Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: G.fast  (Read 1043 times)

Bowdon

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1098
Re: G.fast
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2017, 03:44:06 PM »

@BlackSheep

Does BT/OR have a plan for when it comes to pushing nodes further out, and how that will work?

I'm just wondering if;

Hypothetical situation. Speed and distance not based on reality. Just simplifying for the example.

Cabinet 1 gets a G.fast node next to it. G.fast can server upto 200m away.

Person A lives 20m away and gets the full speed benefit.

Person B lives 180m away gets a slight increase in their current FTTC speed.

Then BT/OR announce they are installing new nodes to bring G.fast closer to peoples houses.

Cabinet 1 adds a second node at 100m away

Would Person B's line be routed through the new node bringing them closer to a node?
Logged
BT Infinity 2 - HG612 & Asus RT-N66U - ECI Cab

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4304
Re: G.fast
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2017, 05:21:55 PM »

Alas, Bowdon ........ I'm as much in the dark as most folk. The trial areas are not near me and feedback is very limited. I think once the trials are completed, the detail will be firmed up and decisions made ??.

Sorry.  :blush:
Logged

Ignitionnet

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: G.fast
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2017, 05:35:09 PM »

It's all about competition, my friend. If there was no threat by VM, I'm guessing there's be no FTTP ??  ;) :P

PS ..... no-one does care about gigantybytes speed ..... only a couple of dozen people.  ;D

You've rather contradicted yourself here. No-one cares about higher speeds but VM are a threat that requires investment in FTTP?

Evidently someone in Openreach and indeed yourself consider higher speeds to be an issue given you regard overbuilding FTTC with FTTP as business acumen.

You can't have it both ways. Either VM offering higher speeds is irrelevant, in which case there's no business case for FTTP and FTTC at a keen price is fine, given there are no applications that require more than FTTC right now, let alone G.fast, or it's something that people do care about.

Sorry but it's pretty disingenuous to have posted that ultrafast is irrelevant right up until Openreach start planning to do it, then it's the greatest thing ever, especially when it's the FTTP that BT saw fit to roll back on from 25% of the original commercial rollout to pretty much nothing without taxpayer subsidy.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4358
Re: G.fast
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2017, 05:45:53 PM »

It's ridiculous thats what it is, plain and simple  :P

Just like installing G.Fast at the cabinet, let's try and sell faster speeds to people who already have the fastest fttc speeds available. Unless it's priced very similar to 80/20  I doubt the majority will pay more for what they don't actually need.

nail hit on head.

I hated adsl2+ as it was the same thing, helps those always with a max adsl1 speed but not those on long lines.

cabinet based g.fast will have hindered sales as those who can get it will already have top end vdsl speeds, the speed cutoff will vary, but my line is just outside of BT target g.fast range and my attainable on fast path is currently about 66.5.  I think it is no coincidence that the areas that filled cabinet's quickly are areas which had poor performing ADSL services, such areas are mine and ignition's.  Ignition had to beg BT to get a cabinet, they were so wrong that his area wouldnt have the demand.  My area was late in the rollout and filled up the cabinet quite quickly.  Meanwhile isp's are struggling to get people on 15+ meg adsl2+ connections to upgrade to FTTC.

As ignition has pointed out before tho, BT are averse to capital expenditure, g.fast from cabinet's has minimal capital expenditure so they may not be too fussed if the sales are low.

Where the money is spent will typically be dictated by the following.

Subsidies - in this case not only has it produced FTTC, but a higher quality FTTC than the commercial rollout as it has vectoring and only hauwei cabinets no ECI.
Political intervention, the government wants the plebs who moan a lot to be satisfied so some leaning onto BT can get those areas sorted, notice most of the early FTTC rollout was rural.
Competition - if VM are offering XX speed, and BT can only supply X speed in that area, then that area will logically have higher priority for upgrades than an area which has no competition.
Logged
Sky Fiber Pro - Billion 8800NL bridge & PFSense BOX running PFSense 2.4 - ECI Cab

Bowdon

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1098
Re: G.fast
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2017, 11:23:33 AM »

Do you guys think when G.fast becomes available nationally that we'll get lists of exchanges (or maybe cabinets), like we did when FTTC/FTTP arrived? or will it be more a subtle the roll out?
Logged
BT Infinity 2 - HG612 & Asus RT-N66U - ECI Cab

Ignitionnet

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: G.fast
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2017, 11:45:25 AM »

There will be information released just as it was with FTTC/P once the full commercial rollout gets going, if not earlier. It's part of advertising the product.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 

anything