Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Technology => Topic started by: niemand on August 13, 2017, 12:09:03 AM
-
Just wanted to make you guys aware that the G.fast commercial roll out is in progress.
My own exchange was not listed in the pilots, but is most definitely getting pods. Some cabinets are being reshelled to permit connection of a pod, and there's already one on the cabinet that serves me. I am regrettably too far from it to benefit but a number will. Thank you Virgin Media for rolling out across the exchange area and helping change the commercials.
I would also draw attention to the unfortunate person who owns the property behind this mess.
(https://s28.postimg.org/hu67ehrhp/Crop.png)
For those who don't know what the 5 distinct structures here are:
(https://s2.postimg.org/gcfwfiqw9/Annotated-node.png)
-
Thanks for that is it a BDUK cab or commercial?
-
Yeah I've had a g.fast cab on the cabinet I'm connected for a few weeks now. My exchange isn't listed in the pilot either. There's been some posts lately on TBB's forum too. Someone rumored that Openreach are going to make it live in Autumn but until I see something official it's just speculation. I'm not expecting to be able to get g.fast at 500 meters or so distance anyway, so I'm not getting excited.
-
Thanks for that is it a BDUK cab or commercial?
Given it has 2 large Huaweis attached there would be real cause for concern if it were BDUK :)
-
I would also draw attention to the unfortunate person who owns the property behind this mess.
It does look a mess from that angle but isn't that a rear entrance to the house which will be covered by hedge growth?
-
Looks like a front door to me. Letter box and door number isn't usually on back doors.
That's about as full a setup as there can be. Just needs 2x 384 HD card extensions!
-
interesting the pod is on the normal cabinet not the FTTC as I thought it was.
So doesnt rely on the FTTC tie pairs then.
-
As far as I'm aware they've always been on the PCP, distance being far more critical.
It's good to see the commercial roll out has begun, having that lot outside your house could well add value for the right buyer.
-
I'm in Bath & G Fast pods are popping up cabinets at an alarming rate, still waiting for my cab to get one. :(
-
Going by that that home haven't taken up Virgin Media I'm not sure they are that bothered.
Looks like crap. When you have that much junk attached to a cabinet you have to wonder if FTTP wouldn't have been a better idea.
Anyway, watch this space regarding the aesthetics.
I believe Openreach plan on making an announcement that they have a number of premises live at some point. Perhaps end of this calendar quarter or next.
-
That installation isn't too bad and will be easily concealed by the hedge as someone else already said. It would be far worse to have a bus shelter there.
-
It's about as tidy as it could be. Doesn't change that's an awful lot of stuff in one place that'll all be made redundant when FTTP is done.
-
Which will likely be 15years + for national FTTP.
Not a bad in service life length.
-
National FTTP and individual cabinet areas serving relatively newly built, fully ducted estates are different things.
Hopefully when the time comes they'll use the existing cabinets with FTTP cards, at very least to help power deeper fibre hybrid solutions - they are perfectly capable :)
-
Thanks for the pictures.
That's the first time I've seen a well documented picture showing the g.fast pod in relation to the other cabinets around it.
I didnt realise the pod attached to the copper cabinet first. I thought they would be attached to the fttc cabinets.
-
Thanks for the pictures.
That's the first time I've seen a well documented picture showing the g.fast pod in relation to the other cabinets around it.
I didnt realise the pod attached to the copper cabinet first. I thought they would be attached to the fttc cabinets.
With G.Fast, the length of the copper line from the cab to the customer is even more critical than FTTC. It's always been the plan to mount them to the PCP.
-
Yup. If you aren't getting the full sync from FTTC you aren't likely to benefit from G.fast, at least for now.
-
What sort of line length would be the longest to get any significant benefit from g.fast?
-
look at your bitloading or snr per tone graph
look at the far right end of vdsl range
add 2-3 bits or 6-9db to pretend no crosstalk
gives indication of how well you might do at start of g.fast range.
-
Depends what you mean by significant. Due to it, for now, having to run on higher frequencies than VDSL 2 it is pointless by at best 500m. That's optimistic if anything. Once it can use the same spectrum as VDSL it will probably get lines of 500m up to an aggregate bandwidth, shared between upstream and downstream, of 150-200Mb.
-
Some cabinets are being reshelled to permit connection of a pod, and there's already one on the cabinet that serves me. I am regrettably too far from it to benefit but a number will.
My copper cabinet was reshelled from a thick plastic type to a metal one a short time ago - probably just coincidence though usually at the end of rollouts not the start. the fttc cab is probably 30m further away I may just be on the cusp of gfast. As I am on a eci cab gfast gives me some benefit as I assume ginp and vectoring will be standard with gfast? Probably going to way to expensive I guess though compared to fttc.
-
My copper cabinet was reshelled from a thick plastic type to a metal one a short time ago - probably just coincidence though usually at the end of rollouts not the start. the fttc cab is probably 30m further away I may just be on the cusp of gfast. As I am on a eci cab gfast gives me some benefit as I assume ginp and vectoring will be standard with gfast? Probably going to way to expensive I guess though compared to fttc.
As far as I know, due to the high frequencies g.fast uses, retransmission and vectoring are mandatory for this technology to function adequately.
-
As far as I know, due to the high frequencies g.fast uses, retransmission and vectoring are mandatory for this technology to function adequately.
No doubt about that one, you're spot on. Vectoring is mandatory for G.fast.
-
I assume you will be signing up as soon as possible ignition :)
-
Nope. Too far from the node.
-
Thanks for the photos. :)
I suppose it could be considered a bit unsightly if you think that when they moved in there would have only been the PCP. However, after a while and once that hedge has grown a bit more it should blend in more. Most of the time we dont notice cabs. Near my parents home there are mobile masts which are IMHO much more noticeable because there boxes are grey.
-
yea, I'm right at the limit for fttc and now I'm at 62mb so I'd suffer if I had G.fast.
I'm hoping either for G.fast to be pushed out further, or FTTP, though thats probably dreaming too much lol.
I'll be interested to hear the of peoples experiences with G.fast when it finally comes out.
-
Here is a video on G.Fast that someone has had installed. I don't know if anyone has seen it or not. The BT Home Hub 6 X just looks the same as the Hub 6. Anyway here is the link.
https://youtu.be/7hP092uuTwk
-
I'm going to try and find out what Openreach's plans are for those too far from G.fast pods to benefit.
-
also :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_F7L16RsLs
-
Nothing in the short term.
In future, I suspect fibre deepers with nodes closer to the home and either reverse power, or some sort of powering over the then defunct copper cabling.
Or FTTP.
-
I fully imagine nothing in the very short term, however I'm nonetheless going to see what I can find out.
Sadly most of my BT contacts have either moved to other operators or retired!
-
Keep us updated ;)
-
Some interesting snippets about G.Fast here .... http://www.analysysmason.com/Research/Content/Short-reports/Gfast-forecast-analysis-Feb2017-RDNS0/ ........ alas, it's a pay-per-view.
-
only 1500 usd :)
-
What ??? As in one thousand five hundred ?? ............. or $15.00 ?? I'm glad OR link us into it, if it's the former !! ;D
-
What ??? As in one thousand five hundred ?? ............. or $15.00 ?? I'm glad OR link us into it, if it's the former !! ;D
$1499.00 - What a lot of us here would never pay? :P
-
Have a feeling the way Virgin Media is rolling out 350Mps for £30 a month will be in your area well before G.Fast has seen daylight :-\
-
350Mbps on Virgin Media are cost £48 a month. Meanwhile Openreach trial 1Gbps G.Fast: http://www.zdnet.com/article/netcomm-wireless-demos-1gbps-fttdp-g-fast-dpu-with-bt-openreach/
-
Actually it is from £30 a month, most likely plus VAT though.
https://www.virginmediabusiness.co.uk/connectivity/internet-access/business-broadband/
And it's passing my door in the next few months long before g.fast.
-
^ £30 a month but upload up to 7Meg but £55 a month with upload up to 20Meg. Both exc vat
-
True, though it's a product unlike Openreach's testing of 1Gb G.fast using hardware 40m from homes. Can't really compare products that are live with technology trials. Zero indication yet that Openreach intend to roll out FTTdp at any scale.
By next year VM will have faster speeds again anyway, and later on in the year DOCSIS 3.1 followed by at some point FDX DOCSIS 3.1 - VM can hit a gigabit without deploying deeper fibre and symmetrical gigabit and more without touching the last cable run to homes. VM have the lead on bandwidth until Openreach roll out widespread FTTP, and Openreach are fine with that, they don't compete on bandwidth because their customers don't ask them to :)
-
They do need to seriously work on their capacity though in many areas I'd assume if they're going to start offering symmetric gigabit connections?
-
To offer that tier at all would require work that provides a substantial capacity increase. Delivering symmetrical gigabit would involve fibre going to the last amplifier on the network alongside new equipment within the cabinet carrying that amplifier. The capacity is mostly on a per-platform basis. DOCSIS 3.1 will introduce significant additional capacity and permit a gigabit as would FDX DOCSIS 3.1. Non-symmetrical 3.1 can be done without fibre going deeper into the network though, much the same as Openreach can put an XGPON signal across the same fibre as GPON.
FDX 3.1 has to be injected at a deeper point into the network so would be closer to Openreach running FTTdp G.fast.
-
https://www.pipelinepub.com/news/netcomm-wireless-and-openreach-demonstrate-world-first-reverse-powered-gfast-dpu
-
also :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_F7L16RsLs
Migrate to Virgin. Or move closer.
-
I'm in Bath & G Fast pods are popping up cabinets at an alarming rate, still waiting for my cab to get one. :(
Yes, I saw a g.fast pod on Cabinet 5 of the Wandsworth exchange the other day - not sure when they installed it but suspect it was several weeks ago.
Not a surprise that they are installing more widely in advance of the commercial launch - it wouldn't have been practical for a proper launch with just the pilot areas - and its similar to the initial ADSL rollout which initially targeted 400 odd exchange areas from memory
I do wonder if areas getting g.fast now will wish that they were later on in the rollout so to get later generation hardware or if they would have been be more likely to get FTTP (once OR finish their consultation).
-
Spotted an engineer from BNE (Barden Network Engineering) a sub contractor for Carillion, who was fixing a G Fast pod to my cabinet this evening at 6pm. :silly:
-
Migrate to Virgin. Or move closer.
no thanks on virgin :) I like consistent performance 24/7
Also I have no need for 100s of mbits/sec. :)
-
Yes, I saw a g.fast pod on Cabinet 5 of the Wandsworth exchange the other day - not sure when they installed it but suspect it was several weeks ago.
Not a surprise that they are installing more widely in advance of the commercial launch - it wouldn't have been practical for a proper launch with just the pilot areas - and its similar to the initial ADSL rollout which initially targeted 400 odd exchange areas from memory
I do wonder if areas getting g.fast now will wish that they were later on in the rollout so to get later generation hardware or if they would have been be more likely to get FTTP (once OR finish their consultation).
indeed ECI users might benefit from this if openreach are actually only deploying these pods in hauwei areas.
It could go either way tho, openreach might move to a cheaper vendor (aka ECI on FTTC) later in the rollout which brings problems. Hopefully they decide tho they want to do just FTTP after some early g.fast rollout.
-
no thanks on virgin :) I like consistent performance 24/7
Also I have no need for 100s of mbits/sec. :)
A very simple but concise statement ^^^, probably speaking for the majority of residential users nationwide. ;) ;D
-
ISP Review has a nice picture of the image of a g.fast pod.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/08/openreachs-new-g-fast-broadband-extension-pods-popping.html
It also goes into some detail about Ignitionnet's cab.
-
A very simple but concise statement ^^^, probably speaking for the majority of residential users nationwide. ;) ;D
To be honest probably not. VM had to resurrect the 50Mb because people were too cheap to pay for the 100, so the evidence seems to indicate the majority people care little about anything other than the price :)
Cheers TalkTalk, Sky, etc, for that.
-
I think people care about price and a consistant service. I would imagine that people assume they are getting the listed download speed, even though its got "upto" next to it. At the moment, speedwise we're probably slightly ahead of the game in terms of 'most' peoples needs.
Though more and more services are requiring more bandwidth so when the service they have bought starts to struggle, which could happen at any time as all connections are different, people are going to be demanding more. It's going to force people to be more tech savvy, especially when the kids today get to their 20s. This 'tech savvy' thing with be normal.
I'm not expecting a lot of people to buy the G.fast service as it is now because most people will already have a working 80 down 20 up connection. If they have no complaints why would they change technologies? G.fast would have made a bigger impact further away from the cabinet. I'm saying this so if the take-up isnt big then the argument that "people dont want the speed" is slightly nulled. I'm getting in before that comes up lol :P
-
Official confirmation that OR have extended the g.fast pilot to 1m premises: http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,20170.0.html
-
Don't care about g.fast. Don't need it.
-
Constructive as ever max!
-
The issue here is that they are giving faster speeds to those who are already getting the best speeds and ignoring everyone else.
They should be using G.Fast to boost the speed of those further from the cabinet - but of course that costs more and won't enable them to boast about how fast their service now is (for a lucky few).
>:(
-
Welcome to the world of business. Where have you been ?? ;)
-
The issue here is that they are giving faster speeds to those who are already getting the best speeds and ignoring everyone else.
They should be using G.Fast to boost the speed of those further from the cabinet - but of course that costs more and won't enable them to boast about how fast their service now is (for a lucky few).
>:(
10 million properties is a little more than "a few" though.
Come up with a cheap way to roll out fibre further though and I'm sure Openreach will welcome you with open arms.
-
Something about number of phone lines (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/facts#accordion__target-87425) in relation to that 10 million.
-
10 million properties is a little more than "a few" though.
Come up with a cheap way to roll out fibre further though and I'm sure Openreach will welcome you with open arms.
I just think the money would be better spent helping those with poorer connections, but as Black Sheep correctly points out this is all about business.
:no:
-
The money wouldn't go very far helping those with poorer connections, which is why they still have poorer connections. Funding for each project would come out of a different pot and one wouldn't influence the other in all honesty.
Doesn't benefit me at all either but offers some people some choice which is a good thing.
-
G.Fast 50m to 200m by BT Checker Live below:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
G.Fast 50m to 200m by BT Checker Live below:
Looks unlikely at around 500 meters I'll get it based on those distances alone. At 200 meters it seems to drop off quite significantly.
-
Hi
At the 200 metre distance the upload speed is shown as potentially being worse than that of VDSL, what a rubbish hack of a technology :'(. Where I live only a tiny percentage of those connected to the cabinet will benefit from faster speeds due to it's positioning (it's at the very edge of the homes served and not in the centre), and that applies to my last address as well, so I suspect the cabinet here will not be upgraded to G.Fast anytime soon.
The irony is, at the distances G.Fast works, VDSL could happily have been un-throttled as they did with ADSLMax, with no extra costs involved or delays in deploying, with the majority of people within G.Fast's limited range getting around 100/30 on VDSL, and this ignores the options of moving to a faster VDSL version.
The only reason they haven't done this is marketing, as without G.Fast they wouldn't have a product they could advertise that approaches or matches the speeds of the likes of Virgin.
Regards
Phil
-
A big reason for not doing 'VDSL Max' was that vectoring would've been needed and there's no commercial case.
A faster VDSL version would've reduced the reach of G.fast further and wouldn't have cost much less to deploy. Retrofitting all the cabinets and, indeed, replacing more than just line cards in a number of them as there's lower port density available on 30a.
VDSL 30a is not an FTTC technology. To be fair neither is G.fast, however BT and others have spent some resources trying to make it as such. This is a stop-gap to tick some boxes with regards to getting a 300Mb-capable technology available as quickly and cheaply as possible.
-
Hi
Vectoring has always been needed on VDSL though ::) I don't see why vectoring would be needed anymore than it is now to just allow lines to sync up to the maximum attainable rate, it's little different to what is happening now by reducing margins to 3db.
A faster VDSL version of course would be in place of G.Fast. G.Fast isn't that different to VDSL, it's all a variation on the same theme, however G.Fast uses time division multiplexing, which is better over shorter distances and was why it was designed to be installed closer to the premises which also allows for better upload speeds. The differences in approach to G.Fast compared to VDSL though means it can't use the same frequencies as VDSL, so starts above VDSL as I understand it, so straight away it's reach is less, and it quickly runs out of steam and performs worse than VDSL, whereas a new VDSL version wouldn't have that issue, as you would change everyone from one standard to another, and get vectoring added with the new hardware at the same time.
This is a stop-gap to tick some boxes with regards to getting a 300Mb-capable technology available as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Exactly, that's essentially what I was saying, and it's a stop gap that reaches very few people, and doesn't bring fibre any closer to the home, unlike FTTC which at least had the benefit of bringing fibre closer.
In the UK we don't have G.Fast, we have Long Range G.Fast, a hacked about standard to fit a business model, it isn't what G.Fast was suppose to be. The biggest problem is those people on slow connections now, will not benefit at all from G.Fast, it only makes the fastest connections faster, this is the opposite to FTTC that brought considerably faster speeds to many people who were otherwise on the end of a very long line from the exchange, it extended reach, whereas G.Fast doesn't.
Regards
Phil
-
Personally I think vectored 30mhz is better, however what BT have done here is looked at which offers the highest marketed speed and made a decision on that, as most other metrics favour vectored 30mhz vdsl. Marketing has won out in this case.
Vectored 30mhz you can sell services 200-300mbit range, and it will hit more properties than say a 200mbit g.fast product, however BT want that 350-500 range which they can only get with g.fast. If g.fast wasnt developed we would likely now be looking at a large FTTP rollout from BT or enjoying vectoring, is a shame g.fast got developed :(
-
Back on topic, interestingly a G.fast pod has appeared on a cabinet just down the road from me, Hunslet 62.
Why interesting? This was enabled for FTTC via BDUK and passes about 120 premises.
Why not? The BDUK funding took care of the power and backhaul, the premises are all pretty close to the cabinet, oh, and the small matter of Virgin Media rocking up in between FTTC and G.fast and snaffling some customers. :)
-
Personally I think vectored 30mhz is better, however what BT have done here is looked at which offers the highest marketed speed and made a decision on that, as most other metrics favour vectored 30mhz vdsl. Marketing has won out in this case.
Vectored 30mhz you can sell services 200-300mbit range, and it will hit more properties than say a 200mbit g.fast product, however BT want that 350-500 range which they can only get with g.fast. If g.fast wasnt developed we would likely now be looking at a large FTTP rollout from BT or enjoying vectoring, is a shame g.fast got developed :(
Remember many moons back ...... I think it was Kitz herself that commented, "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ??" .............. well, we've got it.
The relentless push for more speed 'like yesterday', which is driving Ofcom's ill-thought out targets .... has seen the need for this sticking plaster. As a business decision ... it was made for them. :)
-
Does the installation of G.fast pods show up on roadworks.org?
-
Not likely, as there's no civils work required.
-
Nope.
-
Remember many moons back ...... I think it was Kitz herself that commented, "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ??" .............. well, we've got it.
The relentless push for more speed 'like yesterday', which is driving Ofcom's ill-thought out targets .... has seen the need for this sticking plaster. As a business decision ... it was made for them. :)
I actually said I dont like the push for speeds for marketing :)
The advantages of vectoring tho is its a speed enabler, so doesnt necessarily raise max speeds but allows more people to get speeds in higher range of existing services, in turn it also boosts reliability of the connection.
I can of course see why BT made this decision, ofcom are letting VM push marketed speeds like crazy without any consideration of service quality, and BT are merely reacting to that. Marketing battle.
-
Remember many moons back ...... I think it was Kitz herself that commented, "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it ??" .............. well, we've got it.
The relentless push for more speed 'like yesterday', which is driving Ofcom's ill-thought out targets .... has seen the need for this sticking plaster. As a business decision ... it was made for them. :)
Meanwhile I am 2km from my DSLAM/PCP and max out at 15mbs. TBH perfectly okay most of the time but just a bit galling to pay the same as those getting much better speeds.
Oh - and enjoying all the benefits of an ECI DSLAM.
-
I actually said I dont like the push for speeds for marketing :)
The advantages of vectoring tho is its a speed enabler, so doesnt necessarily raise max speeds but allows more people to get speeds in higher range of existing services, in turn it also boosts reliability of the connection.
I can of course see why BT made this decision, ofcom are letting VM push marketed speeds like crazy without any consideration of service quality, and BT are merely reacting to that. Marketing battle.
I realise that, Chrys ..... my comment wasn't aimed at you at all ..... it was just highlighting your reference to the G-fast in your comments, as I still am unsure of how to take a snippet of a quote and paste it !! :blush: It is just something my weakening memory can't retain. :no:
-
as I still am unsure of how to take a snippet of a quote and paste it !! :blush: It is just something my weakening memory can't retain. :no:
Just quote the whole post then edit out the text you don't need prior to posting, now all you have to do is remember it :P
-
What were we talking about again ?? Is it someone's birthday ?? LOL. Cheers for the tip. ;D ;D
-
Can anyone confirm that G.fast pods are being attached to ECI cabinets too?
-
The make of FTTC cabinet makes no difference. It is only connected to the PCP. There's no connection in any way between the G.Fast pod and the fibre cabinet.
I've seen a G.Fast pod on a PCP with an ECI twin next to it, if that answers your question.
Edit: I thought you wouldn't benefit from G.Fast from the PCP anyway? If you don't get the full 80Mb currently, G.Fast won't help you.
-
I've seen a G.Fast pod on a PCP with an ECI twin next to it, if that answers your question.
Yes the G.Fast pod on an ECI twin answers my question.
I know its been said before that the cabinet doesn't make a difference. I was just wondering if OR were preferring to roll out to huawei first. But seen as you've seen them also on ECI then that answers my question.
I was being curious. I'm out of the G.Fast loop this time around :(
-
Yes the G.Fast pod on an ECI twin answers my question
It's not on the ECI twin, but on the PCP that has an ECI twin. Technically they can even be installed on PCP's with no fibre twin, but unlikely as there would be no power/fibre in the immediate vicinity.
-
There's no connection in any way between the G.Fast pod and the fibre cabinet.
Not strictly true, the G.Fast pod gets it's fibre connection and power from the FTTC cabinet
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/06/bt-openreach-reveals-g-fast-broadband-cabinet-extension-pod.html
but the cabinet based approach now appears to be the forming the main thrust of their roll-out. In this setup the G.fast extension (pod) is actually attached to the side of a normal green PCP cabinet, while the power and fibre optic cable are run in from the usually nearby FTTC / VDSL2 cabinet.
-
I think they attaching it to the PCP to avoid tie pair cable complications, it seems the tie pairs can be responsible for a fair bit of crosstalk and faults (Although the former managed by vectoring) so it was probably decided to avoid the use of tie pairs to reduce that complication.
-
I thought it was more so to reduce the copper run to the property as with G.fast, every metre counts.
-
every metre counts on vdsl as well, but yeah they may have have decided it counts more on g.fast.
-
Indeed, which is why the fibre cab must be within 100m at an absolute maximum, but G.fast is even more distance sensitive.
Plus the other bonus of PCP mounted G.fast pods is the lack of civils needed, which saves time, but more importantly, money.
-
Wholesale prices don't look too bad - http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/09/bt-wholesale-publish-160mbps-330mbps-g-fast-broadband-pricing-isps.html
Wonder when this will go live as my cabinet has a new g-fast pod on the side of it and i'm within 200m of cable run :-)
-
are they favouring non VM areas I wonder?
-
Wholesale prices don't look too bad - http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/09/bt-wholesale-publish-160mbps-330mbps-g-fast-broadband-pricing-isps.html
Wonder when this will go live as my cabinet has a new g-fast pod on the side of it and i'm within 200m of cable run :-)
Prices are going to be above 80Mb VDSL, which is already more than many people will pay - guess it all boils down to distance from the cabinet, I'm at 340m(?) so can't really see a huge benefit to paying top whack for G.fast.
-
I can see it been a retention's product, customer says but I get 300meg on VM, BT rep no problem we got the product for you.
As black sheep has reminded us many times 95% of people will be happy with 40-80mbit services.
-
I can remember being on ADSL 5Mbps all your could stream was SD TV and HD TV was just a load of buffering an now with 40/10 FTTC HD TV is 100% fluid, the next step is 4K UHD which is going to require more broadband bandwidth so even if you don't need that 160-300 Mbps to-day you will need it in 10 years time.
-
I'm no so sure.
With HEVC and other more efficient compression tools becoming more popular, and as technology advances further allowing even better compression, I don't think bandwidth demands will be as big as some people think.
I also don't think the move from HD to 4K will be as ground breaking as the quality increase from SD to HD was. I'm not saying 4K will be a gimmick like 3D, far from it, but it'll be a long time before it's mainstream.
The jump from 8meg to 40meg was huge and allows so much more to be done by multiple users, however I don't think the same "gain" in user experience will be seen when going from 40mbps to 200mbps.
-
I also don't think the move from HD to 4K will be as ground breaking as the quality increase from SD to HD was. I'm not saying 4K will be a gimmick like 3D, far from it, but it'll be a long time before it's mainstream.
Don't get me started on HD, years ago I spent a lot of money doing the whole HD thing - got a big Panasonic plasma that had great reviews, got a Blu-ray player, got BBC Planet Earth which was the standard demo for HD TVs. After all that my impression was that digital SD was pretty close to HD - often hard to tell which you were watching. HD simply wasn't a huge improvement or worth the money it cost me.
I now have a 65" 4K TV(also have a 40" 4K monitor) - I can spot 4K playback instantly in a way I never, ever, could with HD. 4K delivers the obvious improvements to picture quality HD failed at.
If you keep an eye on TV technology you'll note it's moving to huge wafer thin(millimetres thick) virtually painted on the wall - 4K is an absolute minimum for the future and I expect to see 8K arriving sooner or later.
-
540pbto 720p, not a massive difference, but 540p to 1080p there absolutely is. Screen size makes a huge difference too.
Sky still output 720p and have done for over a decade now.
I'm not expecting them to make 4K mainstream in the next 5 years.
I'll be looking at getting a new TV next year. Will go OLED 4K for sure, probably LG as the Sony is just too expensive in comparrison.Nothing wrong with my Samsung 8000 that I've had almost 6 years, but boys and their toys etc ;)
-
I'm not expecting them to make 4K mainstream in the next 5 years.
Terrestrial or satellite is not the future of broadcasting, streaming and on-demand is - 4K Android TV boxes cost around £40/50, no need to wait for Sky or Freeview to catch up. :)
-
are they favouring non VM areas I wonder?
No. Most of Hunslet exchange had a VM build after both the original FTTC build and the BDUK infill.
-
Terrestrial or satellite is not the future of broadcasting, streaming and on-demand is - 4K Android TV boxes cost around £40/50, no need to wait for Sky or Freeview to catch up. :)
Indeed, but there's still not a great deal of content around yet
-
No. Most of Hunslet exchange had a VM build after both the original FTTC build and the BDUK infill.
ok thanks for the info :)
-
I can remember being on ADSL 5Mbps all your could stream was SD TV and HD TV was just a load of buffering an now with 40/10 FTTC HD TV is 100% fluid, the next step is 4K UHD which is going to require more broadband bandwidth so even if you don't need that 160-300 Mbps to-day you will need it in 10 years time.
I think netflix 4k is circa 25mbit/sec, realistically probably need to add 10mbit or so on top for smooth buffering experience so 100s of mbits shouldnt be needed but perhaps could be a factor if you have multiple devices with heavy usage at same time.
Netflix in a browser is still 720p, and on my 27 inch screen 1 foot in front of me I consider it very good quality. I am not convinced that 4k is as noticeable as people claim it to be, yes on a bigger screen it will be more noticeable but at the same time people dont tend to sit 1 foot away from large 40+ inch screens. However regardless of my opinion I accept 4k is the new craze, people are buying 4k tvs like crazy, so its inevitable at some point all mainstream streaming services will hit 4k.
-
For those further away from their cabinets I have been told that a fantastic solution that doesn't rely on nodes closer to customers, higher transmit power, enhanced VDSL 2 co-existence, higher order modulations, etc is coming, and won't require the spending of serious money.
I've no idea what it could be, other than pair bonding perhaps which would require regulatory acquiescence, but have been told I need to know what I'm talking about and think different :D
-
Wireless.
-
Wireless.
I suppose they could be doing a Google Fibre / Verizon / AT&T and investigating fixed wireless. The man in question could also be jerking me around.
-
The man in question could also be jerking me around.
That did cross my mind, and I also checked the date, but it's not April.
-
In my case it's Virgin Media, when they finally install it ;)
-
Sky still output 720p and have done for over a decade now.
Don't think so. Pretty sure it's 1080 interlaced (I'll check tonight). Their new Sky Q system offers 4K, and they already have a decent selection of 4K content (both live and recorded).
I'm not expecting them to make 4K mainstream in the next 5 years.
Sky are doing a big push to ditch satellite tech and switch to broadband for delivering TV. With all new material being shot and made available in 4K, I think it is going to come a lot sooner than that.
-
After all that my impression was that digital SD was pretty close to HD - often hard to tell which you were watching. HD simply wasn't a huge improvement or worth the money it cost me.
That surprises me. I can tell SD vs HD pretty much instantly. The blur of SD content makes my head hurt. Panasonic Plasma + a variety of sources.
-
Really depends upon the bitrate encoded at. Low bitrate HD will probably look worse than high bitrate SD
It appears to me that different Sky channels, and different shows even on the same channel potentially are encoded to differing bit rates depending upon a whole bunch of unknown criteria.
Switching between different HD channels you see the qualities differ significantly.
-
Is G.fast still being rolled out or as it stopped until the trials have taken place?
-
Pods are very much still beinng added, but not made live, I guess until the trial/pilot is done with.
-
Don't think so. Pretty sure it's 1080 interlaced (I'll check tonight).
Sky is indeed 1080i and has been for many years
Freeview HD is the only OTA broadcast in the UK that is 1080P. Even that is only 1080P25 and not full 1080P50
-
I set my skyHD box to 720p, find it better picture than the 1080i, especially on my new OLED.
Getting Sky Q installed a week on Monday. Interested to see their UHD for the F1, broadcast at 50fps.
-
I suppose they could be doing a Google Fibre / Verizon / AT&T and investigating fixed wireless. The man in question could also be jerking me around.
My money would be on an LTE version of wireless. They own EE ... and (carefully avoiding besmirching EE's reputation) there's no point having a dog and barking yourself.
DT started offering a hybrid service that combined LTE and VDSL2 a couple of years ago. Perhaps their part-ownership/board membership has prompted something...
https://www.telekom.com/en/media/media-information/consumer-products/magentazuhause-hybrid-ignites-bandwidth-turbo-across-germany-362108
http://www.telekom.de/zuhause/tarife-und-optionen/internet/hybrid-internet
http://www.telekom.de/zuhause/geraete-und-zubehoer/wlan-und-router/speedport-hybrid
Would this use EE's spectrum? Or BT's?
BT bought their own spectrum in the 4G auction which hasn't been announced as being used. I originally assumed that BT was aiming it at enterprise usage, but it has been suspiciously quiet. I wonder how much of EE's transceiver hardware is sufficiently multi-protocol-flexible so as to use it on existing sites.
Given that Ofcom/Three are trying to prevent EE from bidding on 5G spectrum because of BT's existing spectrum ownership, you'd think that BT would be under some pressure to make use of that 4G block, or get rid of it. If BT start to use it for fixed-line replacement and USO purposes, there would be an argument to exclude it from calculations in the mobile-only world.
-
LTE in my view is quite comparable to fixed line broadband in most internet applications, clearly good enough for VOIP given voLTE technology, might be not good enough for twitch shooters yet tho, but I think for most other types of usage its good enough. It is also reliable, note when I had my cabinet issues I was running 24/7 with my phone connected to my pfsense unit as the internet provider.
3G always felt like a heavily interleaved line where there lag for websites to start loading and SSH was pretty laggy to use, but with LTE both those issues are vastly improved.
The 2 showstoppers for LTE is coverage in villages (which I agree is a joke but easily solved by a USO if gov has the balls to introduce it) and the usage limitations which is solved by investment from the providers (extra masts and backhauls to those masts). BT may have decided its cheaper to mass deploy LTE than to rollout extra fibre in the local loop.
-
Looks like a front door to me. Letter box and door number isn't usually on back doors.
That's about as full a setup as there can be. Just needs 2x 384 HD card extensions!
Haha. 1 x 384 extension now done.
Can you guys think of any reason, other than a shortage of ports, why a Huawei would have the 384 port extension done?
It was mentioned to me that it may be due to G.fast being deployed, however that is I believe slaved from the first Huawei cabinet not the second and I don't really see why it would be done..
Virgin Media have moved in the area and it seems strange that 576 ports of VDSL aren't enough, but if that's how it is that's how it is.
-
Nothing obvious from my perspective. Even if G.Fast needed something on the DSLAM, I'd have thought it would be sourced from the common parts, not from a 64-port linecard.
At least not for the kind of G.Fast rollout mentioned so far.
In the future, with deeper G.fast nodes, then I could see them making use of copper for backhaul and perhaps for forward power. But I don't see them deploying either of those as yet.
-
Hi
Sky is indeed 1080i and has been for many years
Freeview HD is the only OTA broadcast in the UK that is 1080P. Even that is only 1080P25 and not full 1080P50
It's just an encoder setting, and all films are progressive and a lot of dramas are regardless on the platform used to receive them. As has been the case for decades really, progressive footage gets sent to us in an interlaced container, this is called Progressive segmented frame, and the display device simply gives us back the original progressive footage. You are still watching progressive footage on Sky if it's a film or drama shot that way.
The issue though is progressive footage doesn't compress as well when treated by the encoder like it is interlaced, it is better for the encoder to switch to progressive encoding for progressive footage. The BBC realised this and to save more data, their encoders now analyse the footage and switch on the fly between 1080i and 1080p compression modes. This can happen on a scene by scene basis, even interlaced footage can be encoded as 1080p if it's a static image or has very little movement. This is what caused a lot problems originally when they introduced this as some decoders used in PVRs and TVs were not happy constantly switching between the two modes. Really it was never intended for an encoder to switch constantly between the two, but only at the boundary of programs, and in the same way we can sometimes here a glitch when a drama starts that is in 5.1 and it switches to that, so some decoders constantly glitched as the stream kept switching from interlaced to progressive and back again. These issues have been sorted out now.
Regards
Phil