FTTP - A US perspective

Hello!

I wanted to ask the community why they believe providers such as Verizon are offering FTTP as standard in parts of the US now ($100-120pcm will buy you a 75/75 symmetrical connection with phone & TV), yet BT is still struggling to roll out FTTC to most of the country?

Funnily enough, most of the fibre optic cabling comes via overhead wires with FIOS. I don't believe BT's FTTP is distributed in the same way, but rather underground cabling? Why is this method preferred over cables above ground?

Another thing to add, traffic shaping really hasn't caught on in the US, in stark contrast to the UK where QoS - even website blocking (scandalous, would never fly in the US) - is utilised widely. This means a FIOS user can download what they want, whenever they want, at full speeds, for as long as they want.

Just my two pence on how I feel the UK is getting left behind compared to the US in providing high speed internet services.

On Verizon's internet speeds - read

http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-g...
http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observati...

On Fios - read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-gre...

On this map, with only FTTP selected (for all providers), US coverage looks a bit sparse as at 31/12/13. Nice price as well.

Interesting maps. I'm lucky enough to live in one of the areas covered by FTTP. Ironic that Silicon Valley has hardly any FTTP connections available. That must suck. I don't believe Google Fibre is even available there either.

Verizon could definitely improve with regards to their peering with Netflix CDN's. Though, we all know this is political to force Netflix to pay for content delivery. Unfortunately it looks like net neutrality is being eroded here.

I have a FIOS connection, btw, and I continue to remain hugely impressed by it. I do wish they offered a static rather than sticky IP, but what can you do? :/

Silicon Valley is planned by Google https://fiber.google.com/newcities/

Verizon get to keep their FTTP network all to themselves which helps them, along with that they were absolutely lambasted for deploying FTTP, but got on with it and are retiring copper where possible.

BT can't retire copper in many areas as our regulators are obsessed with the view that LLU is some panacea that solves everything.

BT are required to delivery open access to any networks they build, further eroding profit margins.

Thanks to being brought up on a diet of cross-subsidised and/or loss making LLU UK consumers are tighter than a camel's backside in a sandstorm when it comes to paying for broadband.

People who will happily pay £60 a month for TV whinge about paying more than a few £ a month for broadband and as a result the broadband is kept cheap and [censored] with a large part of its costs hidden in line rental by the big players.

Also worth noting we only have <50% cable coverage, and the incumbent has zero interest in competing with the cable company on performance. They have a captive audience in about half the country so there's absolutely no drive to spend a penny more on network than they have to. Football rights are expensive, after all.

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Aug-14 17:43:38)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Verizon get to keep their FTTP network all to themselves which helps them, along with that they were absolutely lambasted for deploying FTTP, but got on with it and are retiring copper where possible.

BT can't retire copper in many areas as our regulators are obsessed with the view that LLU is some panacea that solves everything.

BT are required to delivery open access to any networks they build, further eroding profit margins.

Thanks to being brought up on a diet of cross-subsidised and/or loss making LLU UK consumers are tighter than a camel's backside in a sandstorm when it comes to paying for broadband.

People who will happily pay £60 a month for TV whinge about paying more than a few £ a month for broadband and as a result the broadband is kept cheap and [censored] with a large part of its costs hidden in line rental by the big players.

Also worth noting we only have <50% cable coverage, and the incumbent has zero interest in competing with the cable company on performance. They have a captive audience in about half the country so there's absolutely no drive to spend a penny more on network than they have to. Football rights are expensive, after all.

Great post.

I wanted to ask the community why they believe providers such as Verizon are offering FTTP as standard in parts of the US now ($100-120pcm will buy you a 75/75 symmetrical connection with phone & TV), yet BT is still struggling to roll out FTTC to most of the country?

Er, our infrastructure, water, drainage etc., was built many decades before the US.

Funnily enough, most of the fibre optic cabling comes via overhead wires with FIOS. I don't believe BT's FTTP is distributed in the same way, but rather underground cabling? Why is this method preferred over cables above ground?

a) Poles are ugly
b) Poles fall down in heavy weather/traffic accidents causing a loss of all services.

Another thing to add, traffic shaping really hasn't caught on in the US, in stark contrast to the UK where QoS - even website blocking (scandalous, would never fly in the US) - is utilised widely. This means a FIOS user can download what they want, whenever they want, at full speeds, for as long as they want.

.........with NSA watching.. Heard of Snowden?

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Aug-14 18:09:13)

a) Poles are ugly

Yet BT also uses poles to deliver phone lines. So, er...

b) Poles fall down in heavy weather/traffic accidents causing a loss of all services.

Brits (myself as one) don't understand the concept of 'heavy weather'. When you've experienced some of the extreme weather that we get here then you can talk about such weather being a factor IMO.

Ironically, I've found that our fibre (delivered by pole) has withstood both a hurricane (the tree in the back garden didn't unfortunately) and New England winter storms.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

Er, our infrastructure, water, drainage etc., was built many decades before the US.

Which has what to do with broadband?

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

a) Poles are ugly

This. It's basically snobbery. Poles in the UK are apparently indicative of the third world, which I'm sure is a shock to the USA, Japan, et al.

We don't really have that much extreme weather to knock poles over, though plenty to flood underground chambers and require Openreach to declare MBORC repeatedly.

Councillor Brian Gurden, Liberal Democrat member for Basingstoke South East at Hampshire County Council said: �The Camrose estate has some old-style telephone poles that we would rather get rid of because, as someone said, it makes it look like a third-world country.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

.........with NSA watching.. Heard of Snowden?

Guess you completely ignored Snowden's revelations regarding GCHQ, both in terms of their complicity with the NSA and their own independent operations. Give it a read before throwing the stone in the glass house over the NSA.

You could argue though, that by failing to upgrade their interconnects, the large US ISPs are in effect traffic shaping anyway. I've not seen too many posts on here about people complaining about traffic shaping/management/prioritisation.

I have a relative who was with Verizon and he doesn't have nice words to say about them.

True, I would definitely agree that this argument could be made.

Before I left the UK, I was stuck with Virgin Media (couldn't cancel and take out a new contract with a FTTC ISP as I knew I would be leaving the country within the year) and their traffic shaping was god awful. The upload speeds are so slow (that hasn't changed I see) and the restrictions on how much you can upload in a certain time period are incredibly draconian.

I don't see the FTTC providers being quite so determined to traffic shape as they previously were, thankfully. YMMV, of course.

Was your relative using their FIOS offering, or something else?

I have lived in the US for quite a few years, (9 to be exact).

Poles are ugly as the Japanese will tell you, after the US re-building effort.

Where poles are used, nearly every utiliity/supplier will use those poles.

How many people in the US have died as a result of an ice storm removing their poles/services for weeks at a time? (I lived through one in Dallas)

I guess poles don't bother me massively. The cabling above the trams in San Fran bothers me (that's a horrific mess), but the poles outside my road? Genuinely doesn't bother me. *shrug*

No idea re the number of deaths caused by poles / ice storms. I've never experienced or heard of this happening since I've lived here, but admittedly that's hardly a qualitative study.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

a) Poles are ugly

This. It's basically snobbery.

No, it isn't. Poles are ugly. I like the clean relatively uncluttered appearance of a modern estate where everything is underground.

In reply to a post by toph3r:

a) Poles are ugly

Yet BT also uses poles to deliver phone lines. So, er...

Only if the council allows them to and I think most councils have been stipulating that there should be no overhead cables for a long time. My first house was built in the late 70s and everything was underground. My current house was built in the mid 80s and there are no overhead cables.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Also worth noting we only have <50% cable coverage, and the incumbent has zero interest in competing with the cable company on performance. They have a captive audience in about half the country so there's absolutely no drive to spend a penny more on network than they have to. Football rights are expensive, after all.

Last I heard they didn't have market dominance even in cable areas so even less reason to be worried. If VM can't win the fight on its home ground BT have little to fear.

Edited: Typed 'had' instead of 'didn't have'.

Edited by Andrue (Mon 25-Aug-14 20:09:31)

In reply to a post by toph3r:

Interesting maps. I'm lucky enough to live in one of the areas covered by FTTP. Ironic that Silicon Valley has hardly any FTTP connections available. That must suck. I don't believe Google Fibre is even available there either.

In fact a recent The Register article suggested that California has a lower average speed than the UK.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/08/virginia_is_...

Edited by Andrue (Mon 25-Aug-14 18:47:56)

You can go even further - I think you'll find the average speed in the whole of the US is now lower than that of the UK.

I can well believe that. The Bay Area, for example, has a chronic lack of decent internet. Staggering when you consider how much internet technology is developed there!

I'm in New England, which has FTTP (both Comcast and Verizon) widely deployed.

Edited by toph3r (Mon 25-Aug-14 18:55:50)

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

You can go even further - I think you'll find the average speed in the whole of the US is now lower than that of the UK.

Not a fair comparison though. England should be compared to individual (equivalent) states, such as MA, CA, CT, NY, WO, MD rather than the US as a whole.

He's in Seattle where they don't have Verizon's Fios - I think right now he might be with Comcast, but he was mentioning something about some new FTTH plans in the area, or something like that.

His gripe was with countless issues with his cellular contract with Verizon.

Virgin Media got caught out as their network couldn't cope with the growth and demand for faster internet. The same can be said for some other large ISPs (TalkTalk and Sky being two of the other big ones). I think now though, most ISPs have upscaled their networks and they continue to invest to meet the growth and demand for faster speeds.

How so though?

For me, you have to compare a country as a whole rather than picking certain parts.

Because each state is potentially completely different from the next. You should view the US in the same way as you would view England within the EU.

VZW is run as a separate division. I've never used them, and never will unless someone else pays their stupidly high wireless prices. It's unfair to label a companies internet product based on their (separate) wireless offering in my opinion.

Virgin needs to increase their upload speeds. It's a joke that they offer 100mbit+ down, yet only 10Mbit up.

there is traffic shaping in the .us in the form of traffic routing.

e.g. stick netflix over a congested transit until netflix pay a fee to the isp.

As for FTTP, I think a big part of the problem is that BT have been doing it in rural areas where it will be more expensive. Another part is of course doing it underground. BT are going for coverage vs headline speeds.

I haven't labelled them though.

I've just posted what's has been discussed left, right and centre in the US regarding their congested interconnects.

And counties in the UK are not different?

It's like comparing Virginia vs Alaska and Cornwall vs Conwy.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

And counties in the UK are not different?

No. They're not. Attempting to compare counties of England to States of the United States is facile.

Stop being stupid now, OK?

Post deleted by MrSaffron

No need to get personal.

If what you're saying is correct on how internet speeds should be compared between countries, then why does no one do this?

You can pick and chose which states/areas you want to compare - you have to look at countries as a whole. Some states in the US have more invested than others for faster internet, as do some counties in the UK.

I don't even know where to begin..*sigh*

Go and read up on how the United States works please.

Removed the post, as while its fine to disagree with people do it in a reasonable way

OK, let me rephrase. Andy needs to understand how the Federal system of the United States of America works. When he has done this he will understand why comparing US States to English Counties is facile.

Fair?

Whilst I to some extent agree with your premise re the error in comparing states to counties, it isn't completely true. Witness the varying use of the BDUK scheme and many other regional intiatives.

Also, you do in your opening post compare a small selection of states with the whole of the UK. That is just as invalid a comparison.

Those states I quote have similar income / quality of life levels to England, hence using them as a comparison rather than the US as a whole (which is far greater in diversity than England).

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

I have lived in the US for quite a few years, (9 to be exact).

Goodie. Has what to do with the UK though?

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

Poles are ugly as the Japanese will tell you, after the US re-building effort.

They aren't attractive, no. Can't say I have ever noticed them but I guess that's just me. The Japanese also find satellite dishes hugely unattractive to the extent where they'd rather pay for cable TV than use a dish. This doesn't mean they are indicative of third world infrastructure though.

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

Where poles are used, nearly every utiliity/supplier will use those poles.

Must've missed where, in the UK, we have all these utilities piling in to use the telegraph poles. Control over poles is completely different here so, again, this has what to do with the UK?

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

How many people in the US have died as a result of an ice storm removing their poles/services for weeks at a time? (I lived through one in Dallas)

Once again this has what to do with the UK? We have occasional issues where overhead power lines are brought down, certainly, however we aren't Dallas, and we aren't the USA. Our weather is far more temperate.

I'm struggling to see where any of this responds to my contention that opposition to poles in the UK is largely snobbery. I didn't argue that they aren't attractive, though it could be said they are no more unattractive than a 5ft 3 high, 4ft wide, 1.5ft deep street cabinet unless one spends most of their time looking up.

Edited by deleted (Mon 25-Aug-14 22:35:42)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Last I heard they didn't have market dominance even in cable areas so even less reason to be worried. If VM can't win the fight on its home ground BT have little to fear.

Edited: Typed 'had' instead of 'didn't have'.

That's purely the Sky and Freeview, prior to that terrestrial analogue, effects. In the USA an awful lot of people were getting analogue channels via MATV rather than aerials or satellite so the cable companies had a ton more momentum.

At a retail level Virgin win comfortably in their served areas. Infrastructure wise versus Openreach it's 40:60-ish.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

On this map, with only FTTP selected (for all providers), US coverage looks a bit sparse as at 31/12/13. Nice price as well.

A good part of this is due to two factors though, one is how sparsely populated the USA is, the other than only one of their 2 major telcos pursued FTTP. The other, AT&T, have pursued a largely FTTN policy, and man are their offerings abysmal.

Check the coverage of cable in the USA and it's likewise pretty sparse outside of the major urban areas. Not a really great surprise, there is a lot of the USA in between the urban areas where there are significant quantities of people.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

No need to get personal.

If what you're saying is correct on how internet speeds should be compared between countries, then why does no one do this?

You can pick and chose which states/areas you want to compare - you have to look at countries as a whole. Some states in the US have more invested than others for faster internet, as do some counties in the UK.

Where are these US states that have invested all this money in broadband? As far as I know it tends to be, if anything, individual cities that have invested in municipal networks, not states.

Franchise agreements are done at the town/city level. These have a bearing on speeds - they come with conditions that may cause an operator to walk away - Verizon have walked away from deploying FTTP due to franchise conditions in places they wanted to do triple play.

Individual states have very, very different rules governing pole access, and very different owners of the poles.

The USA is a very different proposition from the UK depending which state you are in, however it's not because individual states have been running some BDUSA system at all, it's largely due to private sector investment and conditions governing that investment.

Trying to equate BDUK / Superfast Cornwall with the differences between US states is crazy. The most remote areas of mainland UK are downright local compared with parts of the USA.

In areas where franchise agreements have been struck and Verizon are the telco FTTP extends a long way into the urban sprawl, way out into the suburbs. For those of us used to Openreach-like a PCP or two in an entire 100+ PCP exchange area in one exchange out of 6 serving a city deployments the extent to which FTTP covers some areas is absolutely stunning.

It would be a very interesting exercise indeed to find a state with a comparable population density to the UK and see how things fair. Taking some states and comparing them to the UK is like comparing rural Wales or Scotland to an urban conurbation in England and pointing out that the urban conurbation has a higher average.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Also, you do in your opening post compare a small selection of states with the whole of the UK. That is just as invalid a comparison.

Bob,

The usual 'criteria' trotted out for these comparisons is population density. This was the usual excuse people came up with in days of old when comparing the UK to places like Japan, South Korea, et al.

You are aware that in the whole of the USA there are only 4 states out of the 50 that are more densely populated than the UK as a whole, and only 1 that's more densely populated than England?

Comparing the UK to somewhere like Wyoming or Montana on pretty much any metric is nuts. Comparing the UK to the USA as a whole on any population-density affected metric is nuts, they have a population density 1/8th ours.

Widely deployed in New England? No it isn't!

FTTP is delivered using poles in the UK by BT also. They use poles and underground depending on how the network is currently delivered.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

At a retail level Virgin win comfortably in their served areas. Infrastructure wise versus Openreach it's 40:60-ish.

Shame that until recently they've never made any money off it then

I am fed from a pole and its never fell down.

It does seem people here (uk) are been petty about poles.

My view from where I live isnt great but its nothing to do with the pole. The pole is just like an extra lamppost of which there is many off.

Of course money talks, I wonder how these people would react if BT said ok we will rollout FTTP if its done via poles its £30 month £150 setup, if its underground £50 month £2000 setup, I wonder what they would say then.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Where poles are used, nearly every utiliity/supplier will use those poles.

I was referring to the States.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

It does seem people here (uk) are been petty about poles.

Since when was expressing an opinion about aesthetics 'petty' or even 'snobbery'? What next - am I going to be called petty because I like to keep my garden tidy? Or perhaps I'm a snob because of the colour curtains I have?

I just prefer an uncluttered sky and having lived on estates where poles are not used (quite possibly the majority of houses in the UK by now) I find wires crossing the street to be a bit distracting. It wouldn't be a deal breaker but it is a preference. If choosing to think differently to you makes me seem petty in your eyes then I don't think that's my fault.

I suspect that the origins of the UK running most services underground, probably goes back to the earliest utility generally, the disposal of sewerage.

Given the greater relative quantities of built-up areas and their intense nature (compared to much of USA, Canada etc), the early communal sewers were installed underground.

* Yes, I omitted Water!

Along came Town gas and probably partly for the protection and routeing of the pipes, again underground.

Electricity followed the same route generally.

Early phones and their predecessors did use a relatively high number of poles, much lighter weights etc involved than the earlier utilities; and that was the case up to about the 1950s.

Post Office Telephones had a major pole stack yard near my childhood home, with a garage and its own petrol/gas pumps to supply the green "glasshouse" vans and trucks, used for installation and maintenance.

The "greenhouse" effect was due to a special window above the normal windscreen to make it easier to track cables from pole-to-pole.

During the 1950s and 1960s when demands for phones increased, many more underground and building-wall routes began to prevail, leading to the closure of that pole yard; and also a significant reduction in the use of the Pole Training School, elsewhere in the city.

I recollect in the early 1950s, my father signing a way-leave for phone cables to be attached to the back of our house, to allow our various neighbours to have phones installed.

It was also then that many pole routes were changed to under-ground. For example, the Great North Road near where I now live was lined with poles, each with about 6 cross-bars, each of those in turn fitted with porcelain insulators and the many wires for each line.

The overhead wires were bare, so could often make intermittent contact, giving rise to false rings , tingles etc. The insulators could break etc.

I actually encountered those problems in the 1970s, when our early company dial-up facilities would all-too-frequently, make contact over 300 miles with Greater Manchester Police HQ; and separately with an "ex-directory" subscriber further south in Birmingham.

With the advent of plastics, multi-way cables were much more readily produced, compared with the earlier U/G cables, where the wires were insulated by oilo-impregnated, helically-wound paper.

Thus generally today, OPENREACH/BT has a huge inherited investment in those underground cables, ducts et.


Even the then brand-new installation of Cable TV etc, went underground from its start in the 1980s.


Also, think of the outcry if our ancient cities, towns, villages etc, were to be garlanded with replacement, pole-mounted FIOS/FTTP.

Edited by deleted (Tue 26-Aug-14 15:35:41)

A use of Federal Funding $15m to cover 5,400 properties (FTTH/C) most are in the 'city' of Broken Bow but once you get outside city limit rural means a 6 mile drive on a fast road between two homes, hence some will be used for wireless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-ferguson/fibr...

The way that cities, suburbs and rural areas are laid out in the US is so different to the UK that it would be hard to compare areas e.g. the suburbs and communities around urban Dallas are akin to Milton Keynes, but once you get rural rather than a compact hamlet/village they tend to sprawl out as property lots are much larger.

Another issue is the size of the verge on US roads is such that you can get fibre ducting in the ground easily and in plenty of areas people are used to over head delivery of electricity and telephone.

The legislator for the United States is very different to the UK, with states able to pass laws and control a lot more about what goes in the state. This trickles down to the City level (and in US parlance a City can be just 2,000 properties if they want).

The way most people understand it is look at the variation in liquor/beer/alcohol laws between the various states and the counties/cities within them.

Interesting article Andrew. Did you get any photos of the markers? I've never noticed them myself.

No but certainly present in several residential streets

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@34.028773,-94.743122,...

The bit I missed out was that to get a 3G signal I had to pop into the Indian Casino, the nearest Starbucks is 90 miles away. So its McLatte or the one small independent coffee shop 12 miles away

Edited by MrSaffron (Tue 26-Aug-14 13:03:09)

In the UK anyway an additional factor is the the wood preservation issue of poles.

Due to EU regulations I gather (from a BTOR man) that the only place in the EU able to produce fully impregnated creosoted poles is a special dedicated plant in France - this make them VERY expensive.

I'm personally with others on this forum who hate poles...probably because I live in a semi-rural area and they are (to me anyway) an eyesore.
...but I appreciate each of us has different opinions as to what is an abomination and what is no bother.

The main issue of poles in rural areas is not so much that they fall down but the wires/fibres strung between them get either wiped out by a tree//heavy branch come the autumn gales or they are nibbled at by Squirrels that scramble along them.

In reply to a post by zom22:

The main issue of poles in rural areas is not so much that they fall down but the wires/fibres strung between them get either wiped out by a tree//heavy branch come the autumn gales or they are nibbled at by Squirrels that scramble along them.

This is the exact reason utility companies do not like poles. The cost of storm/weather damage in bringing down cables is huge, just have a look at what is spent in the north west in the US each year.

Japan has been mentioned, but they have spent tens of millions over the past decade in moving utilities from overground to underground (here's one example - http://regex.info/blog/2014-03-30/2405).

In reply to a post by zom22:

I'm personally with others on this forum who hate poles...probably because I live in a semi-rural area and they are (to me anyway) an eyesore.
...but I appreciate each of us has different opinions as to what is an abomination and what is no bother.

I live in a village just outside a large town, phone and electricity cables are all on poles and I think it adds to the character of the place.

In reply to a post by zom22:

The main issue of poles in rural areas is not so much that they fall down but the wires/fibres strung between them get either wiped out by a tree//heavy branch come the autumn gales or they are nibbled at by Squirrels that scramble along them.

That much is true, I have a couple of trees I have to watch and we have had power cuts in the past due to bad weather but bot for quite a long time, thankfully.

Edited by kasg (Tue 26-Aug-14 13:14:47)

In reply to a post by kasg:

I live in a village just outside a large town, phone and electricity cables are all on poles and I think it adds to the character of the place.

You obviously do not have missing cats/dogs or garage sales or miraculous weight loss programmes in your area......lol

Edited by deleted (Tue 26-Aug-14 13:31:11)

In reply to a post by Stevenage_Neil:

You obviously do not have missing cats/dogs or garage sales or miraculous weight loss programmes in your area......lol

I'm sure they'd find somewhere else (probably even worse) to put the posters if there were no poles.

I was going to say in metro and urban areas it is, but then the whole of downtown Boston doesn't have FTTP so I can't say that. heh.

The poles I have seen erected in recent years, appear to have two small pipes included in the base hole, apparently to allow the injection of a peservative.

I suspect that "creosote" per se is no longer on general sale, as it certainly disappeared from DIY stores in the UK about 10 years back; replaced by a generally similar material with a slightly differently-spelt name.

As it stands LLU is the only existing system in most of the country that allows a non-BT carrier to control the connection right up to the customer. There is also the requirement for backup power to consider.

Less than 50%? More like nowhere near 50%. Even when companies were laying cable in the late 80s to early 90s most of them when bust. That's how NTL became the national cable provider who then went bust and got bought out by Virgin. I'd be surprised if there had been any significant expansion of the cable networks in more than 15 years.

In reply to a post by Kronos2001:

Less than 50%? More like nowhere near 50%. Even when companies were laying cable in the late 80s to early 90s most of them when bust. That's how NTL became the national cable provider who then went bust and got bought out by Virgin. I'd be surprised if there had been any significant expansion of the cable networks in more than 15 years.

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been either - just infill. But VM have just announced what I think is their first proper expansion:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/06/virgin_media...

Edited by Andrue (Thu 28-Aug-14 11:43:11)