Fujitsu Plans 1Gb Fibre Optic Network for UK

ecksmen said:
I feel a bit sorry for BT, Thatcher stopped them from delivering high speed internet / tv services a few years back over fears of monopoly. Stupid bint, now we're playing catch up.
Click to expand...

Wasn't BT government owned then? So wasn't really a case of 'them' (BT) vs the government.

Also hindsight is a wonderful thing, back then no one could have predicted the internet and the possibilities it would bring. I would have loved it if Thatcher had decided to go ahead with a fibre network, but in reality it was going to be a very expensive venture and tax payers money was better spent elsewhere.
 
s0ck said:
So... they're going to dig up some more roads? This is years away, surely.
Click to expand...

I think they're trying to use the exisiting BT infrastructure of poles and pipes, but I wouldn't be surprised if road digging up was required!
 
Some guy on the radio says its going to be rolled out rurally (Government thing .. sigh) first if its adopted as they've been neglected for far too long.
Yeah, brilliant. Spend millions upgrading so a tiny % can get benefits from it.
 
Alpherah said:
Some guy on the radio says its going to be rolled out rurally (Government thing .. sigh) first if its adopted as they've been neglected for far too long.
Yeah, brilliant. Spend millions upgrading so a tiny % can get benefits from it.
Click to expand...
Oi **** ***:mad:
I would kill for a 10 meg connection out here in the sticks let alone a gig one:D
 
ANDARIAL said:
Oi **** ***:mad:
I would kill for a 10 meg connection out here in the sticks let alone a gig one:D
Click to expand...

Yeah it sucks, but considering how much its going to cost (has cost in research / dev), if the govt gets involved with their latest "Rural communities are prejudiced against!11!11oneone" stuff which has been brewing recently (and lets pretend this has nothing political considering how many votes the in power party gets from these areas) and 'force' them to take it to rural communities first, i can see them flipping the finger and going elsewhere.
 
While I can see your point,I still would like to get even an 8 meg line,BT did a shoddy job of cable laying many years ago,with cables in hedges and just under the ground in farmers fields.
I know of 4 breaks/joints in the last few years due to farmers hedge-cutting the cables and ploughing them up :( and my attenuation has gone from 53 to 60 (on a good day sometimes 62)
 
This country needs a FULL fibre network, this crap play my government and companies just delays that truth for another time. All the while we loss money from not having it and it costs more later on as the cost to implement it increases.

Truely daft in my view.
 
Alpherah said:
Yeah it sucks, but considering how much its going to cost (has cost in research / dev), if the govt gets involved with their latest "Rural communities are prejudiced against!11!11oneone" stuff which has been brewing recently (and lets pretend this has nothing political considering how many votes the in power party gets from these areas) and 'force' them to take it to rural communities first, i can see them flipping the finger and going elsewhere.
Click to expand...
You're talking absolute rubbish.

The role of government in this matter is to provide funding for the development of infrastructure where it is not commercially viable. Most urban areas are already well catered for, whether by Virgin Media or BT Infinity. Companies don't need government funding to encourage them to develop infrastructure in these areas.

In this case, Fujitsu are hoping to snap up the lion's share of £530 million being put up by the government to drive investment in broadband infrastructure in areas where, without that funding, it would not be commercially viable to do so (i.e. rural areas with lower subscriber density).

This could not possibly have less to do with a "rural communities being prejudiced against" attitude, or any political points-scoring.
 
If this is true, its about time the country side folk where thought of first, there is enough of us, that will happily pay for a decent connection, just the so called big guns won't come (virgin never will) and FTTC via BT is years off.

I'm quite lucky as i can get Sky's LLU, ok all be it only 5mb (out of 20) due to line length, but there are many that are not so lucky.
 
It's interesting bringing up Thatcher and BT expansion...

The country obviously went through massive expansion in the 60s & 70s (i'm too young to have seen it) in terms of railways (ignoring the ones they closed), motorways and so on, shame our government both can't afford it or is interested in agressive expansion - too scared of upsetting people now.

I have ofte wondered why BRT (British Rail Telecommunications), or rather whoever it's owned by now (Thales i believe) don't leverage the ridiculous amount of straight line track and run access fibre alongside it.

It would give them direct access to many many areas, including rural ones (where they didn't close the railway), customer access could be via a wireless system, like Manchester Metronet.
 
dave-lew99 said:
I have ofte wondered why BRT (British Rail Telecommunications), or rather whoever it's owned by now (Thales i believe) don't leverage the ridiculous amount of straight line track and run access fibre alongside it.

It would give them direct access to many many areas, including rural ones (where they didn't close the railway), customer access could be via a wireless system, like Manchester Metronet.
Click to expand...

They do run fibre alongside railway lines.
 
realscot said:
Am I right in saying a 10gbps line will have the capacity to transfer 1280megabytes a second?
Them saying they want to provide this to rural areas, well i'll believe that when I see it tbh, what do they class as rural? To them Aberdeen is probably a rural area.
If they replace all the copper cables with FTTH then at least they will be able to cash in all that copper thats currently being used, should recoup some of the costs.
Click to expand...

The same fibre to provide a 10Mb/s line could also provide a 10Gb/s line. It just depends on what equipment goes in the exchange.
They'll probably only have a 100Mb/s fibre switch back at the exchange, with a couple of 1Gb/s links back to the ISP network via different routes to begin with, the point is that once the fibre is in place we are future-proofed for decades. All it takes is new equipment in the exchange, and new consumer routers, the fibre won't need to be touched. 10Gb/s equipment will eventually come down in price and can be swapped in.
 
how much would it cost to fully remove all the uks copper(sell for scrap) and run fibre overhead just like the phone lines? no digging in a LOT of places if you went that route.

I lol'd hard at bt saying we are not going to invest in something that has a p at the end instead of a C :confused: our labs have shown that FTTC can go up to 70mbs!

typical idiots its nothing to do with the letter sure it may do 70mb in a lab but thats in a lab its the bloody copper that needs to go.There could even be a scheme where the customer pays a little for the fibre to go via telegraph poles.im 400m from the cab about £500 to run fibre over that distance?

i would pay 500 for that as once its there it can be 100mb or 1gb or 10gb or even 100GB hell have japan not sucessfully put 1TB or more down fibre?


so many idiots that we need a new harsher word for em , put the fibre in now and we dont need to re invest for maybe 20 years or more.by spending money on fttc you simply waste money that could have went on fttp so they now have to go back and re invest but wont so its going to be yet more of a shambles with those in the future that have fttc being limited to perhaps 50mb average where as the full fibre users can have 1GB connections each :(

its pointless and creates more gaps or patch jobs in the network call me a clean freak but it should have been one massive clean install just think of thr jobs boost for labourers and workers to instal nationwide fibre :O
 
Last edited:
if talk talk have thier own fibre, and VM have fibre to cabinets and now bt have fibre to cabinets

has anyone thought of combining all three and then add on the 500m in grants no make it 700m and we should be able to finnish off the uk with fttp?

in reality this is what needs to be done they need to hand over all this fibre and form some seperate company with equal shares in it.instead of VM and BT in the same areas they could have done two seperate areas.have it regulated by ofcom and voila everyones happy.
 
I'm for a Government run FULL country network that companies buy capacity and access from. Ring fencing all the money that it generates so that it put straight back into that network.

I think the internet and revenue it generates is no less important than the roads system we have in this country. Fair enough the roads system isn't always top form, but it at least connects all parts of this country together with reasonable access.

TBH Ring fency road taxes for roads while your at it!
 
Defiant306 said:
I'm for a Government run FULL country network that companies buy capacity and access from. Ring fencing all the money that it generates so that it put straight back into that network.

I think the internet and revenue it generates is no less important than the roads system we have in this country. Fair enough the roads system isn't always top form, but it at least connects all parts of this country together with reasonable access.

TBH Ring fency road taxes for roads while your at it!
Click to expand...

The Gov would have to buy back BT which will never happen.
 
Force companies to serve every home in the UK, get it out of the way now so we don't end up with pockets of coverage and half-dug roads, later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom