This is a summary entirely tilted by a very questionable political perspective.
You'll find the same problems elsewhere in Europe dealing with population density and rolling out the infrastructure for this stuff. I know plenty of people in Sweden, France, Germany who struggle with exactly the same issues, despite better headline average speeds etc.
> "hollowing out"; services that get used by the small elite fraction of the country that lives in the right bits of London are good, everything else is quietly ignored.
Fundamentally wrong given that central London is in a large proportion (often > 50% by ward) social housing. Or are the millions of people who live there the "small elite" too? Or perhaps it is the case the high population density urban centres are naturally the easiest place to build infrastructure to benefit the most people.
> BT pay this money to shareholders and then fail to improve speeds. Both parties are apparently happy with this arrangement.
Clearly this isn't true. BT OR has for many years been separated and highly and transparently regulated. Perhaps you would like to explain more your implications of corruption that isn't visible to anyone else?
(admittedly those aren't all recent, but that's how we got in this situation over the past decade). It's not just me but the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
You'll find the same problems elsewhere in Europe dealing with population density and rolling out the infrastructure for this stuff. I know plenty of people in Sweden, France, Germany who struggle with exactly the same issues, despite better headline average speeds etc.
> "hollowing out"; services that get used by the small elite fraction of the country that lives in the right bits of London are good, everything else is quietly ignored.
Fundamentally wrong given that central London is in a large proportion (often > 50% by ward) social housing. Or are the millions of people who live there the "small elite" too? Or perhaps it is the case the high population density urban centres are naturally the easiest place to build infrastructure to benefit the most people.
> BT pay this money to shareholders and then fail to improve speeds. Both parties are apparently happy with this arrangement.
Clearly this isn't true. BT OR has for many years been separated and highly and transparently regulated. Perhaps you would like to explain more your implications of corruption that isn't visible to anyone else?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/114814/...