Print

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

[Chrysalis]

Just for the record, I personally fully support the UK ASA’s position.   

My opinion remains...  My own broadband speed is about ten times as fast as my closest neighbour, because I purchase an FTTC package, he purchases a legacy ADSL package.   To the layman (as he is), using the word “fibre” to distinguish the two is entirely appropriate, in these very common circumstances.  And to the expert (as many here are), we won’t be confused, as we all know the differences between FTTC and FTTH, and all the in-betweens like FTTdP.

But all these arguments were done to death a few months ago, when ASA ruled against CityFibre’s complaints, quite correctly imo.     

I was careful to just state above as ‘an opinion’, as I know others feel differently, as spelled out in previous threads.   Come what may, let’s agree to mutually respect one another’s points of view?   

you killed your own argument tho.

You justified it on the means your connection is 10x as fast as your ADSL neighbour, what about the cityfibre neighbour who is 10x as fast as you? yet they described the same in advertising.

[Ronski]

My connection is 15 times faster 

And it is true fibre to the premises, then converts to coax to enter the house.

[Bowdon]

I think that it is false advertising, and it wouldn't surprise me if this situation was created due to a marketing campaign to try and make people think they have full fibre when really it is a hybrid connection.

They could have used any other term that didn't already mean something. But by using fibre it becomes confusing. Most people aren't tech savvy and they rely on the experts for their knowledge. If the experts have given a false impression, that the person thinks they have full fibre with a FTTC connection, then it is the industries fault for not properly communicating the situation.

I think we also have to remember that when lines eventually become 100% fibre many of the problems both adsl and vdsl suffer from goes away i.e. electrical interference. You should always get your full speed, what you actually paid for, rather than the inferior adsl and the slightly less inferior vdsl.

As I said in my first post, this as probably been pushed by BT/OR early on because they were still pushing the "why do people need faster speeds?" mentality and in their minds back then didn't expect full fibre to come in to focus this soon.

Also in another place people are talking about being left behind, as they are on adsl or have a very low speed. This isn't like the upgrade from adsl to vdsl, every line will be upgraded to a full fibre because that is the next generation. It would become too complicated to be still running a copper system while everything else is setup to work with full fibre. It might take many years for all lines to be converted but I think it will happen.

On the VM situation. I don't really see why they have to latch on to the full fibre issue. They use cable and thats a different type of technology. But there is nothing to stop VM setting their own marketing standards and as long as they make it clear what technology they are using then I can't see a problem with it. I know full fibre will always come out on top. But cable can also keep up for many years yet.

[Chrysalis]

Bowden the confusion point you raised is interesting, because some marketeers will admit that confusion can be a deliberate strategy.

[sevenlayermuddle]

I don’t actually agree that non-techies will “think they have full fibre”, they provably have no idea what technology is used.   They *should simply assess whether the connection meets their needs and if not, ask for, or demand something faster.   I very much doubt whether they care whether the service is delivered over fibre or copper (say, ethernet, as with Hyperoptic’s service), as long as it meets their needs.

That’s what they should be doing.  It is also possible they are being influenced by FTTP marketing, and noticing the headline-grabbing complaints to ASA, and concluding, “Wow, I need full fibre”.   In fact they don’t, they simply need a sufficiently fast service, even if a stick of wet celery is involved as a comms link.

Here’s that link to the Hyperoptic article again.   I think it would be ridiculous if they were banned from selling their product as “fibre”, but it’s definitely not full fibre as per a dedicated FTTP to an ordinary house....

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/hyperoptic-expansion-investment-1gbps/

Emphasise again, that’s my view.   Accept that not everybody agrees.

[Bowdon]

I had a read of the hyperoptic article.

I'd say that was FTTP as fibre is entering the properly. How its distributed from that point is up to the people living there. It would be like having an FTTP connection to your router then using wifi to connect to it. Wifi wouldn't get the full speed. But you'd still have a fibre connection.

I think the big problem with FTTP is there isn't enough advertising of the product. When joe and joanna bloggs gets a leaflet through their door advertising full fibre when they already have FTTC, they are going to think "we've already got fibre, why change?". This is going to be a big problem as part of the full fibre rollout is updating the entire network. So there could be quite a few modern day mildly educated troglodytes protesting against the rollout.

I respect your view SLM. A lot of people have it. One of the problems with putting the opposite opinion on a forum is multiple people reply. I hope we're all emphasising the mutual respect for each other in this conversation 

[sevenlayermuddle]

I agree it’s debatable, whether Hyperoptic is FTTP.   My understanding, which may be wrong, is that there are multiple individual “premises” in a block of flats, ie each dwelling.   Wikipedia suggests existence another acronym, FTTB (building), which would at least distinguish it from FTTP and FTTC.

The other thing is... the arstechnica article suggests the occupants of the flats, whilst having access to 1Gbps fibre, actually have to share it.   If there are (say) 30 flats, and each one settles down to stream a 4K movie at the same time, they’re only getting 33Mbps each - barely adequate.  If some flats contain multiple kids, streaming multiple movies, it gets worse, and maybe even inadequate.   

That’s then another scenario whereby Mr & Mrs Bloggs living in these flats are subsequently offered 1Gbps true FTTP from Openreach, but turn it down as they already have 1Gbps fibre from Hyperoptic, unaware they might be missing the opportunity for a massive improvement.

But by any sensible definition it is a form of fibre broadband and a useful contribution to society, and imho, they should be allowed to market it as “fibre”, even if Mr & Mrs Bloggs fail to understand it all.

Likewise, I do understand the arguments against fake fibre too, and the resentment that FTTC is marketed as fibre.   I am after all in a minority of 1 in these threads, and I have to face up to that.

[niemand]

The other thing is... the arstechnica article suggests the occupants of the flats, whilst having access to 1Gbps fibre, actually have to share it.   If there are (say) 30 flats, and each one settles down to stream a 4K movie at the same time, they’re only getting 33Mbps each - barely adequate.  If some flats contain multiple kids, streaming multiple movies, it gets worse, and maybe even inadequate.   

That’s then another scenario whereby Mr & Mrs Bloggs living in these flats are subsequently offered 1Gbps true FTTP from Openreach, but turn it down as they already have 1Gbps fibre from Hyperoptic, unaware they might be missing the opportunity for a massive improvement.

This doesn't make any sense to me. The flat occupants share backhaul but have a dedicated gigabit to that backhaul. The backhaul can be scaled as the operator sees fit much as with xDSL.

True FTTP from Openreach is shared 2.4Gb 32 ways - it's a shared media.

[ejs]

I was going to post something, but decided not to because it was more or less what @sevenlayermuddle had already said.

I think the big problem with FTTP is there isn't enough advertising of the product.

I didn't even think there was any big problem with FTTP.

[sevenlayermuddle]

This doesn't make any sense to me. The flat occupants share backhaul but have a dedicated gigabit to that backhaul. The backhaul can be scaled as the operator sees fit much as with xDSL.

True FTTP from Openreach is shared 2.4Gb 32 ways - it's a shared media.

Agreed, I see no technical reason to impose a 1Gbps bottleneck.    The fibre can go faster, and so can the copper.  Maybe the article is just wrong.   Nevertheless, it does emphasise that whilst every network topology will have bottlenecks, the bottlenecks between FTTP and FTTB will be different.   It might be the fibre bit, or it might be the copper bit, but whichever is lower in any context, becomes a limiting factor.

Thus getting close to my underlying dislike, of classing any particular offering as “full fibre” which, unlike FTTC/FTTB/FTTP, I don’t think has any particular technical definition. 

[niemand]

The article is wrong.

FTTB has the same kind of bottleneck as point to point fibre up until 10Gb is hit.

There's no precise technical definition of much of this however Openreach FTTC is more accurately described as FTTN - Node. That'd be the international definition of what it is as there's no attempt to reach within a certain radius of the served premises.

With that in mind given we don't even have the two most frequently used products correctly advertised or described it's all down from there.

Full fibre has a definition and Hyperoptic misuse it themselves, which is pretty funny. Full fibre = FTTP = fibre to the premises occupied by the customer.

I wasn't that fussed by the advertising once I'd gotten over VM being allowed to misuse it back in the 000s however with the discussion of full fibre now I would appreciate at very least that term being reserved for FTTP. This would not be politically expedient though as Hyperoptic's coverage might be needed for targets.

Thought for the day: if Hyperoptic is 'full fibre' so is VDSL where the DSLAM is in the basement of a building, which does and has happened in the UK.

[sevenlayermuddle]

I wasn’t aware that ‘full fibre’ has a definition I would certainly agree it must imply, at least, FTTP.

Interestingly though, I came across this document this morning, following a chain of links about Boris’s plans for full fibre.   I think it might be the source of other recent media reports, as how badly the UK is doing, putting the UK right at the bottom of European fibre rankings.

However, the table on p18 differentiates between FTTH (same thing as FTTP?) and FTTB.   Many of the countries supposedly ahead of the UK seem to be heavily reliant on FTTB for their placement.  For FTTH, we’re not doing so badly, still bad, not as bad.

https://www.ftthcouncil.eu/documents/FTTH%20Council%20Europe%20-%20Panorama%20at%20September%202018.pdf

And there was me, thinking you could trust industry statistics and media reporting.

[Ronski]

On the VM situation. I don't really see why they have to latch on to the full fibre issue. They use cable and thats a different type of technology. But there is nothing to stop VM setting their own marketing standards and as long as they make it clear what technology they are using then I can't see a problem with it. I know full fibre will always come out on top. But cable can also keep up for many years yet.

Actually in new areas VM use fibre, I watched the fibre being blown in to the front of my house, then a media converter changes to coax so it can connected to the hub. The whole of Thanet is being done in this way, well the areas they are covering anyway. I consider this as FTTP, as I have a fibre on my property supplying my broadband.

[sevenlayermuddle]

@Ronski, this is kind of my whole point.   What does it matter if the service qualifies as ‘true FTTP’ or ‘full fibre’, as long as the customer is satisfied?   Especially as in your case, a technically competent, discerning costumer.   But even if you were a non techie, same would apply.

Harping back to Hyperoptic, whilst it does seem to be the case that their service to apartments is definitely not true full fibre, and accepting that FTTP might be even better, it is also a tremendous service, and I am envious of their customers.      The service described in arstechnica is made possible because of the fibre element and again, imho, it would be quite tragic if ASA were persuaded that they should be disallowed from describing it as fibre, just because it is not FTTP.

Emphasise again then, Hyperoptic’s service is imho a tremendous fibre service, and I hope ASA allow them to carry on selling it as fibre, otherwise they will lose out unfairly.   But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and so by the same reasoning, FTTC is also most definitely a fibre service, even if a vastly inferior service to Hyperoptic, and so no reason not to call it ‘fibre’.

Just one thing though... I think Hyperoptic were among the complainants to ASA that FTTC should not be allowed to call itself fibre, because it is not full fibre.   I wonder, have they ever heard the saying, “when in a glasshouse, don’t throw stones”?

[Ronski]

There's no way you can correctly call a VDSL service a fibre service, it's a partial fibre service, but so is ADSL! For some FTTC customers that fibre ends 300m, 600m or even 2km away or more leaving hundreds or thousands of meters of crappy old copper or even aluminium telephone line subject to all the problems you are aware of. For ADSL that partial fibre service ends at the exchange, VDSL it ends at the street cabinet not the customers building.

Now take a fibre and run it to the outside of a building, in my case with VM it is then converted to coax for the last few meters to the modem, a medium that's more than up to carrying a gigabit signal.

In hyper optics case a fibre is taken to the basement of the building and again it's converted to a medium that is perfectly capable of distributing a gigabit around the property.

In all cases the end users internal network is irrelevant.

You can't call an apple a pear and say that's OK just because you enjoyed eating it.

Many used to complain about cheap  flights to to Barcelona, only to find they were at Salou, any one who thinks calling VDSL fibre is saying thats OK because the jet has taken you most the way, you just need to use a train or car for the rest.

Sunday morning rant over!