Print

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

[art37]

I believe in the principle of competition but does it actually make sense for OpenReach to pull through fibre in April this year only to be followed by FreedomFibre 8 months later? My home is one of 14 in a small cul-de-sac.

Presumably, if I decided to switch to an ISP that used FreedomFibre it would require more fibre to a new CSP and ONT? I assume the existing CSP and ONT would be left in place.

It just seems a waste of resources and money when other regions are desperate for FTTP.

[Alex Atkin UK]

The argument is more is it worth an alt-net laying fibre when Openreach already have?  There will always be more ISP choice on Openreach so BT, Sky, etc can move their customers over whereas they might not support the other networks in the area.

Its a huge cost, but its a one-time cost for presumably decades of service.  Clearly they must think they can make the investment work compared to a rural area, or they would be targeting those areas nobody else will touch.

[GigabitEthernet]

My view is that in time Openreach will essentially cover the entire country. That is clearly their ambition - and I can see the USO becoming FTTP only at some stage.

So whether they have competition or not doesn't really matter, their motivation is that fibre is cheaper to maintain and install long term than copper. So the quicker they get rid of it the better.

To be fair the current leadership of Openreach seems to actually understand that, only took them twenty years.

[Black Sheep]

My view is that in time Openreach will essentially cover the entire country. That is clearly their ambition - and I can see the USO becoming FTTP only at some stage.

So whether they have competition or not doesn't really matter, their motivation is that fibre is cheaper to maintain and install long term than copper. So the quicker they get rid of it the better.

To be fair the current leadership of Openreach seems to actually understand that, only took them twenty years.

OR are only 18yrs old ??

Fibre should have been a 'thang' back in the 80's, but Thatcher put paid to that. So, 'we' then had a shareholding business where profits have to come first. There was no way on God's green earth they were going to introduce a total infrastructure make-over, for the whole of the UK. Not without subsidies.

Guess what, that's what started to happen with the advent of FTTC and other closely linked projects. Fibre cable benefits, have been known for decades.

[GigabitEthernet]

OR are only 18yrs old ??

Fibre should have been a 'thang' back in the 80's, but Thatcher put paid to that. So, 'we' then had a shareholding business where profits have to come first. There was no way on God's green earth they were going to introduce a total infrastructure make-over, for the whole of the UK. Not without subsidies.

Guess what, that's what started to happen with the advent of FTTC and other closely linked projects. Fibre cable benefits, have been known for decades.

I meant BT as a whole rather than Openreach but I take your point that I wasn't clear.

Your leadership to their great credit now gets FTTP is the future and is doing a superb rollout. You only have my credit for that. Now let's get it to all, ditch copper and get 100% coverage. I believe you can do it.

[GigabitEthernet]

FTTC ultimately has been a failure, a total waste of time. That was when Openreach was being run into the ground, now that lot are gone and we have decent regulation again due to Openreach/Ofcom credit, we're doing it right.

I have no doubt by 2030 we will reach basically universal coverage. What other country is doing that?

[Edinburgh_lad]

Agree that FTTC, in this country at least, has been a total failure. Aging network suffering decades of poor maintenance and investment was all of a sudden meant to deliver. It's like putting superb tyres to an aging engine with the expectation that your mpg will be amazing.

When I lived on the continent, cable internet was available where I stayed in the early 2000s and most places now have full fibre, especially in urban areas.

Competition is good as it improves standards and eliminates complacency, not to mention keeping the price reasonable.

In my area, Openreach have put in FTTP and virgin media have started it, too. However, while the roll out by the former is complete in my street, with FTTP available, the roll out by the latter has stalled, with no estimated time for completion (half the treet is done, the other isn't). It's a shame because it may get abandoned altogether as the cost of fibre is low, and not many want to go with Openreach in my street.

[Chrysalis]

My view is that in time Openreach will essentially cover the entire country. That is clearly their ambition - and I can see the USO becoming FTTP only at some stage.

So whether they have competition or not doesn't really matter, their motivation is that fibre is cheaper to maintain and install long term than copper. So the quicker they get rid of it the better.

To be fair the current leadership of Openreach seems to actually understand that, only took them twenty years.

Have not seen any statements from them that indicate that, and it also wont make business sense.  There will be many areas not covered by Openreach FTTP I think, but it wont be surprising as it isnt realistic to expect them to do 100% coverage. Despite appearances (since most on forums seem to be at least in plans) there is big chunks of areas with no plans from Openreach, including city areas. 
East of the country seems particularly bare.  The pattern seems to be economically strong areas.

The most recent statements indicate a winding down of new areas been started, and the last new areas list was tiny.

My opinion of the USO it will probably boost to 100mbit so the last 5-10% or so can get those speeds via wireless tech.  A FTTP USO will be far too expensive and the government already considers cable broadband as adequate alternative.

FTTC was far cheaper and nowhere near universal, not in cities either so I am not sure why there is assumptions Openreach will do something they havent done before.  I actually think there is a chance Openreach might petition to get the USO changed so they can pull out copper in areas where they have no FTTP presence.

[Weaver]

@Chrysalis - Are you thinking about England and Wales when you mentioned the 5%, Chrys. I’m really hoping that in Scotland where we have the Scottish Government’s R100 promise that we are safe in taking that to mean, as it already seems to mean, 100% FTTP and no cop-outs with satellite or long range wireless schemes, which are garbage because they’re shared bandwidth and may have no engineering support as from a ‘real’ serious outfit such Openreach. Openreach engineers have told me that a couple of the remotest places in Skye have already been supplied with FTTP, done by OR engineers. I mentioned this in another thread a while back. This gives me hope that R100 isn’t just a political con. I was also told about someone rather nearer me on the east side of the Island who paid £20k (!) for FTTPoD, with a very short run, but nowhere near any suitable hardware, only near main fibre cable.

[Chrysalis]

Well I got no idea of what that scheme is aiming for but it is interesting R100 is "superfast" not "ultrafast", I always thought FTTC fell in to the "superfast" category.  Which would mean it doesnt need to be anywhere near gigabit connectivity, but maybe Scotland defines superfast differently?

I have found more than one website which defines ultrafast as faster than 300mbps, but its a vague term.

If someone local to you already has FTTPoD I assume that makes the chances of your R100 being FTTP higher.

How fast is ultrafast broadband in real terms?

A lot of providers will sell you their broadband speeds on how much you can download and stream, and how quickly you can do it.

    Standard ADSL broadband (10Mbps-11Mbps) – Stream between one and two HD movies at the same time
    Superfast broadband (35Mbps-213Mbps) – Stream between four and 30 HD movies at the same time
    Ultrafast broadband (362Mbps-1000Mbps) – Stream between 50 and 150 HD movies at the same time

For what its worth I am expecting many of the not spots to be urban/suburban, as urban seems to have no government intervention, the government seems to be relying completely on the commercial rollout to sort out those areas.  Also would properties lacking wayleave approval be not included as well, wireless probably would be the considered solution for those?

FTTP is also shared bandwidth.

So I suppose my comments are aimed at England.  I am not aware of any 100% coverage plan in England.

--

Looks like its 30mbps upwards, so could be one of many techs.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/reaching-100-superfast-broadband/

Our Commitment

We want every home and business in Scotland to have access to superfast broadband of 30 Megabits per second (Mbps) - this is our Reaching 100% (R100) commitment.

Given someone close to you has FTTPoD though, at worst I would expect Vectored FTTC.

Does also say this though.

R100 will deliver a future-proofed, national fibre network, making Scotland one of the best connected places anywhere in Europe, and underpinning our future economic growth.

600m budget which seems low for a 100% FTTP, I would expect 100% FTTP to cost much more then that, but I am not someone with experience rolling out FTTP, maybe things have come a long way and thats enough money.  I remember a post from John stating your area is slated for FTTP.

[Alex Atkin UK]

What is this nonsense about FTTC being a total failure?  If we had all had to wait for FTTP then the Internet would be a very different thing today as Netflix and YouTube would have been practically unusable.  So much time would be wasted downloading stuff, many businesses may never have happened due to infrastructure cost.  It absolutely played its part in getting to where we are today.

I'm connected to the largest exchange in Sheffield in the suburbs, in a section Virgin Media did not cover, on a line that was partly aluminium along its 2.5Km route to the exchange.  From the cabinet to my house was copper, so FTTC literally removed the bad part of my line from the equation.  I had nearly 10 years of good service out of FTTC, most people are perfectly happy with FTTC.  You can't discount those just because some have sub-par lines.

You also seem to be forgetting that FTTC laid the groundwork for FTTP by clearing/installing ducts to get fibre to the cabinets.

Also consider how much cheaper GPON is to roll out today compared to 10 years ago, not to mention the ONTs.  Every customer install would have been far more expensive.

You are also forgetting the part regulation plays in all this.  Ideally they should have been able to turn off ADSL service once VDSL rolled out, but due to obligations to LLU etc they could not.  Every move they made essentially has to have government approval and we know how long that can take.

FTTP is also shared bandwidth.

True, but its a guaranteed minimum performance, consistent latency, reliable shared medium.

Wireless quite literally can depend on which way the wind is blowing, is inherently an unreliable medium with no guarantees of minimum performance levels.

[Edinburgh_lad]

Nonsense to you, opinion to others. This is a forum pit.

I thought both technologies (FTTC/FTTP) are of around the same age?

FTTC is good if you live near the cabinet. Beyond that is an issue and no point really of having it.

Capacity is an issue too, which became clear during the pandemic with many upgrading/trying to upgrade from ADSL to FTTC.

Quality of wiring wasn't upgraded. Certainly in my area it's been poorly maintained also.

I don't find your ducting argument strong I'm afraid.

However, the question to you is whether virgin media *were* initially going to cover your area, prompting Openreach to make necessary upgrades, which is what this thread is really about.

[Alex Atkin UK]

FTTC is good if you live near the cabinet. Beyond that is an issue and no point really of having it.

The point is if the cabinet is far away, the exchange is usually much further, so unless you're well out of range then it should still perform better.

Plus if it wasn't economical to put a cabinet near to you, then it absolutely wont be to run fibre either.

Also the obvious point of not having to pay civils to replace all that cabling with fibre, which as were seeing not not all properties can even get a wayleave to do so.

[tubaman]

The point is if the cabinet is far away, the exchange is usually much further, so unless you're well out of range then it should still perform better.
...

Quite agree. My exchange is in the next village and with ADSL I could get about 7/1Mbps whereas VDSL with the cabinet about 800m away gives 44/7Mbps. Of course I'd like it to be faster but 44/7 allows me to work from home and keeps up with the family's streaming requirements. The old ADSL setup wouldn't have coped well with either.

[Black Sheep]

Of course FTTC wasn't pointless - it was absolutely perfect as the next-step in the growth of the 'need for speed', for a very large majority of people.

Opinions eh