Tech Help

Given that most people are consumers they are most likely to shop on price, not facility. All of those may possible FTTP clients also means lots of backend required at the exchange to serve more throughput, which just isn't there. so there's no point offering an upgrade to a service that can't be delivered....would require putting a lot more backhaul in that requires more investment in both terminating and authenticating equipment and switchgear but also backbone connection to main network trunk entry points.

Bottom line - they can make more money out of milking the existing provision and customers, with no further investment, while selling FTTP at a premium to a small number of customers (minimise investment, maximise return)....which will continue to be seen as an elevated premium service while it is not ubiquitous. Yet more evidence that the market will provide.

Depends entirely on exchange capacity/connectivity. I think the targets are in terms of a minimal service provision level (which you are above already). So, ironically, laying one fibre optic cable to a farm in the outer hebrides may contribute more to the target than upgrading all of elephant and castle catchment from FTTC to FTTP. And require no additional investment in infrastructure.

Clearly shades thinks you should get a leased line. You can probably get one for only a couple of thou a month, as long as you are prepared to shoulder the installation costs of tens of thousands. You might argue that technically, and infrastructure wise, you could have put that in for everybody several decades ago. After all, the South Koreans did. But wheres the fun in that, nobody seriously thinks we are a productive society, all of the effort is focused on leveraging the maximum expenditure from us, for the minimum investment. It's why we have the highest costs for many things (access to communication, media watching costs, sports rights costs, etc).

What you are paying for your shit internet, is more than most of the rest of the developed world is paying for perfectly serviceable internet provision. The only loser is you. This has been true since the early nineties when I started banging on about it.....and until you all start banging on about it, it wont change. Because why would they stop milking you, when you keep passively offering up the teat?

The market will provide.

It's also subject to traffic shaping, and may be highly variable as a result of contention...and it is likely that you can't run certain services on it because ports and types of traffic may well be blocked (for example, you may be unable to reliably, or at all, stream your home security camera, or connect to premise hosted home assistant).

At least with a physical connection you are not reliant on the mobile phone network. You can buy a connection that is not traffic shaped and doesn't block ports. Even if most people don't. We have been encouraged, in this country, to think the internet boils down to how quickly you can stream a service that you have been sold. They don't want you developing an agile responsive business that you can as easily provision from your bedroom, as from a data-centre...because that way lies innovation, competition, and opportunity. They want you to sit there obediently, take whatever you are given, and let yourself be exploited.

As in all these things, cable...unless you can't.

AA@A will sell you bonded connections, to give you multiples of single cable throughput. Zen will sell you a fully capable truly unlimited internet for marginally more than a budget provision.

The truth is, our supine population don't give a fuck, and just take what they are given, barely squeeling as their pips are squeezed.

No need, surely? They just work.

(I use linux, so apart from scanning emails I have no need or use for anti-virus).