Print

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

[Chrysalis]

Yeah FTTC was huge for me, from 6/0.8 ADSL which was dodgy in stability to reasonably reliable 65-80/20.

I would still consider 100mbps+ wireless a clear upgrade over sub 10mbit ADSL though.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Wireless absolutely has its place.

[dee.jay]

Not really sure why there's all this hate for FTTC. Deploying one fibre to a cabinet and having the last "1/2 mile" to everyones house with copper has served us really well for the past 10-12 years. Technology has moved on, and whilst yes, fibre has been around a while, deploying full fibre is *massive*.

Just a shame some people just cannot really appreciate the scale of what is actually being achieved now.

I still went from 16Mbps on ADSL2+ to 80 on VDSL. That's a pretty substantial jump. OK, it's reduced over the years thanks to crosstalk and all the other associated problems, but I'll bloody take it over 16Mbps.

[GigabitEthernet]

We would have been much better off if we'd gone FTTP from the beginning rather than going for the pointless FTTC. It was clear even in 2012 that 80Mbps was not going to last us long. A pointless stop gap.

[GigabitEthernet]

Wireless absolutely has its place.

I don't agree. FTTP is essential and everyone should be entitled to it.

[dee.jay]

We would have been much better off if we'd gone FTTP from the beginning rather than going for the pointless FTTC. It was clear even in 2012 that 80Mbps was not going to last us long. A pointless stop gap.

Well that’s OR for you - can’t blame them for trying to get all they could from copper. They were stuck with it.

[XGS_Is_On]

I don't agree. FTTP is essential and everyone should be entitled to it.

I'll let the guys with 500 and 1000 upload on cable know. The issue as with most other entitlements is who pays for it.

[XGS_Is_On]

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

Most of the build is by private companies. Their money and resources to spend as they see fit. The desperation of some areas isn't really their problem. They aren't building to cover areas according to need but to make money.

If they only covered the areas no-one else wants to they'd go bankrupt really quickly.

[tubaman]

... FTTP is essential and everyone should be entitled to it.

Essential for what? My VDSL connection allows me to do lots of things my ADSL connection wouldn't, such as multiple streaming connections and working from home, but I wouldn't class either of those things as essential. Very nice to have certainly, but essential they are not. I am probably considered somewhat 'old school' in this way of thinking but I feel there are lots of things we have now that people say are 'essential' and yet we used to manage perfectly well without them.

[Chrysalis]

We would have been much better off if we'd gone FTTP from the beginning rather than going for the pointless FTTC. It was clear even in 2012 that 80Mbps was not going to last us long. A pointless stop gap.

FTTC will also have made FTTP an easier sell to shareholders, its easier to sell it when a big chunk of the copper has already been replaced.

[XGS_Is_On]

FTTC did one really important thing: the aggregation nodes built to serve cabinets took fibre closer to homes.

It wasn't a complete waste of time and money with that in mind. Now G.fast...

[Alex Atkin UK]

I don't agree. FTTP is essential and everyone should be entitled to it.

That's great in principle, but who pays for it?

Absolutely could be done (and was going to be done) when it was nationalised.  As you don't have share holders breathing down your neck, all profit can (though isn't always thanks to dodgy governments) be invested into unprofitable areas to provide the service to all - for the greater good.  Just how Royal Mail used to pay for loss-making Post Offices to remain open.

But when its all private business, if its not profitable, its not going to happen.

[GigabitEthernet]

G.Fast was the next level of pointless of course, why all is forgiven when it was clear they were trying to sweat copper for even longer, is beyond me. This was just the natural evolution of FTTC.

They went for FTTC and conned the Government into it.

[GigabitEthernet]

Essential for what? My VDSL connection allows me to do lots of things my ADSL connection wouldn't, such as multiple streaming connections and working from home, but I wouldn't class either of those things as essential. Very nice to have certainly, but essential they are not. I am probably considered somewhat 'old school' in this way of thinking but I feel there are lots of things we have now that people say are 'essential' and yet we used to manage perfectly well without them.

Clearly more reliable, future proof. Your VDSL connection won't be fast enough for much longer, that much is clear. And was clear a decade ago.

FTTC is pee poor, unreliable, crosstalk, gets impacted by Christmas lights etc.

I've had FTTP for months, it's genuinely a game changer. We need it everywhere.

[tubaman]

Clearly more reliable, future proof. Your VDSL connection won't be fast enough for much longer, that much is clear. And was clear a decade ago.

FTTC is pee poor, unreliable, crosstalk, gets impacted by Christmas lights etc.

I've had FTTP for months, it's genuinely a game changer. We need it everywhere.

I agree that FTTP should be more reliable, but saying that I've had next to no issues with my FTTC connection in the seven or so years that I've had it. As for it not being fast enough for much longer - not fast enough for what might I ask?
And it's all somewhat academic for me anyway as where I live FTTP isn't even at the planning stage so I fully expect my FTTC connection to be running for some years yet.