Is this technically possible?

jamoor · 23 Jun 2018 at 20:04

We do have an upcoming internet problem, we need more speed and these needs will just increase in the future.

The longest term solution is for every single home/building to have fibre, I believe the sky is the limit when it comes to speed and reliability.

Is it possible to have one fibre network throughout the country and different companies pay to put their services through it? If so surely the public sector should be building this network as it's in the public interest and allowing anyone to use it, much like they build roads and rail for the public benefit?

Rozzy85 · 23 Jun 2018 at 20:32

It's possible but certainly not economically viable. We need Government subsidies just to give private companies the incentive to install DSLAM cabinets as it is. It's the last mile that's the problem. Retrofitting is expensive and it would be a logistical nightmare to replace all that copper so solutions that will avoid that will always be tried first. Personally I see wireless solutions taking over as they are much more cost effective and sufficient for the average user, it's already happening. Power users will unfortunately just have to cough up the cost for the benefit of having a high speed physical link.

Caged · 23 Jun 2018 at 21:58

It makes zero sense to install anything other than fibre for new network build-outs, which is (meant to be) what is happening at last. There are some ISPs not geared up to offer service over FTTP but they will just have to fall in line I think as it's not reasonable to hold an area back on copper just to maintain some illusion of retail competition.

Replacing the last mile of copper access is a ridiculously expensive thing to undertake, and the average consumer is a lot more price sensitive than people on here might appreciate. Where people have a 'free' ADSL service from their TV provider that never gives them problems streaming iPlayer or Netflix then there's often a reluctance to upgrade. Letting people who want fibre pay for it seems to be the way to go, but the new FTTPoD pricing is far in excess of what most people can justify.

jsmoke · 24 Jun 2018 at 07:42

Wait for 5g?

233 · 24 Jun 2018 at 08:29

realistically its because private companies have no incentive to invest in the infrastructure.

it works, customers will pay for whatever service they can get. and the sheer cost of providing an alternative puts others off entering the market.

realistically Openreach could switch to FTTP on a lot of customers without major issue. most trunks are accessible and a lot of lines are over ground(we recently had 2 new lines strung into our office from the exchange in 2 hours so 6 man hours in total from start to finish. obviously more rural locations are more involved.

what we really need is some national infrastructure offering FTTP rolled out with a fixed standard. Although that said I don't think we are quite at the end of the road with development of copper wire yet and we will see other developments allowing more speed over the existing creaking networks

bledd · 24 Jun 2018 at 08:54

On the flip side h265 video is taking off notm and more = half bandwidth requirements for streaming video.

Network wide adblockers like PiHole can save a ton of bandwidth across site too.

bloodiedathame · 24 Jun 2018 at 09:08

Wireless is the future.

233 · 24 Jun 2018 at 09:15

bloodiedathame said:
Wireless is the future.

certainly an option

currently logged in over a 4g dongle faster than both the fibre at work and home

Caged · 24 Jun 2018 at 10:40

You need to backhaul the wireless over something

bloodiedathame · 24 Jun 2018 at 14:14

I'm considering ditching Plusnet for a 4G solution. ADSL sucks.

EsaT · 24 Jun 2018 at 14:50

bloodiedathame said:
Wireless is the future.

No current wireless tech offers any quaranteed bandwidth and especially latency.
Guaranteed high bandwidth low latency wireless connections are possible, but they pretty much need direct line of sight links to get over problems of wireless tech.
And building those gets fast expensive.
There's simply very limited bandwidth available "in the air".

Marketroids just love wireles because they can advertise something without actually needing to offer anything guaranteed.
They just don't mention that all those hyped super fast future speeds would need building access point into every street light!
Now how feasible is that?

Rozzy85 said:
It's possible but certainly not economically viable.

By that short term exploitation capitalism thinking neither wide spread building of power/telephone lines to houses should have been viable.
Now think how western countries would have developed without those.

MagicBoy · 24 Jun 2018 at 14:58

In the spirit of the OP : We have traffic issues on the roads. I've decided all speed limits should be doubled. Immediately.

bloodiedathame · 24 Jun 2018 at 16:18

EsaT said:
No current wireless tech offers any quaranteed bandwidth and especially latency.
Guaranteed high bandwidth low latency wireless connections are possible, but they pretty much need direct line of sight links to get over problems of wireless tech.
And building those gets fast expensive.
There's simply very limited bandwidth available "in the air".

Marketroids just love wireles because they can advertise something without actually needing to offer anything guaranteed.
They just don't mention that all those hyped super fast future speeds would need building access point into every street light!
Now how feasible is that?

By that short term exploitation capitalism thinking neither wide spread building of power/telephone lines to houses should have been viable.
Now think how western countries would have developed without those.

Yeah, agreed, it can't happen currently, but it will in the future.

EsaT · 24 Jun 2018 at 16:40

bloodiedathame said:
Yeah, agreed, it can't happen currently, but it will in the future.

Same laws of physics will keep limiting wireless also in the future.
In fact those laws of physics are already causing more and more challenges in range and obstacle tolerance when frequencies are increased for getting more bandwidth.

bloodiedathame · 24 Jun 2018 at 17:06

EsaT said:
Same laws of physics will keep limiting wireless also in the future.
In fact those laws of physics are already causing more and more challenges in range and obstacle tolerance when frequencies are increased for getting more bandwidth.

Understandable and a good point. I see you're located in Finand, long shot but do you work for Nokia as you're very rational with your wireless tech posts.

EsaT · 24 Jun 2018 at 18:01

Not working for them.
Just started reading science/tech stuff after learning to read.

Rroff · 24 Jun 2018 at 18:15

EsaT said:
There's simply very limited bandwidth available "in the air".

Yup - while it is more than just the bandwidth "in the air" you quickly see speeds drop on 4G if a lot of people are using it in an area and there are limits in terms of available frequency and bandwidth unless some significant tech breakthroughs are made.

Unfortunately we kind of missed the boat in this country for a country wide fibre rollout - 30 years ago it would have paid for itself in the long run by getting us ahead of the game and an actual investment.

EsaT · 24 Jun 2018 at 19:23

Rroff said:
Yup - while it is more than just the bandwidth "in the air" you quickly see speeds drop on 4G if a lot of people are using it in an area and there are limits in terms of available frequency and bandwidth unless some significant tech breakthroughs are made.

Unfortunately we kind of missed the boat in this country for a country wide fibre rollout - 30 years ago it would have paid for itself in the long run by getting us ahead of the game and an actual investment.

There's no breakthrough which can solve the problem of bandwidth being shared.
Also there's been no real solution to latencies.
In fact almost everyone important are staying silent on that aspect.
Likely because they either don't know/understand anything, or know it but don't want expose what kind marketing BS this wireless "broadband" hype is.

Direct line of sight requiring high frequency microwave links could give quaranteed bandwidth and low latency, but building them would be expensive.
And if tree grew in between antennas that would be it, also snow or some freeze in antennas could cause problems.

bloodiedathame · 24 Jun 2018 at 19:32

EsaT said:
Not working for them.
Just started reading science/tech stuff after learning to read.

Congrats, how long did it take?

Rroff · 24 Jun 2018 at 19:59

EsaT said:
There's no breakthrough which can solve the problem of bandwidth being shared.
Also there's been no real solution to latencies.
In fact almost everyone important are staying silent on that aspect.
Likely because they either don't know/understand anything, or know it but don't want expose what kind marketing BS this wireless "broadband" hype is.

Direct line of sight requiring high frequency microwave links could give quaranteed bandwidth and low latency, but building them would be expensive.
And if tree grew in between antennas that would be it, also snow or some freeze in antennas could cause problems.

I was meaning breakthroughs in terms of using frequencies outside of what is conventionally suitable to expand on available bandwidth, etc. there have been a few developments in ultra low power long range links and stuff like that i.e. LoraWAN (which seems to have somewhat scaled back on its earlier premises) but nothing that is remotely suitable at this point.