![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerI got into a conversation about broadband with a colleague from the UK who said, in part:
"The USA, however, is frequently held up as an example of a 'cable country', and from what I've read, much of it is carried on telephone poles. Unfortunately, in the UK, the cables have to go
underground, so unsurprisingly, the UK, and indeed Europe in general, is a bit behind on this. Most people in the UK consider themselves lucky if they can get broadband at all - it's only in the last few years that most of the UK has received it. Even so, there's still only about 97% coverage, and even with this, figures from the EU last year showed that less than a quarter of UK households actually *have* broadband."
Is this correct? It seems pretty grim.
Why do all cables have to be buried?
"The USA, however, is frequently held up as an example of a 'cable country', and from what I've read, much of it is carried on telephone poles. Unfortunately, in the UK, the cables have to go
underground, so unsurprisingly, the UK, and indeed Europe in general, is a bit behind on this. Most people in the UK consider themselves lucky if they can get broadband at all - it's only in the last few years that most of the UK has received it. Even so, there's still only about 97% coverage, and even with this, figures from the EU last year showed that less than a quarter of UK households actually *have* broadband."
Is this correct? It seems pretty grim.
Why do all cables have to be buried?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-23 11:21 pm (UTC)But as others say, "broadband" can also go via the ancient copper overhead phone lines. I remember trying to get a decent signal through them back when I had dial-up, and I have no intention of trying again.