Trust The 'News'?

[RollingJ]

Fair enough, @fools. Not that I don't like the answers - nice to see a bit of activity on here - but interesting that the majority of replies appear to be detracting from the initial post.

How vague? I thought it was clear that the referenced report was inaccurate.

Edited April 22, 2021 by RollingJ

[altus]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

Going slightly off-topic, @altus, but that is a good question.

It's not really off-topic. The answer the government chooses to that question will affect how quickly either is implemented.

 

It might be reasonable to argue the article should have explained why "Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes". It's not reasonable, on the basis of what's in the article, to claim the statement is inaccurate.

[RollingJ]

7 minutes ago, altus said:

It's not really off-topic. The answer the government chooses to that question will affect how quickly either is implemented.

 

It might be reasonable to argue the article should have explained why "Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes". It's not reasonable, on the basis of what's in the article, to claim the statement is inaccurate.

Again, I understand what you say, and agree with your further explanation, but anyone - and there are those - who doesn't understand the differences in the technologies, would possibly read it as meaning if you don't have on, you can't have the other.

Edited April 22, 2021 by RollingJ

[altus]

2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Again, I understand what you say, and agree with your further explanation, but anyone - and there are those - who doesn't understand the differences in the technologies, would possibly read it as meaning if you don't have on, you can't have the other.

Which is why I put "should have explained why". Poorly explained is not the same thing as inaccurate.

[RollingJ]

Mr. Bakers final line reads: 'Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes, Mr Baker said.'

Just tell me that makes sense, and I'll shut up.

[altus]

26 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Mr. Bakers final line reads: 'Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes, Mr Baker said.'

Just tell me that makes sense, and I'll shut up.

When put with the line above it "But some parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, a landline remains essential for many." the context makes it clear that Baker's comment is related to rural areas. Anybody living in a rural area will know the issues surrounding rural access to both mobile phones and broadband and Baker's comment will make sense to them. Anybody living in a built up area with both good mobile and broadband access who hasn't either seen a news report on poor rural access or the empathy/imagination to realise everyone might not be so fortunate as them may have trouble with it.

[RollingJ]

1 hour ago, altus said:

When put with the line above it "But some parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, a landline remains essential for many." the context makes it clear that Baker's comment is related to rural areas. Anybody living in a rural area will know the issues surrounding rural access to both mobile phones and broadband and Baker's comment will make sense to them. Anybody living in a built up area with both good mobile and broadband access who hasn't either seen a news report on poor rural access or the empathy/imagination to realise everyone might not be so fortunate as them may have trouble with it.

Sorry, but that line that I am referring to specifically says - and I quote:

'Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes, Mr Baker said',. specifically equates  patchy mobile signals with full-fibre, as though they are incompatible - they aren't.

 

 

 

 

[ECCOnoob]

9 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Sorry, but that line that I am referring to specifically says - and I quote:

'Patchy mobile signals mean it may be some time before full-fibre broadband is rolled out to all homes, Mr Baker said',. specifically equates  patchy mobile signals with full-fibre, as though they are incompatible - they aren't.

Go and ask Mr Barker. 

 

3 pages on I'm still perplexed why your entire thread seems to be a massive criticism of the BBCs integrity when all they have done is quoted a direct coment from an interviewee.  

 

Also, whilst I am not a telecommunications engineer, you don't seem to give much reasons as to why this Mr Barker (if of course we all have complete disclosure of the full context of the question and answer exchange), is so monumentally wrong in what he says.

Edited April 22, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[RollingJ]

4 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Go and ask Mr Baker. 

 

3 pages on I'm still perplexed why your entire thread seems to be a massive criticism of the BBCs integrity when all they have done is quoted a direct coment from an interviewee.  

 

Also, whilst I am not a telecommunications engineer, you don't seem to give much reasons as to why this Mr Baker (if of course we all have complete disclosure of the full context of the question and answer exchange), is so monumentally wrong in what he says.

You have got me wrong there - I don't particularly trust any news source, and this is not about the BBC per se - although if this is an edited version of Mr. Bakers interview I question the editors knowledge or ability.

I too am not a telecoms engineer, but I do know enough to understand that the two technologies do not in any way rely upon each other - one uses airwaves, the other fibre cables.

[The_DADDY]

Do I Trust the news? 

Absolutely not. Agenda driven fear porn for the most part.