This Will Make You Sick :)

[Ignitionnet]

http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ce=yahoo_quote

City Telecom's 400,000 customers pay $13 a month for 100 megabit synchronous broadband. And they get a money-back guarantee: If they don't clock 80% of the promised speed, the company pays them twice their monthly fee.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ce=yahoo_quote

However looking at this

It's partly geography and partly vision. While Hong Kong has 7 million inhabitants, only a small fraction of the island's mountainous terrain is developed, which means everyone basically lives on top of each other. The population density is 16,380 people per square mile – versus 640 in Japan and 80 in the US. That makes every customer far cheaper to serve. "We have a phenomenal network built at $200 per home. Verizon is talking about a cost of north of $1,000 per home," Lai says. "We built ours at one-fifth the cost."

So where in the uk will we find this ability then ???

[Ignitionnet]

Given we tax fibre and have more planning restrictions than you can shake a stick at nowhere.

Remove fibre tax, get some duct sharing going and allow companies who want to build to build without fining them for doing it and many urban and suburban areas are good to go though obviously at somewhat higher prices.

[Ignitionnet]

I did a bit more research, he's a little food for thought.

This is for my own Borough:

A large part of the borough is taken up with parks and open spaces, including some which attract both domestic and international tourism such as Richmond Park, Bushy Park, Kew Gardens, and Hampton Court Park; because of this the Borough has more open space than any other London borough There are over 100 parks and open spaces within its boundary and 21 miles of river frontage.

More open space than anywhere else in London, so none of that would be populated or would need fibre dramatically reducing the area requiring work and increasing the 'populated area' density, yet even including Kew, Richmond Park, etc:

Population Density 3,137 /km2 (8,125 /sq mi)

Our neighbour to the East, Wandsworth:

Population Density 8,289 /km2 (21,468 /sq mi)

Our neighbour to the North East, Hammersmith and Fulham:

Population Density 10,497 /km2 (27,187 /sq mi)

You get the idea. Comparing population of a city like Hong Kong to populations nationwide is a bit silly, when it's compared like for like with a city like London you realise that population density is absolutely no excuse why our urban areas don't have services like this. That taxes and planning regulations make it extremely difficult plus it would make less urban areas go up in arms over why they can't have it for the same price despite being double, triple the cost to deploy the tech to on the other hand is a different story.

[danielf]

There's no way a place like London is as densely populated as Hong Kong. High rises of 20 stories are the pretty much the norm in Hong Kong, and they can be placed just yards apart. Hardly anyone owns a car, as there is no space to park it.

[Ignitionnet]

Oh I quite agree with a lot of what you're saying, Hong Kong is extraordinarily dense in places due to having so little sprawl space while London used to have plenty. I was pointing out that just relying on numbers doesn't tell the whole story in this regard and it's not an excuse why London at least can't have services that while maybe not as cheap are as fast