Debate was raging on Twitter yesterday at the news that the UK regulator Ofcom is to clamp down on ISPs advertising "up to" broadband connectivity speed claims. There are a couple of issues here that need to be unpacked a bit.
The first is the advertising one. Advertising is the art of stretching the truth until it goes 'ping!'. This is nothing new…eight out of ten cats will tell you as you enjoy visibly younger skin. In fact, at least the ISPs figures have some sort of theoretical truth behind them, and anyone who knows the first thing about networking will tell you, unless you've got leased lines with known targets at either end, everything regarding network speed on the Internet is going to be theoretical. That is just the same for something like MPG figures on cars, but I guess that people feel shortchanged if they get less megabits than they were expecting, but those of a Clarkson persuasion take pride when they use more petrol.
Underpinning all of this, though, is the fact that most people are numerically challenged and can't interpret statistical data very well. If it weren't the case, the National Lottery wouldn't exist…
Putting issues of misleading advertising aside, there is a bigger issue that is that our connectivity as a nation, particularly into homes, is (technically) a bit crap. This is a bigger concern, because this will see us falling further behind other economies in years to come.
Playing catch up to the BRIC economies is going to be really hard. I heard a (possibly tall) tale recently of a conversation with a marketing honcho at a South East Asian-headquartered manufacturing firm. When asked what presence they would be having at the 2012 Olympics, he responded that he wasn't sure if he wanted to be associated with a failing economy…
However, 11 years ago I remember hearing a speaker from a Swedish ISP, taking about how back then they were already delivering 10Mbps (theoretical, remember) ethernet services domestically. How could they do this? Well, and this is the clincher, it was because in urban areas, many if not most people lived in purpose-built apartment blocks. Running ethernet, home-to-home is relatively cheap and cost effective. And even easier when the blocks are landlord-run and they need to provide better services to keep tenants.
Now compare to the UK. OK, so the last few years have seen a spate of overpriced riverside blocks being developed as the housing market reached its over-inflated peak, but traditionally "apartments" have been known as flats, and they are the almost sole domain of social housing. Whilst undoubtedly in fair need of connectivity, not a focus for "average revenue per user"-obsessed telcos.
The rest of us live in mostly old, individual properties that are unfortunately separated by slabs of concrete and layers of tarmac. Laying ethernet to this sort of dwelling is messy, time consuming and expensive (as anyone who remembers that complete travesty of deregulation, the botched installation of cable tv in the 80s will remember).
The cost of running a developed infrastructure are often much greater than if you can start from scratch. I doubt that there will be many people who would call for our Victorian or Edwardian housing stock to be ripped and replaced, but keep that in mind next time your YouTube stream gets a bit jerky. Ethernet to every home is going to be expensive, time consuming and messy. And we will have to pay for it too.
mmitII 