Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[renluop]

Something about number of phone lines in relation to that 10 million.

[tubaman]

10 million properties is a little more than "a few" though.

Come up with a cheap way to roll out fibre further though and I'm sure Openreach will welcome you with open arms.

I just think the money would be better spent helping those with poorer connections, but as Black Sheep correctly points out this is all about business.
 

[niemand]

The money wouldn't go very far helping those with poorer connections, which is why they still have poorer connections. Funding for each project would come out of a different pot and one wouldn't influence the other in all honesty.

Doesn't benefit me at all either but offers some people some choice which is a good thing.

[adslmax]

G.Fast 50m to 200m by BT Checker Live below:





[attachment deleted by admin]

[Ixel]

G.Fast 50m to 200m by BT Checker Live below:

Looks unlikely at around 500 meters I'll get it based on those distances alone. At 200 meters it seems to drop off quite significantly.

[PhilipD]

Hi

At the 200 metre distance the upload speed is shown as potentially being worse than that of VDSL, what a rubbish hack of a technology  .  Where I live only a tiny percentage of those connected to the cabinet will benefit from faster speeds due to it's positioning (it's at the very edge of the homes served and not in the centre), and that applies to my last address as well, so I suspect the cabinet here will not be upgraded to G.Fast anytime soon.

The irony is, at the distances G.Fast works, VDSL could happily have been un-throttled as they did with ADSLMax, with no extra costs involved or delays in deploying, with the majority of people within G.Fast's limited range getting around 100/30 on VDSL, and this ignores the options of moving to a faster VDSL version.

The only reason they haven't done this is marketing, as without G.Fast they wouldn't have a product they could advertise that approaches or matches the speeds of the likes of Virgin.

Regards

Phil

[niemand]

A big reason for not doing 'VDSL Max' was that vectoring would've been needed and there's no commercial case.

A faster VDSL version would've reduced the reach of G.fast further and wouldn't have cost much less to deploy. Retrofitting all the cabinets and, indeed, replacing more than just line cards in a number of them as there's lower port density available on 30a.

VDSL 30a is not an FTTC technology. To be fair neither is G.fast, however BT and others have spent some resources trying to make it as such. This is a stop-gap to tick some boxes with regards to getting a 300Mb-capable technology available as quickly and cheaply as possible.

[PhilipD]

Hi

Vectoring has always been needed on VDSL though    I don't see why vectoring would be needed anymore than it is now to just allow lines to sync up to the maximum attainable rate, it's little different to what is happening now by reducing margins to 3db.

A faster VDSL version of course would be in place of G.Fast. G.Fast isn't that different to VDSL, it's all a variation on the same theme, however G.Fast uses time division multiplexing, which is better over shorter distances and was why it was designed to be installed closer to the premises which also allows for better upload speeds.  The differences in approach to G.Fast compared to VDSL though means it can't use the same frequencies as VDSL, so starts above VDSL as I understand it, so straight away it's reach is less, and it quickly runs out of steam and performs worse than VDSL, whereas a new VDSL version wouldn't have that issue, as you would change everyone from one standard to another, and get vectoring added with the new hardware at the same time.

This is a stop-gap to tick some boxes with regards to getting a 300Mb-capable technology available as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Exactly, that's essentially what I was saying, and it's a stop gap that reaches very few people, and doesn't bring fibre any closer to the home, unlike FTTC which at least had the benefit of bringing fibre closer.

In the UK we don't have G.Fast, we have Long Range G.Fast, a hacked about standard to fit a business model, it isn't what G.Fast was suppose to be.  The biggest problem is those people on slow connections now, will not benefit at all from G.Fast, it only makes the fastest connections faster, this is the opposite to FTTC that brought considerably faster speeds to many people who were otherwise on the end of a very long line from the exchange, it extended reach, whereas G.Fast doesn't.

Regards

Phil

[Chrysalis]

Personally I think vectored 30mhz is better, however what BT have done here is looked at which offers the highest marketed speed and made a decision on that, as most other metrics favour vectored 30mhz vdsl. Marketing has won out in this case.

Vectored 30mhz you can sell services 200-300mbit range, and it will hit more properties than say a 200mbit g.fast product, however BT want that 350-500 range which they can only get with g.fast.  If g.fast wasnt developed we would likely now be looking at a large FTTP rollout from BT or enjoying vectoring, is a shame g.fast got developed

[niemand]

Back on topic, interestingly a G.fast pod has appeared on a cabinet just down the road from me, Hunslet 62.

Why interesting? This was enabled for FTTC via BDUK and passes about 120 premises.

Why not? The BDUK funding took care of the power and backhaul, the premises are all pretty close to the cabinet, oh, and the small matter of Virgin Media rocking up in between FTTC and G.fast and snaffling some customers.

[Black Sheep]

Personally I think vectored 30mhz is better, however what BT have done here is looked at which offers the highest marketed speed and made a decision on that, as most other metrics favour vectored 30mhz vdsl. Marketing has won out in this case.

Vectored 30mhz you can sell services 200-300mbit range, and it will hit more properties than say a 200mbit g.fast product, however BT want that 350-500 range which they can only get with g.fast.  If g.fast wasnt developed we would likely now be looking at a large FTTP rollout from BT or enjoying vectoring, is a shame g.fast got developed

Remember many moons back ...... I think it was Kitz herself that commented, "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ??" .............. well, we've got it.

The relentless push for more speed 'like yesterday', which is driving Ofcom's ill-thought out targets .... has seen the need for this sticking plaster. As a business decision ... it was made for them. 

 

[phi2008]

Does the installation of G.fast pods show up on roadworks.org?

[lee111s]

Not likely, as there's no civils work required.

[niemand]

Nope.

[Chrysalis]

Remember many moons back ...... I think it was Kitz herself that commented, "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ??" .............. well, we've got it.

The relentless push for more speed 'like yesterday', which is driving Ofcom's ill-thought out targets .... has seen the need for this sticking plaster. As a business decision ... it was made for them. 

 

I actually said I dont like the push for speeds for marketing

The advantages of vectoring tho is its a speed enabler, so doesnt necessarily raise max speeds but allows more people to get speeds in higher range of existing services, in turn it also boosts reliability of the connection.

I can of course see why BT made this decision, ofcom are letting VM push marketed speeds like crazy without any consideration of service quality, and BT are merely reacting to that. Marketing battle.