Announcements > News Articles

G.fast networks of the future will be with us sooner than you think

<< < (2/2)

adslmax:
Openreach told me via email. My DSL Checker for G.Fast also disappear!

re0:
Now if only I knew which email address. :wry: I tried with their fibre enquires form before without success as they just told me to conact my ISP.

To be honest, I would rather they did a U-turn with G.Fast or at least deploy it much closer to the premises to utilise it to its full potential (as many people have mentioned before on various websites). Though I imagine it would disappoint ISPs that have already invested in G.Fast if the rollout was ceased, so the former is perhaps less preferable in that respect.

VDSL 35b profile would surely be a lot better economically compared to G.Fast? Of course, I could be very wrong as nodes in the network may also need to be upgraded to support the higher throughput on the network. And there is also the issue of support for the technology (perhaps new line cards would be required, and CPE provided by ISPs may not support it). Still, its headline speeds are not too far off the presently available higher speed G.Fast product (330/50 Mbps) in terms of downstream at least; I would imagine 200-250 Mbps would be very possible on shorter loops (though I cannot see upstream exceeding 30-40 Mbps much), but this speed would be better sustained over a longer distance (should be faster than G.Fast beyond 300 meters) and should give a nice speed bump over 17b until around 500-600 meters (depending on wire gauge). 35b should cover more premises with higher speeds, and G.Fast (with current topology) won't be comparable in that respect until either:

* A: G.Fast and existing DSL technologies can co-exist with some overlap with minimal disruption (as current rollouts are using 20-106 MHz profile)
* B: Existing DSL technologies are switched off to allow for a greater frequency range to be used (2-106 MHz should give another ~100-150 meters max.)A would be less preferable from a performance/range standpoint (since it will still be restricted to a degreed) compared to B, but more preferable for use with existing technologies. B is the only true option to give G.Fast a range similar to VDSL 17b/35b (with current topology), but provide large gains for those a bit closer. But we all know the latter cannot happen or at least not in the near future.

In any case, FTTP would certainly be better. :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page