How does fibre work?
- Thread starter 86JR
- Start date
The UK's internet is so bad that parts of the middle of LONDON are still stuck on basic ADSL...no fibre for them! (like Canary Wharf). Which is funny when most of the people who make decisions for this country live in London and use the capital as an example for the rest of the country. Such as making laws where people on bicycles can ignore traffic lights...great in London but try doing that in Cornwall!
Do you generally read threads or is stopping by now and again to post the same stuff as far as your involvement goes?
Yes some parts of London don't have great connections, and some parts do. Likewise there's some rural areas with pretty decent connections while others have pretty poor ones. What does that prove?
Yes some parts of London don't have great connections, and some parts do. Likewise there's some rural areas with pretty decent connections while others have pretty poor ones. What does that prove?
That our internet is inconsistent, again not in line with that of a 1st world country.
Places like Sweden are geographically the same as the UK yet they have had 100mbit for decades now.
I do read threads yes but just because "Caged" states something doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion.
Places like Sweden are geographically the same as the UK yet they have had 100mbit for decades now.
I do read threads yes but just because "Caged" states something doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion.
That would have been nice.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/
I would like 100/100 for under £50 a month here in Cornwall thanks. Like Sweden/Netherlands have been getting for years.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/
I would like 100/100 for under £50 a month here in Cornwall thanks. Like Sweden/Netherlands have been getting for years.
I can't miss a point you aren't making. Your posts amount to "I want fast internet for this price, everyone else has it so why can't I".
It's been pointed out that not everyone else has it, and taken as a whole the UK is doing pretty well, but then you just re-post the same old crap again.
Nobody is going to say they wouldn't like 100/100 for £50 a month, and it will happen eventually. If you'd like to propose how it could happen quicker then I'm sure lots of people would be very interested, but it's not going to come from government investment, and BT aren't going to spend money that they will never get back.
If you care to base an argument on data instead of what you believe to be correct then this is Akamai's report for 2013:
http://www.akamai.com/dl/documents/akamai_soti_q213.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q213
You'll see that the average broadband speed in Sweden is 8.4Mbps. The same as us. When comparing the peak speeds we come out ahead of Sweden, and less than 2Mbps behind the Netherlands.
Yes, much faster speeds are available for very low prices in some areas of both countries, but the same is true of the UK as well.
It's been pointed out that not everyone else has it, and taken as a whole the UK is doing pretty well, but then you just re-post the same old crap again.
Nobody is going to say they wouldn't like 100/100 for £50 a month, and it will happen eventually. If you'd like to propose how it could happen quicker then I'm sure lots of people would be very interested, but it's not going to come from government investment, and BT aren't going to spend money that they will never get back.
If you care to base an argument on data instead of what you believe to be correct then this is Akamai's report for 2013:
http://www.akamai.com/dl/documents/akamai_soti_q213.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q213
You'll see that the average broadband speed in Sweden is 8.4Mbps. The same as us. When comparing the peak speeds we come out ahead of Sweden, and less than 2Mbps behind the Netherlands.
Yes, much faster speeds are available for very low prices in some areas of both countries, but the same is true of the UK as well.
Last edited:
You need to be the director of a bigger company then. Do some reading on the taxes larger firms were "let off" with last year (I'm not talking the "registered abroad" type dodges google and the like are doing). Vodaphone had a £4.5b tax debt written off last year.
That's about 3x our entire welfare budget. The lazy masses are a problem, yes, but a government in bed with bigger corporations is an even larger one.
You will be waiting a fair while until you get what you want I think.
DSL services will be around for years. FTTP will be the next "big" thing but even then I strongly doubt it will be to the speeds you want.
Throw into that as well that FTTP will potentially push the bottom end of higher SLA products out of focus meaning that it probably won't happen.
Perspective
Even if you now have 80/20 for £40 per month.
Some businesses pay hundreds per month for 2/2
Is your low cost, low margin product going to be advanced that far that quickly? No.
As before, what you want is available, you just need to pay for it. If it's worth anything thought the Google 1Gb/1Gb was a trial anyway. And I still bet those connections are throttled and held back, no way are they assigning that much bandwidth out.
DSL services will be around for years. FTTP will be the next "big" thing but even then I strongly doubt it will be to the speeds you want.
Throw into that as well that FTTP will potentially push the bottom end of higher SLA products out of focus meaning that it probably won't happen.
Perspective
Even if you now have 80/20 for £40 per month.
Some businesses pay hundreds per month for 2/2
Is your low cost, low margin product going to be advanced that far that quickly? No.
As before, what you want is available, you just need to pay for it. If it's worth anything thought the Google 1Gb/1Gb was a trial anyway. And I still bet those connections are throttled and held back, no way are they assigning that much bandwidth out.
Google Fibre isn't throttled. https://www.hyperoptic.com/web/guest/home is an unthrottled 1Gb provider.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 12,082
Hyperoptic, and any service like it, is basically irrelevant to most of the country.
Their web-site mentions 'full-fibre broadband', but if you actually read the FAQ it appears to be FTTB and then Gigabit Ethernet over copper. That's a system that's only ever going to work in tower blocks.
They may be unthrottled, but I do wonder how much bandwidth is actually available. Their FUP is just as bad as any other provider:
So potentially it's un-throttled Gigabit until enough people actually try to take full advantage, and then they'll shut you down.
Their web-site mentions 'full-fibre broadband', but if you actually read the FAQ it appears to be FTTB and then Gigabit Ethernet over copper. That's a system that's only ever going to work in tower blocks.
They may be unthrottled, but I do wonder how much bandwidth is actually available. Their FUP is just as bad as any other provider:
So potentially it's un-throttled Gigabit until enough people actually try to take full advantage, and then they'll shut you down.
What rest of the world?
IIRC Goggle fibre is only available in a handful of place (much of American is in a worse situation than the UK, especially in mildly rural areas), and in a lot of other countries the fast speeds are only available if you live in blocks of flats etc (I think in Japan and South Korea it's partly done because it's cheaper to run the fibre to a new building and put the equipment in the basement than to run loads of copper).
I think they did it in part as a publicity thing, in part as an experiment, and in part because they were able to buy up the assets of a company that went bust laying most of the fibre they used cheap (Google from memory bought up massive amounts of fibre laid by companies that went bust in the dot com bubble for example).
Basically if you're running a new line to a building or estate it makes sense to run the fibre if you can (and I suspect the labour costs in Japan, and penalties for disrupting traffic to do non vital works probably partly explain why they do it so much in metro areas), but the cost to run it to individual houses is massive.
IIRC NTL put themselves into billions of pounds of debt largely because they were running it to virtually every house in the towns where they operated - but they didn't run it to houses that were on the edges of the town), nor to every town.
I think we in the UK are meant to have a much better average connection speed than America, and much better competition for providing services (in the US in many areas you don't have much, if any choice in who provides your connection as they don't require unbundling).
Yeah the number of places in the world with full fibre to the premises is a tiny proportion.
Quite happy with 80/20 VDSL2/FTTC myself only thing I'm not happy about its BT's inability to route their network in a half sensible fashion - connection currently bounces from somerset->sheffield->london before going onto the internet! and on bad days I've seen somerset->sheffield->london->birmingham (almost back where it started)->london
(going ilford->birmingham->ealing to get out onto the net is a bit special).
Quite happy with 80/20 VDSL2/FTTC myself only thing I'm not happy about its BT's inability to route their network in a half sensible fashion - connection currently bounces from somerset->sheffield->london before going onto the internet! and on bad days I've seen somerset->sheffield->london->birmingham (almost back where it started)->london
(going ilford->birmingham->ealing to get out onto the net is a bit special).
@OP
First and foremost, that Google Fibre is only available in two cities in the US, also not everyone in the US will offer it. The incubment ISP in a Texas city wasn't prepared to improve their service until Google rode into town, then all of a sudden they were ready to offer 1Gbit/s fibre. There are way too many places in the US where the ISP has a non-compete agreement with the city, which shuts out any competition.
As for the UK, we have the same problem. BT Group/OpenReach will not offer symmetrical FTTC (not even something like 40/40 as a business package) because many small businesses would gladly take it and leave BTs stupidly expensive leased lines on the shelf. Of course, BT will NEVER admit such a thing...
After having an e-mail conversation with the Hyperoptic MD, I got the impression that if OR offered a symmetrical FTTC (like Finland does) or FTTP package, Hyperoptic would piggyback it and reach more people.
BT basically have an inherited monopoly. Virgin Media as it stands today is the result of Videotron, Cable & Wireless and NTL: Telewest all trying to cable up the UK and going broke each time.
Internet infrastructure is a seriously expensive business. The only real gap in the market is fixed wireless and that has its own set of issues, but is far cheaper than laying cables.
Keep dreaming. I'd like it too - in fact a Danish friend of mine has such a service, however he gets it from the electricity company, not the telecoms company. Makes sense considering it involves digging up the road and laying cables...
If BT offered that, they'd kiss 99%+ of their leased line business goodbye. As an earlier poster said, monopolies and big corporations are a bad influence.
99% is a bit of an exaggeration. There's much more to a leased line. Residential services don't come with 1:1 guaranteed bandwidth and business SLA.