Is 13 -15 an acceptable FTTC speed ?

Any views on whether 13-15 is an acceptable FTTC speed ?

Plusnet (after around six OR visits) have given up and their response is now "we will let you leave your contract" and won't do anything more.

Original estimate was 32.
Checker now says:
FTTC Range A (Clean) 33.1 - 24.2
FTTC Range B (Impacted) 26.1 - 13.1

Thanks

If something is impacting performance then perfectly fine. Like Adsl there are no speed guarantees

What is your line length?

I thought 16mbit was a minimum acceptable speed hence why Plusnet are allowing the contract to be cancelled.

Edited by smouty (Fri 25-Jul-14 08:14:29)

Will depend on what the estimates were before, and an ISP will sometimes let people go just to be nice and avoid creating an angry customer.

Certainly there is no god given right to demand every FTTC connection runs at 15 Mbps or faster.

Written on a line that DLM dropped to 14 Meg for a while, but recovered to 21 Mbps over time.

IIRC it is 2Mbps. Certainly not more than 5Mbps.

You have probably been confused by Infinity not being available if the estimate is below 15Mbps. Which is where BT Retail offer Faster broadband with fibre, if that's what they still call it.

I don't think any other ISP draws a line like that.

I've seen posts from Infinity users with estimates of 1 - 2 Mbps and getting 1 Mbps.

In this case, is it worth ordering from someone else and getting a new line installed???

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jul-14 12:29:28)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

What is your line length?

About 650m

Yes that's totally normal speed to get with DSL technology.

It's a shame BT spent so much time marketing the new VDSL product as fibre because it's made people assume it's better that it really is capable of.

Sure it will improve many urban users speed if your lucky to be near a cabinet but there will be so many users left in this situation.

Still I guess it was more about BT tricking BDUK into giving funding for a next gen product when in fact it was nothing more than another stop gap technology and a minor improvement to DSL that will not offer a real long term solution.

I think its more a case of getting what you (private industry and government) are prepared to pay for.

To be fair its more than a minor improvement to adsl, most adsl lines were not good lines doing 16+ mbps. I consider sub 6mbps to 70+mbps a very good improvement, likewise sub 1mbit to 20mbit upload very good and FTTC on average seems way more reliable.

I agree on the stop gap tho. They deploying tech which is considered already obselete elsewhere.

As I understand tho, this FTTC deployment isnt a waste of time for future FTTP as they only need to deploy new fibre from the aggregation point not the entire length from the core network.

Lelt -- - is around distance form from cab rather than distance form exhange i have seen peolpe go from .7 - > 50 as their village has had its cab enabled -- that they have gone from being 6 km from exchnage to less thay 500 metres from the cab - that is life changing !!!!

the VDSL drop off from the cab will also depletnds on the local condituoins i have seen some with 20 at around 1300 m from cab and some only geta a small uplift at around 1100 metres

at around 650 -700 syou shoudl be in the 25 pluc view

Edited by deleted (Sat 26-Jul-14 14:21:26)

Mike G ddi you have an engfieering visit or a self install

chrislays you atre correct the progames commerical and BDUK once they are complete will bridg fibre much closer to the end user rpremises and then in form agg node to house -- thei is the hardest and most challenging bit as each preemis will be different , some duct / some not duct, block paving gravel drives, no clear route , - FTTP at a indivudual premuises is hard adn thats where is relatively new -- where the premises are more mature the you have a lot of other issues such as tree roots, and nice drives, lanes where disruption is not a good idea -- and that assuming there is really a demand for FTTP

Edited by deleted (Sat 26-Jul-14 14:28:09)

Virgin seem to manage easily.

Virgin seem to manage easily.

I suggest you let VM know this as they won't install here despite my neighbours having cable.

Did they give a reason?

Not interested in expanding their network. The two properties (neither are mine but I live close by) are SW9 6UN (no, Sycamore House, 21 Langton Road) and SW9 6XB (yes, The Caxtons, Langton Road)
From the VM site.
Sycamore House: Sorry, your home isn't in a Virgin Media area
The Caxtons: Result! You�re in a Virgin Media cable area.
The properties are adjacent and the VM cable runs in the pavement 2m in front of Sycamore House.
Google Maps The older red brick to the left is The Caxtons, the newer build to the right Sycamore House.

In reply to a post by Fastman2:

Mike G ddi you have an engfieering visit or a self install

Engineer install plus about six visits since.

On the point about speed increases, we went from 1.5 so FTTC was a sigificant increase

So, even though they could easily manage it, they're unwilling to do it because they're not interested. I think VM are just going to be asset-stripped by Liberty Global.

I think VM are just going to be asset-stripped by Liberty Global.

I agree which is unfortunate for VM users. When contacted VM were not in the slightest bit interested, couldn't see any anomaly and terminated the conversation saying there was nothing THEY could or would do.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I agree on the stop gap tho. They deploying tech which is considered already obselete elsewhere.

That's a matter of context though. Deploying expensive things because they are shinier doesn't make good sense. My mother uses her (mobile) phone to receive one or two calls and make a text every few months. Should she buy an iPhone? Uh, no, probably not. The phone she has is "obsolete" but it does what she needs perfectly fine and didn't cost hundreds of pounds.

I've said before that this is not a remorseless march to ever higher bandwidth. I've had always on Internet access for almost twenty years now (24/7 free dial-up via a legacy cable TV provider in the 1990s, then DSL) and we are running out of reasons (beyond "wow, that's cool") for higher per-person bandwidth. Live interactive video is about the most intensive use that has any noticeable number of customers, and even that's only a few megabits.

Now, if you're getting 15/2 from a mediocre FTTC setup in the sticks and you've got half a dozen adult kids then I feel for you, 15/2 doesn't go very far when several people are trying to download different things and another person is trying to make a Skype video call. But for most households, in most places, the speeds which are being and plausibly will be delivered from FTTC are totally fine.

There is a more subtle argument that FTTP might mean reduced last mile overheads (reduced maintenance, improved reliability) longer term, which could be good for the country. It would not necessarily be in BT Group's interests to have lower overheads, because the overheads are chargeable and many things operate on a "cost plus" basis where you're expected to profit proportionally to your overheads. Thus, a last mile network which costs £1Bn to run and earns you £1.5Bn in revenue is "worse" in some sense than a network which costs £2Bn to run and earns you £3Bn in revenue even though the former is better for everybody other than BT. But judgement calls about that sort of thing need to come from OFCOM and certainly aren't about whether FTTC is "obsolete".