Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Technology => Topic started by: freelander on May 11, 2017, 07:11:45 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37705435
Switzerland is the first country in Europe to deliver so-called ultrafast broadband to customers through traditional copper infrastructure, according to service provider Swisscom.
It said 1,000 customers were now using a G.fast connection, which can reach speeds of 500Mbps.
G.fast lets copper cables carry data at faster speeds than before.
In the UK, BT's Openreach has been trialling G.fast technology, but customers can not yet buy packages
Hope this is ok here
-
TBH, I'm rather chuffed that other countries are sharing the limelight regarding G.fast technologies. It hopefully puts readers minds at rest that it's not a 'dead in the water' technology, as some would have you believe.
The only other slight point is ..... this is hardly breaking news, as the item was published almost 7 months ago !! ;) ;D
-
There is a lot of life in g.fast so long as they roll out much further into the network, and get that copper/aluminium as short as possible.
While Openreach is rolling out G.fast to its street cabinets, a continuation of its FTTC approach, Swisscom said it was hoping to install distribution points within 200m of homes
The Swiss know, I wonder if they have actually rolled out that close to homes though, given its seven months on now.
Quote is from the article linked to in the first post.
-
Its all down to the loop length.
e.g. how would have FTTC been received by the public if it was only rolled out from the exchange or cabinets outside the exchange.
There is nothing ground breaking or innovative about these new variants of DSL, for the most part they simply just enable higher frequencies that have always been there to use.
The real and prime reason for improvements is the addition of fibre to the loop to shorten the distance dependent copper. The design of g.fast would have been under the assumption it would be deployed closer to the home than VDSL, this is also evident by the fact BT had to get the spec changed so it suited their business model of deploying from VDSL cabinets.
-
Actually, I think Telecom Austria beat both of them to the first proper subscriber.
Swisscom are in good shape for G.Fast: they already had a "Fibre To The Street, FTTS" model, where they were getting fibre within 200m of properties, but using VDSL2 DSLAMs. A model that lies somewhere inbetween BT's "Cab" model for VDSL2, and a pure FTTdp model.
Swisscom's intention, with Alcatel hardware, was for their current VDSL2 DSLAMs to be plug-compatible with a future G.Fast model. A drop-in replacement, hardware-wise. Not sure what will happen to existing subscriber packages though.
this is also evident by the fact BT had to get the spec changed so it suited their business model of deploying from VDSL cabinets.
G.Fast itself didn't need much of a change to suit BT's longer ranges - just a higher aggregate power allowance, and bit-loadings of 13 or 14 (*). There were bigger changes needed in the business plans for DPUs - the nodes running G.Fast. Longer ranges imply more subscribers, more ports, higher vectoring demands ... and chipset designers needed to adjust their plans.
I suspect that BT don't intend for G.Fast to be *only* from the existing cabinets. In fact, the ANFP changes have been designed to cope with a multi-layered solution.
I suspect that BT really changed from a DP-centric focus to one very similar to Swisscom's FTTS: their own "inbetween" variant. It is obvious that phase 1 of an inbetween variant starts with the existing cabs anyway.
(*) - These changes went through as part of amendment 2 of G.Fast. It created a new profile 106b for this purpose.
It looks like amendment 3 went through last month, which properly introduced a 212MHz profile, something for G.Fast to run on coax, and added the ability to dynamically shift bandwidth between downstream and upstream. I'm not sure if the latter is coax-only, or works on twisted-pairs too; the ITU specs are still locked away.
-
Hi
Its all down to the loop length.
e.g. how would have FTTC been received by the public if it was only rolled out from the exchange or cabinets outside the exchange.
There is nothing ground breaking or innovative about these new variants of DSL, for the most part they simply just enable higher frequencies that have always been there to use.
The real and prime reason for improvements is the addition of fibre to the loop to shorten the distance dependent copper. The design of g.fast would have been under the assumption it would be deployed closer to the home than VDSL, this is also evident by the fact BT had to get the spec changed so it suited their business model of deploying from VDSL cabinets.
Exactly, and is also party why it is slow to arrive. The G.Fast equipment manufacturers designed all the hardware to be small with smaller numbers of ports (supporting say 16 customers), because it was only ever conceived it would be brought much closer to the premises. Now the manufacturers are faced with redesigning the equipment to support 96 ports or more demanded by BT, the issue here is implementing effective vectoring over the whole frequency range over 96 connections of considerably variable distances. How effective or reliable this will all be, well remains to be seen.
What BT are giving us is known as Long Range G.Fast. Luckily for BT, because the only people to benefit from greater speeds are those already close to the same cabinet that G.Fast will be attached to, already get pretty good speeds so aren't likely to move in their masses to G.Fast, so having cabinets that only support a few dozens ports probably isn't going to be a problem!
The main problem is all the investment BT are making into G.Fast is a waste of money, it does nothing to bring fibre closer to our homes, doesn't benefit anyone currently in the slow lane, and we all know inevitably it is fibre to our homes we will have.
Regards
Phil
-
I would welcome Openreach of g.fast because I am 243.6 metres away from the street cabinet. g.fast loop length of 250 metres would get me 150 Meg. Faster enough for now.
-
Mums cab1 connected to the combe down exchange in Bath has just had the gfast pod installed. I note the next pcp along has also been done as well but cabs a bit further away currently have no pod. Be interesting to see whats offered when its available.
-
Three engineers were wiring up a G Fast pod to Cabinet 35 on Pultney Road, junction of Lime Grove Bath (BA2 4HD) yesterday.
-
rather liked this OR have recently installed next to the new development at what was MOD foxhill site etc...pretty close to combe down exchange.
-
Will have a look tomorrow at the old MOD site on Warminster Road,now the Holburne Park development (BA2 6SF) & see what been put in.
No mention what will be available FTTC/FTTP/FTTP on demand in brochure, only Cat 5 data points. :silly:
Brochure: http://search.savills.com/list/newhomes-for-sale/england/bath-and-north-east-somerset/bath/ba1?_ga=2.88008216.184672419.1499454114-691357837.1499454114#/r/detail/gbbardbrd170021#fpCarousel
-
Not sure what exchange they would be on- kingsmead?
-
Kingsmead.
-
Nice - cat 5 ;D ;)
A long way from kingsmead out there...
-
I'm at Bathampton on Cab 39 & still Kingsmead, & it has FTTPoD available. :silly: totally useless, who can afford it. :sob:
-
Lol... all I can see is lots of £££££ signs being that far out.
-
. . . it has FTTPoD available. :silly: totally useless, who can afford it. :sob:
psychopomp1 is one kitizen whose name comes to mind! :)
-
Yet more G Fast cabinets are appearing in Bath, noticed Cab 32 (BA2 6EP) bottom of Bathwick Hill been done, spotted a few others been done this week,still hoping they do my cab, but they have finally gave cab 30 other end of my village it's fibre twin this week, some 6 years after cab 39 other end of village was enabled.
-
Until BT put fibre deeper into the network, G.Fast is pointless for a large percentage of the population.
Take my cabinet. There are about 10 people who can benefit from G.Fast. They won't take it because most of them are elderly and don't know what it is.
The rest of the properties (probably over 100) are over 500m away and so won't benefit.
It's such a backwards system to continue to make those closer have faster speeds. My logic is that if you could make those further away have faster speeds, they'd be far more likely to take the upgrade!
-
Until BT put fibre deeper into the network, G.Fast is pointless for a large percentage of the population.
Take my cabinet. There are about 10 people who can benefit from G.Fast. They won't take it because most of them are elderly and don't know what it is.
The rest of the properties (probably over 100) are over 500m away and so won't benefit.
It's such a backwards system to continue to make those closer have faster speeds. My logic is that if you could make those further away have faster speeds, they'd be far more likely to take the upgrade!
Couldn't agree more.
And they could start by replacing aluminum cables first with fibre, got aluminum here, & it has caused no end of grief for me.
-
snip/
Take my cabinet. There are about 10 people who can benefit from G.Fast. They won't take it because most of them are elderly and don't know what it is.
GFast is not the laxative they need, then? :wry:
-
Until BT put fibre deeper into the network, G.Fast is pointless for a large percentage of the population.
Take my cabinet. There are about 10 people who can benefit from G.Fast. They won't take it because most of them are elderly and don't know what it is.
The rest of the properties (probably over 100) are over 500m away and so won't benefit.
While I agree with the first part of your statement about fibre needing to go deeper into the network - and according to BT this will happen with G.Fast eventually - I disagree with the rest.
You will find that your cabinet isn't typical and that the majority of the UK population live much closer to their local cabinet. Population densities are also going to much higher in commercial viable locations (i.e. urban areas)
-
I would say 90% of my cabinet is within BT's g.fast supported distance, I am right at the edge of my cabinet radius and still under 400m.
This makes my cabinet a really bad business decision to deploy g.fast node's as most of the cabinet is supported on a cabinet pod deployment.
The next cabinet is across the road from me, I suspect BT are more likely to do network rearranging than deploy a node to get me within g.fast range.
-
While I agree with the first part of your statement about fibre needing to go deeper into the network - and according to BT this will happen with G.Fast eventually - I disagree with the rest.
You will find that your cabinet isn't typical and that the majority of the UK population live much closer to their local cabinet. Population densities are also going to much higher in commercial viable locations (i.e. urban areas)
In my part of Hampshire it's a very common occurrence. I have two cabinets serving my village, both basically outside the village. The second cabinet has a grand total of one property which would benefit from G.Fast. It's a pub so at least the drunkards can have decent Internet. The same is true for another village next to mine.
There are people crying out in my village for faster broadband (FTTC for a lot of them giving about 10Mbps) and many have said they would pay double for faster broadband if it was available. I really think BT is missing a trick here.
-
In my part of Hampshire it's a very common occurrence. I have two cabinets serving my village, both basically outside the village. The second cabinet has a grand total of one property which would benefit from G.Fast. It's a pub so at least the drunkards can have decent Internet. The same is true for another village next to mine.
There are people crying out in my village for faster broadband (FTTC for a lot of them giving about 10Mbps) and many have said they would pay double for faster broadband if it was available. I really think BT is missing a trick here.
Except they're not.
Even if the residents were paying double (which wouldn't be allowed by OFCOM), it would still cost a lot more than double the cabinet pods to roll out more fibre to either the homes or nodes for G.fast .
Considerably more outlay for the same return doesn't equal good business sense.
-
There surely has to be a point where profit stops being made just by covering those closest to the cabinet. There must be a point of diminishing return.
-
There surely has to be a point where profit stops being made just by covering those closest to the cabinet. There must be a point of diminishing return.
For now, Openreach are focusing on getting the best bang for their buck.
In time, fibre will be ran deeper, but for now, Openreach don't ned to spend the extra money running fibre further out, when they can already serve a large proportion with the existing infrastructure, plus a relatively inexpensive side pod.
BT want rid of exchanges by 2025(except head ends). Which means everyone will be on some sort of fibre based connection, be that VDSL/G.Fast or FTTP to utiilise VOIP by then.
-
There surely has to be a point where profit stops being made just by covering those closest to the cabinet. There must be a point of diminishing return.
There will be, and thats when BT will invest. But they wont spend if they dont need to, and right now they dont.
-
In my part of Hampshire it's a very common occurrence. I have two cabinets serving my village, both basically outside the village. The second cabinet has a grand total of one property which would benefit from G.Fast. It's a pub so at least the drunkards can have decent Internet. The same is true for another village next to mine.
As has been said, your area in Hampshire is not typical of the UK population - 80-90% of whom live in cities where the population density is much higher than the villages you describe.
This also means there are a lot more customers within range of those cabinets but also it will be more viable to install pods deeper in those areas on a purely commercial basis.
If you haven't it might be worth looking at the Codelook website to get an idea of how many more customers cabs in cities tend to serve vs those in rural areas.