Ok, drives me mad. Politicians with no clue on the technicality.
We have had comments on net neutrality, but not understanding the issues.
And a shadow minister in ISPA today talking about the now defunct idea of 2M minimum broadband.
I asked "where to?". I had to explain, that it may be 2M at the end user, but where is the other end? 2M to germany, to US, to where?
She said to the exchange. Ok, so I said that 10k from the exchange would be ok?
She did not understand as you said show me an exchange with only 10k.
I asked again, what was the commitment?
She said that the smallest link in the chain has to be 2M
Sadly I did not get to debate more. 2M at the smallest link in the chain is meaningless anyway. For a start, does that mean I can run a million 2M lines on one 2M backhaul and that is fine? Does it mean that every web server in the world must have a 2M link, else they are the smallest link in the chain?
They simply do not understand the difference between the speed of one link such as a broadband line, and the usability of the intent as a whole and all of the components. They also do not understand contention or congestion...
Yet they make laws!