Print

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

[Bowdon]

INCA and UK ISPs Call for Near 100% FTTP Broadband Cover by 2026

The Independent Networks Co-operative Association, which represents alternative network ISPs like Sky Broadband and Gigaclear, will today publish a report that calls on the Government to set a target for 80% of the UK population to have access to a pure fibre optic FTTP/H broadband connection by 2026; and “near universal” cover by 2030.

The ‘Building Gigabit Britain‘ report, which was created in consultation with members including various national players (e.g. Sky Broadband, Vodafone, Cityfibre, Hyperoptic, Gigaclear, Relish Wireless, ITS Technology, WarwickNet and others), outlines a number of bold measures that it wants to see the Government adopt in order to facilitate the wide-scale deployment of Gigabit (i.e. 1000Mbps+ or 1Gbps+ if you prefer) capable Fibre-to-the-Premise (FTTP) networks.

[GigabitEthernet]

Finally, some aspiration.

[Black Sheep]

Hardly aspirational. Anyone can publish papers, give recommendations etc ...................... we ALL know what is the best delivery method for DSL, this latest paper just props up the other million papers suggesting near-full FTTP coverage.

But guess what ?? It all comes down to money ......................... who will pay for it !! 

[niemand]

Doable but unlikely.

Those who could pay for it generally have existing networks they want to get more value out of / sweat until the planet is consumed by the sun.

[Black Sheep]

Doable but unlikely.

Those who could pay for it generally have existing networks they want to get more value out of / sweat until the planet is consumed by the sun.

.............. as any share-holding profit making business, would and should. I still stand by my stance of only a bare minimum of folk would want a 500Mbps service, let alone a 1Gig. By 'want' ..... I mean pay hard cash for.

It's all b0llocks, I see a helluva cross-section of EU's on a daily basis and FTTC suits there needs to a tee. I want, I want, I want ...... usually doesn't get ...... remember what ones parents use to tell you !!

[Ronski]

I want the service I pay for, I currently pay for an 80/20 service, with the way my speeds are dropping I'd be better off switching to a 40/2 service soon! Even though I started out at around 50/12 I'm now at 46.7/4.4!

If we take quality of line and distance out of the equation then we currently have three tiers of 80/20 FTTC service, which all cost the same from the supplier.

1. Huawei cabinets with Vectoring and g.inp enabled.
2. Huawei cabinets without Vectoring, but with g.inp
3. ECI cabinets!

Now factor in the quality of the line and distance, and you have people paying the same money as others for a far inferior service. How is this acceptable???

The only way to fix this is with FTTP, yes it's going to cost money but all the time people write the idea off it's never going to happen, it's a shame BT's shareholder don't revolt like Sports Directs have! (BS Would you like a zero hour contract and minimum wage, because if all engineers were paid like that I'm sure that would make the shareholders even richer  )

PS. I know it's a complicated problem and OFCOM also causes a lot of problems, but it doesn't mean I'm going to be happy with the current situation.

[ejs]

If we take quality of line and distance out of the equation then we currently have three tiers of 80/20 FTTC service, which all cost the same from the supplier.

1. Huawei cabinets with Vectoring and g.inp enabled.
2. Huawei cabinets without Vectoring, but with g.inp
3. ECI cabinets!

If you take quality of line and distance out of the equation, wouldn't all those three still be supplying the full 80/20 speeds?

[Ronski]

EJS you know exactly what I mean,  unless you failed to read the sentence immediately after what you quoted!

The facts are that any line not getting full sync would perform better if connected to  a cabinet in a higher group in my list, unless it was already in group one of course.

[ejs]

I do know what you mean, but I don't think it makes a particularly compelling argument.

So you choose to complain about a relatively minor aspect rather than the considerably more significant aspects. Would you also object to getting a brand X FTTP ONT, in case it were somehow slightly worse than a Brand Y one?

Spending billions just so that everyone can get equal speeds, despite the fact the most people don't need such high speeds or don't even care, doesn't sound like a particularly good justification to me.

Now factor in the quality of the line and distance, and you have people paying the same money as others for a far inferior service. How is this acceptable???

The only way to fix this is with FTTP

Wouldn't another way to fix the paying the same amount of money, but getting different speeds problem, be to change the amount of money being paid? Some sort of system where the amount of money paid is proportional to the speed received? Already there's a limited system for this, with the 40/2, 40/10, 55/10 or 80/20 speeds available.

I expect even if everyone did have 1Gbps FTTP, they'd still be some people running speed tests every five minutes, continuous ping monitors, and needing to inspect stats on the quality of the optical signal being received, and finding something to complain about.

[Black Sheep]

He knows ^^^^^

[Weaver]

> Wouldn't another way to fix the paying the same amount of money, but getting different speeds problem, be to change the amount of money being paid? Some sort of system where the amount of money paid is proportional to the speed received?

Sounds attractive to this particular voter.

[Ronski]

You know what, I just can't be bothered anymore, EJS you seem to pick holes in a lot of things I post - I'm not an academic, I not fantastically clever, I not very could at constructing strong arguments, and BS just sounds like a broken record.

[Black Sheep]

You know what, I just can't be bothered anymore, EJS you seem to pick holes in a lot of things I post - I'm not an academic, I not fantastically clever, I not very could at constructing strong arguments, and BS just sounds like a broken record.

If I sound like a broken record, it's because I'm responding to the same 'broken comments' from the likes of yourself.
If you try and apply cleverness, you will read between the lines that we ALL want what you do ...... but currently there is no quick-fix to get to that point !!

As I've had to be reminded before on more than one occasion, this is a forum .... people have differing points of view. No need to start chucking those kind of remarks about. 

[niemand]

I expect even if everyone did have 1Gbps FTTP, they'd still be some people running speed tests every five minutes, continuous ping monitors, and needing to inspect stats on the quality of the optical signal being received, and finding something to complain about.

Given the nature of this forum there are plenty on here who'd do just that if they could I imagine 

I always remarked that if you needed to look at such stats before you see a 'problem' it obviously wasn't such a problem anyway. Real issues get noticed during normal usage.

[Bowdon]

The pricing of FTTC products is all over the place. I'm kind of annoyed that BT have just lowered the price for new customers, meanwhile I'm paying £32. Why should new customers get discounts of prices? It doesn't exactly improve loyalty to the ISP. In reality BT should have been offering discounts to long time customers already, and then be able to drop the high introduction price for a week or 2. That would have been more fair.

I'm using BT as that is who I'm with. I'm sure other ISP's are as bad, maybe even worse.

Playing devils advocate here. FTTC speeds are so variable its barely a common product between certain different geographical places. I suspect this is down to the decaying copper network. I imagine at some point the copper network will be needing so much work that eventually it'll become profitable to look to updating it with fibre. OR should be doing this as they are doing their current maintenance.

I also wonder when its time these smaller FTTP companies are going to start branching out from new builds. When they do that THEN we'll be in the era of FTTP.

The problem with FTTP is there isn't much competition driving forward progress. So BT / OR don't have much incentive to push for it.

I am still worried about G.fast too. As written by BS in another thread quoting the BT boss. 10 million people on G.fast by 2020 ?? Is this saying its going to be 2020 before they think about putting nodes up?

I know VM gets a bad wrap because of how its network works. But they have been making big strides around my area. If G.fast fails to be pushed out further with nodes, then BT / OR could see themselves being overtaken.

I think keeping G.fast at cabinet level is a big gamble by BT / OR. As we hear from BS, a lot of people aren't seeking faster speeds. So unless BT / OR have some inside intelligence that the people who want faster speeds also live near to the cabinet, then its pot luck. What if hardly anyone takes up the G.fast offer? What's the point in saying 10m can get it when hardly any of those people, who are going to be probably getting the full 80/20 speeds anyway, don't order it?

The people who want faster speeds and a stable connection live further away from the cabinet. They get a crap service and so speed and quality of service does become an issue.

If a person doesn't have a broken leg, then he doesn't appreciate walking.