Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

A big internet upgrade: A real-world review of the new 1 Gigabit internet from CenturyLink

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?

[Dave2150]

A big internet upgrade: A real-world review of the new 1 Gigabit internet from CenturyLink

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.

[William Grimsley]

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.

[c6em]

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.

[Dave2150]

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.

[William Grimsley]

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!

Surely, there's more that 0.1% of people connected to FTTP in the UK?

[BigBunny]

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. 

[WWWombat]

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.

[NewtronStar]

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 

[kitz]

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.

[Dave2150]

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.

[Dave2150]

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:



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.

[Bowdon]

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.

[renluop]

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.

[Dave2150]

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.

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.