Skip Navigation


Government rocks the net-neutrality boat by avoiding regulation
Wednesday 17 November 2010 14:45:45 by John Hunt

The government have spoken out in favour of dropping net-neutrality by suggesting that the Internet should only be lightly regulated. The communications minister, Ed Vaizey, spoke today at the FT's World Telecoms Conference detailing the governments position, and suggested that light regulation would be "good for business, good for the economy and good for people". He also suggested that three factors would be considered before the government takes any proposals forward.

  • Openness – consumers should be able to access any legal content or service. Content providers should be able to innovate and reach users.
  • Transparency – providers should set out in detail the extent of their traffic management and the impact on customers.
  • Support for innovation and investment – ISPs should be able to manage their networks to ensure a good service and have flexibility in business models. Competition is important for ensuring continued openness and choice.

This opens a whole kettle of fish as it would allow ISPs to favour content from one website over another by giving faster access to specific companies, for example, those who pay more. By allowing providers to innovate, Vaizey believes that the open market place will regulate access by consumers and businesses choosing a different provider should the one they use not provide the level of equality of access that they desire. Both the BBC and Google have spoken out about breaking the equality of access that currently operates over most of the 'net.

"The founding principle of the internet is that everyone – from individuals to global companies – has equal access. Since the beginning, the internet has been 'neutral', and everyone has been treated the same. But the emergence of fast and slow lanes allows broadband providers to effectively pick and choose what you see first and fastest."

Erik Huggers, (Director of future media and technology) BBC

"We have got to continue to encourage the market to innovate and experiment with different business models and ways of providing consumers with what they want. This could include the evolution of a two sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service. The market could develop in many different ways. The important thing is that ISPs and networks remain free to innovate. In doing so they may make mistakes and consumers should have the ability to make them pay for those mistakes."

Ed Vaizey, Communications minister

Of course, current Internet access isn't entirely equal at the moment. Many broadband providers already operate traffic shaping to try and avoid their network being swamped with too much traffic that they can't handle at once. This means that customers often see slow downs at peak times where some services (such as gaming) may be prioritised whilst file downloads or peer-to-peer file sharing are de-prioritised. Crucially, this traffic management doesn't tend to focus on where the traffic is going but instead looks at the type of traffic. By allowing network operators to act as they see fit for their own commercial gain and prioritise traffic to specific destinations we may see a divide in the UK Internet.

Comments

Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
If only we all had fibre to the home... Its the copper crap slowing it all down and causing the need for traffic shaping.
Bring on the fibre and end the copper cabal.
chris
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - the management is in and for the core network, not the last mile.

Please understand...
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - So if everybody had and used a 100M connection there would be no need for traffic management?
Posted by mobilebb over 6 years ago
Lol fibre will not remove Traffic Management. Copper lines do slow connectivity and require more management but the other half of the problem is in bandwidth costs. You cannot give every 100Mbps FTTH connection full 100Mbps, the capacity does not exist.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
At least cd has stopped saying BT want to keep copper links going after I posted a link saying that BT wanted to get rid of copper but was constrained by Ofcom and the USO.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@cd:Our ISPs need to traffic shape when the average connection speed is 5Mb/s. Increasing to 100Mb/s will make the problem /worse/ not better.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
More mumbo jumbo, more copper cabal. If everyone had FTTH we'd need MORE traffic shaping not less!
Posted by adslmax over 6 years ago
sack him now, Ed Vaizey, Communications minister
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Peter I haven't stopped saying it. BT don't want to get rid of copper, they want to keep it for everyone. that is why they will spend a fortune on BET so that whole towns and villages can stick on the fibre to the cabinet. Once they lay fibre to the home to a rural all the villages in the path can have it too. and they don't want that. They can get another decade or two out of the old hone lines with all you fanboys to help them.
Posted by adslmax over 6 years ago
Why we need a copper line ? I think the telephone line is outdated now to replaced with mobile phone now. Everyones use mobile phone, no need a telephone line anymore.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Chris - your wondeful fibre network - 100Mbps links to a 2Mbps wireless backhaul. Where's the bottleneck, and what difference would it make if the fibre were 100Mbps or 2Mbps over copper?

Yes, precisely none, the access network is *not* the cause of shaping. I have no idea why this incredibly simple concept is so difficult to you but you claim the same thing every time.

You're the scariest kind of campaigner, enthusiastic, passionate and utterly clueless.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"BT don't want to get rid of copper, they want to keep it for everyone"? Which is why they are rolling out FTTC/FTTH and have plans to ditch the copper on FTTH solutions totally. They don't want to keep it for anyone never mind everyone. BET is a product you can buy, its not forced on anyone.

Fanboys? Please don't turn from cd into cb ;o) Who I'm guessing based on his long absence has been "moved along"
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
Light regulation? Well I suppose it worked so well for banking and finance, telecom in general, railways, electricity, gas <add as many as you like>
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Chris.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/3931682-contention-on-fttc.html

Must be those last few hundred metres of copper slowing everything down.

That or the speeds increase the contention and require higher prices or more shaping, a full fibre solution exacerbating things further.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
BT are rolling out FTTC. that uses copper. It will be interesting to see how many fibre to the home installations they do. Whereas a village in Lincolnshire now has gigabit fibre and 100 meg symmetrical for £1 a day. Now that is futureproof next gen, not yer coppercrap. http://www.trefor.net/2010/11/12/uks-first-100mbps-symmetrical-superfast-broadband-network-goes-live-in-lincolnshire-%E2%80%93-property-prices-rocket/
And as soon as I can my bit of fibre will join a digital village pump too. you lot can stay on 40meg cabinets if you like.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Sadly CD some of us can't just arrange a fibre dig across our farm.

The copper in FTTC is nothing to do with the topic in hand you just did your usual rant about copper at every opportunity.

Heavy usage, even on your precious digital village pumps, will cause the need for shaping just the same. Difference being I have a choice of ISPs not a local monopoly so can go elsewhere for services.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Of course FTTC uses copper, we've been over the whole costs thing so many times now, no other company "in the world" <--- is investing so much in their fibre rollout without some form of government funding which BT isn't getting. Good on that lincs village, why aren't they repeating it across the country then? And lets see how speed tests look when all 180homes & business come on line... :)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Obviously not everyone will be using it at the same time but if they did it works out at 0.5Mbps... Hmm doesn't have the same ring does it? And how are that making sure everyone get's their fair share any someone isn't hogging it all for HD streaming/downloads etc? Nice headline speeds but in reality sharing that with some many people is going to be a problem, now you know why its £1 a day!
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
and I... need to slow down and read my typing, that last one reads terrible :)
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
er, what about all the public funding BT are getting for cornwall, and the fact that they are holding their hands out for the rest of the digital switchover money, and the fact that we subsidised their first gen 'enable the exchanges' fiasco. And I didn't want to get into a fibre v copper rant, I simply stated that the traffic shaping is inevitable because of the limitations and costs of our complicated old phone network.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
And as I have pointed out more than once it's absolutely nothing to do with the 'old phone network'.

It doesn't touch the 'old phone network' apart from the copper, and is 1:1 contention at that stage, point to point guaranteed bandwidth as the DSL line isn't shared capacity, it's at the other end and the network in between, which is all fibre, that the issue lies.

FTTC and FTTP will, and do, suffer equally.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - please learn about networks. It's strange that nobody agrees with many of your statements. The professionals with experience know much more and don't use emotional, incorrect, words.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
We don't have a complicated old phone network.

TRAFFIC SHAPING IS NOTHING TO DO WITH COPPER!

Please answer all the questions above.

How did we subsidise first gen?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Cornwall is separate to the national rollout, they put out for tenders to come in and deliver high speed broadband, BT was one of the applicants and won, its EU funding.

And once again, you don't understand traffic shaping or its use. Again running (of the mouth) before you can walk.
Posted by davidjohn over 6 years ago
Of course light regulation would be good for banking, sorry, business. Hazey Vaizey dances to a commercial tune. WYPIWYG - what you pay is what you get - his oarty's mantra. Equal access, be it internet, education or health is not is not for the Tory boys.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
"enthusiastic, passionate and utterly clueless." indeed, clearly needs help.

She omits to tell you that the Lincolnshire village has 100M in total, which compares poorly with the GBit that one FTTC cab would have. LOL.

Back at the point, there is currently no legal basis for net neutrality in UK law, so the Government couldn't and hasn't "dropped" anything.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
There is no shaping on any crappy old phone line Chris you idiot. The technology limits itself.

Talk Talk have a peak use of ~50 kbits/s per user and envisage that rising to ~150k over three years. Well within the capability of copper. LOL.
Posted by Blognorton over 6 years ago
Equal access isn't for the "do as I say, not as I do" socialists either. Heavy regulation never ever works, it just serves the interests of the politburo.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
herdwick, she probably just looked at the headline speed and thought each property would be getting 100Mb sym for £1 a day.

As for the article I'm all for prioritising time sensitive traffic (voice/video) over non (www,email,ftp) but it should stop there. Certain ISP's websites etc etc should never have priority over another unless its just for the traffic I've mentioned.
Posted by cf492bcc over 6 years ago
"Many broadband providers already operate traffic shaping to try and avoid their network being swamped"

Or another way of looking at it is that many broadband providers use traffic shaping to maintain an expected level of service for the most sensitive traffic types (e.g. time-sensitive traffic) whilst simultaineously minimising on infrastructure outlay.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
The people in that Lincolnshire village have 'point to point' connection but throttling has nothin to do with the media upon how the data travels be it fibre or copper, throttling is more for where the contention is. Mostly exchanges...

Correct me if I'm wrong :)
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Oh and to make sure stuff like VOIP get priority over other traffic...
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
I have a 100M symmetric connection.

It's from my PC to my router...
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Pleas
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Pleas
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Please don't be a smart ass Somerset. :)
Posted by ian72 over 6 years ago
Stutter legolash?
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the end user network. This is about the ability for companies to pay to have their traffic prioritised over the congested central links. So that people watching iPlayer get a stutter free connection at the expense of someone else's traffic. This is one way to deal with the fact we have more data than the networks can deal with.
Posted by ian72 over 6 years ago
cont.
Unless customers pay more for the connection then something has to give - and if you shape (like plusnet) then why shouldn't a company be able to pay to stop you shaping their traffic. Only problem is when everyone is paying for unshaped traffic it essentially goes back to a free-for-all where all traffic has equal priority.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
My iPhone really messed up, when I typed Please it started posting what I put, a new iPhone bug I guess... Lol
Posted by cf492bcc over 6 years ago
ian72, people already pay for what they intend to use by subscribing to the package that most suits their need. These packages are priced by the providers. If the providers then cannot handle people using what they have paid for then they are free to raise the prices on those packages until they can.

But then the slimier providers would just use TS to make out that they can provide more than they really can in an effort to appear more attractive to the layman than the competition. Queue race to the bottom.
Posted by cf492bcc over 6 years ago
And on the topic of Ed Vaizey; I see him as either naive, or a liar. Who's he been chumming up with lately to come up with this idea? Who's he really working for here?
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
er Herdwick, the Lincolnshire village has gigabit within the community. Its only the internet transit that is 100megabit. If all the villages joined up, and the doctors, hospitals, schools, imagine that. Most traffic is local. No transit costs. speed of light comms without going through any copper crap. Great potential for mobile too. Also there's no need to get personal and its your right to try to kill my arguments. You haven't managed yet.
Posted by ian72 over 6 years ago
cd - the traffic within the community is unlikely to be more than a few meg. Unless they are hosting their own media servers providing HD material then gigabit is going to be totally pointless within the area. It is the Internet pipe that will be the main use and that will seriously curtail what they can do.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Why would "most" traffic be local? It would be the least surely
Posted by ian72 over 6 years ago
@cf492bcc - people don't really pay for what they get with most ISPs (at least not if they think they will get their whole allowance at line speed). People think paying £10 should give them unlimited download and speed. ISPs will try and compete to get users and therefore will reduce prices and service as much as they need to get the business.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - you have said this 'local' thing before and we have explained it's not significant.

I'm imagining... No, can't see why it would be good.

What's good about it for mobile?

And again, give up on the copper words. It's what you get, not how you get it.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"If all the villages joined up, and the doctors, hospitals, schools, imagine that. Most traffic is local. No transit costs." - That statement alone just shows how far you've got to go to understand networks. Your adventures in networking to date do not scale up.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
I don't know why you jump on '100 megabit shared between 180 people' - how many people share a connection out of one of the old exchanges? or are you saying because there is no contention on the copper line to the exchange each of these people has an 'up to 8 megabit' leased line? so where does the contention happen? If I had a choice I would rather share a 100megabit pipe for £1 a day than the sub 1meg my dad pays £19.99 a month for on the copper.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
Ian72, the local traffic will be minimal until the other villages and nearby towns get their networks up and running, but as it grows it will start to utilise the gig.
Somerset, £20million of public funding enabled 12 or 14 was it (herdwick will know) exchanges as part of project access in the north west in 2004/5. Goodness knows how many others, I know there were some in yorkshire as well as the ones in cumbria.
Many councils fell for the hype. That is why we still have the final third.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"how many people share a connection out of one of the old exchanges? " It depends on what the ISP buys in backhaul. What I'm saying is your link to that article is just that.. an entire Village has a 100Mb feed, whereas with FTTC (which you were mocking) has a 15Mb minimum speed per house (OR won't provide it at less). So... I'd rather take my 15Mb which is usually much more than that for less than £1 a day than your 100Mb feed shared between 180 people.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Pumps don't add up, you might be able to boast "fibre to the home" but each home won't have the fibre speed per home that its capable of.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"Ian72, the local traffic will be minimal until the other villages and nearby towns get their networks up and running, but as it grows it will start to utilise the gig." - The "gig" to where, again you don't seem to grasp networks. What is the local traffic you talk of and if its going between villages its not local its wide area. I assume your local doctors, schools have websites now? How often do you use them now compared to how often you use Google/BBC/Youtube/Long distance Skye etc... local traffic amounts to nothing. 99% of what everyone accesses now isn't in their village?!? come on
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - where are these 'old' exchanges? There is and will be minimal traffic between nearby towns and villages. Exactly how will my email get to someone like the supermarket in the town?
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
The government is what people should be worried about.

In regards to the article, another retarded editor, first confusing downloading/uploading copyrighted content now traffic shaping/censorship.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
100Mb shared between 180 users?? i doubt they have a 100Mb backhaul.....
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Local traffic implies a de-centralised network, i.e. where you can see the IP address of a neighbour, thus P2P networks that are optimised for using closer peers will keep the traffic on the what is effectively a LAN.

If mail servers and NNTP were located on the LAN too this could help reduce WAN traffic.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
just read on the blog that it is a 100Mb connection, 0.5Mbps each at a peak usage.... ouch!

They would be better off with a 10Gbps connection in artificially limiting each property to 100Mbps (50Mbps minimum).
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
andrew, even if mailservers and NNTP were put in your village they still need to speak to the wider world. None of this local traffic stuff adds up. 99% of the traffic you access is outside your village/town/home/city. Moving a few servers around won't change that. DNS resolution/DHCP/Google/Youtube/Facebook its out out in the wider world as you well know :)

Moving even one server would probably incur more cost/upkeep/support than the bandwidth it saves.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
If the 1Gig infrastructure was hypothetically in a city then yes 1Gig "LAN" would be useful, especially if you have other buildings.

The infrastructure would be OK in a town, but i dont see why a village needs 1Gig to each house, then again its better than nothing.

They might had got a good deal on 1Gbps fibre cards :p lol lol
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Digital Pump = Next Gen Cabling with This Gen speeds. You'll notice Tref says that 100Mbps backhaul should be capable of supporting up to 1600 users.

A Digital pump is a alternative way to get broadband to places others won't go, but it does not offer next gen speeds per household to where it counts - outside of the village.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Outside of the village the 'community' will run fibre from the DVP.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Sure but collectively each household in the village won't be getting 10Mbps, 20Mbp, 50Mbps (each) to the outside world which is what I'm getting at
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Scrub collectively , I mean just each house
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Because it's shared at some point...
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Exactly which is what I'm trying to get across to cd's - "I don't know why you jump on '100 megabit shared between 180 people"
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Because 100mb between 180 users is 0.5Mbps which is still the original problem lol, as long as they can upgrade it to 1Gbps when they need to then it's fine.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
It is the original problem yes. Upgrading the backhaul to 1Gbps sounds sweet but what does that mean to the monthly cost?

Its currently £25 per month to share the cost of the 100Mb circuit so does mean the cost rise to £250 a month? The cost of a 1Gb backhaul is huge, someone has to pay

Like I saw its an alternative for people that can't get BB, but cd's comparison to FTTC/Virgin sorry but no, not on a cost or bandwidth level
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I think it is a good method, most those users won't notice it's being shared, but either a few people on iPlayer and you will notice. I think it's a great idea though but if all 180 customers signed im sure they could put in the Gig link. :)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
The internet is shared and relies on not all users using it at the same time.

If all 180 want to use iPlayer at the same time then tough. Fact is they don't and won't.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Your stating the obvious (to me anyway) Somerset.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I've been told the backhaul supports Gig, so it can easily be upgraded....
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Sure lego but what about the cost, how does that affect the £1 a day / £25 a month? It would rocket surely.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Not really, don't FTTC cabs have multiple 10gE links?

I'm sure it wont be that bad if there is alot of take-up, to be honest I don't know the costs of 100Mb vs 1Gig backhaul. I'm sure you know more about that. 10gE would be essessive and cost quite abit.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm not sure what they are using Lego, maybe BES, all BT pricing is available to see:- http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/pricing/loadProductPriceDetails.do?data=kxWGSeZ9BRMKF3tctK4117%2FuVhXjMR5hQz3DdrCHJqBVrWsgMC%2F4dy9qJJFTkna2
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Can you please use 'tinyurl' cos can't see the full link on my phone lol

Thanks
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Multiple sources from Google say they use 10gigE link, each an supports 288 users. So at full capacity each user gets around 25Mbps excluding congestion at the exchange level.

Another source said (unconfirmed) that if cab load reaches 70% that the bandwidth will double (20gigE) but that dont seem right....
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
http://tinyurl.com/23pl7gj your quoting FTTC though there aren't you lego? I was on about digital pumps.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Lego - it's not that simple.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Read the link, expensive lol :P

Somerset, what ain't that simple?
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I was on about FTTC, The village pump already supports gig.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But at what cost lego? Ashby is £25 pm with 100Mbps backhaul, I've not seen any prices for a 1Gb backhaul.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I don't know, me neither. I will ask
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Even at peak you will not find everyone simultaneously downloading. FTTC cabs are 1G.

It's not just dividing link size by number of users to come up with a figure.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'd be interested what Digital pump internet is advertised at, you know like we are "up to 8Mb/20Mb" etc etc. Do they guarantee you anything
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I asked tref, "a gig backhaul would server 10k or more customers – you wouldn’t turn that much bandwidth on if you only had 500 or 1k customers – in that case it would be uneconomical and unnecessary."

I think 100Mb backhaul would be fine for village users, considering that those who download lots while get less priority over the ones who hardly use the internet.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But its not a comparison to FTTC and Virgin's 20/50Mb which is what cd was slating over there. Which was my point.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
seems nice to be arguing lol :P

Somerset 1G to FTTC seems about right :)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"What a great family to choose to receive the first rural fibre to the home at 100Mbits even gigabit capacity. Night Virgin. Night BT crap Infinity. Night John Boy. W00t" - cd again, missing the point. Its not 100Mbits to one home :)
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
seems nice not to be arguing****

GMAN99, It's better than no internet at all... We just need to know the package details..
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
GMAN99, It's better than no internet at all

Totally agree. Just not sure about the one provider lock in, but yes.. better than nowt ;o)
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I think once a provider has made its ROI they must let other providers use it.

Although "lock in" is bad (in my opinion) but i also believe the provider should get their ROI.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Like if BT did not let other providers use the FTTC/P products for a year or until they get their ROI i would be fine with that, although a lot of people will complain lol.

I think broadband is too cheap and its not giving providers the money to invest in better networks, but people complain (me also) when they dont invest LOL.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
It just annoys me that government is not doing enough, i think they should.

1) Remove fibre tax, bringing it back in 5-10 years time at a fair rate.
2) Offer tax subsidies to those who install more fibre, which would also create more competition and a race. The more fibre you install the bigger the tax relief
3) Maybe offer a low interest loan to providers willing to install fibre (load must be paid back obviously)
4) Remove BT obligation to have copper installed in a home allowing BT to sell it.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
If BT do not require copper to every home (i know why they have to), they can have smaller exchange buildings, which would lower their maintenance costs, therefore giving them the ability to lower their costs to other providers and customers which then makes its cheaper for us.

If you dont agree with the above 4 points, then please give me an alternative instead of saying it wont work. :)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I agree with them all. But its unlikely 1) will happen under this gov
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
GMAN, we can only hope.

5)Get rid of Ofcom? wishful thinking :D
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Well the con's said they would, lets hope so!
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
We need more people in government who know about technology, the current government seems to be fighting government and making stupid decisions and not knowing the potential of technologies like FTTH.

Ed Vaizey for example, he is in charge of Broadband but he dont know how it works... that dont make sense to me.

I think my mum knows more than Ed about broadband and my mum can barely turn on a computer, lol!
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
seems to be fighting technology*******
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
@Legolash2o

A while back a load of labour government ministers went to China, all the Chinese equivalents had degrees relevant to their post and they didn't understand how our ministers could be in charge with only political/law degrees.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
lmao really, do you have a link? would love to read that. Imagine what this country is like if ministers where qualified in their fields....

But yeah would love a link to that info if there is one, ill have a look on google :D
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.