What's next for fibre

Hi people, I'm curious what may be next for fibre....I have fttc on bt infinity 2
package and I'm getting a solid 70/20. But what's next....how can they improve and to what?

In reply to a post by bladerider666:

Hi people, I'm curious what may be next for fibre....I have fttc on bt infinity 2
package and I'm getting a solid 70/20. But what's next....how can they improve and to what?

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/01/bt-conf...

As far as FTTC goes probably nothing but newer technologies should bring higher speeds in time.

Be aware these are potentially half a decade or more away.

Interesting but sounds like its gonna cost the customers.....ching ching......

In reply to a post by bladerider666:

Interesting but sounds like its gonna cost the customers.....ching ching......

It'll probably cost a bit more than the current FTTC but then if you want more you usually have to pay more.

In reply to a post by bladerider666:

Interesting but sounds like its gonna cost the customers.....ching ching......

I vaguely recall paying over £50 pm for my first ADSL line, back in 2000, on top of the line rental. You've got to expect to pay for new capabilities, one way or another.

The first of the g.fast speed test results from the trials re in top item on www.thinkbroadband.com

The Gigabit part is actually a GPON FTTH trial, G.Fast is aiming for a 300 Mbps product, so likely to be same pricing as BT Infinity 4 once it finally launches

In reply to a post by bladerider666:

But what's next....how can they improve and to what?

FTTC might not have many improvements left in store for people at the top end of the speeds, especially as vectoring looks to be stalled somewhat, in favour of the G.Fast work.

However, there might be improvements in speed for those at the fringes of cabinet coverage. Deeper FTTRN nodes can bring FTTC speeds to small clusters out at the extremities of cabinet coverage; BT have been trialling this, but power has been the issue. Huawei have recently hinted that they are providing a power solution for a full rollout of FTTRN.

Given the volume of infill on existing cabinets I am seeing in Northern Ireland and Cornwall I'd say FTTrN is in use a fair bit now.

Trouble is would talk about this more in the news, but people don't seem to enjoy positive stuff, like spotting more FTTP in various Openreach areas

So maybe by 2018 speeds will be about to increase to over 100mb? I see the gfast might be the fastest with gigabit speeds but can it be used? Computers etc?

Isn't 2020 the 100Mb/s USO?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The first of the g.fast speed test results from the trials re in top item on www.thinkbroadband.com

The Gigabit part is actually a GPON FTTH trial, G.Fast is aiming for a 300 Mbps product, so likely to be same pricing as BT Infinity 4 once it finally launches

Plusnet are probably will offer 300/30 soon when the new product out soon for G.Fast but I think we won't see it happen until around 2018-20.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

I vaguely recall paying over £50 pm for my first ADSL line, back in 2000, on top of the line rental. You've got to expect to pay for new capabilities, one way or another.

Hehe, me too. Nildram iirc, £50/mth for 2mbit. Went to 20bmit via Bulldog for £30ish in about 2004, and still on adsl2+ 11 years later. There was supposed to be FTTC here, but BT are a litttttttle slow there (only five years late and counting).

G.fast remote nodes are truly impressive for the near future, although obviously there's going to be a great deal of luck involved in distance - if you're near the local pole or wherever they stick the kit, 500-800mbit seems possible. Marginally further away and it's no faster than FTTC.

Edited by arfster (Mon 07-Sep-15 03:54:12)

Trouble is would talk about this more in the news, but people don't seem to enjoy positive stuff, like spotting more FTTP in various Openreach areas

Well said.

Vectoring will push over 100 Mbps

G. Fast is NOT a gigabit solution a poor headline attention grabber

Computers not a problem at all

No

I was in BT's Martlesham Heath labs in the mid 90's where they demo'd VDSL. Even then I had BT people saying off the record that BT should skip VDSL and go straight to fibre to the home. Too many internal power groups were at work protecting their leased line income to make real advances.
Still we are where we are, the next stage should be getting the kinks out of what they've done. Get rid of network congestion by investment in the backbone networks. Provide sufficient capacity so the guaranteed installation time is less than five days. Provide universal coverage of fibre backed VDSL to consumers and small businesses. The network should have greater resilience to protect from single point failures/single incidents. Clear the old copper/aluminium wires that blocks the ducting infrastructure.

Min 90's would have been ADSL, VSDL was much later.

FTTH was off the books because of the favour given to cable to provide competition to BT.

NOTE: Backbone - that is not under BT control in many cases e.g. Virgin Media, Sky and TalkTalk

Most definitely not. In any event, there is no USO on broadband (there is a data one, but it's measured in the 10s of kbps). There is a USC of 2mbps. The difference is important in that a USO is an obligation imposed on an operator whilst a USC is a commitment made by politicians via a project. Despite what people think, neither is absolutely universal. Even USOs are subject to "reasonableness" tests regarding disproportionate costs whilst a USC is not legally enforceable.

In any event, 100mbps is not a commitment by anybody. There's always all sorts of loose talk in various parts of the EU, government circles and so on, but I don't see it appearing soon.

Superfast Wales appears to have a commitment to be able to deliver 100mbps to 40% of premises, but it's unclear how that will happen.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6866-how-will-sup...

By which you mean being accused of being an OpenReach stooge?

I was in the lab part of MH at the time under an NDA. Not in the general sales/demo area. ADSL was around yes, but the VDSL was their next step. They also demonstrated Pico wifi which was similar to the current home-WiFi.

On the Backbone it is down to Ofcom to make sure all part of the backbone are upgraded, whether it's the old Racal networks, the Powergens taken over by Sky etc; not just the BT stuff. Sure people will have to pay, but Ofcom and the telcom companies are used to raising the funding.

My apologies, I have realised my mistake now,

I did mean "USC" and also got this confused with the Superfast figures, so currently the USC is 2Mb/s by 2016!

The figure I was referring too was the Superfast figure that is currently said to be 24Mb/s to 90% by 2016 rising to 95% by 2018...

I think the "loose talks" you speak of might of been where I got the 100Mb/s from.

About a month ago I had this response direct from Joe Garner in connection with Superfast Broadband:

"... To answer your question, the 80% (confirmed by Ofcom yesterday) refers to property level nationally, so neither cabinet nor exchange."

From that I presume it is 95% of property in the UK by 2018

I'm assuming it will be based on serviceable addresses using a national address database!

Please explain how Ofcom raises funding?
And how does Ofcom force Sky to upgrade its backbone?

This why the Ofcom boss is paid about twice the salary of David Cameron. Ofcom needs to get out there and make sure the UK has the infrastructure it needs to compete with other countries. Unless Ofcom provide leadership the telecoms industry will focus on short term profit.

The Ofcom consultation on the future of Digital Britain is critically important in this respect.

In the end it all comes down to money! If Ofcom allows the companies to charge consumers for the upgrade it will happen, but leadership and backup sanctions are required to avoid drift

Ofcom has never stopped Sky and TalkTalk from charging what it likes.

Ofcom price controls only apply to the dominate operators BT and KC.

On Wales maybe a look at the current ultrafast stats might help

https://twitter.com/thinkbroadband/status/6408200110...

24 Mbps or faster available to 90% of premises by end of 2015
24 Mbps or faster available to 95% of premises by end of 2017

86.2% currently (85.4% at 30 Mbps coverage)
http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/local/

Yes I did wonder what is meant by "premises" or "property". A "Household" I can understand. However does a 15 storey block of flats count as one property. Does a farm house in remote Northumberland also count as one property? Does it mean a 24 mbps+ cable is connected to the premises?

The important question is however if the fibre infrastructure can support a 24 mbps demand if 95% of properties were all connected?

Joe Garner was quite clear the figure is not based on 95% of street cabinets.

I'd say a much more acceptable definition would be if 95% of households and businesses are connected to a 24 mbps link or can be connected within 30 days of order.

As I said, I'm almost sure the figure is based on per address (Flat 1, Tower Block, Long Road, Big City, AB12 3CD) or (Big Farm, Country Rd, Middle Nowhere, Little Village, ZY98 X76)

As far as availability goes, if there is a method of getting a fixed service at 24Mb/s or above it will be consider Superfast and included in the 90/95% figures.

What do you mean by the fibre infrastructure supporting the demand of 24Mb/s, do you mean at a routing level or locally... also remember are we talking all these 24Mb/s utilising the full 24Mb/s simultaneously because currently I don't think the UK has enough infrastructure in place to cope with 90% doing 5Mb/s simultaneously.

A block of 200 flats counts as 200 premises, pretty simply really.

"The important question is however if the fibre infrastructure can support a 24 mbps demand if 95% of properties were all connected?"

Why should it need to, consumer broadband is cheaper than leased lines because it is a contended service.

"I'd say a much more acceptable definition would be if 95% of households and businesses are connected to a 24 mbps link or can be connected within 30 days of order. "
Urm that is what it is already, ok the 30 day order thing is not explicitly stated, but with FTTC that is normally the case, apart from when a cabinet is in a line card capacity needs upgrading phase.

That too, more effort goes into tracking Openreach, but then they have the largest expansion programme at this time. The VM coverage is tracking their changes, but usually on a monthly basis and the same with KC.

The number of journalists I talk to, who are shocked to hear the coverage levels as in is a lot higher for an area than they thought, and you then have to explain what this means e.g. demographics of an area. A common one is that they think BDUK is about enabling coverage in 90% of rural premises.

For the record I am part of the 4% of Surrey that has fibre based available and is not superfast - must be a miracle I can work from home if the needs of home working are true.

I'd like to see G.fast implemented next.

The increased use of fibre optics, and the reducing of the copper wire should also lessen the interference on lines. This for me is one of the big, not so talked about, improvements with G.fast.

Also the speed boost is a good thing too!

So really there's the lie in the current availability figures:

the system doesn't provide the advertised capacity, even allowing asymmetric delivery. There's non advertised contention.

The 80% or whatever availability only works if circa 30% of households use the service. If the take-up figure was say 75% of households sign up the fast broadband equipment would need major overhaul in the exchanges and at cabinets.

In reality there's only one third of 80% delivery of service and that is subject to contention.

I would think there is plenty of capacity given they can provide IPTV

In reply to a post by oaksys:

So really there's the lie in the current availability figures:

the system doesn't provide the advertised capacity, even allowing asymmetric delivery. There's non advertised contention.

The 80% or whatever availability only works if circa 30% of households use the service. If the take-up figure was say 75% of households sign up the fast broadband equipment would need major overhaul in the exchanges and at cabinets.

The availability figures are fine, it indicates that Superfast 24Mb/s> is available to xx% of premises, contention is advertised the way it always has been with the "up to" quote in advertisements.

As the new networks are built, more capacity is added to exchanges and cabinets are designed to serve a set number of connections and to manage the bandwidth passed through them,

cabinets like mine also get further capacity upgrades as take up grows, and what I can 100% surely tell you is I've never suffered any slow downs and congestion like issues related to the fibre cabinets or network locally even when the capacity "apparently" got low!

Just like the electricity grid, where if we all switch on our electric fires and kettles at the same time it would break the national grid.

There are commit rates over the cabinet back haul of 15 Mbps and 30 Mbps, and at the exchange it is down to the major providers how they contend the service and it is this peak time performance that can differentiate the services.

We run speed test analysis so can see how things change over time, and Ofcom spends a chunk of money monitoring it all too.

Is it correct that each card in NGA is 1Gbit yes?

If so a Huawei 288 (6 cards) 6Gb/s / 288 = 20.8Mb/s or similar or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I know multiple GigE is possible, but whether its delineated per line card, or for the whole DSLAM have never bothered to find out.

It's something I meant to look at a while back, I'm just looking a the specs for DSLAM equipment now!

What the specs say will only tell you what is possible NOT what Openreach actually do

OH yeah I know, just trying to make heads or tails of it really....

Also trying to work out if someone connected to a 96 cab will get better capabilities than those who are connect to a 288...

I say this based on the 96 cab have capability for 4 cards (presumably 1Gbit each) 4000Mb/s divided by "up to" 96 connections = 41.66Mb/s (if all where to saturate there connections and then be equally managed upon breaching the capabilities,

As it stands if a 288 ended up with all connections saturating the max capabilities each connection would only achieve around 20Mb/s each...

Obviously there is around 1% chance of any such thing happening when you consider that a small amount of lines will actually sync at max (80Mb/s) and also the chances of everyone saturating there lines capability also is tiny!

I have some documentation for the ECI VTU-C 64-port line cards used in the M41 DSLAM knocking around somewhere and IIRC correctly each card can take two 1 GigE connections.

Hmmm, OK..

I hadn't looked at ECI M41 just yet to be honest.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I know multiple GigE is possible, but whether its delineated per line card, or for the whole DSLAM have never bothered to find out.

Whole DSLAM. The individual line cards / service boards go via the chassis backplane / switching fabric to the network boards. No mapping between line cards and individual uplink ports by default.

In reply to a post by simon194:

I have some documentation for the ECI VTU-C 64-port line cards used in the M41 DSLAM knocking around somewhere and IIRC correctly each card can take two 1 GigE connections.

Those aren't the line cards the customers connect to, though. No static mapping between line cards and the backhaul.

Would make zero sense and be very inefficient to have backhaul on each line card. Far better either on a dedicated module or as part of the controller card.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

That too, more effort goes into tracking Openreach, but then they have the largest expansion programme at this time. The VM coverage is tracking their changes, but usually on a monthly basis and the same with KC.

The number of journalists I talk to, who are shocked to hear the coverage levels as in is a lot higher for an area than they thought, and you then have to explain what this means e.g. demographics of an area. A common one is that they think BDUK is about enabling coverage in 90% of rural premises.

For the record I am part of the 4% of Surrey that has fibre based available and is not superfast - must be a miracle I can work from home if the needs of home working are true.

Surprised Black Mamba hasn't arranged X-GPON or NG-PON 2 for you yet.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

On Wales maybe a look at the current ultrafast stats might help

https://twitter.com/thinkbroadband/status/6408200110...

The Superfast Cymru commitment for ultrafast - 100Mbps to 40% - obviously begs the question: 40% of what?

From my understanding of the Welsh contract, it is 40% of the Welsh intervention area, not 40% of Wales. Which means that none of the pre-existing VM cabled properties count in that coverage target.

From the SC public consultation for the 2nd phase infill project, we have the following numbers:
- 1.45 million premises (of which 1.38m are residential)
- 0.69 million premises covered commercially
- 0.74 million premises included in the SC phase 1 project.

That means the original intervention area was 0.76 million premises. If I'm right, the SC target for 100Mbps is to 0.3 million premises - which maps back to being just over 20% of all the premises in Wales.

If Openreach have reached 0.2%, there's a little way to go yet...

And my belief is that it really means 40% have the option of fibre on demand in the intervention area, hence the FoD news about it coming back to Wales at some point.

Given ultrafast is touted as worth £14k to property value am sure no one will mind adding it to their mortgage

Expecting native FTTP to grow to maybe 5 to 6% of Wales, still a lot in the plans not delivered yet, but bits keep appearing.

In reply to a post by oaksys:

So really there's the lie in the current availability figures:

the system doesn't provide the advertised capacity, even allowing asymmetric delivery. There's non advertised contention.

The 80% or whatever availability only works if circa 30% of households use the service. If the take-up figure was say 75% of households sign up the fast broadband equipment would need major overhaul in the exchanges and at cabinets.

In reality there's only one third of 80% delivery of service and that is subject to contention.

It is only a lie if you don't understand the difference between coverage and capacity.

Telecoms - as a century-old business - has always been about providing capacity to meet statistical needs, and expanding the capacity as the statistics show you are getting near the limit.

In the days of Strowger exchanges, you had a limited number of selectors for listening to dialling pulses. The dial-tone wasn't just a nice tone to listen to ... it was a confirmation that a selector had been allocated and connected, so you could start dialling. At busy times, it could take a few seconds.

Likewise the number of junction and trunk circuits - to connect you to other areas of the town, or other parts of the country - aren't infinite, and could run out. There is a slightly-asymmetric version of the "busy tone" that was used to indicate that the network was out of equipment, rather than the far end being busy on the call.

If an operator over-deploys equipment, it just sits idle, unused. A total waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Back to our modern day broadband. Why would we expect BT to deploy an FTTC cabinet to be immediately capable of serving 100% of properties? We know that 20% don't want broadband of any sort, and 20% are happy with Virgin, which leaves only 60% that you need to target. And so far, it looks like two-thirds of that target group have been happy to stay on the cheaper ADSL-based services.

On top of that, BT know their equipment has a lifecycle where it works its way gradually into service (starting with appeal to early adopters) but equally has a gradual decline from service too - those early adopters will have given up FTTC ports to jump onto G.Fast ones instead.

That is considering "capacity" as the number of ports available. Considering the bandwidth available brings in a whole new set of things to watch. Sky, for example, brought in a whole new generation of Cisco routers earlier this year, to cope with the expansion of traffic on their core network (none, incidentally, at the behest of Ofcom).

Responding to demand correctly - by careful analysis of the statistics - is the difference between making a profit, and going flat bust. Analyse, and respond appropriately ... where needed. That is true of both the access, backhaul and core networks.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I did mean "USC" and also got this confused with the Superfast figures, so currently the USC is 2Mb/s by 2016!

The figure I was referring too was the Superfast figure that is currently said to be 24Mb/s to 90% by 2016 rising to 95% by 2018...

These are the specific UK targets, with projects funded and running.

I think the "loose talks" you speak of might of been where I got the 100Mb/s from.

There is an EU "aspiration" that talks of 30Mbps being available for all by 2020, and 100Mbps being actually subscribed-to by 50%.

I speak of the EU goal as being aspirational, because they have no funding to make anything happen. However, by setting the aspirational levels, it allows individual nation states to request EU approval of state aid measures to achieve internal targets that lead towards (but not necessarily beyond) those aspirations.

So far, the UK has proper targets for "superfast" reaching 95%, with funding in place. A lot of counties have their own aspirational goals of "decent" broadband for 100% ... but, again, none of these aspirations have yet been funded.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

And my belief is that it really means 40% have the option of fibre on demand in the intervention area, hence the FoD news about it coming back to Wales at some point.

Given ultrafast is touted as worth £14k to property value am sure no one will mind adding it to their mortgage

LOL. We'll see a lot of that, then...

Good point on the re-appearance of FOD.

In reply to a post by bowdon:

I'd like to see G.fast implemented next.

The increased use of fibre optics, and the reducing of the copper wire should also lessen the interference on lines. This for me is one of the big, not so talked about, improvements with G.fast.

Also the speed boost is a good thing too!

The G.fast only benefits to be closer to the cabinet eg: 150m or less! Anything more than 150m away will be pointless!

I doubt it will be pointless.... the speed drop off might be a lot sharper but I still reckon they could get 100meg to someone 300-500m away...

All depends on the frequencies and line qualities!

However I thought the idea of g.fast was to deploy it closer to the End Users from footway chambers.

ok, I think g.fast isn't the future. Only the true fibre to the home are the future. BT Openreach are useless and BT are always behind in fibre technology. Rant over!

Edited by adslmax (Mon 07-Sep-15 18:41:16)

Rant indeed.... I suppose you won't mind them disconnecting your line then.... you could always use Virgin Media I suppose !

You can have true fibre if you wish... just takes an investment! oh and an appropriate monthly fee and not a subsidised one !

lol - I shall called formerly the chief executive of Openreach Liv Garfield to bring in FTTH 1Gbps down and up for £50 a month!

I thought that G.fast was putting a node at the end of the road. So it would be fibre from the cabinet to the node.. then my connection would go through that node?

The G.fast is sit next to FTTC cabinet (mini G.fast cabinet) I am not sure! That's what I think!

see here: http://postimg.org/image/ltwpjoxcl

Edited by adslmax (Mon 07-Sep-15 20:24:22)

LMAO!

A "mini g.fast cabinet" connects to DSLAM and funnily enough theirs another down the road....

I think it would be safer to say what I and another poster said which is a node in closer proximity to an end users property in order to cut the length of copper and thus reduce interference and degraded signals.

Anyway, it don't matter to you I suppose because you getting a dedicated fibre line aren't you, and for £50 a month.... with BT and Openreach being useless you wouldn't want to have to pay more for a service through them now would you.

I know what you mean with that image. I've seen it before and makes it look like there are lots of 'mini cabinets'.

Have a look at this page: http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2014/10/g-fast-shows-...

The last paragraph says: "G.FAST is going to be attacked as a stop-gap measure towards a full FTTH future, but just as FTTC has brought fibre in some cases 17km closer to properties, leaving several hundred meters of copper, G.FAST and FTTrN will bring it ever closer and while the FTTP on Demand product is too expensive for consumers when the final fibre splitter is just 100m away we may a much more reasonable installation cost to take the fibre direct to the property."

So from my view, they will bring a node from the cabinet (linked with fibre), to the ideal distance of 100m away from peoples houses. I think any reduction in metres from the cabinet is going to be an improvement. So fast speeds.

I'm at 800m, so if i was to only be 100m from one of these nodes the better.

The stop-gap argument is because this seems to be OR's way of then eventually offering up a fee for the end user to maybe pay for the final copper part to be removed and changed to fibre.. i hope! lol

Exactly.

The design target initially was to put it at the DP, so within 70m for most people. Trials show 500Mb over that distance quite readily.

It seems that G.Fast has achieved much more than they expected, and they figure they can pull the same kind of speeds at greater range, so BT are pressuring the research effort to achieve that ... for distances in the 300-400m range.

One of the obvious results from BT's current trials of G.Fast will be to determine the best distance to place the nodes for 300Mbps, and the drop-off thereafter. And my bet is that their mention of 500Mbps for the future shows that the believe they can squeeze that extra 200Mbps from G.Fast2 nodes in the same location.

Swisscom are running their scheme as FTTS (S=Street), with distances of 200Mbps.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Plusnet are probably will offer 300/30 soon when the new product out soon for G.Fast but I think we won't see it happen until around 2018-20.

Plusnet have trouble getting to the speed we are suppose to be connected at, so they have little chance of getting to 300Mb/s. Saying that most providers have trouble providing the speed we are suppose to get.

Some cases G.fast nodes may go with the existing VDSL2 cabinet and in other cases they may be deployed at remote locations.

There is no single answer, and in some areas they may even do more native FTTP.

In short the trials are looking at this sort of deployments, varying costs and hours of labour it takes and benefits to end-users, i.e. are people biting the arm off an engineer to get hold of 300 Mbps or are they happy with 100 Mbps for another 5 to 6 years.

Yeah I think G.Fast is a pretty good idea and if its as upgradable as the tech in the current DSLAMS is it could lead to the costs of FoD becoming a lot cheaper in future.

All this depending on locations really and also how easy it will be for Openreach to install fibres to DP's... I know that on my street theres a DP every 20-30 metres apart and most houses have one to them selves or sharing with a neighbour....

However the only issue I see with these DP's is that the cables between them are armoured and buried directly in the dirt underneath the pathways and not ducted like Openreach would prefer so think a road like mine might only see a g.fast node at the end where most or all lines meet!

Never the less this will bring my line down fro up to 450m to around 250-300 metres so that will be an improvement for a start.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

There is no single answer, and in some areas they may even do more native FTTP.

Do you know what the setup's are like for those tests you published the other day, or even whats been tested so far or is it too early for any such info?

As with my last post regarding potential node locations and issues faced by Openreach in my situation and would probably say that it would be cheaper for them to deploy FTTP down my street rather than ripping up pavement to install ducts and fibres but as I said they would probably just drop the node at the nearest location with ducts and access to line pairs!

I know I was lucky to have full maximum speed of 75Meg from 77.35Meg but I think I would be more than happy to have 120/30 from G.fast.

Personally I'm quite happy with the 60Mb/s I get currently... I would love to gain more upstream, maybe 30Mb/s...

If I was to desire anything from G.Fast it would be 100/40 ... maybe achievable from a 160/40 wholesale product... currently though I'm more focused on a stable and reliable connection than a fast one.

It's going to become more important for us to have good upstream soon too as were starting to do a lot of 4K video stuff...

My main happiness with FTTC currently is the more stable connection, with little jitter which always annoyed me with cable... even when I had cable in Birmingham and had pretty damn solid speeds constantly I always bitched about jitter & ping!

In reply to a post by adslmax:

lol - I shall called formerly the chief executive of Openreach Liv Garfield to bring in FTTH 1Gbps down and up for £50 a month!

LOL - Liv Garfield has been the Chief Exec of Severn trent Water since April 2014 - She is also a non Exec Director at Tesco so unless you want her to bring a fatter water pipe to your house or drop of your groceries faster you would be wasting your breath!!

Edited by deleted (Mon 07-Sep-15 22:08:54)

In reply to a post by bowdon:

I thought that G.fast was putting a node at the end of the road. So it would be fibre from the cabinet to the node.. then my connection would go through that node?

I was told it was putting it where the DP is and running it down the poles..

I rather dated her out Liv Garfield! I love her! I do miss our exchange emails!

Edited by adslmax (Mon 07-Sep-15 22:12:42)

In reply to a post by adslmax:

The G.fast is sit next to FTTC cabinet (mini G.fast cabinet) I am not sure! That's what I think!

see here: http://postimg.org/image/ltwpjoxcl

There are plenty of homes within 100m, 200m, whatever, of the existing cabinet, so plenty of potential subscribers. And, of course, both fibre and power already reach that site, making it cheap to install a G.Fast node. Why wouldn't you put your first node there?

Of course, putting one node there doesn't stop you adding more in other places. The question is 'where?'