Opinion: What’s faster than superfast? A question of semantics
This morning I watched the above speech by Göran Marby of Swedish regulator PTS. It meanders a bit, and (anecdotally) I was shocked by the apparent confusion between IP and Internet, but it makes some good points, and in particular it raises an important question about the future of networks. The assumption seems to be that the millions of devices that we predict to be connected will do so on the basis of a mobile network framework. But most of these devices won’t move. In Fiber rich Sweden, the alternative (that they be connected on the basis of a fixed network paradigm) is appealing indeed.
This is something that interests me a lot, but I don’t think my thought process is quite mature enough to really address yet.
The "superfast" tag frankly means nothing
Instead I want to (slightly humorously) latch onto a joke Marby made in his speech about the UK’s “superfast” broadband. If 30Mbps is “superfast” he says, the standard 100 Mbps in Sweden should be called “superduperfast”.
We’re currently delving back into a project that’s been on the backburner for too long, with the aim of analysing advertising messaging and strategies for FTTP.
If I was Virgin or Hyperoptic (or Sky/TalkTalk, assuming their fiber plans in York are actually moving forward), I would latch onto this concept and launch a campaign arguing that if BT is delivering superfast, then either of these other players are delivering superduperfast. Done well it would be funny, and would degrade the “superfast” tag, which frankly means nothing. If copper champions can devalue the advertising power of “fiber”, surely devaluing “superfast” is fair game?
(Note: I notice that Cityfibre used “ultra-fast” in their announcement, but I still think superduperfast would work better)