Print

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

[Bowdon]

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/01/uk-government-no-consensus-for-deploying-ultrafast-fttp-broadband.html

The Central Government has disappointed those calling for ultrafast pure fibre optic broadband connections (FTTH/P) to be rolled out across the United Kingdom by rebuffing the idea as part of its response to a European Commission consultation on connectivity needs post-2020.

[Black Sheep]

Thank you for the link, I'll read that later ................. but FWIW ........ I'm with the Govt on this one. This mythical need for ultra-fast speed, only applies to the very low percentages of the population IMO.

[Bowdon]

I agree with your point that probably the vast majority of people don't require or even want the top speeds that FTTP/H bring. I still maintain my opinion that the promotion of FTTP/H technology should be seen as an upgrading of the technology i.e. getting rid of the copper lines, rather than one of just speed.

It would have helped the situation if everyone who orders 'upto 80mb' (or is it 76 these days?) would actually get what they ordered. Everyone knows crosstalk is an issue yet nothing is done about it. The same with the situation with G.INP. These could all improve both the speed and stability of EU's lines and experience. Yet for whatever reason BT / OR (I'm not sure who directly makes the decisions on these things) carry on moving forward without trying to improve current technologies.

Unless I'm missing something here, I can see that when G.fast is deployed, what would stop these FTTP/H only companies offering full fibre via G.fast and replacing the last copper line to the G.fast box? Although it might be a big price to replace the copper line part I think it would at least offer a price to the EU to pay it or not.

I still believe that the BT and OR groups in the current state are the people best placed to take us to the next big step for speed and stability. It just frustrates me when they move so slow. Other companies have shareholders too yet they seem to be more willing to push forward. BT need to make the most of what they have now and push forward. Not just to compete with other companies but to set a gold standard for the industry. If they played things well there is no reason why BT couldnt dominate all areas of communications again. They just need to be more bold and take that chance. There wouldnt be anything stopping BT making changes to how Openreach is run. BT could setup a money fund that other companies could contribute to, in exchange BT would make more information available, enough to satisfy these other ISP's, while still maintaining control of OR.

[ejs]

I thought BT are also trialling Fibre on Demand as well as g.fast - hopefully everyone who wants a fully fibre connection will get that once it's available to them.

[Chrysalis]

As expected really, this current government as well as the previous labour government are both pro let the industry sort it out policy, no chance of them building their own network.

I agree on the points regarding there is no real need for gigabit speeds in the next decade or so, my argument for FTTP has always been on the basis of reliability, symmetrical speeds and having everyone have the same access speeds.

[Weaver]

I am in agreement with Chrysalis on all these points.

> I agree on the points regarding there is no real need for gigabit speeds in the next decade or so, my argument for FTTP has always been on the basis of reliability, symmetrical speeds and having everyone have the same access speeds.

Absolutely spot on. Reliability is something we need to get serious about, upstream is equally important for business users, and the point about everyone having the same access speeds is just basic fairness.

[gt94sss2]

I agree on the points regarding there is no real need for gigabit speeds in the next decade or so, my argument for FTTP has always been on the basis of reliability, symmetrical speeds and having everyone have the same access speeds.

I don't want to take this news item off topic but I have to say that the above is not imho really a good argument for rolling out nationwide FTTP at the current time compared to the current approach.

While G.Fast is initially rolled out using a 106 MHz profile, there is a 212 MHz profile to look forward too which enables faster speeds and then also future developments like XG-FAST (G.fast2) which means even faster speeds over the remaining copper loop.

[Black Sheep]

Fully concur, gt ....................... there is NO BUSINESS SENSE in rolling out FTTP, NONE, ZILCH, NADA. That's why, get this, they haven't done it !!

I understand weaver wanting it, but is weaver going to pay for it ....... not a chance. Chrysalis is a chief supporter of FTTP, would he pay for it, not a chance.
So, who does pay for it .......... the BT/OR shareholders ? ........... not a chance.

We are using not only our business savvy, as we have a duty to ...... we are realising our assets and the latest technologies available, to give ultra-fast speeds to the masses. It's a win-win for the vast majority of UK residents. There will always be losers due to geographical reasons, that's life I'm afraid. Would I give up my 60+Meg DSL connection to live on Skye and get 2Meg ...... absolutely yes I would.

Broadband is and always has been based on legacy cables ...... we're continually spending cash investing in improving and upgrading the network on a cost basis. Most BDUK Cabs won't even show a return on this cash for 15yrs (Prediction)!!!

I think it's a case of those who shout the loudest know they are unlikely to see FTTP, or are just trolling for arguments sake. The subject really has been done to death all over kitz, let alone other forums. It really doesn't matter what pro-FTTP folks opinions are TBH, the very same opinions will have also been debated to death at a lot higher level than forum-chat and a decision was made to go with g.fast. That's it. End of. Nothing else said regarding full FTTP deployment serves any purpose other than to waste the posters time. Sorry to be blunt, but in a nutshell ..... that's what it boils down to.

[Chrysalis]

You are right given I am happy with my FTTC speeds and stability, I probably would not pay a big premium for FTTP,. but I might do if its only a small premium.

However with that said I wouldnt pay extra for g.fast.

So as far as I am concerned both dont get my money at this point of time.

What premium would I pay?

For g.fast nothing.
For FTTP perhaps anything up to an extra £10 a month and anything up to a £150 install fee.

From BT's point of view they have got caught up in VM's game.  From a CEO looking at what gives the most short term gain, g.fast wins.  It allows higher marketed speeds to similar levels of what would be offered on FTTP anyway, and the extra benefits for FTTP such as symmetrical speeds, reliability and equal access speed to all mean nothing for marketing hence the response from Black Sheep.

[Weaver]

Black Sheep makes a number of excellent points. His "would I pay" point is a very good one. I would pay rather more than the current £150-180 that I pay now for three lines, a fairly heavy  amount of traffic and £7.5 Mbps downstream.

There is a limit to what I would pay, but I would like to have the opportunity, and I would like some reasonably, serious-minded (as opposed to current insulting) government help with the costs. The costs of running fibre to Heasta from Broadford are either (a) scary, or (b) really scary, can't remember which, but there are a dozen or so takers and new houses going up all the time.

There are of course loads of people who are happy to be shrieking for something provided they don't have to put their hands into their pockets. And BT Shareholders should of course not be expected to pay for my internet usage preferences.

BlackSheep is quite right that the FTTP thing has been done to death. In Scotland I'm not so sure, because noone round our way has yet experienced the full horror of the coming digital divide between VDSL2/FTTC users and people left on ADSL. Locally people are about to find out what FTTC is, which will probably mean that those haves who can get FTTC smile and say oh good, and if their neighbours, the have-nots, a few miles away, are ever mentioned, then that might be worth a "poor souls", but I doubt anyone will take up arms against the injustice and let HIE know what's what. (Apart from me, who told HIE in no uncertain terms, just what I think about them) BlackSheep is the practical, straight-headed one (is that a word?) , so listen to him.

[Black Sheep]

Ha ha, thanks for the response (both), but I'm far from the one to 'Listen to' regarding this subject  . Kitz and WWWombat make far, far better informed posts as to the reasons why G.fast is the blindingly obvious solution for both the shareholders pocket and the EU.

 

[WWWombat]

Ta Mr Black Sheep.

It can be hard to find someone who has enough financial literacy to understand the money aspects, the technical literacy to understand the detailed tech aspects (and the intricate consequences) and can keep in mind the sheer darn scale of such a project. I'm not sure I qualify enough though.

My basic arguments, that try to take those issues into account, all work for a hefty proportion of the country. Whenever I come across a "fibre for all" campaigner, these arguments are the ones that comes to the fore. And that's really a crying shame ...

... because for some people, with Weaver a great example, the finances will *never* come together.

I would love us to be able to come up with a solution that gives Weaver his opportunity. A project with a long-term ambition, probably multi-decade, to get fibre into places that no sane company will touch. Acknowledgement that, while Ofcom have brought competitive choice to millions, they have relegated some people where the choice is for nothing that works. A project that is allowed to trade multi-year lock-in, possibly decades, for something that "just works", gives good user experience, and brings Chrysalis' reliability.

All these arguments between FTTP (as it applies to the masses) and G.fast (or equivalents, including Docsis 3.1) take away from the cases where the argument is actually valid.

So all in all, I agree with the government only partially. There is no consensus on FTTP - but only for the commercial majority of the country. For some, however, debate is still open.

I think it's a case of those who shout the loudest know they are unlikely to see FTTP, or are just trolling for arguments sake.

I think I posted elsewhere that I see it a little like army generals "fighting the last war".

For some people, the campaign for better broadband seems to be a never-ending battle to persuade BT to include them. In the past, it has focussed on exchanges, currently it is about cabinets. With G.Fast, it'll be about DP's.

For such people, fibre is the holy grail, because it means they can stop campaigning ... so it becomes the target, and replaces the real target (which, of course, is just access at a suitable speed).

For them, the ongoing reliance of copper means the war still needs to be fought. But they don't see that, gradually, more and more of Joe Public are dropping out of the campaign, satisfied with what they've finally got.

Most BDUK Cabs won't even show a return on this cash for 15yrs (Prediction)!!!

I'm not sure this is true. I'm not being argumentative as such, but I think the economics shifted recently ... and you're the first person to make me query the return period.

The origins of the BDUK project, with BT winning, means we have a set of commercial cabs, where 20% takeup meant a 12 year return, and a set of BDUK cabs where 20% takeup meant a 15 year return. I thought ...

The terms of most contracts, I thought, were such that takeup of greater than 20% resulted in the "extra profit" being shared 50:50 - and the council's share returned through clawback. The exception being North Yorkshire, apparently, where *all* the extra profit went back as clawback; lets ignore them for now.

With me so far?

In the last few months, BT has re-calculated with a baseline 30% takeup for BDUK cabs ... which has resulted in £192m being prepared as clawback.

But if BT takes a share of the "extra profit" too, doesn't that mean the period to make a return on the BDUK cabinets will then be reduced from 15 years? It would only happen when takeup actually goes over 20%, rather than just being planned to - but at least it is now seen as likely to happen.

Of course, BT could have changed other parts of the calculation too: that they have re-worked the "commercial viability" decision to be 30% takeup and still having a return period of 15 years. If they did, that would result in more cabinets becoming viable within the 15-year scope, instead of the original cabinets breaking even faster - but I've no idea if BT have chosen to expand the scope in this way.

Hmmm. It certainly makes me wonder... and realise I really don't know enough about the finances!

[Chrysalis]

Well it really needs reliability and equal access speed to become a part of marketing for things to shift, VM already have equal access speeds but they cant or wont focus on that in advertising probably due to their dodgy throughput issues related to high utilisation, as after all having a 100mbit access speed doesnt mean much if the congestion at the docsis headend only allows 5mbit of throughput.  If they were to start advertising their access speed advantage it would come back and bite them in the backside as sooner or later the issue of throughput would come up.  So they are forced to keep advertising "up to" which means joe public isnt aware of the differences of technologies in terms of access speeds.

I also accept with FTTC the amount of people pushing for FTTP has probably dropped quite a lot due to FTTC been "good enough" for many people.

So whilst I think FTTP is the right thing to do, I also accept if the business decision is only based on "up to" speed marketing (which I think it is for BT) then there is no business case.