G Fast?

Bit of an odd one...Aberdeen has had the G. Fast extensions on the main cabinets for sometime (my cabinet 32 on Denburn has had one for 6+ months).

Just got to the end of my current FTTC contract and checked the checker...Openreach has the area enabled for G. Fast, however checking at an ISP level (BT, Zen etc) shows its unavailable.

It appears to be like that across the city (checked a number of addresses...)

Ideas?

Cheers,

s

Openreach may flag as available before the wholesale providers.

We've not spotted G.fast live on any other cabinets (Openreach + Wholesale) so likely waiting on some capacity enhancements at the exchange (NOTE: It is possible there is a pod live somewhere on NSDEN that I've not seen yet)

Another possibility is the Openreach checker is wrong

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

When I checked for my post earlier I did look at premises right on top of the pod.

Synced at full 80 (cab and VDSL box about 100m...visible from rear window) so should be in range. Checked properties right on top of various g fast cabinets around the city and it's the same story.

Nothing must be active yet... although they have been around the city now for many months...

My DSL Checker say 68/19 with handback 62 and got G.Fast 184/12 with handback 152 and will not ordered G.Fast because upstream are slower than FTTC. Staying with my current FTTC with 68/19.

Edited by adslmax (Fri 24-May-19 07:53:20)

I'll add my tale of woe with g.fast ...

Having previously dismissed it as I was worried about upload, I finally succumbed to the endless "upgrade" offers from BT and my install date was yesterday. I was previously getting 67/18 on VDSL. BT estimate for the order was 137-138 down, 13-26 up. The dslchecker website rather more optimistic at 203-232 up, 14.5-33.4 down (clean line). I'm ~250m from the cabinet following the road, so the BT estimate seemed more realistic, but I'd have taken that, especially if the upload was similar to what I currently had.

The Openreach engineer was very helpful, and after a bit of resistance had agreed to swap my (unwanted) BT-supplied router for the Huawei MT992 modem. Things were going well.

Until he switched the line over. G.fast connection showed as 80 down, 8 up at the master socket. He then tested outside where the cable enters the house. 101/9. Then followed at least an hour of checking other available pairs in the DP, until he finally found a line that seemed cleaner. Connected it all up and ... wouldn't even sync.

Clearly that was the end of it for any chance of g.fast working. He reckoned the line length was showing as around 320m, so it was always going to need some good luck. Hence back to VDSL.

Unfortunately, the real kicker is that having swapped my line to a supposedly cleaner one (which didn't sync at all with g.fast whereas my original line did), my VDSL connection is only getting around 49/10. At this point I think the Openreach engineer had had enough (he'd been there over 3 hours) so just gave the "give it a couple of days it should improve speed" [censored] and legged it.

Now I have the fun of going through the BT faults route to get the VDSL speed sorted. Call last nigh ended with "give it 3 or 4 days and if it isn't any faster then dig the home hub out so they can test on that before arranging an engineer to fix it". At least he agreed I don't need to wait the full 10 days.

So there's my cautionary tale for the day.

Yeah that's why I will not go ahead with G.Fast not worth it for 250m away from the cabinet. I just knew it as Zen Internet were very helpful told me that I am better off stay with FTTC because Zen believe my G.Fast is too far and could be very low upload around 8-10Mbps rather than FTTC at 19-20Mbps. Zen told me I better wait until two/three years time for FTTP to come.

Edited by adslmax (Fri 24-May-19 09:08:32)

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

Who undoubtedly have a slower upstream now.

It's not a hard and fast rule by any means but for the majority if you don't get 80/20 on FTTC then G.Fast is either out of range completely or will more than likely offer a small increase in downstream with a loss of upstream.

I'll ignore the comment about seeing plenty under 80/20 who have G.Fast. The take-up is dire.
I couldn't even say "I've seen plenty with G.Fast."
God knows where you're seeing so many at the very end of the range.

There is no 10 day training period on FTTC.
There's no training period at all.

I'd get back on to BT and don't be fobbed off.

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

This is referring to Openreach specifically.

Gigafast has a massive marketing machine to drive initial take-up and advantage of vertical integration.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

That's interesting, I've sync'd at the full 80/20 for a long time (attainable currently showing as 82136/25811) but had always assumed my distance to the cabinet (around 450m) would rule me out if G.fast ever arrived.

Edited by kasg (Fri 24-May-19 09:51:25)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

Not so sure. A native 80/20 FTTP which actually delivers 80/20 is unless I am mistaken the same price as a 80/20 FTTC which for most people not likely to deliver the full 80/20. So if you have native FTTP available to you and are currently getting say 50/15 usable, might as well upgrade to native FTTP. Yes by most standards 50/15 is a good broadband speed, but 80/20 is better.

It would not be surprised if Openreach removed the option of an FTTC connection where native FTTP was available. Taking the long view it would make sense.

How many upgrade to a ultrafast speed is another matter entirely.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

My DSL Checker say 68/19 with handback 62 and got G.Fast 184/12 with handback 152 and will not ordered G.Fast because upstream are slower than FTTC. Staying with my current FTTC with 68/19.

There's obviously some interesting variations. I don't have access to modem statistics (still on the original HG612) but I'm getting around 68Mb/s on speed checkers over wifi and the availability checker records my highest observed downstream rate as 74.38 a month ago. When I first got FTTC I was connecting at full speed (79999) and I think the attainable was over 90. Obviously cross-talk has impacted it over the years but there's no mention of G.FAST on the checker for me.

Long term plan is to remove FTTC in the FTTP overbuild areas and remove VDSL2 in G.fast areas too

The marketing and messaging from Ofcom importantly is that full fibre is ultrafast (we flag it as both superfast and ultrafast), so you'll be surprised how many think they can only buy the 160 Mbps or faster variant...

One of the way of spotting the roll-outs is seeing 80/20 speeds in locations where it is not expected, so I do have a good idea that we are not seeing a big take-up, actually very similar to G.fast. The exception is those jumping from no VDSL2 or EO lines to having FTTP, though most will be in a contract with Virgin Media.

Once the marketing machine gets moving which will be when Sky and TalkTalk get up to speed and the TV adverts start to push full fibre things will change.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

Who undoubtedly have a slower upstream now.

It's not a hard and fast rule by any means but for the majority if you don't get 80/20 on FTTC then G.Fast is either out of range completely or will more than likely offer a small increase in downstream with a loss of upstream.

I'll ignore the comment about seeing plenty under 80/20 who have G.Fast. The take-up is dire.
I couldn't even say "I've seen plenty with G.Fast."
God knows where you're seeing so many at the very end of the range.

Typical example is the road my parents live down, it consists of 14 houses and 6 of them have now gone to g.fast. Would not call that dire.

Also, don't just judge what you are seeing on forums as most people that don't have any problems tend not to post.

The engineer who was fitting my pod the other day told me that take up for g.fast now it's being deployed and going live in many areas seems to be going better than expected.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

There's no training period at all.

I think that's not strickly true any more. Wth lines now being put on interleaving initially, then that being removed and g. inp applied, then dBx you could say there is an initial period of adjustment, but then after that the DLM will react if things change.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

Not so sure. A native 80/20 FTTP which actually delivers 80/20 is unless I am mistaken the same price as a 80/20 FTTC which for most people not likely to deliver the full 80/20. So if you have native FTTP available to you and are currently getting say 50/15 usable, might as well upgrade to native FTTP. Yes by most standards 50/15 is a good broadband speed, but 80/20 is better.

That's the real point: those who already get 80/20 are least likely to feel the need for higher speeds. I'd probably be quite happy with 80/20 if I could get it, but I get 30/4.

So I would expect a low takeup for G.fast (where it's only available to people who can get close to 80/20 already), and high takeup of FTTP for users without good FTTC. However a high proportion of the latter might only take 80/20 or even 40/10.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

Not so sure. A native 80/20 FTTP which actually delivers 80/20 is unless I am mistaken the same price as a 80/20 FTTC which for most people not likely to deliver the full 80/20. So if you have native FTTP available to you and are currently getting say 50/15 usable, might as well upgrade to native FTTP. Yes by most standards 50/15 is a good broadband speed, but 80/20 is better.

That's the real point: those who already get 80/20 are least likely to feel the need for higher speeds. I'd probably be quite happy with 80/20 if I could get it, but I get 30/4.

So I would expect a low takeup for G.fast (where it's only available to people who can get close to 80/20 already), and high takeup of FTTP for users without good FTTC. However a high proportion of the latter might only take 80/20 or even 40/10.

You sat that you would be happy with an increase in speed, but then go on to say that other people would not bother why? It just doesn't make sense why you would be happy with an increase but others would not.

By your logic VM would not have any customers above 80 meg then? Which they have plenty and growing each day.

And this reacting continues for the life of the connection.

Training period to many suggests it might change for a while but after that it is fixed, which it is not

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Long term plan is to remove FTTC in the FTTP overbuild areas and remove VDSL2 in G.fast areas too

Except Prudhoe Cab 5 sprouted a G.fast pod (which is still not active) then sprouted a second FTTC twin at least a couple of months after the G.fast pod was added. I am definitely on board with FTTC removal if FTTP is available, but FTTC removal if G.fast is available will see many people getting poorer upload speeds and be very unpopular to those affected.

Key words - long term and Openreach needs to consult before big changes to the products like this

If you remove VDSL2 you can a chunk of spectrum that will give Gfast better performance of course.

This is more like 2025 and onwards we are talking

Hi

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Long term plan is to remove FTTC in the FTTP overbuild areas and remove VDSL2 in G.fast areas too

Except Prudhoe Cab 5 sprouted a G.fast pod (which is still not active) then sprouted a second FTTC twin at least a couple of months after the G.fast pod was added. I am definitely on board with FTTC removal if FTTP is available, but FTTC removal if G.fast is available will see many people getting poorer upload speeds and be very unpopular to those affected.

I agree, I can't see they would ever remove FTTC and transfer everyone over to G.Fast, for one G.Fast has much less capacity to serve as many customers, both physically (small attached pod) and electronically due to issues supporting vectoring over large numbers of connections. Besides it is the FTTC cabinet that provides the G.Fast pod with power, backup power and data, so that needs to remain as is in some form.

I suppose they could upgrade the FTTC cabinet to support G.Fast, but the issue there is it adds in many cases many metres of copper distance, greatly affecting the reach, which is why they went for the pod on the PCP approach.

As G.Fast is essentially dead in the water, what is installed will remain until such a time they can move those connections over to FTTP I should think.

Regards

Phil

Be careful using Virgin as an example of demand for faster speeds...

e.g. the bundles where 100 Mbps is often the minimum and period offers with this lifted to 200 Mbps
Also some may be jumping to get better upload

The takeaway to gain from Virgin is the number paying for the top tier

I would also add that many people will upgrade to higher download speeds than they need on Virgin to get better upload speeds. If you take a VIVD100 bundle your upload is only 6Mbps which is pants compared to a 80/20 FTTC which actually gets 80/20 even through the download speed is higher. Personally I would need the VIVD350 bundle to be as useful as my current full 80/20 FTTC connection even though I don't really need all that extra download speed. Though some would be nice.

Given the Openreach long term plan is to just have FTTP and G.fast as the two broadband services .

So majority in a cabinet get FTTP and those with landlord problems e.g. no permission to get FTTP installed get the G.fast.

Except this is going to require a different sort of G.fast than is currently being deployed. Basically they are going to have to stick G.fast cabinets outside every block of flats they cannot get permission to enter.

I think it would make more sense to lobby for changes to the law so landlords cannot refuse permission for a FTTP install. I would imagine there are few MP's who would vote against such a law.

Then again landlords refusing permission for an FTTP install are idiots, and in time will find it very hard to let properties.

Which is exactly what I implied, it's does need a better description though than training. But regardless of what it's called new lines or lines which have had a change in package or DLM reset do have a period where they will generally perform worse than optimum for an unknown length of time

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Long term plan is to remove FTTC in the FTTP overbuild areas and remove VDSL2 in G.fast areas too

That's probably the 1 thing I would predict won't happen.

What about everyone out of reach of G.Fast?
With the limited reach of G.Fast it would be madness to remove VDSL2 without a suitable alternative.
Even with the VDSL2 spectrum being freed up for G.Fast the range just isn't there.

Rolling out FTTP for those beyond the G.Fast range and ignoring those within range would be a bit pointless imo.

It sounds like a mad strategy unless they start doing node based G.Fast. That seems an unlikely prospect.

Remove VDSL2 you can use those frequencies on G.fast and guess what the range improves but only at VDSL2 type speeds....

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Given the Openreach long term plan is to just have FTTP and G.fast as the two broadband services .

So majority in a cabinet get FTTP and those with landlord problems e.g. no permission to get FTTP installed get the G.fast.

I'd argue that they should simply withdraw all service from the property, if the landlord is not prepared to allow the replacement service to be installed!

Then it just becomes an issue between the landlord and the tenants, and I would expect over time the government to give the tenants more rights in this situation.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

g.fast has a extremely low take up rate, the fact you seem to know plenty of people with the service is close to a miracle in itself, thats all I have to say

Do they care? Is it any better for them, and are they paying more than before?

Is it for them, or for you?

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 26-May-19 10:30:33)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Do they care? Is it any better for them, and are they paying more than before?

Is it for them, or for you?

They are very happy with the g.fast service and yes they are paying a little more than before, but say it's worth it for what they have gained.

Not sure what you mean when you say is it for them or for you. I can only guess that you are asking if they got the service for them or me. My answer for that would be for them as I don't live with them, but I do help with their tech stuff when they have an issue.

I�m surprised that it makes a significant difference to them unless they are running a hotel or something .

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I�m surprised that it makes a significant difference to them unless they are running a hotel or something .

I guess as you've still got a rather slow broadband speed you don't yet see the difference.

Just as an example of a difference they have is that when they go away (often they do) they download movies to watch from Netflix onto their devices. This is now much quicker than before and able to download multiple movies at the same time.

It's like when broadband first came out, people didn't think they would need more than 1 meg, now look at the complaints on forums

I can only agree and chime in with my experiences - the checker showed 197.7 to 172.1 with handback of 141.7 for clean, 146.8 and 96.6 with handback of 87.6 for impacted. I had hoped it would be somewhere sensible, but it turned out to sync at 113 down and 13 up. I used to be on 65 down and 20 up.

Unfortunately, Zen only manages 100 MBit/s on a speedchecker on a good day, and sometimes 80 on a bad, so in the end I traded around 15 to 20 MBit/s on the downstream for a loss of 7 MBit/s on the upstream, which isn't really worth it.

Because of the discrepancy between sync speed and speedtest results Zen opened a fault for an engineer visit, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually got worse in the end. I'll have to stick with this for a year and it was a bit of a gamble, but I'd probably be back to VDSL2 afterwards - or indeed might gamble again and go with Virgin...

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I�m surprised that it makes a significant difference to them unless they are running a hotel or something .

I guess as you've still got a rather slow broadband speed you don't yet see the difference.

I wouldn't call my speeds "rather slow". More like the same as your parents had, both when on AAISP FTTC and now on 3G mobile. Except my upstream is now faster.

Just as an example of a difference they have is that when they go away (often they do) they download movies to watch from Netflix onto their devices. This is now much quicker than before and able to download multiple movies at the same time.

Twice as fast in fact, so two times as many movies at once. Not exactly "multiple", which suggests considerably more than two.

I think you just blagged them into it . It also raises the question of why "often" pay a load to go away somewhere to watch what you could do at home. I can take both my connections with me anyway, as I have one on my phone and one on my MiFi router. Each at around the 65Mbps mark here, and whatever I get elsewhere.

Two unlimited data connections at 65Mbps, total cost £42pm. How much is the 140Mbps G.Fast?

It's like when broadband first came out, people didn't think they would need more than 1 meg, now look at the complaints on forums

Going from 1Mbps to FTTC speeds is a far bigger step than 65 sync to 140 sync .

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It also raises the question of why "often" pay a load to go away somewhere to watch what you could do at home. I can take both my connections with me anyway, as I have one on my phone and one on my MiFi router.

I download Netflix when I go away sometimes, amazing how much you can watch on a 9 hour flight, and I would think mobile reception wouldn't work either

PS it downloads nice and quick on my connection

LOL
I admit I hadn't thought of watching downloaded videos on a long flight. Though nine hours is veree longggg. Doing it frequently unless compelled by business is also not common.

I was just being cynical really, in the whole of that exchange, as I genuinely think his parents will have only got it because he pushed them. I'm sure what they had was satisfactory.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

LOL
I admit I hadn't thought of watching downloaded videos on a long flight. Though nine hours is veree longggg. Doing it frequently unless compelled by business is also not common.

I was just being cynical really, in the whole of that exchange, as I genuinely think his parents will have only got it because he pushed them. I'm sure what they had was satisfactory.

You make too many assumptions about things. I didn't even know they had ordered until afterwards. My parents use the internet a lot and have many tech gadgets, without them I would not have got into the world of computing and the internet myself.

Also you didn't think about the fact it's cheaper to download as much as possible before you travel abroad as it keeps the roaming costs down.

Why spend loads of money going abroad when you are going to watch hours and hours of downloaded videos when you get there? It doesn�t add up!

When I go abroad it is to discover or revisit a different country from this one, with a different culture and lifestyle. Or do your parents always look for the nearest �English Fish & Chip shop� and take it home to eat while watching a bog standard video? Staying in a huge hotel that offers a Full English Breakfast.

I get the feeling you are making all this up with hypothetical scenarios.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Why spend loads of money going abroad when you are going to watch hours and hours of downloaded videos when you get there? It doesn�t add up!

When I go abroad it is to discover or revisit a different country from this one, with a different culture and lifestyle. Or do your parents always look for the nearest �English Fish & Chip shop� and take it home to eat while watching a bog standard video? Staying in a huge hotel that offers a Full English Breakfast.

I get the feeling you are making all this up with hypothetical scenarios.

Actually you sound very much like a bitter troll who likes to holiday in Benidorm. Hope you are happy there this summer. Sorry you don't like the fact people have lives outside of the internet, but when they do use it like to have the best they can get. But I'm sure your response will be more hateful trolling rather than just saying yeah I see your point.

I have never been to Benidorm or any remotely similar place, (which is surely obvious from my post), but many times to the complete opposite in the Austrian and Italian Alps outside the skiing season. With no means of access to the internet, videos or downloads, and never buying or looking at a newspaper.

All I am saying is that I don't believe your protestations about the advantages for your parents of the gains from an increase from 65Mbps to 140Mbps, which in itself is for many posters here subject to low peak-time performance.

How that translates into my being a troll with the proclivities you suggest I have no idea, but you are entitled to your completely inaccurate opinion about me and perhaps everything that matters.

A doubling in connection speed from 65Mbps to 140Mbps can be very useful for anybody involved in a business that relies on very fast connectivity, (many in this forum have paid for FTTPoD on commercial grounds), and these days also for a household with two or three teenage children. But for your parents? Really?

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 27-May-19 03:53:54)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

A doubling in connection speed from 65Mbps to 140Mbps can be very useful for anybody involved in a business that relies on very fast connectivity, (many in this forum have paid for FTTPoD on commercial grounds), and these days also for a household with two or three teenage children. But for your parents? Really?

So you want to discriminate those households that just want faster speeds but only contain one or two people? wow, you really are ignorant about todays society.

I agree totally with you, he's very opinionated and often over steps the mark, in my opinion he's attacking you for absolutely no reason other than he can and somehow gets away with it. Unfortunately I've found quite a few forums who have a member like that.

I happen to be the parent in our household, along with my wife, yet with only one child now regularly at home I chose Vivid 350, could we manage with less, of course but I have the choice!

Section closed in the hope that people will back down from the confrontation

Edited by MrSaffron (Mon 27-May-19 14:38:37)

I remember a similar case.

https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4618946-re...

^ this is why I don't trust DSL Checker for G.Fast as it will get less than these estimate speed set by BTw

Edited by adslmax (Mon 27-May-19 14:13:38)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Remove VDSL2 you can use those frequencies on G.fast and guess what the range improves but only at VDSL2 type speeds....

The same would also be true then with an ADSL switch off I assume?

If all the ADSL and VDSL spectrum was available to G.Fast sure the range and speed would both take a dramatic step up from current levels?

The same would also be true then with an ADSL switch off I assume?

Yes, but it would require the agreement of LLU operators.

*OpenReach own all the VDSL2 kit so they can turn that off whenever they want.

I've yet to see a single graph showing how G.Fast drops off at long distances.

G.Fast requires considerably more processing power than VDSL2.
Currently they have 24 port line cards, with the hope of 48 port cards in the near future.

There is a PCP round the corner from me with 768 VDSL2 ports (2x384 Huawei's) and another with 800 ports (2x256 ECI's + 1x288 Huawei).

How are they getting 800 G.Fast ports on a single PCP?

Turn off ADSL and you force considerably more users to take up a VDSL2/G.Fast service.

I've not seen a single source saying they intend to turn off VDSL2 for G.Fast, a single graph showing it works at the current VDSL2 distances, or a single piece of kit that can handle the port densities required.

*There is no OpenReach G.Fast in SLU areas where OpenReach don't run the VDSL2 DSLAM's, like Warwicknet.

The aim which is under consultation with industry is for a very simple product line in Ultrafast enabled exchanges

FTTP where possible
then
SOGEA
SOGFAST

Throwing GEA-FTTC products out, from a slide photo I took on 25th March at one of the consultation meetings.

We are talking 2025 type time frames and not a big overnight switch across the UK but exchange by exchange.

Things like sub LLU would be interesting, but rolling out FTTP might be the answer for those areas.

A lot hinges on how far they can roll out FTTP and what regulations will look like post 2025.

Yes port density is a big issue if looking to replace current volumes of lines with G.fast hence why FTTP is expected to be the default for the majority at that time, leaving the way leave issue premises on just G.fast

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Turn off ADSL and you force considerably more users to take up a VDSL2/G.Fast service.

Which is great in theory, but there are still a considerable number of people who can get faster ADSL(1) or ADSL2 by modulation adjustment on their router than ADSL2+, never mind VDSL2.

G.fast haven't got enough port lines as FTTC got 288 lines while G.fast are very low only get 96 lines? If FTTC switched off where the rest of 192 lines go to?

In reply to a post by adslmax:

G.fast haven't got enough port lines as FTTC got 288 lines while G.fast are very low only get 96 lines?

FTTC has considerably more than 288 lines on a single PCP.
As I pointed out earlier I have 2 local cabinets with 768 and 800 potential ports. Granted the most recent DSLAMs may not have all their line card yet.

G.Fast pods don't have 96 ports yet either.
They still only have 2x24 port line cards. The target is to double that to 2x48 port cards.

If FTTC switched off where the rest of 192 lines go to?

Given the above it's more like where do the other 600-700 lines go.

G.Fast will never replaced VDSL2 from the cabinet without a considerable rollout of FTTP in that area.

They may indeed turn off VDSL2 and leave G.Fast on, but it would need to be very targeted.
As it stands it doesn't seem like a feasible option.

And?

Those forcing ADSL modulation are by default sub USO and should by 2025 have all been fixed.

And not that simple. As you know.

Ofcom are hoping for the 10Mbps USO to be in place by the end of this year, ahead of the government's wish for 2020. There isn't as far as I know any requirement for this to be satisfied by landline connections. Achieving it might also mean the user have to pay thousands of pounds.

2025 is six years ahead. The implication of the post I questioned was that ADSLx should be turned off in the near future. The USO does not have much to do with that. I know quite a few people on my estate able to get over 50Mps FTTC but who are content with sub-6Mbps ADSL2+.

Ofcom (my bold):

Under the USO, eligible homes and businesses will be able to request a connection, where the cost of building it is no more than £3,400.
�
A consumer or business will only have to contribute to the cost of a connection if it exceeds a threshold of £3,400. Above that level, properties can still be connected if they pay the excess costs or do some of the work themselves to help bring costs down.

There is also the option of using alternative technology, such as commercially available satellite outside the USO scheme, or keeping their existing service that delivers a lower speed.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 29-May-19 01:01:28)

In reply to a post by connormill:

If all the ADSL and VDSL spectrum was available to G.Fast sure the range and speed would both take a dramatic step up from current levels?

Kind of, except it wouldn't really be G.Fast any more.

A number of countries use VDSL profile 35b with speeds up to 250/25, which makes more sense as an "upgrade" to VDSL. You don't get speeds any worse than VDSL, and if you're close to the cabinet you get very good speeds. Turn on vectoring too, and your entire base can use it.

G.Fast was designed to avoid normal VDSL frequencies, so that it could be used as a last hundred metres delivery mechanism (e.g. in the basement of a block of flats, or on a DP outside a group of houses), without interfering with ADSL/VDSL.

Except: then they abandoned that method of installation, and instead decided to bolt it onto the PCP instead.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

A number of countries use VDSL profile 35b with speeds up to 250/25, which makes more sense as an "upgrade" to VDSL. You don't get speeds any worse than VDSL, and if you're close to the cabinet you get very good speeds. Turn on vectoring too, and your entire base can use it.

^^^ This - Openreach should have gone for this one instead of G.fast roll out. Big mistake from Openreach

Yes people have to request, but there comes a point in economics of running a service that it will make no sense. So you can expect in the next decade notifications of cessation of things like ADSL and ADSL2+ on SOME exchange. Exactly why Openreach is exploring massed migration to things like FTTP and am sure others like FibreNation and Gigafast will want to do similar for areas they cover too.

If people are saying ADSL2+ is going to be turned off en-masse in 2021 then they have drawn the wrong conclusions.

A question is this...if you gave ASDL customers a modem that plugged into the phone line but had a 4G modem hidden away would they be able to tell? Keeping other aspects such as unlimited and a speed cap at ADSL or ADSL2+ speeds they had in the past. Yes I know not everyone gets a good signal which can be handled other ways.

On the USO demanding, what we don't know yet is whether operators will only ever do single premises or clusters if they group themselves, or will one person requesting sometimes be enough to see others upgraded too? If its 4G then its single premises at a time, but VDSL2 or even FTTP might be used for some - we simply do not know until people start requesting.

The problem of the USO is namely that people have to request it and no doubt there will be lots with no clue they can request, so prediction is around 2024 Ofcom mandating providers need to tell people on slow lines about the USO and asking them to make a decision.

I think we are broadly saying the same thing about the long term, but the post I originally replied to seemed to be talking about what should be done ASAP, to force people to upgrade. To something they neither particularly want and may not get any benefit from anyway until "the planned future" arrives.

That post suggests a short-term impractical solution compared to Openreach/Other/Ofcom ones, though a way of speeding those up might be useful. G.Fast and VDSL2 infrastructures could well be consigned to history by 2025. They won't be worth the infrastructure maintenance costs.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The problem of the USO is namely that people have to request it and no doubt there will be lots with no clue they can request, so prediction is around 2024 Ofcom mandating providers need to tell people on slow lines about the USO and asking them to make a decision.

Heaven help us if Ofcom wait till 2024 to require ISPs to tell people they can claim USO!

Remember BT is the only USO operator outside of Hull, so TalkTalk, Sky et al are not going to race to tell people - oh you know that slow ADSL2+ line you have with us, if you switch to a 4G service with EE/BT you will get around 27 Mbps instead of your current 4.5 Mbps.

In reply to a post by Garlic:

Heaven help us if Ofcom wait till 2024 to require ISPs to tell people they can claim USO!

As Andrew says.

In fact quite a few people on these forums are switching to Three 4G from their landline broadband or adding that to their landline. I think I started the interest with this thread, but if you display the list of threads over the last 6 months in that forum you will get a good idea.

My downstream speeds are about the same as my 70Mbps FTTC connection and upstream higher than the FTTC. As well as having it on my phone I also now have it on "MiFi" to keep a new security camera system uploading to the cloud, and I'm still saving £27pm.