The Queen's Speech last week mentioned a perfect future in which the internet is like running water coming fast and cheap to all as standard.
The monarch said at the State Opening of Parliament (backed up later by the supplementary release of the government's proposed Digital Economy Bill) that UK citizens would soon have a "right" to fast broadband wherever they live in the country.
It sounds fantastic, and broadsheets didn't hesitated in making it headline news. Certain Cabinet ministers haven't hesitated in drawing attention to it either, but more on that later.
There are two key problems lurking beneath what otherwise appears a genuinely progressive pledge for the UK's digital economy.
First, the pledge is meaningless. I'm sorry to use that word, but it genuinely is utterly, shamefully, idiotically meaningless. The proposed bill speaks of a "new Broadband Universal Service Obligation" (USO) and names this, at least "initially", as 10Mbps.
This is exactly the same as the existing "plan" for a USO, and is thus a completely empty statement at best. At worst, it's an attempt by the government, through the lips of a potentially bemused 90-year-old in a position of high public regard, to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
There's a new mention of "compensation when things go wrong", but speaking of a "right" to something and then backing it up with essentially a promise that you'll be paid off with cash but still have slow internet isn't really a demonstrable 'right'. It's also bound to be impossible to check on a given day.
What's happened here is very much in line with the problem I absolutely refuse to let die: the government is making no adequate provision to cover the country in the fast broadband it needs, but is using the same glaringly obvious failings it persistently denies in a bare-faced spin cycle to try to look like it's making a success of it.
One of the first people actively to promote the front page of The Times and its 'All households get legal right to fast broadband' headline was Ed Vaizey, minister of state for culture and the digital economy.
Long-term readers of V3 may start to wonder whether I have some kind of irrational obsession with this politician. But the truth is that I just find the level of spin surrounding the way he handles the broadband rollout he's supposed to be managing utterly unacceptable. This is another great example.
Flagging up The Times headline, I thought, was odd as what this promise actually does is illustrate that the "90 per cent" fast broadband rollout Vaizey claims (and which I consistently question) is on such shaky ground that it needs a promise from the Queen, a promise of financial compensation and a promise from Ofcom that it'll actually be delivered at a basic level.
The suggestion is that, on its own terms, the UK broadband rollout is causing such disappointment that the Queen needs to get involved. Yet Vaizey and his government spin that promise as progress because it's on the front page of all the important newspapers. It must therefore mean something big for the UK's so-called digital economy.
If you replaced the word 'broadband' with 'non-infected drinking water' or 'oxygen', it would serve as a reminder of failure, not success. But because it's technology, and any mention of technology is easily linked with 'progress', the fact that the UK is currently enjoying developing world levels of WiFi which the government has said earnestly that it wants to improve, is apparently a palatable statement.
That's the first key problem.
The second is the speed of the promised internet itself. 10Mbps is not fast broadband, it's slow broadband.
I live in an area of London where there is still no fibre and, with an average standard broadband connection of 17-18Mbps coming in to my property, dips in video quality on BBC iPlayer or Netflix are commonplace. Upload speeds, which I need for work, are a joke at best.
And I'm one of the lucky ones. Since I've started my "incredibly misleading" (according to Vaizey) campaign against the government's lack of interest in broadband infrastructure investment or transparency around its failings, I've been contacted by hundreds of afflicted end users on Twitter, LinkedIn and by email.
With a 10Mbps base line already supposedly in place, or almost in place (it's never officially arrived), a lot of people don't actually have even close to that speed in terms of a functional internet connection.
With a new 10Mbps base line promise in place (if it ever becomes official), those people still won't have a decent connection, but the government can now be seen to be 'doing something' for a few more years.
Please don't fall for it. The government has injected meaningless, empty words into the Queen's mouth and, until something intelligent (and, to be fair, almost certainly expensive) happens to the state of broadband infrastructure in the UK, areas that fall between the cracks of Whitehall's poster campaign are going to have to cope with the digital citizenship of a person living in around 1993.
That's not a 'digital economy' by any stretch of the imagination, and leaves us in a decidedly iffy position on the global technology stage, particularly with the possibility of an EU withdrawal around the corner.
As the rest of the world starts to move ahead with properly connected societies, don't assume that the government has your back on this for one second. They'd rather just save as much money as possible, while keeping the spin spinning and the headlines vibrating.
This does not amount to genuine change.
Mark Vartanyan was working for Norwegian e-healthcare firm Dignio when he was arrested
Samsung can't see a way to profitably compete against Amazon and Google
Fix being rushed out - but not quite as quickly as an ambulance to an emergency
Massive miner Rio Tinto claims 20 per cent of pit-to-port train kilometres in Australia are now driverless
Rio Tinto today, TfL tomorrow?