Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: niemand on November 25, 2016, 10:20:07 AM
-
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/11/virgin-medias-parent-commits-gigabit-speed-broadband-2018.html
Liberty Global, which is parent to UK cable operator Virgin Media, has today launched a new initiative called GIGAWorld that will help to promote their plans for rolling out Gigabit capable broadband (1000Mbps+) to the 12 European countries in which it operates (most could be done by the end of 2018).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzBrAdafe58
-
An operator covering half the country will be rolling out a gigabit starting next year. Don't get too excited everyone :)
-
Don't get too excited everyone :)
I'm not and I won't. In fact I am thoroughly bored by the incessant boasts and forward looking claims by entities (and individuals). ::)
-
Me too ............ I'm in the 95% of people who don't really give a sh1t about gigabit speeds, regardless of who provides it. Great news for the other 5% though. ;)
-
will it be gigabit with subject to using 100 threads? /me ducks
this is good news in that it will make BT spend more for marketing reasons.
-
This is good news, not because I want or need gigabit, but because BT will need to roll out more fftp to compete, and that will bring all the other benefits that fftp has, such as a stable line without the speeds constantly dropping and therefore getting what you pay for, some people seem to forget the large percentage of people effected by distance and / or poor quality lines!
I'm not in a Virgin area, so can't get their services.
-
agree 100% ronski.
-
This is good news, not because I want or need gigabit, but because BT will need to roll out more fftp to compete, and that will bring all the other benefits that fftp has, such as a stable line without the speeds constantly dropping and therefore getting what you pay for, some people seem to forget the large percentage of people effected by distance and / or poor quality lines!
I'm not in a Virgin area, so can't get their services.
Could you provide the relevant data that supports this point ??
-
I would've thought that everyone on FTTC can't get 80Mb is the relevant data?
-
I would've thought that everyone on FTTC can't get 80Mb is the relevant data?
No ..... that's just your misconstrued thoughts on the subject.
-
I said 'everyone can't' not 'no-one can'. Before crosstalk ate it I had 80Mb. My main line actually had an attainable of over 98Mb when it was the only one on the cabinet live. It currently syncs at about 64.
As soon as someone's speed drops below maximum for the tier they're affected by distance or line quality. Just the nature of the beast.
As Ronski said VM's network doesn't have distance limitations. It's an amplified network which overcomes loss and in some areas fibre is close enough that there're no active components between node and home (n+0).
Whether I agree with his point is irrelevant but I think that's what he was trying to say. Everyone on cable or FTTP networks syncs at full speed or is offline, no rate adaption.
Will be even worse with G.fast unless Openreach refuse to sell it past a certain distance. My d-side is about average length and G.fast probably wouldn't be of any use to me.
It is what it is.
-
I would've thought that everyone on FTTC can't get 80Mb is the relevant data?
It's missing the word "who", between "FTTC" and "can't". Without it, it doesn't mean what you presumably intended.
-
@BS Ignitionnet & Chrysalis both know and I'm sure you do as well, I think your just being pedantic after all you spend most of your days fixing the copper faults which simply wouldn't exist with FTTP, you also know perfectly well just how poor the copper/ally network is, it is afterall a legacy product.
When I signed up for FTTC my estimate was something like 60/15, unfortunately I never got a screen shot so can't remember exactly, my downstream was never that high, it's been as low as 38Mbps and the highest is the low 50's, currently just under 50. My upstream started off around 12Mbps and is now down to 4.2Mbps although it would be a bit quicker if I used the HG612, again this wouldn't happen with FTTP, and this is on a line that you know to be between 450 and 500 meters. At work we're 500 meters from the cab, yet only get 37/6.
If you really want relevant data then look below.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.html 90% of premises are estimated to not be close enough to get full 80/20 FTTC
Not to mention the forums are awash with people suffering from problems ;)
-
Forums are always a bad guide, people only go on them to complain :)
-
BS could be out of a job tho with a FTTP network :) no faults to fix :)
We have to remember that.
-
Forums are always a bad guide, people only go on them to complain :)
I was thinking more specifically what we see on here regarding line faults, banding , interleaving, crosstalk, rein, all everyday faults/effects which do occur. Anybody who syncs at less than there package maximum is affected by the limitations of fttc, whether it causes them any problems is of course a different matter.
@Chrysalis, yes he could, but given the time it would take he may well have retired before BT had to think about redundancy, they would of course stop taking on and training new engineers as demand dropped, so that coupled with people naturally leaving may be enough. I suppose it depends how quick it could happen, but of course all this is hypothetical.
-
Ha ha ........... nice to see my 'virtual nemesis pals' have my best wishes at heart. ;) ;) .......... I'm sure.
If the old rules were still in force, I'd have gone at the beginning of this year, and living my life to its fullest. As it is ..... I've another 4+yrs to go. Counting the days down ..........
-
This got somewhat personal and a lot off-topic.
Worth remembering most of the homes VM will be delivering a gigabit to in 2017/18 won't be on full fibre, and BT could delivery a gigabit over a hybrid network if they were to push fibre deeper. Deploying telco over such deep fibre also would largely eliminate faults. The biggest obstacle to such a process is LLU, so worth directing anger towards those guys. Openreach seem to actually want to move customers onto a hybrid solution.
-
is one reason why I posted on TTB I think adsl needs to be retired, it hinders VDSL (making power cutback required) and also is clearly a obstacle for progress due to the LLU adsl services.
-
As I've recently come to understand LLU has caused a lot of problems, so how do you convince OFCOM to do away with it?
-
Only just spotted this. I think its good that there is progression and at least someone is trying to do something.
Virgin are expanding, but in my personal opinion they are less likely than BT to provide any sort of solution to the more rural areas.
I must admit I liked the video :)
-
The rural areas are fine, the state of rural broadband in the UK is pretty much the best in the world. Its urban areas that need progress.
Of course before anyone steps in to say people like weaver are stuck on adsl, we have to be reasonable here and its unrealistic to expect remote locations to have superfast wired broadband.
I sort of compare this situation to what amd vs intel is like. Nearly everyone buys intel now days but they all still want amd to progress simply to make intel provide better upgrades, so I am applying the same motto to the VM investment in that I have no interest in VM but it is good because it will make BT react in some way.
-
Sorry to disappoint but from what I can ascertain BT could scarcely care less. They have been dragged kicking and screaming into deploying G.fast via existing cabinets with some FTTP in business parks and main streets, there is next to no chance of them reacting to this.
Virgin Media could release 10Gb tomorrow and BT's only reaction would be PR. They are, sadly, far too tied up in arguments with Ofcom over governance and with LLUO's over copper delivery and repair.
-
>>> They are, sadly, far too tied up in arguments with Ofcom over governance and with LLUO's over copper delivery and repair.
and just how much of that time, effort and money could have been put to better use ::)
-
kitz are you suggesting BT would be spending more on openreach if there was no pressure on them? I actually think the opposite. Perhaps the shareholders may have got bigger dividends or the pension pot may have got a topup but it wouldnt have gone into the local loop I think.
The g.fast seems to have been announced purely as a means to try and stave off ofcom action on the proposed split. BT seemed to have under estimated ofcom amongst others in what was required to give satisfaction of adequate investment.
-
If the old rules were still in force, I'd have gone at the beginning of this year, and living my life to its fullest. As it is ..... I've another 4+yrs to go. Counting the days down ..........
I would be happy to contribute to your retirement if it meant Openreach / BT would stop focusing on the copper network and were taking deeper fibre seriously. It is absurd that they are hiring additional engineers to work on the copper network when they should be in negotiations with Ofcom to retire the e-sides. I have no idea why they are so happy to urinate money away on operational expenditure but are so anal about capital expenditure.
G.fast from cabinets / existing nodes extracts the urine. A pure box ticking exercise that will accomplish absolutely nothing in the longer term.
-
No ..... that's just your misconstrued thoughts on the subject.
Understood. I would welcome your input on why my FTTC line delivers about 62Mb throughput and this is considered exceptional for my distance from the node.
Seems to me my service is impacted by distance from the node.
To make it worse if the 1Gb option were available to me I would quite happily take it. I don't pay for my broadband and the tax bill on it I can claim relief for. Just to add to the fun it would be a pretty cheap deployment as the DP is fully ducted with swept tees.
I was quoted a mere couple of grand per premises if I pursue the community funded route, which seems a bit strange given Virgin Media reckon it'll cost about 800 quid to deliver cable to me including all civils through a bunch of block paving, and a 'third party' quoted about 300 quid per premises to deliver FTTP via PIA.
Your employer is in no way prepared to overbuild FTTC with FTTP as they need to sweat the FTTC investment to get some returns from it. A real bummer when you look at areas like this one where the FTTC investment is paying for itself pretty rapidly and compare them to a whole bunch of areas that received FTTC pretty early in the rollout and haven't sold much.
This one commercially unviable cabinet has filled a Huawei 288 and is on the 5th card of a second Huawei 288. The first Huawei is probably paid for with the second, much cheaper installation not far off breaking even at all.
If you could offer me some insight as to why my community are subsidising all of these commercially viable areas that Openreach deployed FTTC to before us that'd be awesome, alongside why a bunch of high streets and business parks that weren't considered worth a couple of hundred quid per premises for FTTC are worthy of way more for FTTP while we are not.
-
Hi Ignitionnet.
I take your point/s, you always (well nearly always ;)) put up a fair argument.
But if I'm being honest, I only really comment on this kind of stuff through devilment most of the time. I truly and genuinely have become increasingly bored with the comms industry and all the cr5p that goes with it.
From willy-waving and Ofcom (or SKY & TT as they are now known :)), to the constant pressure at work for more, more, more ...................... it's simply a necessary evil for me right now. I have a great life, and this stuff just gets in the way of it a lot of the time. :)
-
Couldn't agree with you more but it's what pays my bills :)
You're in a rather counter-intuitive situation. What is 'more, more, more' to you isn't obviously that to punters. In your case it's fixing faults more quickly, doing installs more quickly, nothing that actually appears to be a big deal as far as 'progress' goes.
I don't envy you, and thank you for your candour in your posts here.
-
kitz are you suggesting BT would be spending more on openreach if there was no pressure on them?
Note the roll eyes icon. I dont have a clue where they would spend it. Nor do you know that it would go into shares or pension pot.
I just said its time, money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
-
I understand what you saying, but I just consider that a weak argument for letting a telco off the hook, that they just "might" save this so called wasted money on what we want.
If we applied the same logic to other things, then we wouldnt fine criminals simply because the fines could be "spent on better things".
My speculation of where the money would come from is based on BT's circa 30 year history. I also speculate that the so called billions of wasted money is something grossly exaggerated to try and scare people into making ofcom back off.
This is why I say simply the fact something costs money should not be a relevant factor if something is regulated. There has to be a non financial reason given.
I expect ofcom have given BT many chances to come with a sound plan for future investment, they will have likely been given many opportunities to point out productive use of this money and have probably failed to do so.
-
Ummm. You have totally misunderstood and jumped to conclusions about what I meant. Where does it imply anywhere what you have just said above.
You should know by now that my thoughts are not splitting off Openreach, but splitting off retail, because logically it makes more sense to merge BTw & Openreach because it just adds a layers of complication for both the EU and the BTw based ISPs. It needs to be a level playing field for all ISPs not just the LLU SPs. Time and time again I keep saying that splitting off Openreach only serves to line the pockets of accountants and lawyers. Time and time again Ive said this money could be better spend on the infrastructure.
Im not quite sure how you interpret that as letting Openreach off the hook. I'm dont agree with the bureaucracy that we are increasingly living in today where money goes to lawyers and chiefs - rather than indians and actually looking out for the customer.
You did it last year and repeatedly kept misunderstanding what Im trying to say. The LLU ISPs have their own selfish reasons for wanting a split. Its certainly not for the EU's benefit. Anyone who doesn't get that is rather that naive.
Im not following the LLU mob, nor am I following the Openreach camp. What I think is something entirely different and Ive repeatedly given the reasons why I think it would be more beneficial for the customers.
Good grief.. frustrated or what. I really dont know how to make it any more obvious.
Split Off RETAIL.
[/glow]
-
ok no worries :) I wont drag this on, we both have made our points.