Why on earth are the 'government' advertising 'superfast broadband'??

[ECCOnoob]

I've wonder this for a few days now. I keep seeing adverts on the TV for 'superfast broadband'...Advertised by none other than the government!

 

Why?

 

Yes I know they have made various promises, and maybe set targets to get everyone 'hooked up'...But surely you're constrained by broadband providers? Not the sodding government. You're stuck with whatever your locality can provide, and that may not be 'superfast' (what's the definition of that anyway?)

 

Maybe I'm missing something (probably)...But WHY???

 

Why not? Its a good way of announcing things and gets people interested in a heavily invested project.

 

Im sure advertising does cost a few quid but there are budgets allocated for it. The government has massive media and PR teams.

 

Its not so long ago that the government spent millions of public information films, mini dramas with well known actors cinematically filmed to tell people not to walk onto railway lines or not to stick their head out of a moving train etc. Im sure they cost a lot more than a brief modern day advert.

 

Anyone else remember these beauties....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC9tmVqGvn4

Edited December 18, 2014 by ECCOnoob

[JFKvsNixon]

Why not? Its a good way of announcing things and gets people interested in a heavily invested project.

 

Im sure advertising does cost a few quid but there are budgets allocated for it. The government has massive media and PR teams.

 

Its not so long ago that the government spent millions of public information films, mini dramas with well known actors cinematically filmed to tell people not to walk onto railway lines or not to stick their head out of a moving train etc.

 

my favourite! The song is so catchy.

[PeteMorris]

I just don't see the point...It's advertising me/you are paying for via our taxes...Are you happy to have the gov blow it's trumpet on your behalf...Oh and by the way, you're paying for it?

[JFKvsNixon]

I just don't see the point...It's advertising me/you are paying for via our taxes...Are you happy to have the gov blow it's trumpet on your behalf...Oh and by the way, you're paying for it?

 

So you'd rather that the government spent well over a billion pounds on improving infrastructure to introduce an improved service, but not tell anyone about it?

 

This isn't about fast broadband per se', it's about fast broadband in areas that previously couldn't get it.

[cgksheff]

Your not thick, Pete. At least I don't think that you are.

If you read the content in the government webpages, you will see that they believe (or at least claim) that the overall growth and development of the nation will improve if we all connect up to HS Broadband.

 

Personally, I think that claim is cobblers. But that is what is driving them.

They have already invested money in getting the network out there and now they want us all to use it.

But hey! It costs a fortune and makes private companies a mint.

 

And look at digital tv and smart phones. Its all the same.

Get us dependant on something and then milk us dry.

[Obelix]

I just don't see the point...It's advertising me/you are paying for via our taxes...Are you happy to have the gov blow it's trumpet on your behalf...Oh and by the way, you're paying for it?

 

I am thanks. Improving internet access to places that didn't have it before is good for the economy it's good for the people there and it's good for those doing business with them.

 

Is it purely the fact that BT is a private company that concerns you? If it was the old GPO would that be better?

 

Mind you if it were the old GPO we would be using avian carriers for internet (with apologies to RFC 1149)

[spilldig]

The government should keep their noses and taxpayers money out it, and leave it to the private companies. They were eager enough to sell off the GPO.

[PeteMorris]

I'm really sorry folks, I just don't see that advertising 'superfast' broadband is a worthwhile advertising campaign for the government. A: It's basically promoting private companies. (Although being the conservatives, it doesn't surprise me) B: It's not in my view a public service announcement. C: It's using taxpayers money, which in a time of austerity and cuts, is quite offensive.

[ECCOnoob]

Of course its a public service announcement. Its a an improvement to a public service.

 

Telephony is an infrastructure just like power, gas and water. Just because it passes through the hands of private companies along the way is irrelevant.

 

EVERYTHING the government does at some point will pass through the hands of some form of private business. We are not under some micromanaged state controlled dictatorship.

 

When the government spends billions on building the HS1 rail link and promoted its new services was that just an advert for Eurostar? When the government announces improved school meals initiatives is that just an advert for the catering companies?

 

I have said before, the government already has a massive marketing and PR department with its own allocated budget. 30 years ago they would produce whole films to promote some new investment or campaign. When the utilities and railways were under government control they still used to spend millions on adverts, corporate videos, promotional films or press articles. Even water was advertised.

 

Now due to privatisation the burden of a lot of those costs has now ceased to be the government's responsibility. Yet, people are seeming still moaning about costs of announcements. Costs of which I would estimate have dramatically decreased thanks to the ease of new methods such as social media, webcasts, rolling news and multi-channel television. Now that ITV has 400+ commercial competitors all with airtime to sell to advertisers I bet the rates have dropped dramatically too.

 

If it was launched with a limp announcement and nobody signed up, everyone would be screaming it was a waste of money. The government try to get the word out to as many people as possible in the quickest and simplest way, everyone is screaming its a waste of money. If they didn't bother investing at all and left things as they were, everyone would be screaming that our infrastructure is crap and we have the worst [...whatever service..] in Europe. They cant win.

 

Prey tell, how exactly is the government supposed to announce this multi million pound broadband investment in what you deem a more economical and seemingly morally correct way in the age of these cuts?

Edited December 19, 2014 by ECCOnoob

[PeteMorris]

Well...In answer to your last question. Shouldn't it be the provider advertising it? (BT)

 

Also...they are NOT public service announcements:

 

A public service announcement (PSA) or public service ad, are messages in the public interest disseminated by the media without charge, with the objective of raising awareness, changing public attitudes and behavior towards a social issue. In the UK, they are generally called public information films (PIFs).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_announcement

Edited December 19, 2014 by PeteMorris