Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review
Isn't this poll subject downright silly. Don't know the figures, but how many people in the UK can get cable. Whatever may be our theoretical/hypothetical preferences, many (most?) have no choice, let alone people, such as myself, who cannot get broadband either way.
Difference of opinion Powerless. I respect your view.
Sitting here in a broadband desert, if by chance both methods became available simultaneously then I would do a lot of research and come to an informed decision. I would look back at threads on NTL and others. I do find these hypothetical questions pointless, I am afraid. If I won the lottery would I still eat pasta with tomato sauce? I suppose there is some entertainment value though.
To go back to my original question, does anybody know what percentage of the population is cabled and what is the latest percentage figure for broadband access?
Given a choice, why would someone plump for a compromise solution using twisted copper pairs introduced by our forefathers?
I was involved with the wide area distribution of TV in the 1960's and 70's over twisted copper pairs. High frequencies travelled several miles then using analogue technology.
' if you are one of the third of the population that do not live in a cabled area, it is Sky Digital or nothing'.
So according to that 2/3 rds of people live in a cabled area. Not sure where they got that from though!
When I checked about broadband, the BT site says:
'Since the launch of the Broadband ADSL network in June 1999 BT has extended its deployment to cover 66% of UK households.' Which is also 2/3rds!
Of course that is of households as opposed to the population.
But when I see such similiar stats from competitor groups, who will use them for marketing hype, I get a little suspicious as to how accurate they are. Or am I too cynical?
Just like the early days of mobile phones, all these percentage figures are pretty meaningless as they refer to population rather than geographical area. It's no comfort to those living in the wide open spaces that they're going to have a hell of a long wait before it's economically viable for the service to reach them[if ever] - and for it to become economically viable their wide open spaces will have to become more densely populated.
personally i think cable is the better option, having lower contention ratios, less hassle with filters and dodgy ancient lines, television discount bundles and the good service i have received from telewest (dunno about NTL though).
Is the present way of doing things with telecoms a bit silly?
With gas, water, electric, sewage, the pipes are put in once and every body uses them and contributes to the cost, even though you can choose suppliers.
With telecoms, two companies suffer the capital expenditure of laying cables and compete for the customers with neither able to get anywhere near 100% take up.
( I'm talking about areas where cable is present of course)
bfoc and Leo49: after spending most of my life in journalism share your cynicism. The use of word "households" as opposed to percentage of population or percentage of UK land area can also tell many different stories. Seem to remember that at one time the percentage of people with internet access was inflated, though with public libraries having internet computers I suppose even an average spin doctor could say that 99 percent have access to internet.
PS: that Guardian figure does seem very high.
8 million people in the uk can get cable
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.