No, they'll never change it -330/50 and 160/not sure the upload - is what has been ratified and I doubt it'll ever change from that.
I doubt that too. It was just more of a thought on how G.fast could make a bit more sense for an in-the-meantime solution especially since according to
this ThinkBroadband article:
- There are 8,330 pods
- Those pods cover 3,312,664 premises
- 1,978,816 premises total have G.fast available
I understand there may be some minor inaccuracies here and there, and it is a case where this is based on what they "know about" so there could be more premises and pods. But given those figures, ~60% of premises connected to a cabinet with a pod have the service available - though it is not clear whether this is based on old 100 Mbps or new 120 Mbps minimum; I think it still may be the former, so %'age may be even less - perhaps closer to 50%.
Being able to reduce the existing VDSL2 spectrum and have a lower start frequency for G.fast makes sense to increase the potential amount of properties that can get the service. Though there would still be challenges with subscriber densities (from what I remember, it is still 48 per pod with 96 being a target) which means it cannot be a long-term solution for everybody to have access. And there is the issue of existing VDSL hardware in some locations that cannot be vectored easily (ECI), or the case where there are multiple DSLAMs for the same PCP.
Perhaps it really doesn't make sense for expenses. But it doesn't need to - I just wanted to write a little bit about it. There are more premises that can get G.fast than ports on my cabinet - probably up to 3-4x as many premises as there are ports can get 120+ Mbps as there is anyway.