Petition for The Legal Right to 2Mbps Fairly Priced, Minimum Speed

[#1]

Just seen an article about this petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/36944

[#2]

I like it, although I think it ought to say minimum 4Mbps now - you can't stream nicely on less IMHO, and perhaps 50Mbps is a bit ambitious by 2015.

[#3]

I don't know what that petition will actually achieve given most of it is about to happen. Its all very niece saying can we have a cheap 2mb service but the petition doesn't say about transfer, are you wanting a 2mb service with 2gb/4gb or 20gb transfer a month.
As much i'm not a fan of tax payers money being used in the BDUK project, then bt monopolizing the rollout and then shrouding the rollout plans due to "commercial sensitivity", the bduk ideal will give faster broadband.

[#4]

As I understand it ISPs are charged for how much data their customers transfer, not at what speed.  So if you're on 2Mbps ADSL and you download 100Gb a month, and I'm on 30Mbps FTTC and I download 5GB a month, you're costing PN 20x more than me.  Isn't that correct?
Perhaps a sliding scale of data would be better, more in line with energy companies, petrol suppliers, supermarkets, and oh...practically anything really. 
After all, in this country you're normally charged for what you consume, not how fast you consume it.  Why should broadband be any different?

[#5]

Quote from: lorisarvendu

As I understand it ISPs are charged for how much data their customers transfer, not at what speed.

Not correct.
ISPs are charged a basic flat rate for the connection. Separately they have to buy central capacity, so it's the maximum aggregate rate of all it's users at peak time that determines their costs. So for example a person who uses their computer mainly during the day and rarely at night wouldn't add to the ISPs costs at all.
The point of the petition is to restrict the basic connection charge. We already have a differential in that charge between Market 1, 2 and 3 exchanges.

[#6]

The market system is badly thought out .  The aim should be to get everyone to say a market 2 designation or better by pricing and not to allow companies to solely target market 3 exchanges which is what happening.
Own goal by ofcom imho.

[#7]

Quote from: jelv

Quote from: lorisarvendu As I understand it ISPs are charged for how much data their customers transfer, not at what speed. ISPs are charged a basic flat rate for the connection. Separately they have to buy central capacity, so it's the maximum aggregate rate of all it's users at peak time that determines their costs. So for example a person who uses their computer mainly during the day and rarely at night wouldn't add to the ISPs costs at all.

It's sort of correct. We basically pay a fixed rate for the broadband and pay additionally for capacity (like Jelv has said). But what we pay doesn't change depending on the speed of the service.

[#8]

On the market differentiation, this is historically down to Ofcom forcing BT to freeze its pricing to improve competition.  Once exchanges had "ample" competition (ie Market 3), BT were allowed to drop prices.
They are not allowed to do so in Market 1 & 2 to make it more attractive for other operators to install their own equipment.
You may well already know this, but just for clarity's sake.

[#9]

Quote from: Jameseh

It's sort of correct. We basically pay a fixed rate for the broadband and pay additionally for capacity (like Jelv has said). But what we pay doesn't change depending on the speed of the service.

So if you had to charge lower prices if someone was getting  lower speeds, theoretically you could find yourself out of pocket?

[#10]

On current pricing yes.  Realistically if something like this were to happen, things would get somewhat "complicated".
Especially considering it's a rate adaptive service.  Don't see anything like this happening to be honest.

[#11]

Have to admit that phrases like "It is widely recognised that adequate broadband is essential for commerce, healthy living, social interaction, education, and human rights" sound a little absurd.  My mother doesn't have broadband of any kind and she manages all these things quite well. 
Also conjures up images of Billy Connolly and Sting arriving in a Third-World village somewhere, loaded down with laptops and routers for the starving natives. 

[#12]

It's not absurd at all. The cheapest deals for utilities are only available for online users. Councils and government are pushing people to using online services to such an extent that doing some things by other means is getting very difficult.
Perhaps another approach which would motivate more councils to look at the options for their residents would be to impose an automatic rates discount for anyone living in an area with poor or non-existent broadband.

[#13]

Jelv
No I take your point about online deals being better and companies moving towards web-based services, but you have to admit that the petition is written in a rather over-dramatic style. Why is why I did say it was "a little" absurd. 
I mean, broadband is essential for healthy living?  Where does that come from?  Essential for social interaction? Uh, no it isn't. I and other people I know can interact socially without broadband.  I even know someone who doesn't have a television, and she manages to interact with people fine (she's a university lecturer). 
The word "essential" implies that broadband is absolutely required for commerce, education, and human rights.  Perhaps "emminently desirable" would be a better phrase.
-Dave

[#14]

There are some things that it's (almost) impossible to do without broadband access.  My son did all his University applications online and we didn't notice any other way of doing it.  In addition online banking is a must when you don't have any banks nearby.

[#15]

I wouldn't consider broadband as essential as gas and electricity....although I would find it difficult to do without it these days.
I also don't consider sitting in front of a broadband enabled computer all day particularly healthy.
However much of what I do is reliant on a broadband connection and in the future will become more so, I would therefore put it above the telephone on a scale of essentials.