RollingJ

🔚

Thanks, @Bigal1 for that confirmation.

The report, so far as I understand it, makes no reference whatsoever to economic issues - that 'issue' was introduced by yourself, and you have not yet proved that the comment 'Mr. Bakers final line reads: 'Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes, Mr Baker said.' is correct. As I have had to say more than once, on a purely technical level that is a load of rubbish - technically, the two are entirely different - one is delivered over the radio spectrum, the other via optical cable. I totally agree that both have challenges over delivery, especially in remote locations, but even there, they are not the same for both technologies, and to infer that they are, as that statement does, is not helpful.

Agree on the economic downside of rural telecoms - but as I seem to have to keep repeating, that was not part of the BBC report, which is why I keep asking for its relevance to the actual content of that report, and the point of my original post was that Mr. Bakers parting shot (as reported) was, to say the least, disingenuous.

Very strange where all this generating capacity has come from all of a sudden. I remember vividly that back in my working days (admittedly a while back) when we had more generating power (i.e. power stations, be they coal, gas or nuclear), that during the winter quarter we were forced, by financial constraints, to virtually stop production for hours at a time so the grid could cope with the extra domestic demand.

Bolded bit - so how was it relevant in view of what was specifically referenced? You seen the full 'interview' or transcript of that discussion? Non-bolded bit - the 'wider (i.e. economic) perspective was not discussed in that report.

Quality reporting, was it? Sorry, you replied before my edit hit - I changed it to 'listened to some American news recently' as that was more relevant - I catch the odd bit on the BBC Parliament channel and marvel at its banality.

Can't see any reference to 'the impacts of the prioritisation of government subsidies' in that report. That doesn't surprise me at all - have listened to some American news recently?

@Thirsty Relic- shush, you're talking sense - that doesn't go down too well with some.😃

Strange - it must be a Sheffield thing, because I posted the same query on another forum, and saw it already posted on another one I visit, and my point was accepted on both. But there again, both of these other forums are used by individuals who actually understand technology. I wouldn't call it porn (well, not all of it 🤪), but agenda driven, yes.

Good point - I can't see why they are needed either.

@ECCOnoob - well thought out arguments which I totally agree with - despite our 'disagreement' elsewhere.👍

You have got me wrong there - I don't particularly trust any news source, and this is not about the BBC per se - although if this is an edited version of Mr. Bakers interview I question the editors knowledge or ability. I too am not a telecoms engineer, but I do know enough to understand that the two technologies do not in any way rely upon each other - one uses airwaves, the other fibre cables.

Sorry, but that line that I am referring to specifically says - and I quote: 'Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes, Mr Baker said',. specifically equates patchy mobile signals with full-fibre, as though they are incompatible - they aren't.

OK - don't know that route as it isn't one I've ever had cause to use.