Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,639
What is going fast? Fttp? I want 5ms ping will this do it?
G.Fast
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
Doubt you'll get anything close to 5ms unless your next door to what you are connecting to.
No G.INP is just another technology that stabalises lines
"G.INP offers effective protection against Impulse Noise in order to improve line stability. It also reduces overheads and latency when compared to traditional methods of interleaving and RS Error Correction. "
Just look at it as another form of error correction where as interleaving and RS error correct will stablise lines and reduce errors on the line but at the expense of latency. G.INP is better and reduces overheads.
G.Fast is another technology which will increase the speeds on the line using existing VDSL2 technology.
G.Fast isnt exactly FTTP but they will end up calling it this as BT consider it as good as FTTP.
My BT FTTC consistently has 8/9ms latency to well connected hosts.
Same here with BT and Plusnet.
When i say G.Fast is another technology that increases the speed using exsisting VDSL2 technology i mean that it will most likley use FTTC then from there will be FTTdp (distribution point)
From what i can tell anyways
8ms to what?
BBC, multiplay, most game servers I was on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 2,741
G.Fast will go to where fibre runs to (basically this includes the FTTC).
It is much closer than you think and the speeds of ~300Mbps are realistic. Of course BT have to be very careful, customers want the fastest speed that they can but most want to pay the same price year on year.
There are manufacturers designing G.Fast kit that can go underground. This has also been tested...
Absolutely ridiculous comments. Do you have any idea the amount of money that BT have invested in the UK's networks? FTTP is totally unrealistic and not actually required by most. Without making clever purchasing decisions like BT have been doing they may well be out of the business with companies such as TalkTalk trying to offer 18 months free broadband. And of course Sky who were catching BT up in broadband due to their 'free' offering.
Kind of agreee but not really! Openreach being part of BT allows them to be innovative and clever with new products (such as G.Fast). Instead of wasting money on FTTP.
Got to agree here. The average home does not really currently require speeds more than what FTTC is currently offering. In the future however when services start requiring more bandwidth so 4k streaming and cloud gaming for example quite a few premises will need more bandwidth but currently the average household doesn't need speeds excessive of 80Mbp/s
There is only a minority that need or can make use of faster speeds. This is why rolling out FTTP all over the UK is just not cost effective at all and just not practical either. Yes it future proofs the whole UKs infrastructure but the way forward BT is going with G.Fast is good enough and is significantly more cost effective.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 2,741
Completely agree with this. People need to remember as well that BT are currently testing XG.Fast in Adastral as well, which is an even faster technology. G.Fast opens up a lot of possibilities for people.
I think the thing people don't understand is the actual cost of FTTP for the entire country. It's a huge undertaking for something that isn't going to be utilized by most. The other mistake that people make is comparing us to other foreign countries. Take a very simple example:
Certain Asian countries have a large number of apartment blocks instead of houses. It's much cheaper in these countries because you can reach a large number of people quickly. This country has a lot of houses meaning that each house needs to be reached, drives dug up etc... All to reach what could be a small family.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
It's been a private company for 31 years. So other than a small piece of copper wire from your house to the phone cabinet, none of the investment was from the taxpayer.
Can you point to a single non-profit organisation deploying fibre to the premises in the same sorts of population densities as the UK has? The only one I can think of is the original plans for Australia which has now all been scaled back to VDSL because the costs were unbearably high.
Can you point to a single non-profit organisation deploying fibre to the premises in the same sorts of population densities as the UK has? The only one I can think of is the original plans for Australia which has now all been scaled back to VDSL because the costs were unbearably high.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 2,741
Very true.
The one thing I would add in response to the previous post is I'm assuming you are also referring to the BDUK projects? This is government money yes but again it's only a small proportion of BT's investment in UK broadband infrastructure.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
So who funded most of the copper deployments before BT got their grubby mitts on it? They are the maters of minimal investments, most of the current fibre installations done by BT were funded by BDUK which gets it's money from where? Oh yes, the taxpayer. Investing in copper based network in the 21st century is a total waste of money. Yes the costs associated with a full FTTP rollout would be high, however it would require basically no investment after it is installed. Copper will continually need large investments to improve it's capabilities.
I'm interested to know what you think about smaller providers bidding and winning BDUK money, Gigaclear for one is building FTTP networks from the money they were given by BDUK and yet people think BT is a goodie goodie who is investing loads of money in the UK. They invest little then hold out their hand demanding taxpayer money so they can shuffle all their profits to their own coffers to pay their shareholders.
Last edited:
How is that relevant to your claim that today's network was taxpayer funded? It's pretty obvious where funding for a public sector organisation comes from
, but you seem to think that this is the same network that is being used today. It isn't.This is just plain wrong.
Not true in the slightest. Again, point to a successful FTTP development that has been completed with public money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 2,741
BT have invested £2.5bn in fibre for what I think was like two thirds of the UK. The BDUK contracts are for the other third that aren't as commercially viable.
The £2.5bn figure has also increased considerably.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
http://www.gigaclear.com/gigaclear-...-to-bring-fastest-broadband-to-the-cotswolds/
Although it was not entirely funded by the taxpayer, the rollout being conducting in this case is 100% FTTP. BT is getting similar amounts of money for installations still relying on copper for the last mile.
Around 8,038 houses were connected to fibre (FTTP/C) installations per £million spent by BDUK (99% of which was done by BT). - http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...adband-to-3-31-million-extra-uk-premises.html
Around 2,166 houses were connected to a pure FTTP network per £million spent by BDUK on the Gigaclear network. roughly 4x the cost but FAR more future-proof, none of this "G.Fast" stuff which does cost more to develop. Not to mention that a pure FTTP network will cost many times less to maintain as fibre cables don't suffer from degredation nearly as much as copper does.
Last edited:
That's not public money - that's a partnership of BDUK funding and private investment, limited to a small geographical area where there was a very low chance of competition. Earlier in the thread you advocated for a publicly owned FTTP network, but you can't show a successful one in any country that compares to the UKs geography.
I am aware of what Gigaclear is, the installation costs per connection are many times higher than FTTC and the resulting product is not open access in the way that Openreach is. Try getting your Sky broadband delivered over Gigaclear.
I am a fan of Gigaclear, they are doing a good thing. But it's not an example of what Openreach should have done across the UK because the sums only work in specific locations and market conditions.
Something that is four times more expensive per connection to install than the areas Openreach considered not viable (hence requiring BDUK funding in the first place) is not a network that would have ever paid for itself if you tried to roll it out across the entire country. Like it or not, consumers want 'good enough' broadband, and they want it for almost nothing.
I am aware of what Gigaclear is, the installation costs per connection are many times higher than FTTC and the resulting product is not open access in the way that Openreach is. Try getting your Sky broadband delivered over Gigaclear.
I am a fan of Gigaclear, they are doing a good thing. But it's not an example of what Openreach should have done across the UK because the sums only work in specific locations and market conditions.
Something that is four times more expensive per connection to install than the areas Openreach considered not viable (hence requiring BDUK funding in the first place) is not a network that would have ever paid for itself if you tried to roll it out across the entire country. Like it or not, consumers want 'good enough' broadband, and they want it for almost nothing.
Last edited: