Print

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

[Black Sheep]

He knows ^^^^^. 

[GigabitEthernet]

This seems like a terrible idea. I thought the point of G.Fast was to move the fibre nearer to the home?

Talk about not future-proofing the network. In 10 years time we're going to be massively behind if this does turn out to be the rollout strategy.

[Black Sheep]

 

[GigabitEthernet]

Notice I said:

...if this does turn out to be the rollout strategy.

[Black Sheep]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that G.Fast (in the U.K.) is still in the testing/trial phase.    Hence it is really quite pointless speculating upon what may or may not happen with one's own circuit . . .

Notice what burakkucat says ................ it's no use applying a caveat at the end of what is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky chat.

[GigabitEthernet]

If they're testing G.Fast using a cabinet method, why would they suddenly launch it any other way. Your logic totally escapes me.

[Weaver]

From what if anything we know about G.Fast is it likely to perform worse than older technologies over long lines? (ie. compared to what would be ‘long’ for VDSL2)

I just wondered whether this is an opportunity to get cleverer software in, or the equivalent of G.Vector, smart design that either wasn't available before, or was simply omitted for whatever reason.

[burakkucat]

If they're testing G.Fast using a cabinet method,

"A cabinet method" is not the only mode that is undergoing testing at the various trial sites.

[burakkucat]

From what if anything we know about G.Fast is it likely to perform worse than older technologies over long lines? (ie. compared to what would be ‘long’ for VDSL2)

There is another product named "long reach VDSL2", LR-VDSL2.

I just wondered whether this is an opportunity to get cleverer software in, or the equivalent of G.Vector, smart design that either wasn't available before, or was simply omitted for whatever reason.

No. 

[niemand]

This seems like a terrible idea. I thought the point of G.Fast was to move the fibre nearer to the home?

It was, then BT began the calls for a longer reach, lower bandwidth version and this is where we are.

Deeper fibre will I'm sure come, however according to all reports I've read BT have indeed trialed a variety of G.fast deployments and the overwhelming majority, if not all, of their deployment between now and 2020 will be cabinet/node based.

They have a target they said they'd reach, they can reach it most cheaply by deploying in this manner.

When BT spend more than they have to it's usually due to poor management or incompetence. In this instance they have a pretty modest target that can be reached with a relatively modest spend.

[Weaver]

[I read a short article about LR-VDSL in use at one trial site now in Lewis, no technical details much, unfortunately.]

[Chrysalis]

For those of us not within g.fast range from a cabinet bear in mind there is two things that may help.

1 - some areas will get copper rearrangement, its not going to be every cabinet, but some will be identified where by if its deemed rearranging cables improves cabinet coverage of g.fast large enough then it will be done, this I assume will help VDSL customers on the same cables. BT wont be doing this to boost speeds of people who can get g.fast, it is about boosting property count.
2 - Crosstalk on VDSL should reduce if people move from VDSL to g.fast.

[Weaver]

Might be able to end ADSL completely too? And so improve the possibilities for VDSL2 as well.

[Chrysalis]

unlikely as ofcom want LLU based adsl services to continue. Those are all exchange based and are a massive blocker to ditching exchange based adsl services.

[j0hn]

The current LR-VDSL trials require the turning off of ADSL lines on the cabinets taking part in the trials.

In order to prevent  exchange  based ADSL  or ADSL2plus customers served via a  cabinet selected for  LR-VDSL  being  adversely  affected, these lines must be migrated to  an FTTC GEA  service  (either VDSL  or  LR-VDSL, depending on D-side  insertion loss measured  at 300kHz).   This means that  LR-VDSL  can be  safely deployed without  adversely  impacting  exchange  based services.

I can't see them turning off all ADSL though, or even all ADSL lines on a cabinet utilising LR-VDSL during the commercial rollout. The DSLAMs simply don't offer enough capacity to make everyone switch from ADSL to LR-VDSL/VDSL2. It's probably why they have picked very rural areas for trials.