Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on March 11, 2016, 06:37:10 PM
-
A big internet upgrade: A real-world review of the new 1 Gigabit internet from CenturyLink (http://www.geekwire.com/2015/centurylink-fiber-review/)
CenturyLink has been aggressively rolling out gigabit internet service in Seattle neighborhoods over the past year. I’ve been eagerly awaiting the service in my little corner of Queen Anne, and finally the day has arrived. I replaced my Comcast internet service, which was a 50 Mbps download/10 Mbps upload, and now am receiving an insane 1 Gbps for both upload and download speeds via CenturyLink’s fiber network. Here is what the experience was like.
I thought I'd post this article in here of a review of the Comcast Fiber setup. Comcast was one of the companies that Obama hinted at that were holding back internet progression in the US with not investing in future technologies. Soon after Comcast stepped up its efforts and seems to now be competing with Google.
I noticed this guy isn't just getting the 1Gbps service down, but also up too. How come our fibre offerings don't offer the same up as down? Or is it a different technology they are using in the US?
-
A big internet upgrade: A real-world review of the new 1 Gigabit internet from CenturyLink (http://www.geekwire.com/2015/centurylink-fiber-review/)
CenturyLink has been aggressively rolling out gigabit internet service in Seattle neighborhoods over the past year. I’ve been eagerly awaiting the service in my little corner of Queen Anne, and finally the day has arrived. I replaced my Comcast internet service, which was a 50 Mbps download/10 Mbps upload, and now am receiving an insane 1 Gbps for both upload and download speeds via CenturyLink’s fiber network. Here is what the experience was like.
I thought I'd post this article in here of a review of the Comcast Fiber setup. Comcast was one of the companies that Obama hinted at that were holding back internet progression in the US with not investing in future technologies. Soon after Comcast stepped up its efforts and seems to now be competing with Google.
I noticed this guy isn't just getting the 1Gbps service down, but also up too. How come our fibre offerings don't offer the same up as down? Or is it a different technology they are using in the US?
Our FTTP solutions are indeed capable of a symmetrical 1Gbps service, though this country is far too backwards to adopt this common FTTP configuration.
99.9% of this country are still getting their 2016 broadband access from aluminium and copper wires originally installed in the 1960's. Obviously the service is terrible compared to what's available in many European countries. RF signals are send down these decades old aluminium wires, and of course these signals suffer from interference from pretty much everything. Even the rain affects our broadband - we suffer more CRC errors (causing lag spikes, speed decreases etc) when it's raining. Completely backwards and idiotic.
What's also hilarious is that BT (the main provider here) recently invested billions into this aluminium/copper network. Sure, it was an improvement, but it's no where close to the speed and reliability FTTP can offer.
In short, the UK is one of the worst of all the developed countries in terms of overall speed and FTTP access.
-
99.9% of this country are still getting their 2016 broadband access from aluminium and copper wires originally installed in the 1960's.
Sorry, but that's incorrect.
-
GPON is the most common FTTP configuration worldwide basis and BT are using this system.
It does not offer symmetrical uploads
So either
They have the next generation of XGPON up and working
or
It is a Point to Point FTTP network like B4RN and Gigaclear in the UK install which can indeed do symmetrical 1000/1000 Mbps speeds.
-
99.9% of this country are still getting their 2016 broadband access from aluminium and copper wires originally installed in the 1960's.
Sorry, but that's incorrect.
Sorry I forgot to mention approximately 45% can access a coax cable network as well.
What I said about BT is correct though, 99.9% of customers access their broadband via 1960's era aluminium and copper telephone cables. Woefully inadequate for the 21C.
-
Sorry I forgot to mention approximately 45% can access a coax cable network as well.
What I said about BT is correct though, 99.9% of customers access their broadband via 1960's era aluminium and copper telephone cables. Woefully inadequate for the 21C.
That's better! :D
Surely, there's more that 0.1% of people connected to FTTP in the UK?
-
Where I worked we had symmetrical bandwidth originally with fibre and then when BT put the prices up, via copper LLU to the concentrator (exchange). That was then 20 meg symmetrical and is probably 2- 3 times greater these days. However that worked differently to the general FTTC and FTTP that is provided to the general public and a lot more expensive. I cannot see the general public paying those sort of prices. From my understanding of the FTTC and FTTP technology I believe that part of the up bandwidth is pinched to give you greater down that also helps to keep the prices down and that is similar in many parts of the world.
Though there is still lots of aluminium cable around it has not been installed for decades. The reason it was originally installed being that when copper became a rarity and very expensive what was BT's predecessor, then owned by the government, had to find a good, less expensive alternative, that has been proved to be not so good over time. However if aluminium cable is going to affect your bandwidth I would be very surprised if it didn't affect both up and down.
Where I live houses are supplied overhead from the local cabinets and we have a mixture of copper and aluminium. I can get FTTC, and had reasonable ADSL2+ whereas the daughter who lives 3 minute walk away cannot even get good ADSL2+ and she breaks out onto Sky (old BE) at the exchange. Another daughter in a a town several miles away had her front garden dug out by BT's contractors about a year ago to run fibre, but they cannot still get FTTC, however she does get really good ADSL2+. :) One thing that I do think is that when comparisons are made on delivery they must be made like for like. Therefore a large town or city should be compared with the equivalent in another location whether the UK or abroad.
-
What I said about BT is correct though, 99.9% of customers access their broadband via 1960's era aluminium and copper telephone cables. Woefully inadequate for the 21C.
Methinks the man doth protest too much. Was 99.9 just used for dramatic effect? Or with some valid analysis behind it?
Guess what I think, with a little stats analysis...
First, and most minor, there are currently roughly 250,000 premises with access to FTTP: getting on for 1%. Takeup runs at the same rate as with FTTC, so around 75% of them appear quite happy with their copper and aluminium. But it is still 0.9-1.0% who could stop using copper/aluminium if they chose to.
Second, and second in significance: Around 7.2 million residential properties have been built since 1978. Extrapolating backwards to 1970, that makes around 9 million premises that weren't even built in the sixties.
Third, and most significantly, the penetration rate of phone ownership in 1971 was only 35%, and there were only 18 million households. That's 12 million existing homes that didn't have a phone line in the sixties.
I make that a total of over 21 million lines that have been installed since the sixties.
Consider me sceptical, but I don't think the GPO overdimensioned their sixties deployment of cable by more than 350%. Especially on the D-side, which is the significant portion for current-generation broadband.
The thing that got me thinking along these lines is that in 1995, we moved into a new-build whose D-side must have been 95% brand new, if not 100% new. More than 2/3 of the estate ended up on new PCP's whose entire E-side will have been new too. That was enough to make me think a little, and go searching for stats on both housebuilding and telephone takeup.
-
I remember it was called BT in the year 1989 the good old days when the engineers would just come out and repaired EU lines before a voice fault occured and they also did pair upgrades on the dropwire free of charge what the feck went wrong oh I see Ofcom was invented :-[
-
the penetration rate of phone ownership in 1971 was only 35%, and there were only 18 million households.
Weren't a lot of phones in the 70's and early 80's party lines? My parents moved to a brand new estate that expanded rapidly to become a very large estate and there was a shortage of available lines. I dont know if this was regional/locational or what... but my nan who was not on that estate also had a party line.
As a child, Im sure that just about everyone on that estate had to be on a party line unless they had some sort of valid reason not to be. My memory is that I thought party lines were the norm back then... certainly all my friends seemed to be on them. Ours was shared with the next door but one neighbour.. but 3 houses away was one of the few non-party lines because he was in the police.
-
What I said about BT is correct though, 99.9% of customers access their broadband via 1960's era aluminium and copper telephone cables. Woefully inadequate for the 21C.
Methinks the man doth protest too much. Was 99.9 just used for dramatic effect? Or with some valid analysis behind it?
Guess what I think, with a little stats analysis...
First, and most minor, there are currently roughly 250,000 premises with access to FTTP: getting on for 1%. Takeup runs at the same rate as with FTTC, so around 75% of them appear quite happy with their copper and aluminium. But it is still 0.9-1.0% who could stop using copper/aluminium if they chose to.
Second, and second in significance: Around 7.2 million residential properties have been built since 1978. Extrapolating backwards to 1970, that makes around 9 million premises that weren't even built in the sixties.
Third, and most significantly, the penetration rate of phone ownership in 1971 was only 35%, and there were only 18 million households. That's 12 million existing homes that didn't have a phone line in the sixties.
I make that a total of over 21 million lines that have been installed since the sixties.
Consider me sceptical, but I don't think the GPO overdimensioned their sixties deployment of cable by more than 350%. Especially on the D-side, which is the significant portion for current-generation broadband.
The thing that got me thinking along these lines is that in 1995, we moved into a new-build whose D-side must have been 95% brand new, if not 100% new. More than 2/3 of the estate ended up on new PCP's whose entire E-side will have been new too. That was enough to make me think a little, and go searching for stats on both housebuilding and telephone takeup.
You seem to be quite defensive of the aluminium/copper network.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that all current aluminium/copper lines were installed in the 60's - I'm simply referring to it being 1960's era technology, on a hardware level. Sure, we have VDSL2 cabinets and modems now, even gigabit routers, though it all still relies on aluminium/copper cables that were first introduced in the 1960's. These cables are woefully inadequate in today's day and age, and is one of the main reasons the UK doesn't even show up yet on the FTTP european index lists. Quite embarrassing for the UK, being such a dominant country in the past.
Other European countries, such as France, have had massive investment into FTTP years ago. I seem to recall €20 Billion euros being invested into FTTP years ago. This is the level of investment the UK needs, in order to be competitive now and in the comings years.
Whilst you are right in saying there is a good takeup on FTTC - did you wonder why? It's the only choice for many households. It's either that, or ADSL for many areas.
-
Sorry I forgot to mention approximately 45% can access a coax cable network as well.
What I said about BT is correct though, 99.9% of customers access their broadband via 1960's era aluminium and copper telephone cables. Woefully inadequate for the 21C.
Surely, there's more that 0.1% of people connected to FTTP in the UK?
Nope, still a trivial amount of native FTTP in the UK. It's so little that the UK does't even get listed on the European FTTH rankings:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzQZ1zUG.png&hash=1848980485fd6ae9a7722038c3ef2f41672c9cc9)
Note this is the most recent rankings I can find on the ftthcouncil website.
In many years to come, we in the UK will still be spending hours going over router stats, monitoring line errors, SNR ratio's, trying to diagnose RF interference, spotting bridged taps, while other countries will have completed or continued their existing FTTP developements, many of which are in full swing.
In the UK, still to this day, a new housing estate gets wired up with copper telephone cables as it's broadband access method of choice. Only if a developer is wealthy enough to jump through hoops does it stand a chance of getting a FTTH development. Completely pathetic in 2016.
-
I remember when the last OR engineer visited my house (he was from the old school), and he said that BT/OR should have been putting in more ducts everytime they had to dig the ground up for repairs.
He also said some parts of London, particularly areas that were on alert in WW2, the copper lines and systems still haven't been fully updated.
What is a party line? I'm thinking two explanations, 1. the premium rate phone line people used to call for socialising, or 2. its multiple houses sharing the same phone line?
It's sad that when it comes to British communications we've always been behind. Let's not forget it took many years before British people could stay on dialup without being charged per minute, when other countries, most notably the US, had free local calls (how come smaller telecoms companies in the US that doesn't have a national network could do this, yet we couldnt?).
When it comes to our government doing something for the people they begrudgingly do it. The favourite method is to leave it to private businesses to sort out, or in medical areas, charities.
Though on a positive note I think when we at least get to G.fast levels I think it will open up the Fibre market more. I also think in a few years there should be serious consideration to stopping adsl connections and moving people to a fibre-like technology. I think it would end up more cost effective.
-
I'll put my non tecchie foot in the water, hoping it won't get bitten off by that submerged croc!
IMO just looking at nice looking bar charts, whatever the theme, does not reveal why things are as they are with a particular component. The back history is not known.
So with broadband of any type, and voice telecommunication, one has to ask where they started. Countries are not all "this green and pleasant land, so for example Latvia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_Latvia)
-
I'll put my non tecchie foot in the water, hoping it won't get bitten off by that submerged croc!
IMO just looking at nice looking bar charts, whatever the theme, does not reveal why things are as they are with a particular component. The back history is not known.
So with broadband of any type, and voice telecommunication, one has to ask where they started. Countries are not all "this green and pleasant land, so for example Latvia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_Latvia)
Back history is irrelevant - all countries have witnessed the birth of the digital age over many decades. All should have planned for FTTH development, the ones that didn't (UK as an example) are stuck sending radio frequencies down aluminium/copper wires for many, many years to come.
Even G.Fast will be using radio frequencies to deliver it's performance. It's still distance/weather limited technology, subject to interference, crosstalk, distance and a bunch more issues.
I don't understand your comment about Latvia. They have a fantastic broadband infrastructure, the second best in all of Europe. They have further plans to extend FTTP coverage drastically by 2020.
-
Ah well! If what you want to believe is the only way, why should I stop you? ::)
-
VDSL2 can indeed deliver symmetric service, BT just seems to have an obsession with asymmetric services.
-
What is a party line? I'm thinking two explanations, 1. the premium rate phone line people used to call for socialising, or 2. its multiple houses sharing the same phone line?
Its No 2.
It's sad that when it comes to British communications we've always been behind. Let's not forget it took many years before British people could stay on dialup without being charged per minute, when other countries, most notably the US, had free local calls (how come smaller telecoms companies in the US that doesn't have a national network could do this, yet we couldnt?).
The situation in the US was different to the UK in many respects including:
1) basic US line rental charges were higher (and in many cases 'free' calls were a chargeable option - so 'inclusive calls' is a better term);
2) US consumers often paid to receive calls rather than make them; and
3) local call areas in the US were a lot smaller than in the UK.
In respect to your original question - Openreach can and do deliver products such as leased lines which have the same up/downstream - however, the majority of the population/internet usage download a lot more than they upload so widestream retail products are based on that principle.
-
Nope, still a trivial amount of native FTTP in the UK. It's so little that the UK does't even get listed on the European FTTH rankings:
Note this is the most recent rankings I can find on the ftthcouncil website.
As you might expect from a body whose principle aim is to promote ftth - they have been slightly selective in how they use data.
As WWWombat stated
First, and most minor, there are currently roughly 250,000 premises with access to FTTP: getting on for 1%. Takeup runs at the same rate as with FTTC, so around 75% of them appear quite happy with their copper and aluminium. But it is still 0.9-1.0% who could stop using copper/aluminium if they chose to.
The FTTH council excludes the UK as it looks at the number of households actually using FTTP - not those that have it available. If all those who had FTTP available used it, the UK would appear on the table.
Back history is irrelevant - all countries have witnessed the birth of the digital age over many decades. All should have planned for FTTH development, the ones that didn't (UK as an example) are stuck sending radio frequencies down aluminium/copper wires for many, many years to come.
I don't know how much aluminium is in the local loop in the UK - I suspect its not much. Copper was being installed a long time before the 1960's and afterwards. Aluminium was only used for a few short years - yes, better if the GPO/Government hadn't done so but it was fit for the purpose it was originally designed to do which was carry voice calls.
Back history is very important - a number of those countries in the list were using very old telecommunications systems until recently - unlike BT they did not upgrade exchanges to digital etc in the 1980's (when BT also wanted to fibre up the UK but was refused permission) - so have leapfrogged several generational changes in technology.
Hybrid copper/fibre systems like G.fast are going to be the dominant method providing high speed internet access around the world for decades..
Another reason why the level of FTTP differs - apart from things like government subsidy/regulation - is that the technology has improved that its now possible to use copper to deliver higher speed services which wasn't an option in the past.
-
Weren't a lot of phones in the 70's and early 80's party lines?
My memory is the same.
When I first wanted to use a modem, my mum checked (with Hull telephones), and they wanted to change the line from being a party line before I was allowed to use it. That was mid eighties.
In the seventies "our" phone line was really the one for my parents' shop. That wasn't shared.
-
The situation in the US was different to the UK in many respects including:
1) basic US line rental charges were higher (and in many cases 'free' calls were a chargeable option - so 'inclusive calls' is a better term);
2) US consumers often paid to receive calls rather than make them; and
3) local call areas in the US were a lot smaller than in the UK.
I forgot about the whole paying for calls they receive part. I think it is still like that today in some parts of the US.
I have noticed a trend when talking to people from other countries, like the US, Canada and north Europeans, a lot seem to be moving over to using cell/mobile phones for their main form of communication. I wonder if this has any effect or reason why the phone companies push broadband lines more, as the need for voice lines are dropping?
-
... and as in my link earlier about Latvia, which reported that historically most fixed telephone links were for non-domestic premises. Ordinary folk used mobiles. Given that country's past perhaps domestic connections were rationed, or mobile was safer. Nonetheless, the lack of an existing infrastructure can be an advantage; there's nothing to hold on to and to hinder. Likewise continental Europe, whose railways were almost destroyed. They made a quick jump to electrification, far more speedily than UK.
-
Weren't a lot of phones in the 70's and early 80's party lines?
My memory is the same.
When I first wanted to use a modem, my mum checked (with Hull telephones), and they wanted to change the line from being a party line before I was allowed to use it. That was mid eighties.
In the seventies "our" phone line was really the one for my parents' shop. That wasn't shared.
Even by the mid-60s, very few had a phone at all. To phone my future wife I had either to use a private phone box on the premises where my father worked, or the neighbouring smallholding, and tell operator the call was to be noted for "duration and charge", which IIRC was charged too. Distant exchange was not then STD.
When we married in 67, was the first time I had a phone in our new-build, but we had to go on a list.
How things have changed, and how impatient we all are!
-
I don't know how much aluminium is in the local loop in the UK - I suspect its not much. Copper was being installed a long time before the 1960's and afterwards. Aluminium was only used for a few short years - yes, better if the GPO/Government hadn't done so but it was fit for the purpose it was originally designed to do which was carry voice calls.
I don't think even BT know how much aluminium is in the local loop, there is no data available to show the exact number of lines. All I know is that there are many users on many forums that have been told by their engineer that their line is aluminium, or have seen for themselves when BT's contractors expose a cable bundle and leave it exposed a few days. Sure, people are more likely to post if they are having problems vs not having problems, but it's wrong to say you suspect it's not much, as you (or I) have absolutely no idea how much aluminium there is.
Hybrid copper/fibre systems like G.fast are going to be the dominant method providing high speed internet access around the world for decades..
In the UK, yes. In the rest of the developed countries, no. FTTP is much more popular when you look at other large countries rollout plans. Any technology involving sending RF signals down different lengths of aluminium/copper is going to suffer from many issues. These issues include the length of the cable, whether it's aluminium or copper, whether there are any bad joints, the cable thickness, local RF noise, electronic devices (from industry), rain getting into ducts/joints, and many more.
Xdsl will always have an 'upto' catch - sure some will get the max speed, while others on a aluminium/thin copper line, next to major industry producing RF noise etc, will struggle to reach the headline speeds.
Another reason why the level of FTTP differs - apart from things like government subsidy/regulation - is that the technology has improved that its now possible to use copper to deliver higher speed services which wasn't an option in the past.
Higher speeds on average, sure. There will still be users on G.fast too far from the remote node to attain sync. There will still be those who suffer from crosstalk. There will still be aluminium lines attenuating the signal. Solar radiation, rain etc will still drop speeds/produce errors.
FTTH is simply the wisest choice for the future. Significantly more reliable, significantly faster, easily upgradable compared to G.fast (by switching the terminating equipment) and not subject to distance, the weather, or RF interference.
There is a reason FTTP is being rolled out to a large % of the population in many countries instead of G.fast.
Of course BT prefer G.Fast - simply because they get to re-use their rusty old local loop, which is a major asset to them.
-
In the UK, still to this day, a new housing estate gets wired up with copper telephone cables as it's broadband access method of choice. Only if a developer is wealthy enough to jump through hoops does it stand a chance of getting a FTTH development. Completely pathetic in 2016.
I guess you missed the news the other day then, BT Openreach has announced that any housing development over 250 premises will get FTTP free of charge (if the developers bother to engage with BTor), with joint funding available for smaller scale builds.
http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,17230.0.html
Also what you clearly fail to see is that FTTC, and G.Fast are extending fibre's reach outwards, eventually it will be full FTTP. The huge benefit is that FTTC has given a large proportion of the UK much better speeds in a far shorter time than it would to cover the same proportion with FTTP. Sure FTTP is better, but it's also incredible difficult to install quickly and costs far more.
I think most people can see where things are heading and why, yes FTTP is far superior but when you need to get a whole country up to speed and do it in a cost effective manner then I think the current method is working for the majority, and in time it will get there :fingers:
Anyway this subject has been completely done to death on these forums so that's enough from me.
-
All well and good pointing to the statistics in other countries but if the demand is there, the money there to be made, and BT are refraining from rolling out purely because they don't want to write off their copper why hasn't anyone else, besides Virgin Media, built to any scale?
Sky can spend tens of millions a week on Premier League rights, they spend enough in a month on content to deploy FTTP to an entire city, perhaps some ire would be well spent on querying their insistence on using other companies' infrastructure rather than deploying their own?
-
GPON is the most common FTTP configuration worldwide basis and BT are using this system.
It does not offer symmetrical uploads
So either
They have the next generation of XGPON up and working
or
It is a Point to Point FTTP network like B4RN and Gigaclear in the UK install which can indeed do symmetrical 1000/1000 Mbps speeds.
CenturyLink are using GPON. Same as the Sky/TalkTalk trials with CityFibre in York. GPON delivers 2.4Gb down, 1.2Gb up, so they are just overbooking the upstream more heavily.
-
I guess you missed the news the other day then, BT Openreach has announced that any housing development over 250 premises will get FTTP free of charge (if the developers bother to engage with BTor), with joint funding available for smaller scale builds
ISTM that the 250 houses is a very large estate,in which few other than the majors would be involved. For the rest how generous is joint funding likely to be...hmm?
-
In the UK, still to this day, a new housing estate gets wired up with copper telephone cables as it's broadband access method of choice. Only if a developer is wealthy enough to jump through hoops does it stand a chance of getting a FTTH development. Completely pathetic in 2016.
I guess you missed the news the other day then, BT Openreach has announced that any housing development over 250 premises will get FTTP free of charge (if the developers bother to engage with BTor), with joint funding available for smaller scale builds.
http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,17230.0.html
Also what you clearly fail to see is that FTTC, and G.Fast are extending fibre's reach outwards, eventually it will be full FTTP. The huge benefit is that FTTC has given a large proportion of the UK much better speeds in a far shorter time than it would to cover the same proportion with FTTP. Sure FTTP is better, but it's also incredible difficult to install quickly and costs far more.
I think most people can see where things are heading and why, yes FTTP is far superior but when you need to get a whole country up to speed and do it in a cost effective manner then I think the current method is working for the majority, and in time it will get there :fingers:
Anyway this subject has been completely done to death on these forums so that's enough from me.
No, I'm able to read so of course I saw that news article. It's extremely late coming, as other countries have been doing this for years already. It's still worth noting that brand new housing estates, even those built this year, still have copper broadband infrastructure, so it's not exactly 'live' yet - it will probably take a year until it's in full swing.
Then what about the thousands of housing estates that have less than 250 houses, many developers won't pay to meet BT half way, so even in a few years thousands of housing estates will still be built with copper broadband technology.
It should be a law that every new house has full FTTP provided, and that no new copper local loop is allowed to be built.
-
Well until providers other than BT retail offer FTTP I don't see it happening, OFCOM would go mental...
I bet if BT was allowed to stop supporting copper infrastructure they would be a hell of a lot more FTTP, problem is people like their £1 adsl.
-
> It should be a law that every new house has full FTTP provided, and that no new copper local loop is allowed to be built.
@Dave2150 - good idea
-
Fantastic idea that, but back in the real world who's going to pay for it, oh hang that will us the bill payers.
-
I don't think even BT know how much aluminium is in the local loop, there is no data available to show the exact number of lines.
But its possible to guesstimate as has been done earlier in this thread and its likely to be a small %.
FTTH is simply the wisest choice for the future. Significantly more reliable, significantly faster, easily upgradable compared to G.fast (by switching the terminating equipment) and not subject to distance, the weather, or RF interference.
And significantly more expensive and much much slower to deploy..
There is a reason FTTP is being rolled out to a large % of the population in many countries instead of G.fast.
Of course BT prefer G.Fast - simply because they get to re-use their rusty old local loop, which is a major asset to them.
As do a number of other telcos - I think you will find that FTTP is not being deployed as widely as you seem to think [and keep stating] overseas on a commercial basis. Most of what there is was planned well before alternatives such as G.Fast came to light.. and a fair bit will be things like FTTB due to population density which isn't really FTTP (depending on how you define it)
In Germany for instance, Deutsche Telekom largely decided to abandon its FTTP plans in 2012 and go for vectored DSL instead. I think now, they may even have scalled back their plans for G.Fast and are looking at VPlus instead
Even BT wanted to fibre up the country in the 1980/90s as at that point it was the logical option for them - now the business case won't be as strong partly as the alternatives are better.
In the UK, still to this day, a new housing estate gets wired up with copper telephone cables as it's broadband access method of choice. Only if a developer is wealthy enough to jump through hoops does it stand a chance of getting a FTTH development. Completely pathetic in 2016.
It should be a law that every new house has full FTTP provided, and that no new copper local loop is allowed to be built.
The issue with new housing estates is not really down to Openreach even though they seem to be the ones largely expected to fix it. The problem is due to:
a) councils not insisting on decent connectivity as a condition of approving planning permission;
b) not enough purchasers not demanding it from developers when moving in;
c) developers not under any pressure from a) or b) to provide it nor requesting it from Openreach when planning their build (or they just don't tell Openreach/Virgin Media about their development at all until its virtually complete)
I would like to see more a) and b) - then c) would happen naturally..
-
Fantastic idea that, but back in the real world who's going to pay for it, oh hang that will us the bill payers.
Of course, the government, tax payers. It's a service that a great deal of people would be very happy paying for. Of course the older generation wouldn't be happy, as many of them have either no use for it, or just use the internet for casual web browsing.
-
Well have I got news for you:
The reality is that most people really do not give a toss about broadband once they have got a few Mbps out of their ADSL supply
They are far too busy in their lives with sorting out children, dodgy cars, leaking gutters, elderly relatives in need of care, work issues... and the rest.
Upgrade to FTTP - sorry not interested really - even when presented with it at their doorstep.
I have a FTTP line here from Gigaclear
I was on the local committee trying to get it installed in the village.
They work on the basis that if they get 30% of the village/area under consideration by them to commit and sign up then they will install the brand new FTTP network to EACH house in the village.
If they don't get the 30% then they abandon it and go elsewhere.
So:
You can get the first 10% on day 1.
The next 10% can be got with some persuading, open days, newsletters, circulars etc.
However the final 10% to get to 30% total takes forever and requires a great deal of persuading. - you can be looking at 8 months to 1 year to do it.
......and even then that still leaves the other 70% who don't give a rats ass about FTTP, are certainly not going to be paying £40+ pm for it and are quite happy with a few Mbps per second on ADSL.
I should also mention the disruption caused by putting in FTTP in terms of wrecked verges cuts across tarmac roads where water will get in at the join and potholes will now form and the rest which REALLY gets people's backs up - even the supporting ones.
-
Of course, the government, tax payers. It's a service that a great deal of people would be very happy paying for. Of course the older generation wouldn't be happy, as many of them have either no use for it, or just use the internet for casual web browsing.
Not just the older generation - probably the vast majority of the population would not be happy given other public spending commitments and the deficit.
In the same way the public objected to the idea of paying a 50p/telephone line tax under the last Labour Government
In the real world - have you noticed the number of customers who stick to the lowest speed packages on cable or FTTC (if they bother to upgrade at all once FTTC/P is available)?
-
Of course, the government, tax payers. It's a service that a great deal of people would be very happy paying for. Of course the older generation wouldn't be happy, as many of them have either no use for it, or just use the internet for casual web browsing.
Not just the older generation - probably the vast majority of the population would not be happy given other public spending commitments and the deficit.
In the same way the public objected to the idea of paying a 50p/telephone line tax under the last Labour Government
In the real world - have you noticed the number of customers who stick to the lowest speed packages on cable or FTTC (if they bother to upgrade at all once FTTC/P is available)?
For many, the cheaper VDSL2 package from BT/other ISP's makes the most sense, since their lines are too long to get the 80mbit sync anyway. Why pay for something you won't receive? The average FTTC sync speed is nowhere near the 80mbit maximum.
As the years go by, the younger generation will take over and hopefully we'll be able to catch up with other European countries FTTP coverage, though it will be an uphill battle by then.
-
For many, the cheaper VDSL2 package from BT/other ISP's makes the most sense, since their lines are too long to get the 80mbit sync anyway. Why pay for something you won't receive? The average FTTC sync speed is nowhere near the 80mbit maximum.
Even at the 40MB speeds - many choose 40/2 rather than 40/10 even though their lines would support it.
From tomorrow, when 55/10 becomes more available - and under the average sync speed available for FTTC watch how many or few change to it voluntarily.
However, you still haven't addressed why so many don't upgrade to FTTC at all or the case of VM where the distance is irrelevant and most of their customers also opt for the slowest cable speed tiers available.
UK consumers are very price sensitive and not enough are willing to pay for higher speeds.
-
Dave you seem to have a lot to learn, both about business and about what people really want, yes the few want FTTP and are willing to pay but the majority couldn't care less. I would love FTTP, but I'm not willing to pay, I realise the time scale it would take and the cost to roll it out to every one in the short term is too much. If I had the choice between what I have now, which is 48/8 or paying double for 80/20 then hand on heart I'd choose what I have now as I have no need for more speed at the moment
Somebody I know at work is paying through the nose for ADSL Max, he didn't even know he could get faster speeds on ADSL 2+ it seems his ISP never upgraded him when it became available. Turns out he could even have 80/20 he's that close to his cabinet, I told him weeks ago, may be even months ago and he still hasn't changed over.
-
Is the long term plan of BT along the lines of, getting everybody to move up one tier at a time?
So current ADSL customers move to FTTC, as FTTC prices move towards the price of ADSL.
Then retire ADSL, after covering non G.FAST areas with FTTrN with VDSL2.
FTTC customers who want G.FAST speed go to G.FAST.
And if you want FTTP then you're going to have to pay.
-
@ronski - I would be willing to pay quite a lot, considering my meagre abilities anyway, for FTTP, seeing as I pay for three DSL lines now.
-
I think fibre should be seen as a modernising step to copper.
The demands from the Internet grow each year. The normal might be lower than expected now, but its always increasing.
I'm sure quite a few people here were around when computers and the internet were just geek activities. Then in around the year 2000 suddenly it become mainstream.
I think high quality streaming channels (which is slowly becoming a reality) will struggle on most adsl lines. It will only take a slight interruption to cause buffering.
Also as I noted before, I have been surprised at the lack of local public groups (by the people) pushing for fibre in their local communities.
From what I've seen of the better technologies, the initial lump sum is high. But its the demand for a maintenance fee on top of the subscription fee that rocks it. Why do we need a maintenance fee of £200+ per month, and thats seperate to the subscription you have to pay. I think its greed. Maybe they try to price people out in order to keep the technology at its most profitable.
I would rather be tied in to a longer contract than be paying a maintenance fee. I'm sure if anything did go wrong they would be trying to stiff me for the bill for that too.
I would imagine they could set a higher fee for 'ultra' fast fibre to offset the costs. Maybe start at £40 per month. It would be interesting for ISP's themselves to become semi broadcasters. Full fibre would allow for online channels, similar to the now BBC Three.
-
@Weaver, I was thinking of you when I said some will be willing to pay.
@Bowdon, FTTC and gfast are/will gradually extend the reach of fibre, eventually I'm sure we'll be almost full fibre and because of the further reach for gfast FTTPOD will hopefully be a lot cheaper. The question is how long is this going to take, and this is where the quicker to install technologies such as FTTC and gfast pay off, the majority get speeds they need sooner than a full FTTP roll out.
Hopefully as our needs increase the speeds will rise to match, but there will always be users who want more.
PS. I started my computer experience with ZX81, then the Spectrum, Research Machines 380Z, and purchased my first proper PC in 1994 so have grown up with dial modems and the birth of the internet as we know it today.
-
It's always nice to know someone is thinking about you. ;D
-
Dave you seem to have a lot to learn, both about business and about what people really want, yes the few want FTTP and are willing to pay but the majority couldn't care less. I would love FTTP, but I'm not willing to pay, I realise the time scale it would take and the cost to roll it out to every one in the short term is too much. If I had the choice between what I have now, which is 48/8 or paying double for 80/20 then hand on heart I'd choose what I have now as I have no need for more speed at the moment
Somebody I know at work is paying through the nose for ADSL Max, he didn't even know he could get faster speeds on ADSL 2+ it seems his ISP never upgraded him when it became available. Turns out he could even have 80/20 he's that close to his cabinet, I told him weeks ago, may be even months ago and he still hasn't changed over.
I'm not suggesting a 100% FTTP rollout right now, that would indeed take a very long time and cost too many billions.
I'm suggesting taking small steps that would greatly increase the FTTP footprint over a few years. One example is making it a law that every new dwelling gets FTTP, and preventing BT from installing any new local loop of copper.
Once the new houses (with native FTTP) start selling for more money than the bog standard aluminium/copper fed older house, the older generation will suddenly get interested in supporting FTTP, which will put further pressure on the government to increase roll-out of FTTP.
-
Dave that's almost exactly what is happening, the installation of FTTC means you've got a network of fibre spreading out from the head end exchange, when G.Fast starts going in the network would spread out further, I think of it like roots from a tree, trouble is some tree's take a very long time to grow ;) As we already know this network of fibre can be used to supply FTTP
I'm not sure we'll ever see a law requiring fibre for new builds, but it would be very welcomed if councils pushed for it on new estates, on insist on it where BTor is willing to do it for free. One thing they could do is make it a legal requirement to install proper ducting, this could be implemented as part of the Building Regulations, this wouldn't impact builders costs as ducting is relatively cheap, but would make future installs of FTTP much quicker and easier. There's clearly a lot that can be done to help things along, but it's getting the people who have that power to implement, most of them probably haven't got a clue about FTTP, FTTC or ADSL and it's differences.
There's a large estate being planned to replace Manston Airport and I've emailed the developer a couple of time now pointing out the benefits of full fibre, and last week pointing at that BTor will to do it for free on the size build they are talking about. I've also in the past made comments on the planning portal for another local large development saying they should insist on full fibre.
-
It'll also be interesting to see how the other FTTP ISP's move around this progress and what they can offer.
The more G.Fast speeds the more that they need to keep ahead of the game. They need to be in a position to be offering people some kind of full FTTP via the G.Fast network.
Is it possible to push a fibre cable down the route the copper wire goes down? Or does fibre need to be flat i.e. not curved cables?
-
Fibre has to be fairly straight, there is a seriously restrictive minimum radius of curvature. (With Cat6/6a/7 cable (copper), the packaging has a stiffness that helps remind you, at least, not to exceed the limits, although of course with copper this is just to avoid damage to the cable by kinking it and to avoid messing up the twist.)