G.fast added on Cabinet 9 today

G.fast went live for cabinet 9 but sadly my parents couldm't have g.fast because the line length are too far away of more than 400m away

http://dslchecker.bt.com/pls/adsl/ADSLChecker.Addres...

No wonder g.fast is very poor indeed and should abolished it and replaced with full fibre instead.

None of all houses by my parents area have g.fast except one house will get it is pretty madness just like my two next doors of my house will get g.fast 330/50 but my house only get 198/29 (this one I never bother to order g.fast)

Are you saying the pod is actually only serving 1 property in its total footprint, or just the postcode your parents are in?

Served 384 property houses mostly houses in Woodrows will get G.fast. My parents are different post code but connected to cabinet 9 at Woodrows.

Edited by adslmax (Sat 06-Jul-19 12:44:58)

Gfast is poor and being poorly deployed and to paper over BT's [censored] network, a 3rd of the houses connected to a gfast pod can get it, waste of time..

In reply to a post by lockyatlrg:

Gfast is poor and being poorly deployed and to paper over BT's [censored] network, a 3rd of the houses connected to a gfast pod can get it, waste of time..

It's cost effective if you look at the total coverage for the amount invested, though. To an accountant it'd probably looks like a pretty good deal if they know nothing about the market or the future. The short range makes it a poor technical choice for what amounts to end of life technology and in my opinion not enough people want those kind of speeds yet. So the one good thing about G.FAST is that not enough people care enough about it to get really worked up over its shortcomings.

It's basically a partial solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. So even though it probably is cost effective on paper the poor take up and timing makes it a lousy technical solution. I don't think take up will ever reach even the paltry coverage it could be so I bet it makes a loss. Then it has to be removed - at some cost - in order to make way for the correct solution which is FTTP.

Just a waste of resources and I still think it's either someone trying to make their choice to invest in the R&D look good or else openreach had a contractual obligation to roll it out as part of the R&D process.

Could it not be a knee jerk response to the threat of OFCOM�s Vorpal sword ?

Imagined financial penalties for low overall speeds ?

In reply to a post by lockyatlrg:

Gfast is poor and being poorly deployed and to paper over BT's [censored] network, a 3rd of the houses connected to a gfast pod can get it, waste of time..

The debate is that a remote node would be better, of course. But for myself at least, G.fast has been very reliable and fast. I am not the closest to the cabinet/pod, so there are certainly quite a few people here that could benefit from maximum speeds (330/50) if they wanted - but I don't see much demand for a higher speed.

At the moment, FTTP would actually serve no real worthwhile benefit over G.fast for me since the headend exchange has ECI hardware to my knowledge so it would be limited to 330/50 anyway, and I already get that on G.fast at my distance.

Don't reckon OFCOM are any threat on this.

A GFast Pod can be bolted on a cab, ties terminated and hybrid fibre and power cable pulled by a subby in a day.

That gives Max an opportunity to not buy high speed GFast services astronomically cheaper and quicker than choosing not to buy high speed FTTP services

Cabinet 9 with post code TF7 5PJ

G.fast with over 310/45 with door numbers 84-89, 91-99 & 100-109 but these door numbers 90 & 110-121 will getting no G.fast at all.

I have emailed to Openreach to re-addresses these problem with no G.fast and to explain why one house will get nothing while next door will have it. And why my house get lower speed than the rest of 8 houses get getter G.fast speed with one of them got magic 330/50 compare to mine at 198/29 just two next doors to it. I want Openreach to explain this reason please and also fired off emailed to Ofcom about this too.

For cabinet 8 with post code TF7 5NT there are 9 houses for g.fast estimate speed set by BTw for 36 houses on the same layout on the same street with the same cabinet pcp 8. (The rest of 27 houses will have no g.fast at all)

Seem pretty odd. My house are the worse lower 198/29 for the G.fast in house number 8 all the other houses are better than mine. Very strange as house number 6 are much better higher on G.fast at 330/50 (two next doors of mine)

Edited by adslmax (Sun 07-Jul-19 11:19:55)

https://i.imgur.com/rsJqONa.png


This is my cab gfast deployment. I can't get Gfast on my 230meter line which has 80 high 69 low VDSL estimates.

really is rubbish..

Edited by lockyatlrg (Sun 07-Jul-19 11:31:21)