorney would agree to pick up the case?
-
@maciejasjmj said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@anotherusername said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
Hence why this follows: "You have to right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you".
So how does that work if the defendant is Literally Hitler (tm) and no attorney would agree to pick up the case?
A court-appointed attorney has to take the case, and has to do a proper job of defending the person too, or be accused of this:
-
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
As I've pointed out, it's redefining the word in a nefarious way. I could care less about this. And I probably should, but I don't.
No, its not. It's just using a definition of the word that, like many many words, has many subtly differing - and often culturally specific - meanings. For example, my OED gives "A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."
So, anything codified in a local law, is by that perfectly reasonable definition, a right. If that doesn't chime with your own definition-of-truthiness, I suggest you write a sternly worded letter to the OUP citing your reasons.
-
@pleegwat said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@heterodox If those three are basic rights, you may have legal recourse.
I have no idea if they're basic rights. Let me clarify, though, if they were unsatisfactory, I do have a contract with those utility companies and I'd be able to pursue resolution through normal customer support channels then probably a civil suit if I were pissed off enough and not getting satisfaction. But I just don't know if I'd be able to change providers.
-
@gwowen said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@boomzilla said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
As I've pointed out, it's redefining the word in a nefarious way. I could care less about this. And I probably should, but I don't.
No, its not. It's just using a definition of the word that, like many many words, has many subtly differing - and often culturally specific - meanings. For example, my OED gives "A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."
So, anything codified in a local law, is by that perfectly reasonable definition, a right. If that doesn't chime with your own definition-of-truthiness, I suggest you write a sternly worded letter to the OUP citing your reasons.
I already linked to that definition upthread and explained why this line of thinking is wrong, but it's Christmas break and I'm feeling generous, so I'll do it again!
That definition boils down to the object of the right being something you're allowed to have. This story is about requiring others to provide it to you (or at least the opportunity to have it). Can you really not see the difference?
What if we were talking about...marijuana? You're entitled to have it. Does that mean that someone has to make sure you can buy it? There is no "truthiness" here, just plain language that, again, is being used in a very Orwellian way.
-
@thegoryone said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@jaloopa I have seen some new flats come with internet built into the rental agreement without an opt-out. Can't comment on the legality, though
Just looked. It seems like the FCC attempted to outlaw exclusive agreements in 2008. But the loophole is that the landlord gets to decide who is allowed to enter the property to install service. So they just sign an agreement with one provider and decline access to any competing providers.
Source: https://broadbandnow.com/report/apartment-landlords-holding-internet-hostage/
So that's kind of bullshit.
-
@pleegwat said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@atazhaia Fiber is nice. My 3ms ping to the local exchange involves approximately 5 meters of copper.
Maybe somebody should tell KPN that people like that kind of speed, so they’ll invest in more fiberoptic instead of trying to stick with copper wire all the way. (That said, I have ca. 50 Mbps DSL over copper wire.)
-
@gurth Yeah, they acquired the main company installing fiber then turned around and went full-on to VDSL. Which doesn't require digging to every house but also doesn't have the speed potential.
-
@polygeekery said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
DSL in sparsely populated areas.
Don't think cities. Think shitholes.I have DSL. I get 40 down / 6 up. Granted, I'm relatively close to the switch box, but still. Up until a few months ago the only thing available was 4 down / somethingshitty up. The only change is - they upgraded the switchbox. So, unless you install old equipment on purpose, VDSL is apparently capable of boosting speeds up to 10x in certain cases. Of course, it's not a magic wand, nothing is, but it shows that getting 10 MBit/s speeds on most locations shouldn't be a huge deal either.
-
@polygeekery said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
That is a horrible idea and even worse than the way I originally interpreted it. Wait until people out in Bumfuck County who lives 50 miles from nowhere start filing these orders and it costs millions to connect them to 10Mbps connections. That will be fun for you guys.
The news report I heard about this explicitly said that there was a cost cap, i.e. if it's too expensive to do the connection then the "right" won't apply (or that the customer can be asked to pay part of the cost, which amounts to the same in the end) (no idea how that'll be decided, I imagine the "right" part may mean that the telco will have to justify the cost in front of a judge instead of just saying to the customer "dear sir, you live in a shithole, fuck you, kind regards...").
So basically, there are so many loopholes into this that it won't really change much except allowing tabloids to write shaming headlines about bad telcos who don't want to help the poor hard-working farmer who's upholding British traditions. Or perhaps about stupid vegan hippies who fail to force a good telco to build thousands of miles of line to their hide in the wood, I don't know.
-
@pleegwat said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@gurth Yeah, they acquired the main company installing fiber then turned around and went full-on to VDSL.
Which, apparently, a number of towns are not happy with. (None near where I live, though, because another provider reigns almost-supreme around here — though not in my house :) )
-
@polygeekery said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@steve_the_cynic said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@benjamin-hall said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
This is worse than standard taxation for redistribution, because it caters to monopolies (the only ones who can absorb the profit hit) and punishes innovation and deters market entry. Thus making everyone poorer off.
Maybe, just maybe, it encourages innovation... You know, finding interesting solutions to the problem of "we have a legal obligation to provide unprofitable service to these people" by finding ways to reduce the cost.
Maybe, but not likely. You are not nearly as cynical as your username would lead a person to believe.
Pfft. I didn't say to whom the solutions would be interesting. Most likely, as included in other responses, it would be "how to make the stuff cheaper" to satisfy the beancounters rather than "how to make the stuff better and cheaper".
And in fact, the ISP is only liable for the first four thousand pounds or so of the cost to run a cable or fibre half-way up a Welsh or Scottish mountain. The rest is charged to the customer. But they aren't allowed to say "no, you live somewhere stupid, no broadband for you". That's actually all it is.
Footnote: I live in town, thanks. I like living in town. It means I had "up to" 20 Mbps ADSL2+ nearly nine years ago (and couldn't have had less than that), and now I have the fibre I mentioned above (I could get "at least" 500 Mbps down / 400 up, but frankly I can't really justify paying the extra for that).
-
@onyx said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
@polygeekery said in You have the right to 10Mbps:
DSL in sparsely populated areas.
Don't think cities. Think shitholes.I have DSL. I get 40 down / 6 up. Granted, I'm relatively close to the switch box, but still. Up until a few months ago the only thing available was 4 down / somethingshitty up. The only change is - they upgraded the switchbox. So, unless you install old equipment on purpose, VDSL is apparently capable of boosting speeds up to 10x in certain cases. Of course, it's not a magic wand, nothing is, but it shows that getting 10 MBit/s speeds on most locations shouldn't be a huge deal either.
But it is, in sparsely populated areas. Once you get more than 2km from an exchange the connection speed drops off pretty fast. Not a big deal when there are several hundred houses within a 2km radius as the cost spread over that many homes makes for a quick ROI for the ISP. In rural areas though it can mean an exchange per home. At that point, with those speed requirements and those price caps the time to ROI is infinite.
Ineffective assistance of counsel - Wikipedia
