Is compensation the key to better broadband?

The world of telecoms certainly seems to make a drama out of extending the network and increasing capacity and speed. The electricity industry doesn’t seem to make such a fuss and create an argument every time there is a need to supply a new location. The regional grid operator installs the cables and lives off the proceeds from the energy carried. Surely, that is what Openreach should be doing – installing the fibre and providing new cabinets closer to where the demand is and then charging the telecom service providers – BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, Vodafone, and any others – for the data bits carried to and from their customers.

Nobody said the roll-out of faster broadband would be free of charge for future users; access costs for higher speed and capacity must reflect the expense of providing it although the government rightly accepts the case for providing the basic trunk infrastructure as a public good. I don’t know the technicalities, but I assume that where services are supplied to remote locations, traffic contention will not be the issue that it is in busy urban areas.

As I have said elsewhere, I endorse the proposal that the generators of heavy broadband traffic, primarily in the entertainment, games, and gambling industries, must be required to contribute to capacity upgrades to offset the higher volumes and speeds that their sites and services require and which deplete capacity for other users.

I live in hope that Ofcom will come back to us and answer the questions that have been raised in a number of Conversations, chiefly the one launched by its Chief Executive on 12 April [Ofcom: Calling for a cultural change in the telecoms industry >> https://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/ofcom-sharon-white-broadband-mobile-services/%5D, about progress and financing of the faster broadband project as well as details of the unlucky 5%. I can only assume that as an arm of government, Ofcom is inhibited from making any pronouncements on policy issues during the course of a general election period but I hope that we shall be given more detailed information as soon as normal service can be resumed.

I’m sure there would be a lot of fuss if some homes received 47V when they were expecting 230V or their supply was unreliable.

What you are saying John , is -make BT pay £10,s of £billions to supply the 5% and then try to recoup from companies that dont want to know about the long lines of copper . Openreach-a BT GROUP COMPANY , yes that would please every other telephone company and cripple BT even the government would clap with joy . MY solution get Vodaphone-SKY- and all the other telephone companies pay UPFRONT as its them that will benefit from BT,s downfall. I have posted again and again -who pays , so it seems -make BT pay , not with my blessing. Would the person who marked me down have the moral courage to post a rebuttal and we can argue all the points and prove he/she arent motivated by financial /political gain .

Duncan – The government is paying for the faster broadband roll-out, not Openreach. The government does not intend to reach more than 95% of the potential customers. If the unlucky 5% want faster broadband they will have to make their own arrangements and meet the cost. As I understand it, the faster broadband roll-out is not to the premises, but to the cabinet, and in many instances additional cabinets will have to be installed within reaching distance of subscribers.

I think sometimes you are so close to the interests of BT Group that you do not see the overall picture. No one is trying to make Openreach pay for anything exceptional; it is being paid to deliver a project and it will presumably make a profit on the job, both on the capital installation and on the traffic that will be carried. The fact that no other company was willing to do it is not important, but I agree that they all need to make a proper contribution to Openreach for carrying any of their traffic. The government cannot force BT Group to do anything: it is an independent public limited company and its shareholders would not stand idly by and see it being taken advantage of – I don’t know why you think they would. And why on earth would the government be pleased if BT Group collapsed? You have the right to your controversial or provocative opinions but you should not be surprised if people occasionally disagree with them. It happens to us all from time to time.

The sooner we get a reliable statement from Ofcom on what is actually happening on or under the ground the sooner we can all stop speculating. On this issue I don’t agree with you so I won’t be giving you a thumbs up but I have no financial or political motive whatsoever. If you are going to accuse people who make use of the thumbs down button of having no moral courage then it is highly unlikely that they will come forward and open a dispute with you. I have consistently proposed the removal of the thumbs buttons but they are a feature of the site and give an anonymous [but fairly useless] indication of readers’ reactions. I find it’s best not to get het up about them.

Wavechange- 50V is the standard DC conditions on a telephone line but if you live miles from a cabinet the voltage drops to half that or less quite capable of supporting a landline phone but not an internet connection . Now think- electric pylons carry 100,s of 1000,s of volts -why- because they dont have to have massive diameters for a given current- I=E over R its stepped down to less than 100,000V by local transformers and then to 240V BUT telecommunications cable was originally designed for telephones NOT broadband so copper diameter was designed for that use , so you are not using like for like but apples and oranges .

From what I know HMG has already given BT a certain amount of money for FTTC and BT actually handed some back ,are you saying as of this date HMG has given out a large additional sum ? BT has paid out themselves a very large sum of money for FTTC . Could you supply the latest details of HMG payout to BT ? I dont like injustice when all the others are sitting back ready to reap the profits from BT,s expenditure ask Virgin Media who it allows to piggy back its lines -????? a company called nobody.co.uk. One law for them and another for BT John.

I agree with you, Wavechange. The supply of electricity and telecom services is contractual and customers are entitled to get what they order and pay for and can sue for breach of contract if the supplier defaults. But no one has any contractual right to a broadband service, or even a basic telecom service, except to the extent that that is mandated under the universal service obligation. In return for the licence to operate a regulated telecom service, companies are obliged to offer a connexion to any premises passed or within reasonable reach but if they are outside those limits [which I assume Ofcom adjudicates] there is no contractual default. Once a premises has a connexion the subscriber usually has a choice of service speeds and capacities and it is entirely right that if they order [and pay for] a high speed service that they get it. The debate goes on elsewhere about the vagueness and ambiguity of the current tariff labelling and I support your suggestion for three grades of service reflecting the technical situation in each case:
Level 1, Broadband,
Level 2, Fibre to the cabinet [FTTC], and
Level 3, Fibre to the premises [FTTP].

Reliability is also an important issue. In accordance with a scheme laid down by its Regulator, Ofgem, the electricity supply industry has to compensate customers for service outages that are not restored within set time limits. I see no reason why a similar scheme could not be drawn up for telecom service providers who would claim against Openreach or other relevant infrastructure provider. The technology of telecoms service supply, including by optical fibre, is a mature industry now and there should be no excuse for delay or default. However, it is considered that it needs an incentive to ensure that customers are properly and reliably served and get what they pay for. There are signs that Openreach’s performance is improving in terms of delivering the network capacity ordered by telecom service providers but there is some way to go. Its operational separation from BT [the TSP] is intended to drive that process by removing conflicts of interest.

Duncan – I think Wavechange was referring to power supply voltages in response to my earlier comment comparing and contrasting the way the electricity and telecoms industries go about their businesses.

I don’t think BT has paid for any installations that were not considered commercially viable. The government is paying for the infrastructure that is not commercially viable. Until we get more information from Ofcom, which controls the budget for this programme, I do not know the current financial position and how close the implementation is to its objective and timescale. I believe Openreach have underspent on the allocation but whether that is due to efficiency savings, bad estimates, or shortfall in delivery I do not know.

Openreach remains a massive monopoly and is under an obligation to allow other telecom service providers to use its assets in an attempt to improve competition within the industry. This is deemed to be in the interests of consumers. I hear no squeals from investors in BT Group about the company’s treatment by Ofcom; I am sure they would appreciate a less demanding regulatory regime but the one they have is commensurate with the company’s dominant market position.

Duncan – I was making a rather flippant comment comparing the electricity and telecommunications industries in response to John’s comment. I fully understand the points you make in your recent post and think it’s high time we ditch the copper system in favour of fibre. You have given us some information about why this is expensive (e.g. installation on private land, working in adverse conditions) but maybe there are solutions that don’t mean doing substandard work. I presume that fibre, once installed, has much lower maintenance costs.

John – I know very little about the business aspects and my main concern is about honest marketing. It seems fair to me that we pay for what we use and it might be unpopular with heavy users, but I’m not happy about ‘unlimited’ contracts. The mobile industry has taken action, thanks to the increasing number of heavy users.

I entirely agree with your second paragraph, Wavechange. There is also the question of equality of access; if heavy users consume high percentages of the available local capacity it adversely affects people with moderate needs. Ofcom regards 10 Mbps as “decent broadband” and I believe the government is hoping for 20 Mbps being accessible to 95% of the country. Pushing ‘unlimited’ contracts, and marketing on-line services that demand high speeds that might not be realisable, are essentially dishonest.

That,s being rational malcolm becoming non-existent on some convo,s . “ability to reach 79 Mbps , what is?? his phone, his PC/Laptop , his tablet , will Win 10 let him , will his internal wiring let him , will his baby alarm let him , will his mis-configured router let him , will all the viruses on his computer let him will his 4 miles from the cabinet with copper let him – no not even if it was FTTC . I despair of reality setting in , of an engineer actually producing a convo on Which , I look out of the window , pinch myself and think –Am I living in the real world or another dimension which has totally different physical characteristics and physics than the world I am in just now . I now realise my problem I am too down to earth /practical , now where is that “funny fag ” to bring me into the reality of this world. IF this legislation is introduced every home complaining of slow broadband BETTER have ZERO faults internally in their homes as this will push the visit up to £500 at time if its the subscribers fault or he will have to put it on his home insurance – hang on maybe thats the motive not enough money from death policies so get more profit from insuring telephone speeds are not the fault of the customer .

My understanding is that Which? is campaigning for realistic marketing of broadband. Most of customers should receive the advertised speed rather than 10%, which is the current requirement of the Advertising Standards Authority. I’m not sure that this is good enough, but I support the campaign.

The broadband industry has focused marketing on the need for speed and what their customers can do with fast broadband, so it’s hardly surprising that many feel cheated. I suggested recently that services are marketed as:
– broadband
– FTTC
– FTTP
and customers given an estimate of the minimum speed that they are likely to achieve. Obviously this must assume that the customer has a modern computer linked by cable to the master socket to avoid the complication of WiFi interference and problems with internal wiring.

We have not been given sufficient information in the BBC programme or in Colum’s introduction to know what is meant by Steve West’s property being capable of receiving 79Mbps.

Right Wavechange tell me how “automatic compensation ” works if companies are arbitrarily going to be fined if Tom Smith mountain sheep farmer living up the slopes of some Welsh mountain ( Snowdon ? ) with 15 telephone poles of copper, a river , a Welsh valley, a forest, between him and the nearest cabinet decides to sue BT as all other providers will have knocked him back ? Should he be compensated if the only possibility is to spend £10,000 providing him with FTTP , and no £500 will not do it in the real world. How long could BT survive on that as this will effect BT massively ( the 5 % with long lines ) because VM et all slyly only want big profit areas. Also why dont you think somebody is planning the downfall of BT ??

“Steve West who wrote in to say he could only get 2.7Mbps from his provider despite his home having the ability to reach 79Mbps”

Presented out of content, as it is above, this claim is somewhat confusing. In principle, my home could achieve 1000Mbps if I hardwired all my local area network (LAN) interconnections together using a gigabit lan. However, I don’t think that factoid is of any relevance to speeds that might be achievable by the wide area network (WAN) technology that my broadband provider operates.

I think it is deplorable that the media – including W?C – never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

DerekP , as several posters have commented in other convo,s and made the statement – “I think this legislation/political policy was written on the back of a fag packet “. –crude -yes – but in the circumstances realistic. I look forward to a government spokesman/woman presenting a detailed / clinical/ economic/practical statement of how this will not affect BT unjustly and if it went to the High Court I hope the judge isn’t like in the States in many cases “hand-picked” by the US government for his “leanings ” in one direction politically —theirs , and yes I can mention several US appointees “favorable” to the US government view they dont even deny it.

Hmmm. I can supply a real-life example of the ‘promised 79mbs and only get 1mbs’ case. Friends of ours run a small cliff-top cafe (on which the Lobby is modelled, BTW). A year ago BT promised them 45 mbs, but could only manage 1. It took a while and several visits from technicians, some of whom kept saying he should be able to get 79mbs, but others that there was no way. Eventually, despite having installed ‘superfast’ he had to settle for 1mbs.

What struck me about the entire saga were two things: the technicians (presumably trained to roughly the same standard) who kept saying the opposite things. Both knew the cafe is around three miles from the nearest cabinet, so why the marked disparity? The other thing was why did BT ever even offer them superfast? On a single copper wire, strung on overhead poles straddling the side of a mountain for 3 miles? And don’t BT possess a device that could be plugged in to determine if the line would support the promised figure?

As I understand it compensation would only be awarded where BT failed to deliver what they’d promised. Seems a good deal to me.

That’s a nice example Ian. It sounds like some of the technicians actually understood the practical limitations of their technology, while others (and their accompanying sales droids) did not.

I totally agree with entertainment companies contributing to improving the internet infrastructure as they are the ones making higher speeds necessary.

Thanks for the definition of this legislation Wavechange and I couldnt agree more with the last two paragraphs. Its the “airy fairy ” way it seems to be delivered leaving a lot unsaid the annoys me.

Right Alfa and Duncan. How do we get Which? on board?

Entertainment companies would need a download-ometer that clocked their output and get charged accordingly. That money could then go towards the broadband infrastructure.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to get the government to introduce such legislation as many of these companies are already tax avoiders and it would be a way of getting some money out of them.

I don’t remember Which? discussing this possibility, Alfa. I suspect this may be because it would mean that heavy users would end up paying more. My impression is that Which? is not keen to upset subscribers or members of the public, but I would respect the organisation more if it supported measures such as this.

Having been a Sky TV customer for over 20 years, the quality of programmes has gone downhill in recent years with many new series never being available except via the internet.

Sky may have its faults, but it has put a lot into providing the service. There are satellites, receivers, on-screen TV guides, a lot of what is probably quite expensive technology to develop and maintain. The same would apply to cable TV.

Then along comes the likes of Amazon and Netflix who have sole distribution rights to series like the new Star Trek that will be unavailable to Sky. Why should they be able distribute their product and use the broadband infrastructure for free and at the same time avoid paying taxes? They are the ones creating the need for faster broadband and need to pay for the privilege.

If they are not made to pay, Sky satellite and Virgin cable will become obsolete as they will be unable to compete.

I would also add, that for most people the quality of internet TV is vastly inferior, so there will be little point in buying the latest technology TV.

If Sky and Virgin become obsolete, 1000Mbps will become the new necessary norm.

Maybe I am going overboard, but I see many reasons why internet TV needs regulation and control before it gets out of hand.

I agree with your practical suggestions, Alfa, but we must stop companies making dishonest claims. They should give potential customers a realistic estimate of the speed they will obtain and the use of ‘up to’ in marketing should stop.

I can understand your practical point on ISP,s /Openreach making one initial visit for free to check broadband speed at the master socket Alfa but that would require a change of legislation via HMG who denied any telephone company from having the legal right to access a customers premises to check the internal wiring , all internal wiring PAST the master socket belongs legally and exclusively to the home owner . I remember my day when I presented my pass card which included the legal right to enter premises to check the internal wiring , when BT went private , the law changed.

As far as I know you can ask your potential provider for an estimate of the speed you could expect at your premises. If this is so then we should be educating people to ask.

The adverts are there to give a general description of a product. Under the present rules if 10% of customers do get the advertised speed that is not dishonest on the part of the provider. We must not confuse what might be regarded as inadequate rules with dishonesty.

After many complaints, my ISP dropped the ‘up to’ from their advertising and simply provided an estimated speed. Problem solved. It’s the marketing men that need the education.

I know what honesty is.

How do we know the difference between dishonest claims from ISPs and bad setups in the home?

Not sure why a telephone company having a legal right to access customer premises is relevant. A customer would invite them to inspect their set-up if they were unhappy with their current speed. Many people don’t do this at the moment as they are threatened with quite a high call-out charge if no fault is found.

I have suggested giving customers an estimated speed on a number of occasions – glad you agree. What matters is what I will be likely to get, not the “average” that I might or might not reach.

Like many others i understand the term “up to” that applies to many things. Providing its basis is explained.

But what is an “estimate”? It is not a guarantee, so how will people behave if they think they are not getting their estimated speed? What tolerances are placed on it? What determines whether you get an estimated speed. We’d need a standard test to properly determine that under defined conditions.

Dropping the ‘up to’ does mean customers might get much lower speeds than they potentially could get as ISPs will state lower speeds to cover themselves.

alfa, exactly right. Providers will ensure, except under extreme circumstances, that they are not liable for compensation. So we will suffer from less useful information, or it will be surrounded by ifs and buts. I am not in favour of a compensation culture and generally feel that compensation covers actual loss. And where will the compensation come from? Customers of course through charges. Do we want one large group of customers giving money to another small group? What this Convo should really perhaps be using is the term “penalty charge” rather than “compensation”.

Quite right Alfa.

Maybe it’s time to ditch IE:

Credit: Wikipedia

Thankfully Microsoft ceased development of IE for the Mac at version 5.2, when Apple launched Safari.

The only reason Chrome is popular is because it forces itself on you when you update something else as you have to opt out of downloading and installing it.

Personally I like Chrome because it is supported by Google.

It does happen to work well too.

Now I know that some of you will point out like Google is one of the big multinational corporations that run the Internet. Nonetheless, for whatever rational and irrational reasons, my customer choice is that I prefer Google over any of the rest, including Amazon, Apple and Microsoft.

YMMV – that’s just my 2p worth.

I do also use Firefox and Chromium and SeaMonkey (etc.).

Finally, note also that, for us free (“libre”) folk here in Linux land, we do not suffer from drive-by-downloads, i.e. where Windows users can easily end with something like Chrome when they install some other free (“gratis”) software.

I’m having some problems using Safari to view the Which? website though no problems with Which? Conversation. At one time I used different browsers for different purposes. Sorry for taking us off-topic. 🙂

Sorry to hear that Wavechange – what are the problems that you’re having with Safari and Which?. I’ll report back to the team that look after the main website.

Hi Lauren – Thanks very much.

The problem is that some pages on the main website appear blank apart from the header and footer to the page. I’ve been copying the page address into Firefox, where it works fine.

On the homepage there are currently links to three articles: ENERGY NEWS, SAVINGS NEWS, LATEST NEWS and only the last one works. It’s the same on an another Mac running Safari. Maybe I just need to do an update but I look at many other websites and have not found the same problem, and Safari works absolutely fine with Which? Convo.

Have a look at your web inspector on Safari Mac Wavechange to see what Safari is blocking , the webpage you talk of is blocked for my browsers but I understand why , I get transferred to another page.

There is a problem with the Which? homepages and Macs in general. In both Safari and FF when I click on the headings such as “Baby and child” a grey bar appears above it, as though there should be something there but nothing appears in both Safari and FF, and it happens with El Capitan and Sierra. It seems to be a CSS issue, in fact, because I’ve just checked and exactly the same thing happens in Chrome.

Not the first time there have been problems with Which? and CSS, in fact.

From a straw poll of Firefox. Chrome on Chromium, I can just see a thin grey bar appearing at the top of the menu, along with a further fat grey bar bottom left which says “www which co uk sitemap”. I assume the latter is supposed to appear sat the top. Right-clicking the thin grey bar then opens the site map.

The full functionality also seems to require the Which? supplied spyware to be enabled.

I didnt want to say that last sentence DerekP thats why I asked Wavechange to have a look under the surface of the webpage . For a kick-off the latest Safari blocks cookies by default but other tech is also involved , I have to accept if I want access to BT,s American owned email service I have to allow the lot , not just a case of recognition but the ability to hit you with a lot of different trackers– delete the cache on exist and I have other apps on LInux to remove brower cookies/cache . As I posted before third party trackers arent standing still if you want to block data recognition install an HTML5 canvas blocker but even that isnt enough.

Beryl on many webpages of Which it is partially secure , you cant have total security in the sense that some browser protection wants while data is whizzing to all points of the compass . The problem nowadays even your ISP,s server holds your data you need to get a sever in a neutral country or a more people orientated country that has laws blocking access to all authorities . There are other means out there but it is a fact many websites all over the world wont allow you access to them if you dont allow them to show adverts/track you /etc its just making a choice of which ones you like and allowing them to gain info on you. You should get apps that show you what is tracking you I have many. Beware big name newspapers , both sides of the Atlantic, you could have 45 or more trackers on them.

As the Russian browser I am using doesnt have -No Script like FF I added an equivalent which is actually better as its from Github having activated I couldn’t activate some of the buttons on Which so I labelled Which “safe ” I am just giving a demonstration that you must not put a lot of blocking apps on Which- its got to be – “In (God ) Which –We Trust ” – much seen in use by US government / US banks /etc.

Duncan – I have looked at the code for the Which? homepage but it’s beyond me. 🙁

Like Ian and Derek I’m familiar with various minor problems with the Which? website, and it used to work fine.

I apologise to Lauren for taking this Convo off-track and perhaps we could move to The Lobby.

All I would expect a provider to do would be to check their side of the service to where it enters premises in the case of a dispute. If you want your system checked then another specialist should be employed.

There has been criticism of the Which? speed checker as being “inaccurate”. I wonder how “accurate” others are. I would expect a “standard” for checking speed, and done under strict conditions. Otherwise, from a “compensation” point of view they would be a waste of time.

I think there are far more important things to be concerned about than broadband like hospital A&E waiting times, delays seeing your doctor, where speed is of real importance.

Yes Malcolm, there is a limit to what such a service should entail.

There ought to be basic checks like line input speed, wiring, router, distance from router. If they check out then all the things mentioned by Duncan would be additional suggestions/checks given at the time of the service.

From my experience, an ISP does know what speed you should be able to get and a few basic checks should highlight where a problem might lie.

I have always got nearly my ‘up to’ what I have been told I would get and very occasionally more. But over time since dial-up, as more people have come on line and internet content gets heavier, it does deteriorate. As people in the locality have switched to fibre, our ADSL speed has actually got better.

I second that malcolm there are as many methods of checking your speed as the fingers on your hand , each one gives a different reading depending on time of day , your equipment – wi-fi or LAN cable etc as well as the engineering methods differing.

I think I agree duncan. We need Which? to present cases in a fair balanced way that have been properly investigated. If they do not have the in-house staff to do this they should use outside experts. i would also like them to use input from the various parties involved to avoid the sensationalist partisan case that sometimes is used to incite emotional responses.

Duncan – Would you agree that the public should be provided with honest information about broadband speeds? Surely it is better to underestimate, so that the customer does not feel cheated. Be honest and then it is unlikely that there will be many claiming compensation.

I’m no expert but it seems to me that the government should have taken the advice of technicians and engineers before committing to the broadband universal service obligation. It is sad that many people with authority don’t have the practical knowledge or experience that is vital to make good decisions. I expect that there will be considerable criticism of the government when promises are not fulfilled.

Any thoughts on pushing the companies that profit from delivering services that demand fast broadband? I don’t want to see more government money poured in to broadband, BT and other service providers cannot afford to do what is demanded as you have pointed out many times, but there is an alternative source of funding.

I absolutely agree that the public should be provided with a more realistic speed but its the way that you go about judging what individual households are capable of , thats too many engineering factors for any ISP to judge . What they have done is categorized speeds in groups of financial /line construction status , the lowest being the cheapest of all copper -called Bundles . The problem is that high aspirations due to HMG widely publicing FTTC and providing a certain level of grants to BT has caused great unrest as every member of the public said – FTTC ?? great now we will ALL get 75 Mbps without being given the realism of external network line engineering that FTTC is fallible in that like copper its only “good” for a mile or so and then drops quickly so that several miles from a FTTC and you are not much better off . “Up To should be removed completely and the public told that their speed depends on a whole rangeof factors which are not all BT,s blame but due to internal factors in each individual home. What the government did was “penny pinching ” instead of FTTP they created the illusion that it equaled FTTC by only giving a set amount to upgrade British telecommunications network after saying to both the public and European businesses we will make the UK the leading country in the world for broadband communications . Talk is cheap and so is “Grand Visions ” even the Donald ” is backing down from the US/Mexico wall , which wont be a “wall ” in the real sense so politicians lie . Businesses take their lead from the government in their ability to publicise their perceived abilities by the allowed advertising legislation which in the UK is pretty “open-house ” as the government wants a “light touch ” to businesses here . It is more concerned acting on behalf of the City on which it dotes .Both governments are filled with “ideas guys ” the problem being their ideas are not practical or achievable but are there for short term gain of votes , its all “on a mental level ” and speaking about something never built roads/bridges / tunnels only down to earth money from the tax payers but the onus has been transferred , due to political agendas onto the business world in this case the top BRITISH telecommunications company BT , notice the fear in criticizing big business America ? and I dont blame them just the hint of the word -sanctions put the fear of death into Mrs Merkel. Its just a case of -put enough money into making us look good—and not a penny more. Again Wavechange you sussed out the hidden agenda HMG knew that the big conglomerates want to provide services that bring in £100,s of millions in profit so the pressure is on to get everybody paying out for US media services but the infrastructure is incomplete and that doesn’t make HMG look good in British eyes nor American Big Business so its blame BT . Of course there is an alternative I have already mentioned it and HMG also knows its giant US investment groups of whom I have the near complete list of . HMG could come out with -BT cant do FTTP for the whole of Britain -okay we will bring in x-y-z “people ” to provide this for the UK BUT without telling the British public how hard-nosed US investment groups are and prices will shoot up as well as the UK selling off one of its last remaining BRITISH Public Utilities which I think it wants to do anyway all it needs to do is make it financially hard for BT to survive through legislation. I should have added that what the British government wants has not been achieved in the USA or in any Major western country- FTTP for the WHOLE Population , For those going to the USA go into the country and check the amount of microwave dishes used in remote areas for broadband .

I can agree with most of what you say above, Duncan, but let’s keep it simple and leave the international politics out of it for the moment. All we are asking for is strong and stable broadband for the many not the few. And we need a government that will stand and deliver.

Globalisation is a “fait accompli ” John its already been discussed and accepted by all the western governments , it means we no longer exist in an international situation as far as the US is concerned . The US doesn’t just run the Wests military but it now runs it commercially via US conglomerates , we are no longer “independent ” in the true sense , independence is the antithesis of globalisation , less and less independent companies , bought up , raided and converted to badge engineering running nations not just countries , interconnected under one banner the American Flag. All I am doing is being realistic and echoing the words of many intellectuals in world economics who reside in the USA . Its a “done deal ” just a matter of time , no man is an island has been changed to- no nation is independent .

It depends whether you see globalisation as an opportunity or a threat. The Britsh can hardly complain as they were the leading exponents of globalisation for over two centuries
and we still enjoy the benefits of that commercial acumen with many large conglomerates and multi-national corporations based here, some of which grew big by buying up American companies or by expending into their markets. I’m not sure I am in favour of total independence; there is a lot to be said for alliances and strategic positioning. I think interdependence makes for a safer world. If an American product or service is better than a UK one I don’t have a problem with accepting it as the leader; in any case, China is becoming the dominant global manufacturer now.

Once you said to me that few British companies are really British John and I pointed out BT were one of the “last of the few ” ( sorry Churchill ) well you are right in the “revelation ” I found out today and posted on today namely -Vodaphone and the massive shareholder ownership by the biggest US investment companies/banks/ institutions/organisations you can get , and I mean the biggest names that control countries making it a legal fact only in the sense of its headquarters and the”figureheads ” at the top . Those at that level really decide policy in a boardroom and Vodaphone is beginning to look like a “badge-engineered ” company rather than 100 % kosher British company . Yes China is , with Russian help, trying for the “Silk -Road MK11 and a route via Russia this time, to Europe , I am keeping well up to date with events but will America allow it ? they wont let Russia try to establish a rival “global ” company and are willing to take it to its ultimate conclusion exactly , as you mention, GB did several 100 years ago. I do agree we have “had our day” but I feel very aggrieved that government after government run this country as an agent of the City instead of the majority of the population benefit by building up British industrial companies which the City could well afford but would rather export our money elsewhere . Its all very well being America,s “banker ” but , since when has the US regarded British interests before its own ??

Duncan – You have put your finger on one of the problems of defining the ‘nationality’ of any major company. A company can be headquartered in the UK, have British personnel and board directors, and sell British-made products all over the world but be owned by shareholders from anywhere on earth. Since the shareholders of most major companies are investment funds, insurance companies, pension funds, and other like institutions which generally have a fiduciary duty to use their resources to optimise their yields this is probably satisfactory and certainly much better than having companies dominated by individual tycoons or moguls with no concept of mutuality whatsoever, which was the prewar American model.

I am not sure why you think Vodafone is not a genuine UK company, and there are plenty of other international UK corporations like BT Group, BP [which acquired Amoco in the US], GSK, Reckitt Benckiser, BA, HSBC, BAT, Aviva, Rolls Royce, Barclays . . . I could go on. They are all trading globally and earning profits which are returned to the UK.

Incidentally, I liked your humorous description “100% kosher British company”. I must admit I have not studied the religious make-up of the investors.

P.S. China might be a dominant manufacturing country but most of its output relies on intellectual input from elsewhere, including a considerable amount of specification and design talent from the UK.

Thank you, Duncan. I shall leave it there as those concerns do not affect our household.

Hi Edmund, sorry to hear you’re having problems running the test. Try clicking on this direct link: https://broadbandtest.which.co.uk/

If you’re still having problems then let me know.

Have you any Java/Flash blockers on your browser Edmund that would stop you using it ? Try an HTML5 speed test website try :https://speedof.me