Simple question

Hi there,

A very simple question to which the answer will no doubt be obvious to the very many learned people on this great forum......

I recieve around 18 D / 2 U FTTC. With the cloud becoming more and more important, why does a product such as 18 U / 2 D not exist for people that a) cannot move nearer a cabinet or b) afford a £20k leased line?

I get that it is my choice where I am located, but wondered whether there is a technical reason why ISPs have not delivered such a product that a great many people at 1km+ from a cabinet would happily install a second line for uploading.

I appreciate that it isn't going to happen, but wondered why it doesn't exist. I have asked my ISP and several others and they often comment that they are asked for this quite often.

Many thanks in advance for any thoughts from the experts on this forum.

BT Wholesale have started offering 18/2 as an option, although this is only available in certain locations as I understand it. It's also a very new development, so most/all ISPs don't yet offer this. Come to think of it, the 18/2 plans may still be in trial, I'm not sure.

If you put your number into https://dslchecker.bt.com what do you get back for the WBC FTTC 18x2 Provide Availability and 18x2 Sim Availability columns?

EDIT: Ignore the above, I should learn to read the OP properly

Edited by Toonshorty (Tue 31-Jan-17 18:25:35)

To reverse the upload/download using xDSL would cause massive issues e.g. crosstalk, and be totally impractical. It is not allowed by the regulator due to the technical issues it would create

Edited by witchunt (Tue 31-Jan-17 18:20:05)

In reply to a post by Mendip:

I recieve around 18 D / 2 U FTTC. With the cloud becoming more and more important, why does a product such as 18 U / 2 D not exist for people that a) cannot move nearer a cabinet or b) afford a £20k leased line?

Just to elaborate on @witchunt's answer...

The VDSL2 spectrum allocated to upstream and downstream van be varied by the telco running the FTTC cabinet, but it has to be the same for every single subscriber on that cabinet. If you don't do this, near-end crosstalk (aka NEXT, which is different from the usual far-end crosstalk FEXT that most lines suffer from) will destroy the service for most people.

That NEXT destruction of the service is the technical reason for forcing identical allocation on every user.

In making a choice of the allocation to actually use, BT have to figure out what the majority need. The majority need 6-7x as much downstream as upstream, because the majority are watching video. And BT want to sell video.

BT therefore choose to use an asymmetric allocation of spectrum that favours downstream by around 4:1.

If you are amongst the <<1% who want an extended upstream vs downstream, then your needs are very much in a niche market, which is served by leased lines.

Niche - not according to the House of Lords today, small business needs much faster upload speeds than it has now for sending documents, hence why some Lords are moving to make the USO a 1 Gigabit minimum and some want 2 Gigabit.

Next you'll be telling me that parliament has banned Trump.

"Niche - not according to the House of Lords today, small business needs much faster upload speeds than it has now for sending documents, hence why some Lords are moving to make the USO a 1 Gigabit minimum"

Bring it on and soon

How much would you be willing to pay for the 1Gig service?

The reason is that upstream and downstream signals can't occupy the same part of the frequency spectrum, even over different sets of pairs. So when all the varieties of DSL were planned, a decision has to be made over how much of the total frequency range is assigned to upstream and how much to downstream. As most users of broadband are what is called "consumers" and not "creators" of content (that is they download far more than they upload) then the decision is generally made to allocate more bandwidth to downstream than upstream.

These are called "frequency plans" with related "power masks" and, unfortunately, once set all pairs which might share the same routes have to adopt the same plan.

It gets even more complicated when VDSL and ADSL share routes (and there are even a few other very rare digital services which have to be considered too). The overall technical standard for this on the Openreach network is called the ANFP (Access Network Frequency Plan) and is controlled by an industry regulatory body called the NICC which is authorised by Ofcom.

Unfortunately, as you are some distance from the cabinet, you can't get anything like the full capacity from any of the allocated frequency ranges.

Andrew

I agree that businesses need more than ADSL upload speeds but even those with 2-10Mb can upload Gbs of documents and photos easily. Most people on VDSL now do this without even recognising it if we use any form of Cloud storage.

It is only small businesses uploading large amounts of video content or real time HD streaming that require more than that. Larger businesses doing multiple uploads should really be paying for a business service as the backhaul and core costs start to rise and I believe that consumers should not be subsidising businesses in that way. (Same as residential rates as opposed to business rates)

Practically every business wanting 1Gb can already purchase it at commercial prices, from a number of suppliers in most of the country, and if it is essential to their business most likely already do. ( The exceptions are like the recording studios set up in very rural areas to 'enjoy' the quiet of the countryside)

The vast majority of businesses (maybe 95%) do not need 1Gb in any direction and the rest should be paying for business services. If the Lords are pressing for 1Gb USO they may be thinking of how much their business interests could save !

Have been reading a transcript from Hansard. On that section, I'd say ... high in ambition, low in substantive facts, high in asserted not-quite-facts.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

How much would you be willing to pay for the 1Gig service?

if B4RN can do it for £30 a month that to me seems reasonable

£30 a month isn't realistic for a number of reasons:

1) B4RN is a non-profit community
2) The largest cost element of a commercial operator to provide you with FTTP is the capital labour, something which B4RN get for free. No commercial operator would make the investment to provide you the service if they did not recoup this.
3) Commercial operators are businesses and will seek to make a return on providing a service, rather than doing it 'at cost'.
4) Commercial operators have overheads they need to cover.

And whilst £30 a month might be working for a small company with relatively few customers I wonder how that would scale if a company had millions of customers? I haven't seen B4RN's accounts but I think scaling that to large commercial size would probably be impractical on however they are modelling it.

Also, people can be a lot more forgiving of a service that is run as a not for profit whereas they put a lot more pressure on commercial organisations if there are any issues.

And I guess I should also say it is early days for B4RN. A brand new network can be relatively low overhead for support but as the fibre and the active equipment ages then costs to maintain the network will invariable go up - I wonder if the business model will still be working in 10 years time?

Hi WWWombat,

Thank you for this:

The VDSL2 spectrum allocated to upstream and downstream van be varied by the telco running the FTTC cabinet, but it has to be the same for every single subscriber on that cabinet. If you don't do this, near-end crosstalk (aka NEXT, which is different from the usual far-end crosstalk FEXT that most lines suffer from) will destroy the service for most people.

That NEXT destruction of the service is the technical reason for forcing identical allocation on every user.

and TheEulerID for this:

The reason is that upstream and downstream signals can't occupy the same part of the frequency spectrum, even over different sets of pairs. So when all the varieties of DSL were planned, a decision has to be made over how much of the total frequency range is assigned to upstream and how much to downstream. As most users of broadband are what is called "consumers" and not "creators" of content (that is they download far more than they upload) then the decision is generally made to allocate more bandwidth to downstream than upstream.

These are called "frequency plans" with related "power masks" and, unfortunately, once set all pairs which might share the same routes have to adopt the same plan.

It gets even more complicated when VDSL and ADSL share routes (and there are even a few other very rare digital services which have to be considered too). The overall technical standard for this on the Openreach network is called the ANFP (Access Network Frequency Plan) and is controlled by an industry regulatory body called the NICC which is authorised by Ofcom.

I asked a question and both of you have very comprehensively answered it - brilliant! Many, many thanks and it all makes perfect sense from a technical point of view why such a product does not exist.

In reply to a post by kitcat:

I agree that businesses need more than ADSL upload speeds but even those with 2-10Mb can upload Gbs of documents and photos easily. Most people on VDSL now do this without even recognising it if we use any form of Cloud storage.

In reply to a post by kitcat:

It is only small businesses uploading large amounts of video content or real time HD streaming that require more than that. Larger businesses doing multiple uploads should really be paying for a business service as the backhaul and core costs start to rise and I believe that consumers should not be subsidising businesses in that way. (Same as residential rates as opposed to business rates)

Very valid and interesting points....

Coming from a point a year ago when the cloud didn't exist for me as the only available service was ADSL giving 0.35 D and 0.02 U, the FTTC service is a quantum leap. However whilst I share your views about cross-subsidy, perhaps it is in everyone's interests to push further. You quite rightly point out that business products and consumer should be funded differently, but for me to send 1GB set of files to the cloud takes around 3 hours + on a good day, with a following wind, no errors and no restarts (before on ADSL impossible). If I moved say 600m it would take perhaps 7 minutes.

I am seeing in many businesses that I deal with at work that much is moving to the cloud and working practices are changing in many industries and many are expecting their staff to work on projects from home. Come to think of it is there a 'Moore's law' in Internet connectivity and demand? Perhaps that is why Mr Saffrom posted:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Niche - not according to the House of Lords today, small business needs much faster upload speeds than it has now for sending documents, hence why some Lords are moving to make the USO a 1 Gigabit minimum and some want 2 Gigabit.

'Aim high' and perhaps the next product upgrade in five or ten years might deliver 180 D and 20 U for me and others, but for the majority 1 Gigabit?

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

How much would you be willing to pay for the 1Gig service?

Personally - around £200 - £250 / month.

To me, to pay four or five times what I am already paying to have a service delivering 10 times + capability would make sense. And to be clear it wouldn't be to have 1Gig down, it would be to have a vastly improved upload speed.

But then perhaps this goes full circle to the top of the tread, that the products are designed, tailored and specified for the majority and priced accordingly, which in turn drives particular investment and return. I suspect (and am expecting) that you will tell me I am in the 1% that would pay those sort of prices...

Once again, many, many thanks to all on this thread - superb technical insights, analysis and deabte as always on this great forum!

Mendip

I don't think you are in the 1% willing to pay for that. Suspect it is more like 0.1%. Most people just want to be able to do some streaming and to do that on the cheapest product available. Broadband has been a race to the bottom price wise and the vast majority of the market are very price sensitive.

In reply to a post by Toonshorty:

EDIT: Ignore the above, I should learn to read the OP properly

The internet wouldn't be as much fun if people did that

In reply to a post by ian72:

I don't think you are in the 1% willing to pay for that. Suspect it is more like 0.1%.

That made me chuckle ian72 and I am sure you are absolutely correct!

I have upon the odd wasted / ruined Saturday, thought it would be easier, quicker and probably more cost effective for my time (and family sanity), to drive to the train station and take a train to the office and back with a USB stick, rather than pray that an upload actually works before a deadline on a project.

In reply to a post by ian72:

Most people just want to be able to do some streaming and to do that on the cheapest product available. Broadband has been a race to the bottom price wise and the vast majority of the market are very price sensitive.

I get that, and am not expecting anything soon. The business models of the ISPs have to work and they have to follow the best model(s) to cover the market(s) and market(s) share.

I wonder what the next 'quantum leap' will be for me, except perhaps moving closer to a cabinet!

If and when I next move, cabinet proximity will be right at the top of the list for me....

Edited by deleted (Wed 01-Feb-17 09:08:45)

In reply to a post by Mendip:

I have upon the odd wasted / ruined Saturday, thought it would be easier, quicker and probably more cost effective for my time (and family sanity), to drive to the train station and take a train to the office and back with a USB stick, rather than pray that an upload actually works before a deadline on a project.

In the mid 1970s Woolworths had large warehouses in Swindon and Castletown, near Rochdale. Each had what was then a large mainframe, with a leased line linking them.

Stores orders on the two warehouses were entered on a roomful of terminals at the Castletown data centre. The interesting bit is how the stores' orders from those in Wales got there. At a fixed time every day each store took an envelope containing the orders to a local bus stop and handed it to the bus conductor. They ended up at the main terminus(es?) where the envelopes were parcelled up and sent Red Star from the railway station to Manchester where the parcel I think was taken by a contracted taxi to Rochdale.

It worked fine for years.

Mendip

You are definitely in the 1% or 0.1% willing to pay a reasonable amount.

Threelegs is in the majority 99 or 99.9% which is why it is not being done at present.

In reply to a post by threelegs:

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

How much would you be willing to pay for the 1Gig service?

if B4RN can do it for £30 a month that to me seems reasonable

If 1Gb ( say 100Mb up) services were available at £30pcm big business would use them and the ISP would go bust buying Backhaul/Core capacity or the service would be revolting. BARN can do it at present as their customers are practically all consumer or small ( Non internet based) business that are not constantly using the Gb they have.

Most documents are a lot smaller than a Gb and average upload must be around 10-12Mb on FTTC ( Mr Saffron can tell us if he would like to!). So quite quick to upload documents and pictures on most FTTC lines.

Edited by kitcat (Wed 01-Feb-17 12:35:29)

In reply to a post by threelegs:

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

How much would you be willing to pay for the 1Gig service?

if B4RN can do it for £30 a month that to me seems reasonable

Others have mentioned the fact that B4RN don't have to pay contractor rates to get their fibre installed.

I'll add that they don't have to pay for the wayleaves either. I did a rough calculation a while ago, and figured that paying the farmers an annual wayleave allowance that matched BT's rates would put prices up roughly £8 per month.