Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7

Author Topic: G.FAST  (Read 22243 times)

loonylion

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #75 on: April 07, 2015, 07:12:01 PM »

I do think that eventually we'll have one of the most capable networks to get high speeds. But like most of Britains history we tend to have to build around things i.e. look at our road system.. we seem to drive in loops!  :D

but at least we drive on the right side of the road (except when avoiding potholes  :P) as opposed to some countries which drive on the wrong side of the road  :P   >:D
Logged

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5717
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #76 on: April 07, 2015, 08:15:21 PM »

Some good reading material within these pages ..... http://www.totaltele.com/ ...... I've pasted this site up before but for those who may have missed it, here it is again. Look down to where it offers you the chance to download the full PDF.
Logged

c6em

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 504
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2015, 08:49:11 AM »

I was referring to Openreach's FTTP rollout in the area. I believe the B4RN villages weren't going to get anything from them, hence B4RN itself, but since there's now credible FTTP competition in the area the usual excuses of "too expensive, too hard" die away and BT gets the fibre splicers out, rather than going for the cheap half-baked fix that they're deploying to everyone else. What other reason would there be for Openreach to not deploy FTTC there?


Well in Oxfordshire where Gigaclear's(GC) FTTP services are becoming a significant presence the opposite is happening.
No BT FTTP is being rolled out in response and moreover those villages with GC are seemingly being almost abandoned by BT.  So places are ending up with the option of GC FTTP or alternatively BT ADSL2 or even in some places still just BT ADSLmax.
So the end result of more competition has actually had the ironic result of fewer options for the consumer as
BTOR/BTW type triple play type services are not available though people do have access to super/hyperfast internet connectivity through FTTP with GC as the ISP.  Its almost as if a semi-monopoly (BTOR plus all the ISP's) has been replaced by a total one.
Logged

phi2008

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2015, 01:25:42 PM »

I wonder how much it would cost if the government set aside some billions to convert all copper lines to fibre!

I bet we'd be up to japanese speeds if that happened  ;D

Figures are often quoted of around £25-30 billion for a nationwide fibre rollout. So over 10 years around £3 billion a year if the government decided to bankroll it, quite doable when you consider they arbitrarily spend £12 billion per year on overseas aid alone. 
Logged

boost

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 768
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2015, 01:30:58 PM »

I'd love a shot at optimising government spending :D
Logged

c6em

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 504
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #80 on: April 08, 2015, 02:27:03 PM »

Ah....but that is the problem - the time -like over 10 years.
What the "FTTP for all group" never want to discuss is how long it would take before Little Snoring on the Wolds gets their FTTP.
Meanwhile under the current BDUK roll out Little Snoring is getting FTTC this year.

So while it is not the best technical solution, FTTC does provide the best overall pragmatic solution possible for the greatest BB speed uplift for the most people in the quickest time for the least cost.
Yes some loose out - such is life  - most villages don't have a gas supply.

I'm sure that going to explain to the inhabitants of these small villages that they cannot have FTTC because we want the 'best' for you - but the best is not going to arrive for at least another decade and in the meantime you will have to manage on 2Mpbs is not going to be popular!
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #81 on: April 08, 2015, 02:35:22 PM »

So the end result of more competition has actually had the ironic result of fewer options for the consumer as
BTOR/BTW type triple play type services are not available though people do have access to super/hyperfast internet connectivity through FTTP with GC as the ISP.  Its almost as if a semi-monopoly (BTOR plus all the ISP's) has been replaced by a total one.

Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?

This same contradiction is noted within the North Yorkshire SFNY/BDUK team. People want better speeds, but they also want to retain the choice of ISP that comes with a BTOR/BTW wholesale supply. It seems they'd rather have "just enough" higher speed combined with choice (even if it is only retail choice), rather than supreme future-proof speed.

I'm watching the BDUK trials for fixed wireless here carefully - it'll be interesting to see what happens to the concepts of choice and wholesale with Airwave.
Logged

guest

  • Guest
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #82 on: April 08, 2015, 04:30:34 PM »

Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?

Other way around. They got tired of waiting for BT & paid for FTTP themselves - & I think it was somewhere in Rutland ("new money").

Rural Leics is owned by "old money", generally rich (not as mega-rich as Rutland) and very "connected" so they know which buttons to push at various govt levels to make things happen. Most of its been Tory for generations, same as Leicester itself has been Labour for what seems like forever.

G.Fast is ideal for rural deployment (small cluster of houses rather than villages) as the customer kit can be used to power the G.Fast port which is probably up a pole. Currently you can't power the whole node from customer kit, just the G.Fast ports but that's one of the aims (it will happen in the next 2 years).

I've seen 300Mbps across a 150m copper loop (and 800Mbps aggregated across two copper loops) so G.Fast is a decent solution for very rural areas where vectoring will deliver close to optimal results. Disclaimer - I worked for Alcatel-Lucent on G.Fast so I've seen some of the trial data for places like Austria.

The cost (and none of the profit) of FTTP is almost entirely when it hits the property boundary - insurance/wayleaves/remedial work/whatever. In urban areas that might change in the next 10 years - in small rural areas it won't. Anything which pushes fibre closer to the property has to be viewed as progress.
Logged

sorc

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #83 on: April 08, 2015, 05:09:12 PM »

Ah....but that is the problem - the time -like over 10 years.
What the "FTTP for all group" never want to discuss is how long it would take before Little Snoring on the Wolds gets their FTTP.
Meanwhile under the current BDUK roll out Little Snoring is getting FTTC this year.

BT has certainly been able to crank out rural FTTP at some speed when it suits them, down here, urban (well, small town or city) or rural.

So while it is not the best technical solution, FTTC does provide the best overall pragmatic solution possible for the greatest BB speed uplift for the most people in the quickest time for the least cost.

Except of course for those who don't get anywhere close to the current maximum because they're already too far away from the FTTC cabinet, and those who may not get any upgrade from what they have until BT decides to do something substantial (vectoring, pair bonding, FTTdp, FTTP)

Yes some loose out - such is life  - most villages don't have a gas supply.

The difference being of course that a gas tank or gas bottles can do everything mains gas can do. There's no need for mains gas since the alternative is just as good, the only minor inconvenience in needing the bottles replaced or tank refilled. Not so with FTTC vs FTTP.

The cost (and none of the profit) of FTTP is almost entirely when it hits the property boundary - insurance/wayleaves/remedial work/whatever. In urban areas that might change in the next 10 years - in small rural areas it won't. Anything which pushes fibre closer to the property has to be viewed as progress.

Everyone's situation is different, but around here everyone is either on overhead wiring or it's a new build with underground wiring, neat ducting and whatever. The latter already is FTTP. and so is some of the former

What difference is there for any of these issues in BT stringing fibre to my home from the nearby pole as opposed to doing so for copper? Why is BT somehow able to do it to some premises but not others that are in a practically identical situation? They had no problem doing a fairly hefty re-organisation of the local network to accomodate a new housing development (new copper, lots of pole moves, re-stringing everyone's phone line to the new poles -and notably, that particular new build did not get FTTP), but they can't do that with bits of glass instead of copper?

If I wanted a few new phone lines installed they'd have them done in a jiffy, including with new overhead cable from the pole

There will of course be situations where G.FAST is almost as good and doesn't have the same hassles as FTTP for certain areas with local infrastructure issues, I just hope it isn't picked as the one-size-fits-all solution like FTTC seems to have been
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 05:25:50 PM by sorc »
Logged

guest

  • Guest
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #84 on: April 08, 2015, 05:36:30 PM »

Fibre from the pole to your house requires internal work with associated costs/liabilities.

The profit for the work isn't worth it for potential liabilities - as things stand in the UK - for rural properties. Edit - G.Fast will help a lot in getting fibre close but as long as one company owns the "last mile" there is little incentive for others to do that.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 05:40:00 PM by rizla »
Logged

sorc

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #85 on: April 08, 2015, 05:56:32 PM »

Right, but they do this for copper every day. An Openreach employee (appropriately insured) visited my house to install the FTTC modem. If I had line issues, someone would enter my house and twiddle with BT-owned internal wiring (which will have to be insured against the risk of it causing damage to my property). If I wanted more copper lines, again, more internal work, running new cable from the pole, drilling holes in an exterior wall, etc, all of which would be done with no trouble. That's something they also currently do for what little FTTP they currently have deployed. You could potentially even argue that FTTP is safer from that perspective - there's no electrical connection (with occasional bursts of ringing current) to deal with, it's not a path for lightning to get into your equipment

The large rural/urban difference in effort and cost is really going to be in getting the fibre from the headend to the pole, surely (which you'll be doing for G.FAST or FTTP anyway, and where a large percentage of the distance has likely already been covered with the FTTC build) - the additional few metres from pole to home is largely the same if it's overhead wiring in central London or overhead wiring in the Highlands, no? (if both houses were near their respective poles). And that's forgetting that Openreach is not expected to do the final installation for free.

The only G.FAST consolation is that hopefully FTTP on demand from that point should be very reasonably priced. I'd happily pay a couple of hundred £ in installation fees for that.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 06:27:36 PM by sorc »
Logged

c6em

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 504
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #86 on: April 08, 2015, 06:09:04 PM »

Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?

Correct:
Ashley village in Northamptonshire
See
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/bt-wrong-foots-gigaclear-ashley-village-raises-15k-fibre-broadband.html
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #87 on: April 09, 2015, 05:01:53 PM »

Didn't one village in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire actively choose to pay for an FTTC cab rather than wait for the possibility of a Gigaclear rollout?

Correct:
Ashley village in Northamptonshire
See
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/12/bt-wrong-foots-gigaclear-ashley-village-raises-15k-fibre-broadband.html

That was the one I was thinking about.

It is interesting to see some of the comments from residents on there, and the fact that arguments still appear to be raging.

However, following the link to the village website, it looks like both options are going ahead right now.
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #88 on: April 09, 2015, 05:10:46 PM »

G.Fast is ideal for rural deployment (small cluster of houses rather than villages) as the customer kit can be used to power the G.Fast port which is probably up a pole. Currently you can't power the whole node from customer kit, just the G.Fast ports but that's one of the aims (it will happen in the next 2 years).

That matches my thinking. We just need BT to agree with us, and start the rollout in those areas...

Talking to my local BDUK people, it seems that there might be a little less trust in the ability for rural copper to be able to supply reverse power in a properly safe manner. Presumably, they're worried about farmers managing to dig through copper, or bodge the wiring a little more easily than is common in urban areas.

Quote
I've seen 300Mbps across a 150m copper loop (and 800Mbps aggregated across two copper loops) so G.Fast is a decent solution for very rural areas where vectoring will deliver close to optimal results. Disclaimer - I worked for Alcatel-Lucent on G.Fast so I've seen some of the trial data for places like Austria.

Do you have any feel for whether Sckipio's recent announcement of faster G.fast, with longer range, stands up?
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.FAST
« Reply #89 on: April 09, 2015, 05:17:13 PM »

Actually, as I mentioned the Sckipio stuff, has anyone seen this:

It seems that, now G.fast has been standardised, the original project (4GBB Celtic) has now formed a "Celtic Plus" to develop G.fast v2, or GOLD.

A few links:
http://www.sckipio.com/sckipios-g-fast-helps-celtic-plus-go-farther/
https://www.celticplus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Celtic-Plus-Press-Release-2015-03-23-GOLD-Project.pdf
http://gfastnews.com/index.php/90-r/157-suddenly-g-fast-is-400-500-meters-not-100-200-meters
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=489458
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7