All new buildings in the EU must have a high-speed broadband connection from 2017 - Polidicks

[url]http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/142523.pdf[/url] [quote][B]New buildings[/B] All new buildings - and those undergoing major renovation - for which applications for building permission have been submitted after 31 December 2016 must be high-speed ready. Member states may provide for exemptions where this would lead to disproportionate costs and for specific types of building such as historic buildings and holiday homes. [B]"Broadband-ready" label[/B] Member states may choose to introduce a voluntary “broadband-ready” label for buildings with high-speed access.[/quote] [url]http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6462-eu-declares-that-from-2017-all-new-buildings-must-be-broadband-ready.html[/url] [quote]The measures outlined are: • A 'broadband-ready' label for buildings with high-speed access. • New build and major renovations of buildings from 1st January 2017 will need to be high speed ready, exemptions will be allowed for historic buildings, holiday homes or where the cost to do this would be disproportionate. We believe this actually means ensuring ducting leads to each apartment, rather than pre-installing fibre or Ethernet cabling. • The right to offer sewage, water main, electricity distribution infrastructure to the telecoms sector so they can use it to install broadband. • Network operators (e.g. telecoms, power, water) will have an obligation to offer access to their infrastructure if a reasonable request is made. No details of how pricing will be controlled, but refusal can be due to technical unsuitability, safety, public health or network security. • Single information point for operators on existing infrastructure and future plans and if a single point is not available the ability to request it directly from network operators.[/quote] Here's the actual directive for u nerds [url]http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=PE%2048%202014%20INIT[/url] [quote=page 40]1. Member States shall ensure that all newly constructed buildings at the end-user's location, including elements thereof under joint ownership, for which applications for building permits have been submitted after 31 December 2016, are equipped with a high-speed-ready in-building physical infrastructure, up to the network termination points. The same obligation applies in the event of major renovation works for which applications for building permits have been submitted after 31 December 2016. 2. Member States shall ensure that all newly constructed multi-dwelling buildings, for which applications for building permits have been submitted after 31 December 2016, are equipped with an access point. The same obligation applies in the event of major renovation works concerning multi-dwelling buildings for which applications for building permits have been submitted after 31 December 2016. 3. Buildings equipped in accordance with this Article shall be eligible to receive the voluntary "broadband-ready" label in Member States that have chosen to introduce such a label. 4. Member States may provide for exemptions from the obligations provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 for categories of buildings, in particular single dwellings, or major renovation works in cases in which the fulfillment of those obligations is disproportionate, such as in terms of costs for individual or joint owners or in terms of type of building, such as specific categories of monuments, historic buildings, holiday homes, military buildings or other buildings used for national security purposes. Such exemptions shall be duly reasoned. The interested parties shall be given the opportunity to comment on the draft exemptions within a reasonable period. Any such exemption shall be notified to the Commission.[/quote] They basically reckon it's a lot cheaper to put fibre in at the start than to have to install it later, so now everyone will have to do it from the start. Frustratingly they don't give a solid definition of 'high-speed' but page 3 does refer to the EU target of bringing 30Mbps to all citizens by 2020 as a 'bare minimum' so it will have to be higher than that.

UKIP save us please.

[QUOTE=smurfy;44858636] Frustratingly they don't give a solid definition of 'high-speed' but page 3 does refer to the EU target of bringing 30Mbps to all citizens by 2020 as a 'bare minimum' so it will have to be higher than that.[/QUOTE] The fiberoptics themselves have no imposed bandwidth limit so once the infrastructure is in place it's just a matter of choosing the right provider. Also I like this: [quote]Network operators (e.g. telecoms, power, water) will have an obligation to offer access to their infrastructure if a reasonable request is made. No details of how pricing will be controlled, but refusal can be due to technical unsuitability, safety, public health or network security.[/quote] Aka providers can't bullshit their way out of providing access to rural areas anymore.

I like Europe

[quote]The right to offer sewage, water main, electricity distribution infrastructure to the telecoms sector so they can use it to install broadband.[/quote] I'm a tad confused, what's the practical use of this?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44858790]I'm a tad confused, what's the practical use of this?[/QUOTE] Other utilities may already have underground trenches/ducts to your house for power/water/sewage, so broadband providers will now be able to put fibre through those existing trenches instead of having to dig their own

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44858790]I'm a tad confused, what's the practical use of this?[/QUOTE] So the telecoms still have a source of income and don't go under. I don't think that's very likely, but it makes the lobbyists happy.

[QUOTE=_Kent_;44858811]So the telecoms still have a source of income and don't go under. I don't think that's very likely, but it makes the lobbyists happy.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you talking about?

[QUOTE=_Kent_;44858811]So the telecoms still have a source of income and don't go under. I don't think that's very likely, but it makes the lobbyists happy.[/QUOTE] Lobbyists are an American thing.

[QUOTE=joost1120;44859127]Lobbyists are an American thing.[/QUOTE] There are lobbyists in Sweden, so not only an American thing.

Backwards EU ruining British culture once again. Another invasive law by the Eurocrats.

[QUOTE=Simples;44859149]Backwards EU ruining British culture once again. Another invasive law by the Eurocrats.[/QUOTE] as BRITISH citizens we should have the RIGHT to terrible internet speeds

I really can't believe how lucky we have it over in the EU. People within the UK bitch and whine about the EU, but when you compare these consumer friendly advances to those that occur in other parts of the world, such as America, we're lucky enough to be leaps and bounds less idiotic. I can't believe what American corporations are getting away with. The amount of gentle caressing and violent money fueled fucking corporations get away with when it comes to internet in the US is appalling.

no fun allowed [THUMB]https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1396/39/1396396271607.jpg[/THUMB]

[QUOTE=joost1120;44859127]Lobbyists are an American thing.[/QUOTE]Lobbying is part of core American values, but it's not exclusively an american thing.

can america join the eu

Sync speed and speed test results are only half the story, what really matters is whether or not ISPs have the capacity to support these speeds. I was on FTTC with BT a couple of years ago and while my modem was syncing at 60mb down/18mb up and speed tests showed something similar, real world speeds were dreadful. Between 5pm-11pm, downloading something such as a Linux distro would only go at a max of 1MB/s, torrents were throttled to 3KB/s! and Youtube buffered. Moved to TalkTalk business and am getting a constant 17mb down/2.1mb up that allows me to download anything at max speed 24/7. Give me a stable ADSL2+ Annex M connection over an oversubscribed "superfast" POS connection any day. Also, fuck BT! BT and any ISP that uses their backhaul have been utter shite in my experience.

[QUOTE=Nasal_Spray;44859887]Sync speed and speed test results are only half the story, what really matters is whether or not ISPs have the capacity to support these speeds. I was on FTTC with BT a couple of years ago and while my modem was syncing at 60mb down/18mb up and speed tests showed something similar, real world speeds were dreadful. Between 5pm-11pm, downloading something such as a Linux distro would only go at a max of 1MB/s, torrents were throttled to 3KB/s! and Youtube buffered. Moved to TalkTalk business and am getting a constant 17mb down/2.1mb up that allows me to download anything at max speed 24/7. Give me a stable ADSL2+ Annex M connection over an oversubscribed "superfast" POS connection any day. Also, fuck BT! BT and any ISP that uses their backhaul have been utter shite in my experience.[/QUOTE] BT's always been great for me, and if you have an unlimited package [url=http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/119325-bt-infinity-now-totally-unlimited]there is no traffic management[/url] as of last year

[QUOTE=Nasal_Spray;44859887]Sync speed and speed test results are only half the story, what really matters is whether or not ISPs have the capacity to support these speeds. I was on FTTC with BT a couple of years ago and while my modem was syncing at 60mb down/18mb up and speed tests showed something similar, real world speeds were dreadful. Between 5pm-11pm, downloading something such as a Linux distro would only go at a max of 1MB/s, torrents were throttled to 3KB/s! and Youtube buffered. Moved to TalkTalk business and am getting a constant 17mb down/2.1mb up that allows me to download anything at max speed 24/7. Give me a stable ADSL2+ Annex M connection over an oversubscribed "superfast" POS connection any day. Also, fuck BT! BT and any ISP that uses their backhaul have been utter shite in my experience.[/QUOTE] BT is generally awful, they are just unable to compete with Virgin Media and other non BT-backed ISP. They just don't seem to have the backhaul capacity (or the willingness to use it..) to back up the speeds they offer.

One thing I could never understand about British internet: my mates always say that they pay for let's say 24 mbit, but most of the time they get 16 or 8. Whenever this happens here, I call my ISP and get them to fix it. How do you tolerate your low and then even lower speeds without complaining?

[QUOTE=Stopper;44860945]One thing I could never understand about British internet: my mates always say that they pay for let's say 24 mbit, but most of the time they get 16 or 8. Whenever this happens here, I call my ISP and get them to fix it. How do you tolerate your low and then even lower speeds without complaining?[/QUOTE]The thing is, complaining does fuck all. They'll just go "line is overloaded" and not give a fuck. They're also not afraid of you switching since you're either bound by contract or other ISPs have the exact same "problem" Dunno about UK, but in US there's also regional ISP monopoly where you simply can't switch.

That's pretty fucking appalling. I'm guessing suing them is out of the question because of the fine print. But in the end of the day, that's like me going to the grocer's, buying 10 apples and only getting 5 of them. It should be illegal.

[QUOTE=Stopper;44860945]One thing I could never understand about British internet: my mates always say that they pay for let's say 24 mbit, but most of the time they get 16 or 8. Whenever this happens here, I call my ISP and get them to fix it. How do you tolerate your low and then even lower speeds without complaining?[/QUOTE] Since the majority of broadband in the UK is delivered over phone lines, it's impossible for an ISP to guarantee a speed. The further away you are from the exchange, the slower the speed you get. It's a matter of physics, not ISPs being dicks (well, some of the time, see my previous post about an oversubscribed ISP).

[QUOTE=smurfy;44858636] Frustratingly they don't give a solid definition of 'high-speed' but page 3 does refer to the EU target of bringing 30Mbps to all citizens by 2020 as a 'bare minimum' so it will have to be higher than that.[/QUOTE] lol 30 Mbps, time-fuck-you-warner can do that by just claiming to deliver 30mbps and when that doesn't happen they cite major network failures that don't actually happen to cover their asses seriously they advertise better than DSL speeds here, DSL.... that shit's been outdated since 2000 good job EU, though just watch, someone'll come by and sabotage the whole thing by editing 3 words

[QUOTE=Noss;44859187]as BRITISH citizens we should have the RIGHT to terrible internet speeds[/QUOTE] I FOR ONE HAVE NOTHING BUT DISDAIN FOR ANYTHING THAT REDUCES THE LIST OF THINGS I HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, WHAT IS BRITAIN COMING TO WHEN I HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE LACK OF THINGS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. This would never have happened in the empire.

take notes usa and stop royally fucking every person over for financial gain the eu is awesome

[QUOTE=sambooo;44864250]take notes [B]usa and stop royally fucking every person over for financial gain[/B] the eu is awesome[/QUOTE] As much as I want to give the guy who started this legislation a gold medal and put him here in the USA, it's not happening. The problem is at this point in the game is that the ISP's have their dirty grimy fingers crammed into every pocket, wallet, and paycheck of the FCC. TL:DR: ISP's have lotsa money invested to make sure they can keep being shitty and bringing in the dough.

I love my country and all but holy shit I want to be in Europe.

To be fair they do state "up to" when they tell you the speeds. Which is absolute bullshit because that's what they fall back on, giving them a mandate to not care, because most other ISP's do it too.

[QUOTE=sambooo;44864250]take notes usa and stop royally fucking every person over for financial gain the eu is awesome[/QUOTE] shut up