Now here's a fact that hasn't been reported widely yet, Britain came 10th for broadband in a fantastically interesting global report about ICT and broadband.....And then you spot the utter lie in the middle of the report and realise Britain's position is complete tosh propagated by god knows who, nor for what purpose, as it simply shows us as liars.
This blog post can be read at 5tth.blogspot.com
The ITU "Measuring the Information Society" report came out a week ago, and you'd think the Brits would be celebrating, but it seems to have fallen under the radar a little.
Hardly surprising when on p.95-6 comes an outright lie about broadband in Britain which can only have skewed all the results for the UK. Whoever is responsible for feeding such untruths to OECD (from whom the data appears to have been supplied to ITU) deserves never ending sleepless nights and karmic payback on a level approaching bankers' bonuses.
"While in 2010, Germany and UK had similar fixed-broadband penetration rates, 59 per cent of the United Kingdom's were above 10Mbit/s, compared with only 30% per cent in Germany. Indeed, in the United Kingdom, 99% of all subscriptions are above 2Mbps"
Really - says who??????? What good does it do this nation to hide the truth of our broadband situation?
So, of the 79.6% of households connected to the Internet in UK (Annex 4), only 20% are sub-10Mbps? Jeremy, it seems you may need to rethink where that £530M has gone, mate.
I hope ITU (and/or) OECD may be willing to share the information about just who provided the figures for UK. If it proves to be Ofcom, our regulator's integrity and interests will once more come into question. If A N Other Body, such as an incumbent, then there have to be questions asked about why such "falsehoods" are permitted on behalf of an entire country to a respected global reporting body such as ITU.
One to look into more deeply. There are plenty of journalists out there who can get to the bottom of stories such as the phone hacking scandal so this should be a doddle.....
7 comments:
Actually says 'Indeed, in the United Kingdom, 99% of all subscriptions are above 2M.'
Which may be correct but meaningless.
How is it correct, Peter?
Most are on a 'Up to 8M' or better subscription? What they actually get is what this should be about.
Oh my gosh. Where are all the journalists? Why don't they expose this?
councils are currently in charge of £530 million of digital switchover money, if there is only 1% of the population below the 2megabit USC then surely the money has to go to those areas and not to speed up those who already have a connection?
Its either true, or false.
Which?
And if Ofcom can't tell a journalist then Ofcom want to join the quango bonfire.
I suspect Peter is refering to % of actual subscribers as opposed to % of households - although even using that basis I would still question the 99% claim
I can't help suspecting that an "up to" has gone missing!
Thus as in "99% of all subscriptions are above up to 2Mbps".
As they're using "(advertised) speeds" there's a limit to the value of the data.
Society hasn't learned how to handle rate adaptive products in statistics.
The UK often looks good due to half the population having access to VM cable broadband at 10M+, even if takeup is less than one would expect.
Post a Comment