Print

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

[Alex Atkin UK]

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'lI be the first to praise the benefits of FTTP (particularly game downloads, OS updates), but moving to FTTC from ADSL was a much bigger game changer.  Even watching YouTube would never have been able to maintain 1080p, especially given two of us are streaming almost all day.

Would have absolutely sucked to have a 4K OLED TV with only ADSL.

As several of us mentioned already, FTTC was also a stepping stone to get fibre to the street.  Once it paid back the cost (which I presume it has) then it means the further push to FTTP is a lot cheaper than if they had to do from the exchange to the home all at once.

[GigabitEthernet]

I'lI be the first to praise the benefits of FTTP (particularly game downloads, OS updates), but moving to FTTC from ADSL was a much bigger game changer.  Even watching YouTube would never have been able to maintain 1080p, especially given two of us are streaming almost all day.

Would have absolutely sucked to have a 4K OLED TV with only ADSL.

As several of us mentioned already, FTTC was also a stepping stone to get fibre to the street.  Once it paid back the cost (which I presume it has) then it means the further push to FTTP is a lot cheaper than if they had to do from the exchange to the home all at once.

FTTP should have been rolled out from the beginning. Openreach/BT conned us all, end of story

[XGS_Is_On]

Cool story, bro.

[dee.jay]

I think we can all agree g.fast was a step too far...

[Edinburgh_lad]

You mustn't be so gullible @blacksheep. Openreach indoctrinated everyone that FTTC was a great opportunity because they were nowhere near ready to invest quickly enough in other technologies. Of course FTTC was pointless (in the sense of 'future proof', not in the sense of 'improve my connection speed') because it relied on ancient technology susceptible to failing easily and quickly (it had all the problems and more that the auld ADSL had, so how is that continuing to use it not pointless then?)

[Alex Atkin UK]

You mustn't be so gullible @blacksheep. Openreach indoctrinated everyone that FTTC was a great opportunity because they were nowhere near ready to invest quickly enough in other technologies. Of course FTTC was pointless (in the sense of 'future proof', not in the sense of 'improve my connection speed') because it relied on ancient technology susceptible to failing easily and quickly (it had all the problems and more that the auld ADSL had, so how is that continuing to use it not pointless then?)

But that's the whole point, to invest you need a business plan showing how you will make the cost back and profit for share holders.  Nobody was going to put money forwards to a project that wont have a return for a decade, it simply wasn't possible to do for a profit-making private business.

You can see the same in the US, AT&T in large cities can offer 10Gbit FTTP, in smaller towns they are still rolling out FTTC.  Its sad, but that's how a profit-making business works.  Customers are just a money pot, the wealth of the share holders is the priority, not the long-term viability of the business even.

[XGS_Is_On]

You mustn't be so gullible @blacksheep. Openreach indoctrinated everyone that FTTC was a great opportunity because they were nowhere near ready to invest quickly enough in other technologies. Of course FTTC was pointless (in the sense of 'future proof', not in the sense of 'improve my connection speed') because it relied on ancient technology susceptible to failing easily and quickly (it had all the problems and more that the auld ADSL had, so how is that continuing to use it not pointless then?)

Note to self: the FTTC deployment that delivered two 80 Mb lines that previously ran at about a megabit over ADSL were pointless.

This ignoring that the aggregation node built for FTTC was used for FTTP to the same properties later.

[Black Sheep]

FTTP should have been rolled out from the beginning. Openreach/BT conned us all, end of story

 

[Black Sheep]

You mustn't be so gullible @blacksheep. Openreach indoctrinated everyone that FTTC was a great opportunity because they were nowhere near ready to invest quickly enough in other technologies. Of course FTTC was pointless (in the sense of 'future proof', not in the sense of 'improve my connection speed') because it relied on ancient technology susceptible to failing easily and quickly (it had all the problems and more that the auld ADSL had, so how is that continuing to use it not pointless then?)

Stop it now, will ya.

The reasons why it was rolled out, and the reasons why FTTP wasn't ... have been explained numerous times above. You've not quite gone down the ridiculous conspiracy rabbit-hole that Gigabit has, yet ... but you're perching at the side of it.

[bogof]

In places that are well served by FTTC it still provides a more than ample service for many.  Around here in the City centre, where typical FTTC speeds are between 70-300 (depending on whether you're on GFAST or not); the takeup of FTTP is pretty low.  In fact, two of my neighbours still opt for their old ADSL service as it serves them well enough (ADSL here is still 17-20mbps if you don't have an obviously faulty line).  I think we actually got built for FTTP because the FTTC cabs were sometimes at capacity, an indication itself that the service is/was appreciated (as most houses also have access to Virgin around here)

[bogof]

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.

Technically they didn't replace any of the copper, just changed the use of it (in fact, they added to it due to the copper between the cabs)... what it added was reasonably local fibre which could be re-used for FTTP.

[j0hn]

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.

Just my opinion...

Most people would have spent most of the last decade on oversubscribed ADSL without FTTC.

The Openreach FTTP rollout is only going as quick and efficient as it is because the FTTC rollout was deliberately built with future FTTP in mind. The network is basically built to the Agg Node already.

At it's time FTTC was a quick win and the right choice for a few years.
They stuck to that for too many years though.

Not doing FTTP to new builds much earlier was a big failing.
G.Farce was a failure.
Being dragged to a late large scale FTTP rollout by Virgin's project lightning and aggressive Alt-Net FTTP investment/deployment was a big failure.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Just my opinion...

Most people would have spent most of the last decade on oversubscribed ADSL without FTTC.

The Openreach FTTP rollout is only going as quick and efficient as it is because the FTTC rollout was deliberately built with future FTTP in mind. The network is basically built to the Agg Node already.

At it's time FTTC was a quick win and the right choice for a few years.
They stuck to that for too many years though.

Not doing FTTP to new builds much earlier was a big failing.
G.Farce was a failure.
Being dragged to a late large scale FTTP rollout by Virgin's project lightning and aggressive Alt-Net FTTP investment/deployment was a big failure.

A fair assessment I think.

[Chrysalis]

Technically they didn't replace any of the copper, just changed the use of it (in fact, they added to it due to the copper between the cabs)... what it added was reasonably local fibre which could be re-used for FTTP.

Well I meant for broadband purposes on VDSL. So that fed to the aggregation points, was a very useful stepping stone to FTTP.

My street is one of the more extreme examples where the E side is about 90% of the distance from the exchange, left there for voice and legacy ADSL services.

Also agree with John on the reasons for the Openreach rollout.

[GigabitEthernet]

Stop it now, will ya.

The reasons why it was rolled out, and the reasons why FTTP wasn't ... have been explained numerous times above. You've not quite gone down the ridiculous conspiracy rabbit-hole that Gigabit has, yet ... but you're perching at the side of it.

Why are you feeling the need to be such a {censored}?

I am stating my opinion and you're calling me a conspiracy theorist. My POV is that Openreach/BT took a business decision to try and use copper as long as possible, as it's an asset they have and they wanted to get as much out of it for as long as possible. They conned the public/Government in my view into that line of thinking. For them I can totally see why they did it - but it wasn't for the benefit of the consumer, or the public.

You're being a real prick with the way you're shutting down any opposing POV - and frankly I am sick of it, I've seen you do it before.