Rural households forced to pay a premium for decent broadband speeds
SIR – Reports about rural broadband minimum speeds (Letters, December 21) can be confusing.
Our rural, but not remote, home can receive nearly 10 Megabits per second, but only by paying for a “superfast” fibre connection to the street cabinet over a mile away. Previously, a standard broadband package gave us about 1Mbps.
When the Government speaks of rural homes receiving a minimum speed of 10Mbps, is that on a standard broadband service or only if the household upgrades to a costlier, “superfast” connection? The current situation feels like a form of social and technical segregation. Simon Taylor
Martock, Somerset
SIR – I see the issue of rural broadband is making the news again.
The problem is not just down to a lack of investment. Bone-headedness plays a part as well. My BT Openreach cables share a pole with a neighbour. However, at the end of the lane his cables run east to a green box less than a mile away, while mine run west for over three miles. The difference in our broadband speeds is substantial.
My repeated requests to change the green box for my line are stonewalled on the grounds that this is “contrary to policy”. Keith Sowley
Winsford, Cheshire
SIR – The size of the task facing BT as superfast broadband is rolled out has been underestimated (“BT may lose its broadband division,” report, December 21). No other former public utility is expected to replace its service medium to every customer in the land.
Any company must be allowed to be profitable if it is expected to supply a decent service. In 2000 BT shares stood at £14; now they are trading at £2.70. Chris Gould
Exeter, Devon
SIR – We have recently returned from a visit to Iceland. We were astonished to find on our tours inland – notably to No Man’s Land, an icy wilderness in the Golden Circle – that we were able to pick up a 4G phone reception.
I sometimes find it difficult even to get 3G in this country. Mark Elliston
Malvern, Worcestershire
SIR – We all want good mobile reception, but do we really want unnecessary mobile masts, too?
Church towers are plentiful, often available, and good sites for aerials. They make unsightly masts unnecessary, as planning guidelines intend.
Operators told us that our church tower was not suitable for use as a Wi-fi hotspot, citing “technical reasons” – but only after months of delay while they re-jigged their plans. They should be made to comply with planning rules like everyone else, using existing structures such as church towers where possible. Helen and Christopher Pearson New Buckenham, Norfolk