Free Broadband you say?

comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 12 minutes ago
Your first comment included other industries.
But anyway I see no reason it should be a disaster, it seems a perfectly reasonable and achievable objective.
At the moment its only available in cities and large towns, I don't see a reason why people in hamlets, rural villages shouldn't have the same. It would cost much less than the proposed high speed rail line, and would help millions more people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So the only solution to a lack of broadband in rural areas to the nationalise the industry?

If it is to be provided free, then yes.

That’s an absurd view.

I don't think it's absurd. Every household commected to high speed broadband seems an admirable aim to me, and to be free at the point of use even better.
It's been costed, and apparently correctly, so I see nothing absurd at all.
But your comments to me show you don't want a debate so fair enough.

No, what’s absurd is that it’s the only solution to the issue of rural coverage, or lack thereof.

Of course it's not. But a private company won't be doing it for free. Of course we could pay them, but it would cost more.

There is cost associated with both options, ultimately.

I think the point is that regulation is a far more effective solution imo than nationalisation.

Tories:
“There’s absolutely no need for everyone to have broadband. It’s a stunt!”

Also Tories:
“The only way you can get Universal Credit is to apply for it online.”

comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
Tories:
“There’s absolutely no need for everyone to have broadband. It’s a stunt!”

Also Tories:
“The only way you can get Universal Credit is to apply for it online.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-blocked-report-naming-tory-donors-linked-to-kremlin-2019-11

Nothing to see here.