Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on March 20, 2017, 05:54:46 PM
-
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/03/openreach-sets-uk-g-fast-broadband-isp-fault-threshold-100mbps.html (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/03/openreach-sets-uk-g-fast-broadband-isp-fault-threshold-100mbps.html)
A few more details have leaked out today about Openreach’s (BT) new 330Mbps capable G.fast (ITU G.9700/9701) broadband technology, which among other things reveals that ISPs will be able to raise a fault if a customer’s line speed drops below a threshold of 100Mbps.
At present Openreach is currently expanding their G.fast pilot to cover 138,000 premises at up to 17 UK locations by the end of March 2017. You can find more details about this technology in our previous articles (examples here and here), although assuming all goes to plan then 10 million UK premises should be reached by 2020 and possibly many more by 2025, when the top speed might also be raised to 500Mbps.
However this pilot has also triggered the release of a lot more detail about the service and as a result it’s finally becoming easier to get answers to some of our longest held questions, not least of which is how Openreach plans to handle faults and at which point a line could be considered to be running too slowly (faulty).
Sounds good.. now lets get G.fast released :)
-
I thought 100Mbps would need to be your minimum G.fast estimated speed for you to order G.fast.
G.fast LD: Reject order if range bottom <100Mbps
-
If thats a fixed non variable threshold it is potentially very low compared to the speeds capable. Are they ditching the other metrics that are used to indicate if a fault is investigated?
-
Well the article does say the following.
G.fast Fault Thresholds
* If the speed falls below 100Mbps.
* If the speed falls below the Point of Sale forecast by Openreach’s eMLC [Enhanced Managed Line Characteristics] system.
* If the speed drops by more than 30% from the line rate they received when it was installed.
So make sure your the first, and you get proof of speed received ;)
-
I'm right on the 500 metre limit.. google maps says I'm 0.3 miles away from the cabinet.. but if I use a convertion website and put in 0.32 miles then I'm over the 500
To be honest I can see G.fast being considered a flop initially because its not going to have the impact with the public that BT/OR are building it up to be. The main people who should have benefitted from G.fast was those over 500m using pods.
-
I can't see you getting to order G.Fast at 500m to be honest. That's looks to be at the very end of it's limits. The last graph I recall with higher transmit power/modified psd didn't show the service reaching 450m at all.
-
Doesn't look promising after 450m at all but this model doesn't take into account some of the frequency they were on about 'borrowing' from VDSL.
-
Well the article does say the following.
So make sure your the first, and you get proof of speed received ;)
Vectored, so additional crosstalk not such a big deal. :)
-
Well the article does say the following.
So make sure your the first, and you get proof of speed received ;)
thanks ronski
-
To be honest I can see G.fast being considered a flop initially because its not going to have the impact with the public that BT/OR are building it up to be. The main people who should have benefitted from G.fast was those over 500m using pods.
You mistake G.fast for something that isn't a giant PR move. :)
-
The trials are quite promising. What was originally intended to be used within 350mtrs of the DPU is seeing results at 450mtrs+. Alas, I don't have access to what these D-sides are 'made up' of, but it can only be good news.
Far from being a 'PR move', it is a reality. Anyone can mock, deride, scoff .............. it's very easy, but very negative and really doesn't serve any purpose.
I prefer to see what transpires in actuality, rather than make decisions based upon the thoughts of forum members. ;) :)
-
It's all very well saying that BS, but until they start installing nodes further out its useless to a lot of us, me included at 450 meters with a high possibility of ally in my line.
-
It's all very well saying that BS, but until they start installing nodes further out its useless to a lot of us, me included at 450 meters with a high possibility of ally in my line.
I absolutely understand that, but extended reach DPU's will come in time. That is what it all boils down to, time and resource. :)
-
Here is the link (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,19502.msg344665.html#msg344665) to a post that I made earlier this afternoon on the subject of G.9700/G.9701 (G.Fast) synchronisation speeds.
-
I absolutely understand that, but extended reach DPU's will come in time. That is what it all boils down to, time and resource. :)
Would you explain what an extended reach DPU is please, Sir?
-
Fibre node at the DP.
-
That'll be interesting given it'll require both backhaul and power.
If that's done in fully ducted areas I will be pretty perplexed. Sticking a powered component so close to premises when there's duct with capacity for fibre is mental. Far simpler to pre-rod and pull sub-conduit or reinforced fibre cable per Swindon trials.
-
Ignition are you saying you now agree with me that if node based g.fast is viable then FTTP is also given the short distance to the premises from the node?
-
No. Only in cases where there's full, reasonably recent ducting, with swept tees right to premises.