G.Fast and FTTP

If G.fast was taken up by Open reach, in a more meaningful way, would this give bt and the uk some breathing space from the need for fttp to be deployed ?

Also would g.fast reduce the costs of FttpOD?

Given standard only just set you cannot berate an operator for not using g.fast yet

As I see it some more areas would get fttp and others g.fast all depending on the costs. Whether fod would be cheaper depends if the fibre to dp supported gpon as an option. Most likely to be the case as they have done same with fibre so far

I would have thought so too. The incremental cost of an extra fibre or two will be trivial. What I'd then expect is a (much cheaper) FTTPoD product to cover the running of the fibre to the property from the node. (The first one enabled would need a splitter too, but I imagine they aren't very expensive).

Of course this is speculation at this stage, but it would surely make sense to allow for it.

yeah thats what i was thinking of that bt could use fibre to the kerb to get FTToD costs lower and then allow the customer to pay for the last meters which could be put onto a 2 year contract or as a lump sum.

The whole point of the subject was about the best way forward to full fttp.

If I was asked by BT I would suggest demand led choice of fttp versus g.fast where if enough would go for fttp and higher speed packages that full fibre installed on a dp.

Am I missing something?

What has G.Fast got to do with the cost of FTTPoD?

Or are you assuming FTTdp + G.Fast in the first place? Then I can see the connection between the two.

G.fast needs fibre to the dp so reducing potential distance needed for fod

Needs?

I know it is suggested, but I wasn't aware it needed it.

If they are going to put stuff at the top of poles, those are so close to the premises that G.Fast in the medium term becomes unnecessary.

Edited by RobertoS (Sat 06-Dec-14 19:20:29)

I'd call it FTTPoD if things like splitters had to be installed. Also the final leg of the fibre run might be a bit longer than on FTTP, depending on where the FTTrN or G.Fast node would be. However, it would be a fraction of the connection cost of the current service as there's much less fibre to run, and I'd expect monthly costs to be comparable to copper-based for the same speeds (the installation charge could cover any capital costs fully).

Anyway, just my thoughts at this stage. The advantage of G.Fast is that it saves a whole lot of work as that last run and replacing in-house masters is the most time consuming. It's especially true in my case which uses direct buried cable in the street.

Not berating them as such but there is a criticism of bt using every single copper technology before full fttp. I understand the full costs of doing full fibre to the house and that bt wants to keep its leased lines business going as long as possible.

Not sure how else you get 500 Mbps and more to the DP

The kit in trial was all taking a fibre as input

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

I'd call it FTTPoD if things like splitters had to be installed. Also the final leg of the fibre run might be a bit longer than on FTTP, depending on where the FTTrN or G.Fast node would be. However, it would be a fraction of the connection cost of the current service as there's much less fibre to run, and I'd expect monthly costs to be comparable to copper-based for the same speeds (the installation charge could cover any capital costs fully).

Anyway, just my thoughts at this stage. The advantage of G.Fast is that it saves a whole lot of work as that last run and replacing in-house masters is the most time consuming. It's especially true in my case which uses direct buried cable in the street.

if the install costs came down to £100 to £250 for most fttpod installs, then the take up would be greater. but the commercial case for g.fast has to be proven and could be a pr nightmare.

I've just read this article. Have you seen it?

I thought the bit about the negative impact of coexistence with VDSL2 (if that was required) was worth noting.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Given standard only just set you cannot berate an operator for not using g.fast yet

Wasn't VDSL2 ratified in 2005 with BT's service launching in 2010? Are we going to wait five years for a BT G.fast commercial deployment?

G.fast or native FTTP rolled out nationwide would cost tens of billions.

Who pays for it?!

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Wasn't VDSL2 ratified in 2005 with BT's service launching in 2010? Are we going to wait five years for a BT G.fast commercial deployment?

No, probably be longer than that.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

G.fast or native FTTP rolled out nationwide would cost tens of billions.

Who pays for it?!

Unless you live in a blessed area where political and other considerations mean commercial upgrade this would be the taxpayer.

Given previous experience with BT it would seem sensible to assume they'll be tapping the taxpayer up for the majority of the cost.

Scrap HS2 and then it's simple.

Presumably if you scrap HS2 which is due to be built and paid for over the next 2 decades then you will be happy for the same timescale to be applied to any FTTP/whatever installed in its place then?

I don't think you quite understand how government finance works
The government does not have any money itself - it is all borrowed money or received money as taxes from us the consumer. The government spends more than it receives every year, this annual overspend or deficit is added to the national debt each year which gets bigger - and the government has to pay ever more interest on this debt mountain.

There is no magic pot of money just sitting in treasury coffers there to pay for HS2 which can be used for FTTP instead - HS2 is all due to be paid for out of future borrowings and future taxes from us the taxpayer over the next 2 decades and the same timescale would have to apply to any alternative project in its place.
You cannot just cancel the future HS2 program and start instead building FTTP now -the money does not exist.

In a debate in a government committee, BT said they couldn't roll out the BDUK stuff any faster, even if they were given more money. They are ultimately limited by the amount of people, sufficiently skilled, that they can throw at the problem.

I reckon a nationwide rollout of FTTP would take the same kind of timescale as HS2, and burn through money at about the same rate - £2bn per year.

Not that I think HS2 should be scrapped - it shouldn't.

Has anyone read this article on rolling out fibre? I noted Peter Cochrane said "In 1986, I managed to get fibre to the home cheaper than copper ..." - not sure exactly what calculations he's using.

As for the costs of a national fibre network it's only about equivalent to three years worth of spending(probably less) on the Department for International Development(which for some obscure reason only Bono understands now gets 0.7% of GNI), and unlike DFID spending a fibre network would actually be an investment.

Based on the words he is quoted as saying he probably means the cost per metre of fibre and terminating kit was cheaper than copper equivalent. The issue is the copper is largely already in place, whereas rolling out the fibre is a lot of hours of labour and unless I am mistaken labour costs money.

Cochrane is very much involved with the Jersey FTTH roll-out now.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Scrap HS2 and then it's simple.

Given HS2 is largely to facilitate better transportation of freight, not people, I'm not sure how broadband would replace this.

I'm sure BT will magically find the money to do it when it becomes required or when others are threatening to roll it out. They claim to be able to deploy FTTP for £400-ish per premises passed so should be in a good place to do it.

I thought HS2 was about people, so freeing up freight capacity on the West Coast main line?

HS2 itself is about people.

But the act of taking the fast services off both the WCML and ECML is that both routes (and to some extent the MML too) not only gain the equivalent capacity for slow traffic (commuter, stopping, freight) but also gains from the extra, wasted, capacity of having to juggle both fast & slow services on the same lines.

The key trigger is WCML capacity (number of trains, rather than number of people); this had already gone through the equivalent of "make do and mend" in the last decade, and cost £10bn. It seems obvious that the next upgrade needs to be a complete re-do, without disturbing existing traffic.

In fibre terms, the last upgrade was a bit like the current FTTC rollout - making use of the best existing bits. The next upgrade needs to start from scratch, like overlaying with FTTP.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Given previous experience with BT it would seem sensible to assume they'll be tapping the taxpayer up for the majority of the cost.

Interesting question.

Having used the BDUK money to provide FTTC, most of these subsidised locations are now almost in the same circumstance as the unsubsidised, commercial, locations: Fibre is now within 500m - 1km for most of the subscribers, and an allowance for "future-proofing" has already been made.

When the power portion is not going to be an issue (ie using reverse power), I wonder what scope there will be to claim that large tracts are uncommercial, and worthy of government subsidy.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I thought HS2 was about people, so freeing up freight capacity on the West Coast main line?

Right, getting people out of the way of the freight.

This is a good point, assuming everyone has FTTC, most areas are equally "commercial" for g.fast or FTTP. A G.Fast node in a random rural area at the top of a telegraph pole probably serves as many people as one in a large town. It costs as much per household to run FTTP from the cab no matter if rural or city.

In fact, city means closing roads etc potentially, so probably cheaper rurally.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In a debate in a government committee, BT said they couldn't roll out the BDUK stuff any faster, even if they were given more money. They are ultimately limited by the amount of people, sufficiently skilled, that they can throw at the problem.

I reckon a nationwide rollout of FTTP would take the same kind of timescale as HS2, and burn through money at about the same rate - £2bn per year.

Not that I think HS2 should be scrapped - it shouldn't.

HS2 is 10-20 years too late, it allows faster travel, FTTP removes the need to travel at all.

Also HS2 is a joke in that it only helps small parts of the country, and hinders others, e.g. leicestershire will have the rail line going through it but not a station.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Scrap HS2 and then it's simple.

Given HS2 is largely to facilitate better transportation of freight, not people, I'm not sure how broadband would replace this.

I'm sure BT will magically find the money to do it when it becomes required or when others are threatening to roll it out. They claim to be able to deploy FTTP for £400-ish per premises passed so should be in a good place to do it.

thats news to me, ministers have been banging on about it been good for business people needing to travel.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

thats news to me, ministers have been banging on about it been good for business people needing to travel.

Freight doesn't make such a persuasive story..

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

HS2 is 10-20 years too late, it allows faster travel, FTTP removes the need to travel at all.

No, it really doesn't. We can video conference in high quality with existing FTTC broadband speeds. Physical presence is still needed at times.

Now repeat after me - FTTP resolves every known problem that exists with the Internet today.

FTTP also will never need upgrading.
FTTP outlasts copper.
FTTP does not need ugly cabinets.
FTTP is cheaper to deploy than everyone claims.

Now what else do they keep saying?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Now repeat after me - FTTP resolves every known problem that exists with the Internet today.

Every problem in the world ever, surely?

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

HS2 is 10-20 years too late, it allows faster travel, FTTP removes the need to travel at all.

No, it really doesn't. We can video conference in high quality with existing FTTC broadband speeds. Physical presence is still needed at times.

So everyone has a good reliable FTTC connection available then? Tell that to the people in norfolk.

Remember as well the finish dates for HS2, not the announced dates, it wont be in use for quite a while.

haha, but I bet nationwide FTTP solves more problems than HS2 does.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

So everyone has a good reliable FTTC connection available then? Tell that to the people in norfolk.

Remember as well the finish dates for HS2, not the announced dates, it wont be in use for quite a while.

Now make a business case for the taxpayer funding FTTP for said people in Norfolk over HS2.

Not entirely convinced the engine of the economy is in rural Norfolk somehow, which makes your claim that FTTP removes the need to travel moot. Plugging gaps via the taxpayer is a work in progress however there is no case for spending a load of taxpayer cash replacing 40Mb+ FTTC with FTTP for right now.

A study someone did that I speed read recently talked about the case for Gigabit is largely bragging rights, but was worded in more academic language.

In centuries past when industry evolved people moved to follow it, it is almost as if in the 21st century we are actually less mobile with regards to seeking work and where businesses decide to operate.

There is no world beyond the Internet because everything is digital, remember that nice buzzword that really means nothing.

Andrew for someone who runs a broadband forum you seem a bit anti broadband?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Now repeat after me - FTTP resolves every known problem that exists with the Internet today.

FTTP also will never need upgrading.
FTTP outlasts copper.
FTTP does not need ugly cabinets.
FTTP is cheaper to deploy than everyone claims.

Now what else do they keep saying?

will screen this for later use haha

Or realistic about the real requirements. Can be very much for technology but still understand it doesn't solve all the worlds ills and sometimes the cost outweighs the benefits. Broadband is great but it isn't a panacea.

Bingo

E-health is a prime example touted as a gigabit driver but the most demanding tech usually demo'd is a skype robot

As a nation I think many would agree reducing demand for food banks is more important than broadband

I dont disagree about food banks, but at the same time I am not openly compaigning against FTTP.