Wifi struggles hard in British buildings but the difference between 80/20 and 1gbps is huge: worry free multiple streaming or uploads or anything involving more than one person or even 4k streaming for one person
The upload does matter with everyone uploading videos and high resolution pics plus game streaming. It also helps a ton if you have the odd 200GB genome you need to archive somewhere :)
Ok, I don't know if this use case justifies many billions spend on it from government funds. Netflix's top 4K stream uses 25mbit/sec. How many households have multiple 4K TVs in use at once?
...How many families with kids streaming 2 different shows to their ipads/phones/laptops do you know? + Parents streaming video? Maybe one of them streaming a game on twitch?
It adds up. Copper is far less reliable at distance than fiber (the amount of people able to get 80mbps is < 10%).
And government is totally incentivized to spend money on a natural monopoly with an immense RoI. Rural areas are basically disconnected from high end internet activities. If you build a fast national network, it will pay off.
And for the record, the cost to full fiber the UK is less than the government plans to spend on HS2, a single rail link between birmingham and london.
I know coworking spaces that operate with around 100 people on 100/100 internet with little problem.
My grandmas old village in probably the most rural area of NW england can get 80/20mbit broadband (very close to cabinet). If you genuinely think that uncapped 80mbit/sec cuts you off, I don't really understand what you're saying.
HS2 is a very important project and I would much rather that be funded than spending billions on slightly faster internet.
The upload does matter with everyone uploading videos and high resolution pics plus game streaming. It also helps a ton if you have the odd 200GB genome you need to archive somewhere :)