Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant
Cities are already well served for high speed connections. Rural areas have a lot of catching up to do.
|
I am speculating he's referring to our urban areas relative to other nations. We actually do very well in terms of rural areas relative to our peers but it's a much less flattering comparison in terms of ultrafast in urban areas.
For all its faults thanks to the BDUK programme alongside Superfast Cornwall we have a smaller digital divide between urban and rural areas than most, which is a very good thing. By the time BDUK 1 is complete everywhere we will be looking very good indeed relative to our European peers.
The majority of BT's fibre to premises is in more rural areas as fibre to cabinet was so much cheaper in urban ones. The largest group of deep fibre connections in urban areas are from Hyperoptic and are purely in apartment blocks.
It's pretty obvious which of the divides is the most harmful, though.
I may be frustrated at having a connection slower than the one I had in 2011, but it's not that big of a deal compared to those stuck on sub-2Mb, which I can empathise with having had extremely slow, intermittent and unstable service to the point of it threatening my job when I moved here - a suburb of the most prosperous city in the north of England and the 3rd centre of financial and legal services in the UK behind London and Edinburgh.
---------- Post added at 12:57 ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
so another case of rural areas getting FTTP before cities?
The UK seems backwards the digital divide is the other way round.
|
There is no business case in VM overbuilding their existing cable network with FTTP. I imagine that if things go as they wish they will be building more FTTP as new build in both urban and some more rural areas.