"Fast broadband for all by 2020 pledged by David Cameron"

opethdisciple said:
The faster our BB speeds, the greater the surveillance! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This really. It would be a monumental waste finally getting Microsoft's compliance in implementing highly intrusive backdoors. When a lot of people's broadband connections cant even keep up with the live audio link, you won't be able to activate the webcam.

Only thing you can do with a low speed connection is to signal a full hard disk meta-analysis as most of this is processed locally. But it still requires local processing power, which they tried to mitigate somewhat a few years ago by giving benefits claimants brand new laptops. Though this is still highly volatile data in the wrong hands, paired with data collected from youtube etc, it could be enough to concrete and continue the enslavement of the public.
 
Last edited:
Who really cares if the faster speeds provide better surveilance.... I for one think the better the surveilance thenmore chance of prevent future attacks on britain and europe.

Im stuck with a measily 1Mbps Down , really is shocking to still have the speed when 1 mile down the road there is 100Mbps FTTC.
 
Even if they do get everyone "at least 10Mb" you'll still have people who can receive 100Mb+ so you're still really living in the same problem (disparity) just at a higher level.

FTTP for everyone is gold standard, but it's just too expensive to rollout. I can't ever see the rural areas getting a good deal, but at least it's recognised as an issue.
 
Broadly speaking I think Gigaclear have the right approach in digging along a whole street and creating a demarcation point outside each property for the owner to then have the option to do a self install to connect to that fiber. My only concern with them is whether they will up their game when their back haul becomes saturated. They also seem more concerned with a rural business model as they don't have so much competition in that space.
 
It's surprising how BT still run copper when surely fibre is cheaper? Sure it requires better termination but over a few hundred metres they should equal out?
 
thenewoc said:
Broadly speaking I think Gigaclear have the right approach in digging along a whole street and creating a demarcation point outside each property for the owner to then have the option to do a self install to connect to that fiber. My only concern with them is whether they will up their game when their back haul becomes saturated. They also seem more concerned with a rural business model as they don't have so much competition in that space.
Click to expand...

Gigaclear's model doesn't work in urban areas. Their dig costs are based on tearing up grass verges and not paved footpaths, and they need a 30%+ takeup for it all to be worth doing. People who only have an alternative of no internet or sub-2Mbps are going to jump at the chance to get a 50/50 for £39. However, someone getting an 12Mbps sync from an ADSL connection that comes free with their TV service probably doesn't care enough.
 
Steveocee said:
It's surprising how BT still run copper when surely fibre is cheaper? Sure it requires better termination but over a few hundred metres they should equal out?
Click to expand...

I've never explicitly run the numbers but fibre requires significantly more expensive equipment and tools to install (a fusion splicer will run to £10k easily whereas crimp tools are £10) and more skilled engineers (who tend to be more expensive) to use it.

Copper cabling is very tolerant of poor install work - just look at some of the rubbish people DIY on their phone lines and it still works - whereas fibre is extremely intolerant of poor installation.

Whether that makes the physical install cheaper or more expensive given fibre cable is cheaper than copper cable is up for debate but it's likely irrelevant as what probably decides it is that copper termination is extremely cheap on the equipment side and fibre isn't.

Go price up a 24 port 1Gig copper switch, then go find a 24 port 1Gig SFP switch, it'll already be 30%+ more expensive before you add £50 in optical module per port. That's an example and not the exact technology used in real world FTTx broadband but the price premiums for optical termination are consistent. That's the big issue...

Also - CPE for people's homes needs an optical port - compare, say, the price of a Ubiquiti Edgerouter X with and without an optical port - again, it's 30%+ more as well as the cost of the optic...
 
Well now you're describing building a copper network and a fibre one at the same time, which makes no sense. New build areas can already be FTTP-only if the developer requests it.

The future proofing part is that all the FTTC work has finally mapped out a lot of the underground ducts and technology for blowing fibre tubing inside existing ducts is getting better all the time.

If 50 houses all have telephone cabling running back to the same point over lines that are less than 100m long then there is no commercial argument for running fibre all the way to the end user.
 
New build areas can already be FTTP-only if the developer requests it.
- but they dont give a monkeys so dont request it.
If they only supply fttp, do you have a choice of requesting std asdl?
 
No, that's why it's potentially not the best option. In an ideal world developers would talk to Openreach, get a new development to be an FTTP one, and everyone who moved in would appreciate the quality of the connection they can now have and be prepared to pay for it. But I'd go as far as saying a majority don't care and would rather be able to have the service that Sky bundle in with their TV. This is why Gigaclear won't touch urban areas or build where FTTC has already gone.

I really don't think you can blame Openreach for developers taking the easy way out. Access to a true fibre network should form part of the planning process.

This topic has sort of strayed off course but potentially given us an answer already. Should we be focused on providing 10Mbps internet service to everyone, or should the focus instead be on increasing speeds where possible?
 
I hope that when they upgrade my cabinet there will be some sort of speed increase as it's still adsl max. Other than that I have no idea how they'll deliver 10mbps to my house. I'm over 2 miles of Lake District hillside away from it and there is only 2 houses on the last 1.5 miles.

But I would love a speed boost. I dream of a megabyte a second. And 100KB/s upload as modern games struggle.
 
Disco_P said:
But I would love a speed boost. I dream of a megabyte a second. And 100KB/s upload as modern games struggle.
Click to expand...

I know the feeling, the are i live in is fairly new (year and a half) and i get 650kb/s its a pain. i'm rated at 'up to' 20meg but i get about 5 :/ The most annoying part is the road right next to me gets 120.... Bt won't install fiber and neither will virgin unless we get some sort of petition asking for better net but even then its doubtfull.
 
Caged said:
I really don't think you can blame Openreach for developers taking the easy way out. Access to a true fibre network should form part of the planning process.

This topic has sort of strayed off course but potentially given us an answer already. Should we be focused on providing 10Mbps internet service to everyone, or should the focus instead be on increasing speeds where possible?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can blame the developers either for not building what people don't really want or aren't prepared to pay for...like it or not there isn't sufficient demand for faster connectivity today (I know 90% of this forum thinks there is but it's not representative I'm afraid...).

When you're talking about 10Mbps for all or higher speeds for some its broadly important to realise that it's not about getting people better broadband so they can watch player or tomorrows 4k online video service - it's about business and economic necessity. If cities keep getting faster connectivity and other areas get stuck with 2Mbps, then we end up with, to borrow a phrase, digitals have and have nots, which likely results in big well connected cities getting the rewards of the digital economy and areas with poor connectivity becoming increasingly financially poor... (a perverse result in some ways as the ubiquity of internet connectivity could reverse that trend of economic growth only benefiting cities).

Now if that happens then it's still everybody's problem, it just means they get subsidised from tax in different ways like benefits, which is why the idea of universal high speed broadband, even if it costs a bunch of money to do, is actually quite an efficient use of that money if it increases wages or adds jobs etc in those areas.

Also, other factors at play - the government would like to make a good few services digital only as it would save a bunch of money and in general decent connectivity should make it cheaper to provide services to remote areas as well.
 
Disco_P said:
I hope that when they upgrade my cabinet there will be some sort of speed increase as it's still adsl max. Other than that I have no idea how they'll deliver 10mbps to my house. I'm over 2 miles of Lake District hillside away from it and there is only 2 houses on the last 1.5 miles.

But I would love a speed boost. I dream of a megabyte a second. And 100KB/s upload as modern games struggle.
Click to expand...

The answer is likely some form of 4G or other wireless technology, this entire conversation still revolves around fixed line broadband a lot of the time but the fact is that's likely dead technology in not too long (another reason not to spend billions digging in fibre).

Radio technology is improving faster than fixed line tech, a huge chunk of internet usage is already mobile - in our lifetimes it's likely mobile wireless access will be the norm and fixed line will be niche...there's a reason BT and like are keen to get back into the mobile business these days...
 
I wouldn't be surprised if most go for a wireless package over a physical line. It's already happening with many ditching the phone line for a mobile package. How many actually need the high bandwidth of fibre? Mobile already provides enough for Bookface browsing and even for a bit of video streaming. Data caps are more of an issue than anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom