Announcements > News Articles

Openreach UK Project Targets Speed Boost for G.fast Broadband

(1/3) > >>

Bowdon:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/05/openreach-work-hints-100mbps-at-500-metres-on-g-fast-broadband.html


--- Quote ---Openreach (BT) is slowly progressing with a future upgrade of their hybrid-fibre G.fast broadband technology, which could enable the service to harness some of the existing radio spectrum frequency being used by VDSL2 based Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC) lines. Early tests show a possible boost to speed and coverage.
--- End quote ---

After reading the article it talks about the impact in frequencies of running both VDSL2 and G.fast along side each other and how they have to kept seperated.

Can someone tell me how the frequencies are interacting with each other considering that G.fast lines are coming from a seperate pod that is vectored? Does the interference come from when the copper lines come away from the cabinet and they are side by side?

While it is good they are trying to squeeze the best possible performance from the G.fast technology in the limited deployment that OR have used it, I still find it a waste of time to be 1. focusing on a service only a limited amount of people can benefit from (and an even smaller number were the connection will be stable at high speeds), and 2. that there is such a low take-up.

The original problem of powering G.fast lines that stopped OR deploying it further in to the community was solved by an Israeli company years ago. I remember seeing a video demostration of it. There is still nothing to stop OR going back to their original plan of deploying it to poles and manholes as they push their fibre network further out.

I think when these survey's are done about broadband connections in areas, they should move away from using the average speeds, and also the advertised speeds and use a sample of actual real life connections. Because I've heard it said that the reason G.fast is being deployed to cabinets is to increase the overall average speeds in that area. But my issue is that if 1. very few people are actually using G.fast, and 2. when they do they aren't getting the full speeds, then the survey's are showing a false picture i.e. making out that the speeds available in an area is higher than they are in reality. Which is good for marketing, but not good for the customers as its misleading advertising imho.

j0hn:

--- Quote ---Can someone tell me how the frequencies are interacting with each other considering that G.fast lines are coming from a seperate pod that is vectored?
--- End quote ---

They aren't at the moment.

VDSL2 uses 0 - 17MHz
G.Fast uses 20-106MHz

They are trying to get G.Fast to share the same frequencies as VDSL2 as it's the lower frequencies that travel further. It would increase G.Fast range and increase speed.

When they start sharing frequencies they will interfere with each other.

G.Fast can only vector itself, all the lines on its pod.
It can't vector the VDSL2 signal.

edit: actually reading the article sounds like they might start by using the 17 - 19MHz gap between the 2 technologies.

Sharing the VDSL2 frequency sounds a long way off.

re0:
In itself, utilising from ~17.7 MHz isn't going to do a whole lot it seems. I presume the aggregate increase would be ~10 Mbps under good circumstances on a short-ish line, just as the article says. At a distance, the %'age data rate increase would seem great but in reality it will only provide ultrafast (100+ Mbps) at an extra 10-20 meters, right? It's a start, regardless. But I guess the other benefit is that people currently on the fringe of G.fast currently would have a little upstream boost, which should take it a bit closer to that of VDSL2.

While quite a bit of the report is above my head, it will be interesting to see how it will be implemented in the UK nonetheless.

ejs:
"News" from ISPreview about documents that were published in July and November 2018. The ANFP document was updated more recently, to allow for G.fast to use frequencies below 19MHz in two different scenarios. I think one is when the G.fast is some distance from the cabinet/VDSL2 (which it generally isn't), and the other is some sort of agreement between the DSLAM operator and all relevant CPs for a particular cabinet.

Alex Atkin UK:
I wonder if this could also be related to the suggestion that they might now swap out some ECI kit with cards that can do both VDSL and G.FAST?

Presumably then vectoring could function across all lines and so utilisation of the frequencies could be much more optimal?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page