BE Fibre Pre-Registration

I see BE has a new register interest page for BE FTTx.
http://blog.bethere.co.uk/2011/07/be-fibre-pre-regis...

And in case you missed their post on Fibre plans, here it is
http://blog.bethere.co.uk/2011/06/md-of-be-broadband...

was looking at plusnet but may have to wait for BE!

Sky won't be far behind, and their backhaul is nearly as good.

In reply to a post by bruce007:

Sky won't be far behind, and their backhaul is nearly as good.

Yes, if Sky launch FTTC then I might be persuaded to jump to them, despite the lack of static IP option.

Anytime+ should work well on fibre

In reply to a post by bruce007:

Sky won't be far behind, and their backhaul is nearly as good.

I'm not holding my breath on Sky or BE doing FTTC.
BE have only made wooly promises (about a trial and that they'd like to start a trial later this year), haven't really heard anything from Sky since their "trial" last year.

I think for Sky and BE, building out their own fibre network may be a future plan, but they can get in on FTTx pretty quickly with VULA, while hopefully still using their existing backhauls.

If that is the case we all will - we get decent FTTx competition and Sky/BE stop the users flocking away to Fibre providers.

And yes, Sky with Anytime+ over FTTx make for a compelling product choice. May almost be enough to tempt me away from BE.

Edited by deleted (Wed 13-Jul-11 09:43:40)

In reply to a post by bruce007:

I think for Sky and BE, building out their own fibre network may be a future plan, but they can get in on reselling FTTx pretty quickly, while hopefully still using their existing backhauls (may have something to do with VirtualLLU).

Well BE have said their solution won't include their own local fibre loops, so they will (when they eventually get round to it) use Openreach infrastructure to get from home to exchange, before branching out onto their own networks (presumably using their existing backhaul).
Sky haven't really said much apart from putting up a web-page about a trial (then never bothering to update it, so it just gives details of exchanges 'coming soon in 2010').
However; they've also started a different trial (for three months, apparently) where they will be using BT ducts & poles, but using their own fibres (so I expect we'll never hear from them again ).

Either way, Sky and BE/O2 have dithered for so long (with both only just ready for localised trials) I fear they may be too late.
By the time either of them are actually ready to roll out, most of us who can get FTTC will be locked into 18 or 24 month contracts with BT (or 12 months contracts with resellers), so if they don't act fast their initial take-up will be quite slow as most of the Sky/BE/O2 exchanges will have already been enabled for BT FTTC so people will only be able to migrate to Sky/BE/O2 in dribs & drabs as their contracts expire.

Given BE have already said their prices will be higher than their current offerings, they may be far too late to the party for attracting people away from BT Retail.
I see BE's main market as being those of us who didn't trust BT could offer an un-capped or un-throttled product (and went to resellers offering that for maybe £30 or £40 a month).

Sky can bundle Anytime+ (via their newer HD boxes, which have an Ethernet hook-up) so it will be easier for them to attract people away from BT with 'Vision+' (except for the "I don't know why, but I hate Rupert Murdoch" crowd).

Completely on the money, my cabinet will be on-line in september and I will be joining a FTTC ISP the day it becomes available so whatever the likes of Be eventually come out with it will be to late for me as I will already be locked into a contract with a new provider.

Exactly the same here (also September, although I remain to be convinced it will actually happen this time).
BE won't necessarily lose me immediately. If BT extend their free line install offer (due to expire the day before our exchange gets FTTC enabled - typical) I may well take a new line and continue my BE connection until I'm satisfied BT (or whomever I go with) can offer an un-throttled FTTC connection - although I fully expect even a throttled to death BT FTTC connection will still be significantly faster than my current 4.5Mbps service.
If BT don't extend their free line install offer, BE will lose me as a customer. I will be sorry to leave (what I believe to be the best ISP in the country) I'm not hanging around on a 4.5Mbps product, when FTTC is available, waiting for BE to dither and muck about with a limited trial.

In reply to a post by adebov:

Either way, Sky and BE/O2 have dithered for so long (with both only just ready for localised trials) I fear they may be too late.
By the time either of them are actually ready to roll out, most of us who can get FTTC will be locked into 18 or 24 month contracts with BT (or 12 months contracts with resellers),

Agree entirely. I was a happy bunny with Be, but in the end was tempted by the BT Infinity Unlimited offer. Although £28 a month, the first three months were/are free and I got a £50 cashback by going through my Quidco account. The £28 includes unlimited calls, which I was paying £5 a month for, meaning that Infinity is really costing me £23 a month. My Be package was at a spacial rate of £13 a month, so I'm paying £10 a month more. Given that the offers and cashback amount to some £140, the first 14 months of extra cost would seem to be paid for. That on an 18 month contract seemed too good to miss and, coupled with the fact that there was no real news as to when Be may venture into the fibre market, resulted in me making the move.

I have absolutely no regrets. The service is rock solid and the speeds are constant 24/7 (but I don't P2P).

I agree. I also can't understand why Be/O2 are being so slow.

In reply to a post by Yves:

I agree. I also can't understand why Be/O2 are being so slow.

Exactly; it's not like BT's fibre roll-out has come as a sudden surprise.
I think what took the time (and is what BE, O2, Talk-Talk, Sky, etc. were waiting on) was Ofcom & BT faffing around releasing details/prices for an open-access feature of FTTC/FTTP.
The LLU providers obviously wanted to see details of BT's pricing structure, evidence of whether the local loop (exchange to cabinets) would be un-contended and to work out how/where they would connect onto the BT network.

Of course, Talk-Talk are ready to go now (but it remains to be seen whether they're simply reselling BT's own product, or are actually selling their version of a partially unbundled solution - I can't see Talk-Talk would already be able to implement links from BT's network to their own access points inside every one of exchanges).

The up-shot is all this delaying will just mean more Sky, O2, BE customers will jump to FTTC before said companies get their act together.
I shall be sorry to leave BE (never before have I stayed with an ADSL ISP for over three years - and that really does reflect their product being the best one I've tried so far), but if it looks like they're still at least six months to a year from a nationwide release, I'll be jumping to either Infinity or the offerings from ADSL24 or Aquiss (would love to go with IDnet or A&A but even my current 4.5Mbps usage is too high for them).

Edited by adebov (Sun 17-Jul-11 18:50:21)

The USP for the likes of BE, Sky, etc is that they do "unlimited" "unmanaged" packages - which, of course, depends on having a decent backhaul to be able to meet these promises.

I can't help but think that the reason they are not jumping into fibre is because they're not economically able to keep the same promises, when the existing bottleneck (the copper part) changes to fibre, and a larger percentage of customers are also likely to get the top speeds.

BE have already hinted that they want to keep the USP going - but that it is going to cost a lot more.

Its all part of the conundrum - is unlimited bandwidth free? Or expensive?

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

BE have already hinted that they want to keep the USP going - but that it is going to cost a lot more.

Indeed; they've aleady said their FTTC product will cost more than their current ADSL unlimited products.
I fully expect that (and have no problem with paying more - after all; we were all paying around £40 a month, to get 512kbps, back in 2001).
Even BT's "unlimited" product costs around £10 a month more than BE's current, so I fully expect BE's offering to be even higher (my guess would be around £35 a month - we'll see how close I am sometime in the next year or two).

The big problem (as I see it) for BE, O2 & Sky is if they don't get a move on they could be the only ISPs in the country not to offer the next generation high speed access (which wouldn't look good for BE; given that was their main selling point in the first place).
They could get left behind and if they don't have a product in the next couple of years, I can't see them holding onto many customers (especially BE - as they're more expensive than O2 & Sky, I guess most of their customer base is people who want fast unlimited connections - exactly the type of people who will jump ship the second FTTC becomes available).

If they don't act soon, this could be the end of BE (as they'll have no customers left anyway)!

Of course, Talk-Talk are ready to go now (but it remains to be seen whether they're simply reselling BT's own product, or are actually selling their version of a partially unbundled solution

Live. £10pm "Boost". I believe it is GEA. ie only on LLU'ed Openreach FTTC exchanges and going into their own backhaul.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 17-Jul-11 23:27:03)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Live. £10pm "Boost". I believe it is GEA. ie only on LLU'ed Openreach FTTC exchanges and going into their own backhaul.

In that case Talk-Talk are really showing up Sky, BE & O2.

Well Sky did that trial around the Olympics area in London, then they came up with the consortium idea that seems to have gone very quiet, and these days silence.

As for Be/O2 - the boat has sailed I think. I forget the quarterly reporting date, but I don't expect to see broadband subscriber increases!

I think Telefonica could very well be concentrating its development and budget on 4G/LTE, and will let landline broadband atrophy once that is running well.

What worries me about Sky is the number of different trials they seem to be playing with.
One minute they're looking at using BT's FTTC product (GEA), the next they're looking into blowing their own fibres down BT's ducts (which will, presumably, mean a Sky cab by the side of most BT FTTC cabs).

As for BE/O2, I think they've faffed around for far too long and will miss the boat entirely.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think Telefonica could very well be concentrating its development and budget on 4G/LTE, and will let landline broadband atrophy once that is running well.

Lol. Define 'running well'.

I think another problem is that many people just don't need what Be offers. The usage caps for other ISPs are plenty for most people and even if you are throttled the speed drop is hardly a problem. You don't need 30Mb/s and if your ISP chops you down by 50% you still have a more than good enough connection.

I honestly think the market has matured and Be's vision of FTTC would be the equivalent of a Ferrari. The difference being that I think few people would think Be was 'sexy' and they won't be able to find enough people to pay the premium.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think Telefonica could very well be concentrating its development and budget on 4G/LTE, and will let landline broadband atrophy once that is running well.

Lol. Define 'running well'.

Referring of course to the LTE side.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think Telefonica could very well be concentrating its development and budget on 4G/LTE, and will let landline broadband atrophy once that is running well.

Lol. Define 'running well'.

Referring of course to the LTE side.

Yeah. I'm still not convinced that wireless broadband can ever be as good as wired..but it might just turn out to be good enough. Successful consumer products don't have to be the best to be a roaring success. Compact Cassettes, VHS and MP3 spring to mind there. In a sense so does the UK internet market as long as you don't define 'success' in terms of big profits I suppose.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Yeah. I'm still not convinced that wireless broadband can ever be as good as wired..but it might just turn out to be good enough.

I guess it needs:
a) To have sufficient signal strength at the current fixed not-spots
b) To have sufficient capacity to handle the number of people living there
c) To not have to contend with too many other people who don't need it to replace fixed
d) Be cheap enough.

The BBC seem to be sponsoring something about (a) in today's announcement of Crowdsourcing the UK's mobile coverage.

However, there also appears to be another effort going on at http://opensignalmaps.com/

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Yeah. I'm still not convinced that wireless broadband can ever be as good as wired..but it might just turn out to be good enough.

I guess it needs:
a) To have sufficient signal strength at the current fixed not-spots
b) To have sufficient capacity to handle the number of people living there
c) To not have to contend with too many other people who don't need it to replace fixed
d) Be cheap enough.

The BBC seem to be sponsoring something about (a) in today's announcement of Crowdsourcing the UK's mobile coverage.

However, there also appears to be another effort going on at http://opensignalmaps.com/

The problem is a) and b) are often difficult to have simultaneously, as you will naturally have more people contending the limited set of available bandwidth slices when you improve signal strength/reach of a single mast. I suppose the best technical solution would be to have many lower powered nodes so that each mast has a smaller number of people contending for bandwidth. Would be rather expensive though, I suspect.

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

I suppose the best technical solution would be to have many lower powered nodes so that each mast has a smaller number of people contending for bandwidth. Would be rather expensive though, I suspect.

That's called 'Wifi'

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

I suppose the best technical solution would be to have many lower powered nodes so that each mast has a smaller number of people contending for bandwidth. Would be rather expensive though, I suspect.

That's called 'Wifi'

Haha, I was thinking slightly better range than 'my house, and that thieving bandwidth nerd's bedroom from next door'.

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

The problem is a) and b) are often difficult to have simultaneously, as you will naturally have more people contending the limited set of available bandwidth slices when you improve signal strength/reach of a single mast. I suppose the best technical solution would be to have many lower powered nodes so that each mast has a smaller number of people contending for bandwidth. Would be rather expensive though, I suspect.

That's essentially happening today with 2100mhz 3G - on the networks with good capacity (and O2 is not one) and not overloaded in an area, the 3G/HSPA technology works extremely well.

However LTE does provide a massive improvement as it forgets voice traffic and turns everything into a data packet. Unlike 2G and 3G which handle voice separately to data today.

Ofcom seem to be waiting for the final Freeview/DigitalTerrestrialTV switchover next year to release the frequencies for LTE to all the networks. These should be low enough frequency to have quite a large coverage area from a single mast. Similar to todays 2G footprint from Voda/O2. And hopefully with sufficient in-building penetration.

Everything Everywhere has 1800mhz, and put a lot of money into getting good in building penetration by having double the sites to Voda or O2, but that still hasn't helped their 3G coverage.

3 has amazingly good 3G performance; but is pretty useless for a mobile phone due to the frequency anything on the edges of coverage ends up a blackspot indoors.

be will never get around to it (nor O2) for that matter. they dither about far too much, all talk no trousers, and they're struggling for funds

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

be will never get around to it (nor O2) for that matter. they dither about far too much, all talk no trousers, and they're struggling for funds

and you know this because ????????? it seems to me that you are talking a load of horse poo

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

... and they're struggling for funds

Evidence for that?

All I can find quickly is Telefonica current valuation of 70 billion euro, and the average investment advice is 58.7% - buy, 28.3% - hold (keep), 13% sell.

In reply to a post by adebov:

In reply to a post by bruce007:

I think for Sky and BE, building out their own fibre network may be a future plan, but they can get in on reselling FTTx pretty quickly, while hopefully still using their existing backhauls (may have something to do with VirtualLLU).

Well BE have said their solution won't include their own local fibre loops, so they will (when they eventually get round to it) use Openreach infrastructure to get from home to exchange, before branching out onto their own networks (presumably using their existing backhaul).
Sky haven't really said much apart from putting up a web-page about a trial (then never bothering to update it, so it just gives details of exchanges 'coming soon in 2010').
However; they've also started a different trial (for three months, apparently) where they will be using BT ducts & poles, but using their own fibres (so I expect we'll never hear from them again ).

Either way, Sky and BE/O2 have dithered for so long (with both only just ready for localised trials) I fear they may be too late.
By the time either of them are actually ready to roll out, most of us who can get FTTC will be locked into 18 or 24 month contracts with BT (or 12 months contracts with resellers), so if they don't act fast their initial take-up will be quite slow as most of the Sky/BE/O2 exchanges will have already been enabled for BT FTTC so people will only be able to migrate to Sky/BE/O2 in dribs & drabs as their contracts expire.

Given BE have already said their prices will be higher than their current offerings, they may be far too late to the party for attracting people away from BT Retail.
I see BE's main market as being those of us who didn't trust BT could offer an un-capped or un-throttled product (and went to resellers offering that for maybe £30 or £40 a month).

Sky can bundle Anytime+ (via their newer HD boxes, which have an Ethernet hook-up) so it will be easier for them to attract people away from BT with 'Vision+' (except for the "I don't know why, but I hate Rupert Murdoch" crowd).

there is still many of their exchanges not FTTC planned, as the FTTC rollout has large parts of the country virtually untouched. However I agree they defenitly leaving it too long. Sky already have their own fibre network, its BE who are planning on building one.

I use 3 for 3G when I visit my parents or someone else, however they defenitly have capacity issues. It is noticebly a lot faster at say 8am than it is at 2pm or 8pm. Even without those issues I think wireless will never be as good as good wired services although it probably has a chance to beat adsl.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Sky already have their own fibre network, its BE who are planning on building one.

I was actually talking about local fibre loops (not backbones) and BE have definitely said they're not interested in install their own local fibre loops.
I didn't realise Sky had local fibres (which presumably means they also have their own street furniture) apart from the limited trial.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I use 3 for 3G when I visit my parents or someone else, however they defenitly have capacity issues. It is noticebly a lot faster at say 8am than it is at 2pm or 8pm. Even without those issues I think wireless will never be as good as good wired services although it probably has a chance to beat adsl.

Agreed - but compared to O2 (where I was getting a best of 128kbps, and a normal of 50kbps) getting a steady 1.5mbps and a peak of 5mbps on 3 is a revelation. Having tried Vodafone who's 3G works in the open air, but vanishes as soon as you enter a building, I was surprised.

I read that 3 have installed 100mbps into each base station, which is more than the other networks so far - however the air interface of 3G (WCDMA) is very inefficient as it was designed for voice. This is why we need LTE...

In reply to a post by adebov:

I was actually talking about local fibre loops (not backbones) and BE have definitely said they're not interested in install their own local fibre loops.
I didn't realise Sky had local fibres (which presumably means they also have their own street furniture) apart from the limited trial.

I don't think Sky has local fibres either - I believe the other poster might be referring to Sky's purchase of the Easynet network.

Telefonica UK (o2&be) have their own core network - but from postings by BE's Managing Director, we are led to believe they are working on a new core network.

My assumption is to scale up capacity and reduce management costs of the current network, ready for FTTC and others.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

I suppose the best technical solution would be to have many lower powered nodes so that each mast has a smaller number of people contending for bandwidth. Would be rather expensive though, I suspect.

That's called 'Wifi'

This reminded me of a related subject: namely bandwidth pollution. I live in a fairly suburban area, but I can detect 6 Wi-Fi networks (of about 12) all sitting on channel 6.

It just makes me think that if the idea of blanketing heavily populated public areas with Wi-Fi is going to take off (and actually be fast and effective) then we need a lot more than just 4 non-overlapping channels and to get rid of dumb equipment that just seems to be preset to a default channel (although I'm happy for them all to destroy each others' signals instead of mine ).

I realise some equipment latterly attempts to find the least polluted channel, but really, there's not a huge segment of bandwidth available in the 2.4GHz range.

Edited by deleted (Tue 19-Jul-11 00:30:53)

yeah 3 isnt that slow, I get similiar speeds that you have reported.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by adebov:

I was actually talking about local fibre loops (not backbones) and BE have definitely said they're not interested in install their own local fibre loops.
I didn't realise Sky had local fibres (which presumably means they also have their own street furniture) apart from the limited trial.

I don't think Sky has local fibres either - I believe the other poster might be referring to Sky's purchase of the Easynet network.

Telefonica UK (o2&be) have their own core network - but from postings by BE's Managing Director, we are led to believe they are working on a new core network.

My assumption is to scale up capacity and reduce management costs of the current network, ready for FTTC and others.

I was they got no local loop yes, although they do have own fibre going to some exchanges.

BE have a london network, outside of london they rent backhaul to get traffic to london.

I am guessing this is going off topic ...

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I was they got no local loop yes, ...

Errr? Wot?

But I get your meaning and think you are right in the post.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I was they got no local loop yes, ...

Errr? Wot?

But I get your meaning and think you are right in the post.

Looks like packet loss or corruption. Chrysalis needs to upgrade his network

Synapses.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

These should be low enough frequency to have quite a large coverage area from a single mast. Similar to todays 2G footprint from Voda/O2.

But that increases contention, doesn't it? And correct me if I'm wrong but bandwidth is inversely proportional to frequency so the new frequencies will have more customers and lower bandwidth efficiency. Is the frequency range wide enough to compensate?

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

and to get rid of dumb equipment that just seems to be preset to a default channel (although I'm happy for them all to destroy each others' signals instead of mine ).

I wub channel 13

Never a default and I suspect a lot of routers might not automatically choose it because they are primarily programmed for the US.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by dustofnations:

and to get rid of dumb equipment that just seems to be preset to a default channel (although I'm happy for them all to destroy each others' signals instead of mine ).

I wub channel 13

Never a default and I suspect a lot of routers might not automatically choose it because they are primarily programmed for the US.

I'm currently running on channel 100 in the 5GHz band, everyone else around here is on the 2.4GHz band.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

But that increases contention, doesn't it? And correct me if I'm wrong but bandwidth is inversely proportional to frequency so the new frequencies will have more customers and lower bandwidth efficiency. Is the frequency range wide enough to compensate?

That's true - I believe that's why the newer 2G networks (1800) had the ability to handle more concurrent calls.

However as I understand (and I'm probably wrong!) the design of LTE is much more efficient and packet based so that the capacity is increased even on the lower frequencies. I know verizon in the US is running LTE on around 800mhz.

Its going to be one to watch.

I seem to remember Telefonica is either live or has been doing extensive trials of LTE in Spain for a long time now. Just the frequency range here needs to be released, (and a licence obtained).

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I seem to remember Telefonica is either live or has been doing extensive trials of LTE in Spain for a long time now. Just the frequency range here needs to be released, (and a licence obtained).

Agree - I think O2 (Telefonica's mobile brand) has a trial on the isle of man of LTE; which is not part of Ofcom regulation - and doesn't have to worry about mainland Europe interference.

Makes sense, I'm fairly sure but too lazy to check right now that Telefonica own Manx Telecom.

They don't

As of 4 June 2010 .

I wonder if they are still doing the LTE trial there though? I wouldn't be surprised. Results due 28 July will probably tell us.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 20-Jul-11 23:33:01)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Makes sense, I'm fairly sure but too lazy to check right now that Telefonica own Manx Telecom.

Oops, seems its in Slough that O2 are testing LTE. I guess IoM was 3G a while back

http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/o2-claims-lte-tria...

They did do until Telefonica sold Manx Telecom in June 2010 to CPS Partners with investment from HgCapital

UK LTE trials have been taking place in Slough

Everything Everywhere will be starting a live LTE trial in Cornwall from September

http://www.ryanstevens.co.uk/2011/07/15/4g-uk-explai...

Great link - thanks, some real world (UK) data at last

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

But that increases contention, doesn't it? And correct me if I'm wrong but bandwidth is inversely proportional to frequency so the new frequencies will have more customers and lower bandwidth efficiency. Is the frequency range wide enough to compensate?

That's true - I believe that's why the newer 2G networks (1800) had the ability to handle more concurrent calls.

However as I understand (and I'm probably wrong!) the design of LTE is much more efficient and packet based so that the capacity is increased even on the lower frequencies. I know verizon in the US is running LTE on around 800mhz.

Its going to be one to watch.

As far as GSM was concerned, the frequency had nothing (directly) to do with the bandwidth - every frequency was capable of carrying the same amoutn of data.

The real difference was that the signal at higher frequencies would attenuate faster, so not be able to get as much distance. That required the 1800MHz companies to have more base-station sites to get the same coverage of the physical areas. Of course, they wouldn't need as many transceivers at each site to cover the same amount of population, but if they did have a higher number of transceivers in the network, *then* they can support more calls troughout the network.

I'm not sure of the consequences on 3G, where data gets distibuted over the frequencies rather differently, using spread spectrum techniques, and power control plays a bigger part.

was going to pre reg but the form is too hard, lots of info needed. Can non BE customers pre reg?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Can non BE customers pre reg?

Yes.

Too hard

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

was going to pre reg but the form is too hard, lots of info needed. Can non BE customers pre reg?

Lots of info? It asks for your name, address, telephone number and whether or not you are a business customer. How hard can it be to fill that in?

Edited by Andrue (Mon 25-Jul-11 22:31:31)