Widecombe is in the 0.4% of the UK population that does not have BT broadband. BT has no plans to provide it because it is not economically viable.
There is a chance that we will get broadband either through a wireless link, or via a SWRDA grant, but it is hard to know when.
I am not rampantly left-wing at all, but, if BT were still a public (nationalised) company, its decisions would be made on a completely different basis - there would be no discrimination against different groups, and perhaps 'monopoly' basic service providers should not be in private hands for that reason (hence the regulator I suppose).
If BT had always been private then we may still be waiting for telephones up here, because to provide them would not, in their words, be 'economically viable'. It seems wrong that the SWRDA should have to find grant money (taxpayers money in some form), to fill these gaps.
Incidentally, electricity only came to Widecombe in 1963 - not that long ago really (before that we would have used generators). Again if the electricity companies had been private, perhaps we would still be using generators.
So (some of) the disadvantages of living in rural areas are caused by companies being privatised. That is weird. I have to say there are plenty of advantages too, so I am not in general complaining, just trying to make a point about decision making.
I would like to hear from others with views on this