G.Fast

[thebennyboy]

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 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 shall give you my personal reasons why i am against BT owning the Openreach network. Most of what i've said already is subjective and i stand by my opinion on the matter.

• Owned by a large corp whos sole interest is profit
• A publicly owned network would be far more cost effective as all the money made from wholesale line rental is used to maintain/upgrade the network, not a small amount of it like BT...

 

[Caged]

But you are unable to point to a publicly owned network that works. It's nice to have dreams but if it doesn't deliver the product then it's a waste of time.

 

[thebennyboy]

But you are unable to point to a publicly owned network that works. It's nice to have dreams but if it doesn't deliver the product then it's a waste of time.

That does not really prove that it doesn't work does it? Just because none exist, doesn't not imply that it does't work. FTTC installation are good value for money in the short term, but when you inevitably need to upgrade them it's going to cost a whole shed load of money more. FTTP admittedly does cost more to roll-out however it won't require continual investment like FTTC would.

 

[wildest_jjk]

That does not really prove that it doesn't work does it? Just because none exist, doesn't not imply that it does't work. FTTP installation are good value for money in the short term, but when you inevitably need to upgrade them it's going to cost a whole shed load of money more. FTTP admittedly does cost more to roll-out however it won't require continual investment like FTTC would.

Of course FTTP will need continued investment. What happens when 1Gb/s isn't enough? All of the transmission kit needs to be upgraded. Who pays for that?

 

[thebennyboy]

Of course FTTP will need continued investment. What happens when 1Gb/s isn't enough? All of the transmission kit needs to be upgraded. Who pays for that?

What happens when when 80Mbps isn't enough? G.Fast still suffers from the same problems as any existing DSL based technology, it degrades rapidly over distance. With FTTP the cable wouldn't need to be touched to improve speeds, all that would change is the equipment on each end.

 

[Caged]

That does not really prove that it doesn't work does it? Just because none exist, doesn't not imply that it does't work. FTTC installation are good value for money in the short term, but when you inevitably need to upgrade them it's going to cost a whole shed load of money more. FTTP admittedly does cost more to roll-out however it won't require continual investment like FTTC would.

That's not true though. Proper fibre networks have active equipment in street cabinets that requires maintaining and upgrading. Granted GPON doesn't need that, but it's a shared medium so there's a limit to how far you can increase capacity.

Even fibre cables themselves aren't hugely future proof - stuff that was pulled into buildings 10+ years ago is being ripped out already because it's not possible to push data across it at the speeds required these days.

None of the work involved in deploying FTTC has been a waste or a missed opportunity. It's pushed fibre closer and closer to end users, will (hopefully soon) open up the option for fibre-on-demand for those users who require it, and work is continuing to lower the length of the last piece of copper.

It doesn't matter if there's ~100m of copper between your house and the closest node if you can still get 300Mbps+ of throughput over it. But since it's copper it's easier to work with and more forgiving to what a phone line is likely to experience in the average house, and end users can self-install at their convenience.

It seems silly to focus too much on the medium used to bring Internet connectivity into your house. Focus on the speeds, quality, and choice you have.

I would argue that no successful publicly owned large scale FTTP deployment existing anywhere in the world is a good indicator that it can't be made to work. Read up on the Australian NBN project if you want, it shows you the problems of having politicians build networks.

 

[philip2009]

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.

The really, really, irritating thing about the cost of a nationwide FTTP network is that it's affordable - not for a private company - but for a government.

We spend a totally arbitrary £11 billion/per year on International Development(the biggest budget in the world outside the United States), we spend that £11 billion even though we are running a deficit and cutting vital things like welfare for the poorest in society. Apparently the UK can magically find huge amounts of money for non-essential departments.

So let's assume an FTTP network covering much of the UK might come in at £30 billion. We could take just half the value of the International Development budget, for 5-6 years, and do a nationwide rollout - that would serve the country well for many, many, decades.

 

[thebennyboy]

That's not true though. Proper fibre networks have active equipment in street cabinets that requires maintaining and upgrading. Granted GPON doesn't need that, but it's a shared medium so there's a limit to how far you can increase capacity.

Even fibre cables themselves aren't hugely future proof - stuff that was pulled into buildings 10+ years ago is being ripped out already because it's not possible to push data across it at the speeds required these days.

None of the work involved in deploying FTTC has been a waste or a missed opportunity. It's pushed fibre closer and closer to end users, will (hopefully soon) open up the option for fibre-on-demand for those users who require it, and work is continuing to lower the length of the last piece of copper.

It doesn't matter if there's ~100m of copper between your house and the closest node if you can still get 300Mbps+ of throughput over it. But since it's copper it's easier to work with and more forgiving to what a phone line is likely to experience in the average house, and end users can self-install at their convenience.

It seems silly to focus too much on the medium used to bring Internet connectivity into your house. Focus on the speeds, quality, and choice you have. 11x (more for those further away from the cab) the speed of most FTTC installations for roughly 5x the cost, the value for money is at least double that of any FTTC installation.

I would argue that no successful publicly owned large scale FTTP deployment existing anywhere in the world is a good indicator that it can't be made to work. Read up on the Australian NBN project if you want, it shows you the problems of having politicians build networks.

FTTC is poor value for money when you consider the speeds it achieves for the cost of investment, FTTP on the other hand delivers far better speeds for the cost of installation and investment.

 

[Caged]

You're making the mistake of assuming the choice was between FTTP and FTTC, though. In reality the choice was between FTTC and sticking with ADSL, because if you don't have anybody to sell your premium product to then you go out of business.

 

[Caged]

The really, really, irritating thing about the cost of a nationwide FTTP network is that it's affordable - not for a private company - but for a government.

We spend a totally arbitrary £11 billion/per year on International Development(the biggest budget in the world outside the United States), we spend that £11 billion even though we are running a deficit and cutting vital things like welfare for the poorest in society. Apparently the UK can magically find huge amounts of money for non-essential departments.

So let's assume an FTTP network covering much of the UK might come in at £30 billion. We could take just half the value of the International Development budget, for 5-6 years, and do a nationwide rollout - that would serve the country well for many, many, decades.

Yes we could, assuming that we didn't use it as a political football and turn it into a complete failure like Australia did.

I trust Openreach to be able to think in the mid to long term when it comes to deploying a nationwide network, more than I do a government.

 

[thebennyboy]

Yes we could, assuming that we didn't use it as a political football and turn it into a complete failure like Australia did.

I trust Openreach to be able to think in the mid to long term when it comes to deploying a nationwide network, more than I do a government.

Not really a mistake, i've already stated that the costs are higher. Had money been spent wisely, it should've been spent on a nationwide FTTP roll-out which i've stated would have cost more but would be over double the value for money than FTTC in terms of the speed it delivers for the cost incurred and that doesn't even take into account those too far from the cabinet.

I would trust Openreach a lot more if they were not controlled by a corp who is only interested in profit, i never stated it should be owned by the state. I said it should be a NFP organisation which can then channel all the money it makes into it's network, not into the coffers of it's parent company.

 

[Caged]

Yes almost anything is possible when you spend more. Where are you suggesting the extra money should have come from?

 

[thebennyboy]

Yes almost anything is possible when you spend more. Where are you suggesting the extra money should have come from?

The network should never of been handed to BT, it should have been formed into a NFP organisation independent of the government or a corporation. Line rental should've been adjusted to a price which allowed it to make enough money to both maintain and upgrade the network. Had that been done then i believe we would be far further than we are now.

Not a lot we can do now really. I wouldn't change much now as it wouldn't help, the biggest mistake was giving a corporation control of a national copper network back in 1984.

 

[faceman123]

Lol our broadband is in the stone ages. Look at most of Europe where fttp is mainstream Sweden France Holland. We're getting ripped of for 2nd tier junk. Profit drives everything meh. Fttp is a lot better for gaming and more importantly upload speeds

 

[cadmunkey]

Agree completely with thebennyboys views, openreach are just milking their monopoly as much as possible for as long as they can to the detriment of the UKs infrastructure. Lots of small third party projects proving you can get a lot more for your investment elsewhere currently going on. I hate them with a passion.

 

[Caged]

The network should never of been handed to BT, it should have been formed into a NFP organisation independent of the government or a corporation. Line rental should've been adjusted to a price which allowed it to make enough money to both maintain and upgrade the network. Had that been done then i believe we would be far further than we are now.

Not a lot we can do now really. I wouldn't change much now as it wouldn't help, the biggest mistake was giving a corporation control of a national copper network back in 1984.

I still fail to grasp how you continue to insist public ownership would have made everything fine yet are unable to demonstrate a single case where this is true.

Lol our broadband is in the stone ages. Look at most of Europe where fttp is mainstream Sweden France Holland. We're getting ripped of for 2nd tier junk. Profit drives everything meh. Fttp is a lot better for gaming and more importantly upload speeds

FTTP is not mainstream in Europe. FTTP is better than FTTC if the only metric in 'better' is total speed, nobody is denying that. This discussion is about how realistic it was ever going to be to go 100% FTTP across the entire country.

https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/...e-of-the-internet-report-infographic-emea.pdf

France are far below us in both average and peak speeds. We are also ahead of Germany and Italy.

 

[thebennyboy]

I still fail to grasp how you continue to insist public ownership would have made everything fine yet are unable to demonstrate a single case where this is true.

For starters i've never stated it should be owned by the public, i've explained my reasoning for my views which are perfectly logical. I don't see why not providing an example invalidates any of my points. I will however say that many states in the USA are investing in their own FTTP installations which are far surpassing the speeds available from any of the big telcos, many attempts were made by the big telcos to stop these from happening as it would prevent them from milking profits out of their aging and outdated networks.

Have a read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

 

[Caged]

BT was the result of privatising the publicly owned network in the UK. So unless your objection is to the company being called BT then I'm not sure what you're advocating if it isn't public ownership. Maybe you'd have been happier if it had been sold off to a different company?

Your views aren't logical at all. You've said it should be publicly owned and this would mean everyone would have FTTP, implying affordability. You sort of need to be able to back those claims up by demonstrating areas where this approach has worked, and you can't, because it hasn't. Running a physical network is incredibly expensive and the margins are slim. You won't find a company that isn't a subsidiary of a much larger one prepared to do that.

 

[thebennyboy]

BT was the result of privatising the publicly owned network in the UK. So unless your objection is to the company being called BT then I'm not sure what you're advocating if it isn't public ownership. Maybe you'd have been happier if it had been sold off to a different company?

Your views aren't logical at all. You've said it should be publicly owned and this would mean everyone would have FTTP, implying affordability. You sort of need to be able to back those claims up by demonstrating areas where this approach has worked, and you can't, because it hasn't. Running a physical network is incredibly expensive and the margins are slim. You won't find a company that isn't a subsidiary of a much larger one prepared to do that.

The network should never of been handed to BT, it should have been formed into a NFP organisation independent of the government or a corporation. Line rental should've been adjusted to a price which allowed it to make enough money to both maintain and upgrade the network. Had that been done then i believe we would be far further than we are now.

I've also updated my post above.

 

[Caged]

I can read, thanks. You assume that everybody would be happy paying more for their Internet if it meant a faster connection - this is ignoring the realities of the market.

The network has been maintained and upgraded, but you don't agree with this because as far as you care anything that isn't FTTP is outdated and a waste of money.

Again, municipal broadband is not the same thing as a nationwide network with universal service obligations. Gigaclear and B4rn would count as one, and they pick locations where they know the economics are right and ensure people are signed up before the work starts. This is not the blanket FTTP that you claim would have come with the continued public ownership of the UK telephone network.