[Technologist]

It’s estimated to take another ten years or more  to get Wifi speeds across the country to all be fast enough for streaming to work in every house.

I think you mean Broadband not Wi-fi ......
But the UK currently has only 1.3% properties unable to access less than "Decent Broadband" i.e. the USO
www.ofcom.org.uk 
that is smaller than the number able NOT to get PSB DTT TV!

That Document discusses how this will be reduced - but does not mention that the Major telcos will offer 30Mbit/5Mbit?
as their USO product - which is ample for streaming
i.e like the 97 % who can already get better than this! (comparble with Freeview lite and Less than DSAT coverage)
Or the 75% on "gigabit capable" ( 52% Fibre rest Virgin DOCSIS)
But there is more work needed in Wales and Scotland ( NI has more Gigabit capable than England!)

But wiring equipment will improve things!!! and reduce Wi-fi interference

[Newshound47]

I think you mean Broadband not Wi-fi ......
But the UK  currently has only 1.3% properties unable to access less than "Decent Broadband" i.e. the USO
www.ofcom.org.uk 
that is smaller than the number able NOT to get PSB DTT TV!

That Document discusses how this will be reduced  - but does not mention that the Major telcos will offer 30Mbit/5Mbit?
as their USO product - which is ample for  streaming
i.e like the 97 % who can already  get better than this!  (comparble  with Freeview lite and Less than DSAT coverage)
Or the 75% on "gigabit capable" ( 52% Fibre rest Virgin DOCSIS)
But there is more work needed in Wales and Scotland ( NI has more Gigabit capable than England!)

But wiring equipment will improve things!!! and reduce Wi-fi interference

The accuracy is when it works. Plenty of areas have frequent slower speeds than advertised. Relatives live rurally and have fast speeds sometimes other times it is so slow even their Alexa struggles to work.

[Technologist]

The OFCOM figures are measured/sampled not advertised rates
And to OFCOMs bands…. which are not what any technology/telco works with !
If you look at the data behind it in the interactive report (see p3)
You can see what the numbers are by constituency etc etc .
And how much overbuild…

As more fibre is installed it can only get better
but it is not as bad now as some make out ….
And certainly coverage is better than non PSB broadcasting
And slow speeds are not just a rural phenomenon.

[i.h]

The OFCOM figures are measured/sampled not  advertised rates
And to  OFCOMs bands…. which are not what any technology/telco works with !
If you look at the data behind it in the interactive report (see p3)
You can see what the numbers are by constituency etc etc .
And how much overbuild…

As more fibre is installed it can only get better
but it is not as bad now as some make out ….
And certainly coverage is better than non PSB broadcasting
And slow speeds are not just a rural phenomenon.

Also, it's measured "properly" - eg some ISPs integrate Samknows or other test suites into their routers, so tests can be performed when the connection is not that busy and crucially is not subject to WiFi coverage/performance/interference.

I have lost track of how many people say their internet is crap - when it's actually because they are using wifi and a poorly optimised setup to boot, eg router at other end of house to where they are. Or they use "mesh" devices which are good for coverage but not great for throughput.

[AndrewP]

I have lost track of how many people say their internet is crap - when it's actually because they are using wifi and a poorly optimised setup to boot, eg router at other end of house to where they are. Or they use "mesh" devices which are good for coverage but not great for throughput.

How do you propose this is improved?

It's all well and good saying the setup is poorly optimised but the average consumer will likely never understand what it means.

The onus shouldn't be on the end-user to understand the systems but on the internet companies to advise how to get the most out of their connections or to explore ways to improve them.

However, advertising does muddle the situation regarding Wi-Fi. I believe it's BT who advertise that their router's 'fast broadband' etc can reach all areas of the home and promise to provide extenders for free if unsatisfactory. Certainly sounds contradictory to the "optimal setup". I'm sure other companies do similar, implying that getting a signal automatically means a good internet connection.

I don't think it helps either that ethernet ports are no longer included on a lot of products, and the ability to use them is prohibited by cost of adapters and such. My Surface didn't come with an ethernet adapter and if I wanted a wired connection, I'd have to pay £255 for the privilege.

[i.h]

How do you propose this is improved?

It's all well and good saying the setup is poorly optimised but the average consumer will likely never understand what it means.

The onus shouldn't be on the end-user to understand the systems but on the internet companies to advise how to get the most out of their connections or to explore ways to improve them.

However, advertising does muddle the situation regarding Wi-Fi. I believe it's BT who advertise that their router's 'fast broadband' etc can reach all areas of the home and promise to provide extenders for free if unsatisfactory. Certainly sounds contradictory to the "optimal setup". I'm sure other companies do similar, implying that getting a signal automatically means a good internet connection.

I don't think it helps either that ethernet ports are no longer included on a lot of products, and the ability to use them is prohibited by cost of adapters and such. My Surface didn't come with an ethernet adapter and if I wanted a wired connection, I'd have to pay £255 for the privilege.

On the contrary - at some point it does become the end user's problem. The ISPs have done what they can. Their routers are going to be designed to provide as much wifi coverage and performance as permitted by the hardware and Ofcom regulations, and mesh extenders do the rest. But the laws of physics are what they are and the only way to get the ultimate in performance is to run ethernet cables. What I meant in my rant was the types of user who demand to know why they don't get gigabit speeds in every room of their house, and rush straight to twitter, ofcom, etc.

Put another way, your local electricity, gas and water companies don't handle anything past the meter. Arqiva operate the transmission network to the best of their ability, but it's your responsibility to sort out your aerial, or pay someone to do it for you. Why should ISPs go further, at least not for an additional fee (as is often charged to rent their mesh equipment or for fancier plans that include in home visits). Openreach also does their bit, by offering guidance to new home builders as to how to do things properly to provide the best experience for the occupants, such as a centrally located router & pre-wiring rooms for ethernet.

I didn't say mesh devices were inherently bad, but they won't get your gigabit broadband from the front of the house to the back and it might be better to move the router more centrally and turn off the mesh extender.

£255? More like £25 for a USB to ethernet adapter, and that's at the expensive end of the scale. Generic USB-C "docks" are available for £50 or less.