Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: niemand on March 04, 2020, 12:39:22 PM
-
Available and extortionate (https://www.btwholesale.com/assets/documents/help-and-support/pricing/service-provider-price-list/section-44/part-7/wbc-price-list-entry-010420.xlsx).
People who think Virgin Media's Gig1 or even Gigaclear's gigabit product, at a mere £79 a month, are expensive are going to love the prices retail products based on this will be coming in at.
The 140% markup on the Openreach pricing is a nice touch.
Time for BT Consumer to purchase from TalkTalk Business? :lol:
-
Think Broadband: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/8680-new-gigabit-pricing-for-bt-wholesale-fttp-revealed
ISPR: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/03/bt-wholesale-pricing-for-550mbps-and-1gbps-fttp-irks-uk-isps.html
-
I remember Greg Mesch of Cityfibre saying years ago that BT/OR will struggle to compete in the fibre market because of their copper network. They have to set a price point above a certain level or they would undercut their copper based products. It looks like its turned out to be true.
-
Time for BT Consumer to purchase from TalkTalk Business? :lol:
Wake me up when TTB offer more than 110 Mb for FTTP:
https://www.xln.co.uk/bizhub/business-services/fttp-trial-talktalk
This breakthrough internet service can currently deliver speeds of up to 110Mb/s - but in the future, that could climb to a whopping 300Mb/s.
:lol:
-
That is rather alarming, I expected ISP prices to be around this amount including VAT. :'(
-
As the ISPReview article states, I guess this gives them scope to measure/control initial demand and cut prices in future
-
As the ISPReview article states, I guess this gives them scope to measure/control initial demand and cut prices in future
True, we know their network can't handle an influx initially due to only using GPON. As usual we pay the early adopter tax so they can upgrade the network on our dime. Still, better than FTTPoD.
It does seem hard to understand how they are going to sell this in areas with competitive services though.
-
Available and extortionate (https://www.btwholesale.com/assets/documents/help-and-support/pricing/service-provider-price-list/section-44/part-7/wbc-price-list-entry-010420.xlsx).
People who think Virgin Media's Gig1 or even Gigaclear's gigabit product, at a mere £79 a month, are expensive are going to love the prices retail products based on this will be coming in at.
The 140% markup on the Openreach pricing is a nice touch.
Time for BT Consumer to purchase from TalkTalk Business? :lol:
Dont think it was ever not going to be marked up, BT will always be wary of consumer type products interfering with their most lucrative business products.
-
Wake me up when TTB offer more than 110 Mb for FTTP:
https://www.xln.co.uk/bizhub/business-services/fttp-trial-talktalk
:lol:
Enjoy the nap for the next 3 weeks or so :)
-
I would understand if BT Wholesale didn't charge per Mbps/month on top and if this were taking in traffic from 5,000 remote exchanges but they do and it isn't. Openreach have reduced the endpoint count by 4/5ths so the capacity should be relatively cheap from the headends. Ending up with GEA customers subsidising ADSL customers due to paying the same for bandwidth wherever and the big markups for rental.
It's astonishing pricing. Some ISPs are pretty unhappy. At least one is perfectly content with it and agrees. Obviously the BT businesses using Wholesale are silent, publicly anyway.
-
is their mbps pricing still wildly different from the industry standard as well?
-
I recently asked Cerberus Networks if they were planning to sell the new FTTP packages, they told me that they are but as yet don't have 'commercials' from BT Wholesale but are expecting them imminently. I'm nearing the end of my minimum FTTPoD 1 year term with them so I'm waiting on final pricing before I consider which native FTTP package to regrade to. Apparently I can't just regrade to 330/50 (Cerberus FTTP Pro) and then, during the minimum term of that contract, then upgrade to say... 550/75... without fully paying off the remainder of the original contract (being FTTP Pro 330/50 in this particular scenario). So I'm better off staying on FTTPoD for another month or two while I wait for the new packages to be listed before I decide.
is their mbps pricing still wildly different from the industry standard as well?
I heard it's around £40 per month, per megabit. Not 100% sure though. If that's true then it's eye wateringly expensive for ISP's who use BT Wholesale.
-
https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/8697-bt-full-fibre-910-mbps-launches-for-59-99-a-month (https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/8697-bt-full-fibre-910-mbps-launches-for-59-99-a-month)
So BT Retail prices are;
Full Fibre 500 is 500Mbps down 73Mbps up is 49.99 a month plus 9.99 setup fee. It has a standard price of 57.99 per month and a guarantee speed of 250Mbps
Full Fibre 900 is 910Mbps down 110Mbps up for 59.99 a month plus 9.99 setup fee. The standard price is 67.99 per month with a guarantee speed of 455Mbps.
Well I'm paying more for my FTTC connection than I would for Full Fibre 500.
When FF reaches me I'd definately get the 500 one, and maybe the 900 in the future.
I hope the FF 900 one isn't advertised as 1Gbit as its not.
-
I hope the FF 900 one isn't advertised as 1Gbit as its not.
I'm what way isn't it 1Gbit?
OFCOM rules on advertising means they can't say it's 1Gb but it absolutely is.
-
Not bad pricing, might be tempted when it finally gets here (if my VM connections still playing about), hopefully some of the other big ISP's will be selling it then to, would be nice if it had a static or sticky IP address.
-
I'm what way isn't it 1Gbit?
OFCOM rules on advertising means they can't say it's 1Gb but it absolutely is.
I guess it depends if you are referring to throughput or link rate.
What link rate are they actually provisioning, 1.24Gbit?
-
It's 1000Mb/s.
I don't recall the same complaints when FTTC launched that 80Mb sync isn't actually 80Mb.
Talktalk/Sky for example don't use PPPoE but use IPoE/DHCP instead.
The underlying connection is 1Gig.
Overheads and throughput are dependant on the ISP and how they configure the broadband.
To me anyway, it's a 1Gbit connection.
Taking overheads/throughput in to account can massively over complicate things.
-
I have a feeling other smaller ISP's which offer things like static IPv4 addresses will be out of luck with remotely competing against those prices if they also use BT Wholesale. Waiting on Cerberus's pricing at the moment.
-
It's 1000Mb/s.
I don't recall the same complaints when FTTC launched that 80Mb sync isn't actually 80Mb.
Considering Ofcom are forcing ISPs to give out "average" speeds now, clearly people DID complain. Few people know what speed they are actually synced at, what matters is what throughput you are getting.
Taking overheads/throughput in to account can massively over complicate things.
Its how Virgin have always advertised their services, so making it more consistent across different technologies is a good thing IMO.
-
I'm what way isn't it 1Gbit?
Because its download is 910Mbps. On a connection of 1Gbps its usually higher Mbps than 910. It's probably provisioned at 950Mbps and with overheads it drops down to 910Mbps.
Unless they are using some average advertising speed formula it seems less than we'd expect minus overheads for a 1Gib connection.
Looking back at the advertised speeds its being sold as Full Fibre 900, so its probably aiming for 900Mbps.
Btw I'm not saying the connection is bad. But its not a 1gig connection, and it doesn't seem to be advertising itself as such.
-
Because its download is 910Mbps. On a connection of 1Gbps its usually higher Mbps than 910. It's probably provisioned at 950Mbps and with overheads it drops down to 910Mbps.
Unless they are using some average advertising speed formula it seems less than we'd expect minus overheads for a 1Gib connection.
Looking back at the advertised speeds its being sold as Full Fibre 900, so its probably aiming for 900Mbps.
Btw I'm not saying the connection is bad. But its not a 1gig connection, and it doesn't seem to be advertising itself as such.
It's provisioned at 1000Mbps, not 950Mbps or 900Mbps.
OFCOM rules prevent them advertising it as a gigabit connection.
It certainly is though.
-
A reminder there are PPPoE overheads here, and the 910 is more than, say, Hyperoptic advertise despite no PPPoE overheads.
This product is capped at 1000 Mbit. Once the Ethernet overheads are removed that leaves 940-960 Mbit, then the PPP on top leaves, give or take, 930 Mbit.
-
Why do ISPs still use PPP anyway? It seems extremely wasteful adding unnecessary overheads both to the network and customers router hardware.
PPP is a dreadful CPU hog on routers.
-
Only viable way for BT Wholesale to do it. I know they wanted to be rid of it for NGA but guess they couldn't get a viable solution.
PPP can easily be accelerated in hardware. The BRAS handle enormous amounts of it thanks to ASICs.
-
Looking back at the advertised speeds its being sold as Full Fibre 900, so its probably aiming for 900Mbps.
Btw I'm not saying the connection is bad. But its not a 1gig connection, and it doesn't seem to be advertising itself as such.
More about your speeds
Maximum download speed: 930Mbps
Maximum upload speed: 110Mbps
Minimum upload speed: 10Mbps
On average, customers on the same broadband package get a download speed of: 910Mbps
-
More about your speeds
Maximum download speed: 930Mbps
Maximum upload speed: 110Mbps
Minimum upload speed: 10Mbps
On average, customers on the same broadband package get a download speed of: 910Mbps
That minimum upload speed is terrible, it really should be ~50% like the guaranteed download is.
-
Using wireless and not going to log on elsewhere but the change has been done.
https://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/5871766034
-
That sweet upload.
-
Using a sub-optimal router, not on the Ubiquiti at the moment, so suspect that's a bottleneck. However:
(https://www.speedtest.net/result/9176674975.png)
-
Using a sub-optimal router, not on the Ubiquiti at the moment, so suspect that's a bottleneck. However:
(https://www.speedtest.net/result/9176674975.png)
The entire forum hates you right now. :P
-
I would apologise however it came with the new build property. I will comfort myself with that we paid a provocative amount of money for the house. :)
PS It does indeed go over 900 Mbit/s.
-
Only viable way for BT Wholesale to do it. I know they wanted to be rid of it for NGA but guess they couldn't get a viable solution.
PPP can easily be accelerated in hardware. The BRAS handle enormous amounts of it thanks to ASICs.
I remember the presentation from the BT guy, he was saying it was going to be ditched, so they did want to get rid of it, and is annoying to see it is still around.
The problem with the acceleration is in most opensource firmware's it doesnt work as it tends to be exclusive to closed source drivers.
-
Veeeery hard to find something that'll max it out but it is possible.
Single thread:
(https://i.ibb.co/2v06nLk/Fast.png)
Multiple:
(https://i.ibb.co/TBbWJhG/Fast.png)
-
The problem with the acceleration is in most opensource firmware's it doesnt work as it tends to be exclusive to closed source drivers.
Custom firmwares use the binary blobs provided by hardware suppliers rather than their own I thought?
I'm not sure why they'd rewrite the wheel on this one. I'd have thought they'd work out how to interact with the drivers and call them? That's certainly what some custom firmwares do.
-
Custom firmwares use the binary blobs provided by hardware suppliers rather than their own I thought?
I'm not sure why they'd rewrite the wheel on this one. I'd have thought they'd work out how to interact with the drivers and call them? That's certainly what some custom firmwares do.
I don't know about PPP but NAT offloading is usually closed-source kernel modules that are compiled for ancient kernels, so completely useless on modern OS like DD-WRT/OpenWRT.
Its also annoyingly why you can't simply keep using an old smartphone on new Android, because key features like the camera are locked behind binary blobs compiled for specific OS builds. Its kinda worse in Android as they keep changing the OS level APIs too so even if you could get the binary loaded on a newer kernel, often the Camera API is outdated so won't work on a newer OS.
-
Veeeery hard to find something that'll max it out but it is possible.
Looking at the amazing speeds it reminds me of how far we have come from the days of dial up costing us per minute.
I dream of those speeds :)
-
Custom firmwares use the binary blobs provided by hardware suppliers rather than their own I thought?
I'm not sure why they'd rewrite the wheel on this one. I'd have thought they'd work out how to interact with the drivers and call them? That's certainly what some custom firmwares do.
Seems more a reference to OpenWRT who as the name suggests will only use stuff that is open source.
Alternative custom firmware developers don't have such an issue.
-
Seems more a reference to OpenWRT who as the name suggests will only use stuff that is open source.
Alternative custom firmware developers don't have such an issue.
Their own fault for putting ideological 'purity' above practicality, then.
-
Looking at the amazing speeds it reminds me of how far we have come from the days of dial up costing us per minute.
I dream of those speeds :)
Not even just per minute, you had to pay a subscription fee to the ISP as well.
I just marvel at the fact my first LAN was 10-BASE-2 and my first modem was 14.4k (56k was probably out by then but I scrounged it for free) which I shared across that LAN using Slackware Linux that had to be installed from a metric ton of floppy disks.
Then when you consider what DOCSIS 3.1 can do down (more or less) the same cable as the LAN, and VDSL down that same phone line, its really astonishing.
It actually makes me sad that generations after me won't have the same experience of seeing (and appreciating) how far technology has come. Now they just expect it. I'm a little sad that my generation missed the whole programming taught at schools thing, that really didn't last long, although I guess its somewhat resurged now in a different way.
-
Seems more a reference to OpenWRT who as the name suggests will only use stuff that is open source.
Alternative custom firmware developers don't have such an issue.
I don't think that's true as such, the modem firmwares aren't open source and they use them and they HAVE to use the open source drivers for things like Atheros WiFi because they have a different branch of firmware for the open source driver only provide the closed-source to hardware manufacturers.
Another problem is when there are custom patches to the kernel for specific hardware, they need to keep it as generic as possible to support such a wide variety of hardware.
There are legal ramifications too I think, where you down want to risk the whole project for doing something that might not be 100% in line with what the manufacturer allows.
Fact is, not all hardware vendors will provide enough source code to actually compile a working firmware and even if they do it will be a very specific build environment that is not compatible with OpenWRT. Broadcom for example is often impossible to support, DD-WRT have a special deal with some vendors to be able to support it on specific routers but AFAIK that requires a LOT more work which holds back support for other hardware and newer software versions.
-
Seems more a reference to OpenWRT who as the name suggests will only use stuff that is open source.
Alternative custom firmware developers don't have such an issue.
some but not all
i dont have accelerated on pfsense/opnsense, didnt on tomatowrt either
-
Isn't pfsense intended to run on appliances with no dedicated hardware acceleration, not hardware routers with SoCs and ASICs?
Tomato flavours are I believe intended for such devices though.
-
Recently Upgraded
(https://www.speedtest.net/result/9207520871.png) (https://www.speedtest.net/result/9207520871)
-
Here's my FTTC result - doesn't look so different :lol: (:'() - If I booted everyone else off I can probably get another 3Mbps!
-
Todays Plusnet + Zen combined result:
(https://www.speedtest.net/result/9209272925.png) (https://www.speedtest.net/result/9209272925)
-
Isn't pfsense intended to run on appliances with no dedicated hardware acceleration, not hardware routers with SoCs and ASICs?
Tomato flavours are I believe intended for such devices though.
I would say yes, given its based on FreeBSD.
Tomato, when I used it was on a device with a capable ASIC but the dev's didnt have access to the appropriate driver which was exclusive to asuswrt.
-
My combined is 130Mbps down. FTTPoD is my only option, and I guess it'll stay that way for some time to come with Covid.
Having said that, now into my 7th week of WFH and both my internet services have been flawless, no slowdowns or dropouts. I did, more out of curiosity look at GEA/EFM, but I can't apparently get GEA. EFM was £200 a month, and only 14Mbps synchronous. So, nah.
Well done on the 1Gb Carl. My wife and I are forever debating whether we should stay in this house and simply extend it, or move. If we can decide that then I can decide whether to FTTPoD it. If we extend then I think I could justify FTTPoD - especially if going forward we're going to be both WFH more often.
-
. . . and only 14Mbps synchronous. So, nah.
I think you meant to type symmetric rather than synchronous.