How long from a G.fast cab appearing to order?

I've just noticed SLEK PCP 11 has had a g.fast cab added. Is there a rough timeline between cabs being added, to being able to order?

Between a few weeks and two years and counting is the range I know of

We had a pod install June-July off 2017. On last update Openreach expect it to be live by September. 2020.

FTTP for the entire cabinet area could have been implemented in weeks and would have been worth having: by the time this pod is live VM will be selling a gigabit and Vodafone too if they are on schedule.

Over 3 years to activate a pod that much of the passed area can't use, and those that can still have a choice of VM at 500, 1000 and cheaper stuff with Vodafone rocking a symmetrical 900, 500, 200 and 100.

I have proposed to Openreach that this would be a waste of time. There's an FTTP new build with a splitter at the end of our road heading there and we're out of range of g.fast. May as well let that pod get recycled and skip activating it in favour of FTTP. They're busily overbuilding G.fast elsewhere in the city so we'll see.

Our pod was installed back in mid April. My G.Fast is being installed tomorrow.

Just checked and it's now "available"... BT says "100Mb Ultrafast Option 1" is available to order. Wholesale shows ~300Mb potential.

Does anyone other than BT provide "G.fast"?

Sky and talk talk I believe, depending on their network availability.

Thanks for coming back and letting us know.

A GFast pod got bolted on to my village cabinet this week so I am looking forward to giving it a go presently.

In reply to a post by Vini:

Does anyone other than BT provide "G.fast"?

Zen, IDNet, AAISP

I�ve gone with EE, as no one else on the Openreach site we�re offering me Ultrafast 2... except EE

I�m guessing their sites made a mistake, or BT want to drive up EE Subs.

Either way, it pains me to be having to leave Plusnet. Many years of pain free service, and the Static IP, but hey ho, needs must! If you�re not going to offer GFast, I�ll jump to another BT subsidiary that does!

In reply to a post by caffn8me:

In reply to a post by Vini:

Does anyone other than BT provide "G.fast"?

Zen, IDNet, AAISP

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2019/10/sky-br...

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/isps/sky/packages/sky...

Edited by deleted (Sat 02-Nov-19 21:21:34)

Yeah I never understand Plusnet is a big company with BT (EE) and still no G.fast product on it. Plusnet know G.fast are pointless and too costy and will not offer this.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Yeah I never understand Plusnet is a big company with BT (EE) and still no G.fast product on it. Plusnet know G.fast are pointless and too costy and will not offer this.

Just because you are not able to either receive the full benefit or can't afford it anyway doesn't mean that G.fast is pointless.

There are many people that are enjoying the benefits of g.fast who otherwise would be waiting a long time for a full fibre connection to achieve the speeds they are getting with G.fast

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

There are many people that are enjoying the benefits of g.fast who otherwise would be waiting a long time for a full fibre connection to achieve the speeds they are getting with G.fast

51,000 in fact - as of 30th September - according to BT results released a few days ago.

As of the same date, it was nominally available at 2.417m properties. But the low take-up of 2.1% is not all that surprising, given that the people who can take it are those who get full 80/20 on FTTC already.

It would be interesting to know the number of G.fast pods which have been deployed, and therefore the average number of users per G.fast pod.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

There are many people that are enjoying the benefits of g.fast who otherwise would be waiting a long time for a full fibre connection to achieve the speeds they are getting with G.fast

51,000 in fact - as of 30th September - according to BT results released a few days ago.

As of the same date, it was nominally available at 2.417m properties. But the low take-up of 2.1% is not all that surprising, given that the people who can take it are those who get full 80/20 on FTTC already.

It would be interesting to know the number of G.fast pods which have been deployed, and therefore the average number of users per G.fast pod.

Interesting as even though I saw the figures on the post you quoted, I could not find them on the PDF that BT have released, but instead found this:

"Openreach�s ultrafast broadband network now covers 4.2m premises, comprising 2.4m premises passed with Gfast and 1.8m with FTTP"

One advantage FTTP has over g.fast in regards to take up is the fact that you can order a 80mb FTTP connection, which you can't with g.fast.

This is something I have noticed as I install networks for both domestic and commercial/industrial purposes and find that mostly with the new builds some people are only ordering 80mb FTTP.

The main advantage that g.fast has is the fact it's quicker to deploy than FTTP in an area that is already covered by FTTC.

Edited by robertcrowther (Sun 03-Nov-19 09:34:07)

In reply to a post by candlerb:

But the low take-up of 2.1% is not all that surprising, given that the people who can take it are those who get full 80/20 on FTTC already.

I think the low take up could be improved a little if Openreach mail shot all those customers where the product was available (they could even make out of it by charging CP's for putting their names on the mail shot for a fee) or alternatively CP's could mail shot customers themselves once a new area went live. This also goes for FTTP as I know some people who previously complained about there broadband but don't know FTTP has become available.

I wonder if Openreach will ever achieve a positive ROI on G.Fast.

In terms of the product itself I doubt it. In terms of retaining end users in pockets of VM availability very near to FTTC-enabled PCPs until such time as they can replace the FTTC + G.Fast with FTTP it may ultimately recover its investment, but it�s a long shot.

When people compare FTTP and G.fast take-up they need to compare similar areas.

All the indicators point to FTTP take-up being similar to G.fast take-up in areas with similar existing service availability.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I wonder if Openreach will ever achieve a positive ROI on G.Fast.

I doubt it.

I feel OR has missed an opportunity for G.Fast in multi-occupancy-dwellings (MDU) e.g. small blocks of flats. Small blocks often have entry phone and fire detection systems (a lot have been installed since the Lanarkal House fire). This means communal power is available.

The lengths of copper wiring through the property to 6 / 12 / 18 flats from a interior DP would make G.Fast much more cost effective than drilling FTTP through the walls. Problem is most flats are wired to external DP's in ground chambers, with no power.

What you observe and say is happening in terms of take up fits perfectly with what I posted.

People who take G.Fast would obviously have taken FTTP if that were or became available to them. Both the numbers and percentage will be roughly the same.

But any replacement FTTP would achieve considerably higher take up because it would cover a wider area and provide a more consistent speed.

I�m not familiar with navigating your coverage maps and availability numbers, but would assume that FTTP coverage and numerical take up nationally is already higher than for G.Fast. Even if I�m wrong, it soon will be. Percentage take up is likely to be similar at the moment where FTTC is already in place, but where FTTP comes to ADSLx areas it will be higher.

However that was not what my post was about . The opening line was � I wonder if Openreach will ever achieve a positive ROI on G.Fast�. What do you think?

Will they ever achieve a direct excess of total income from it over the total cost of development, hardware, installation, and maintenance? That is the basic meaning of ROI. They may achieve it indirectly, by end user retention against VM until they bring along FTTP, as I posted, but I have my doubts.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

Interesting as even though I saw the figures on the post you quoted, I could not find them on the PDF that BT have released

Start at Quarterly Results

Expand "Results for the half year to 30 September 2019 (31 October 2019)"

Click on the "Q2 KPIs" which gives you this PDF

Go to page 9 (Openreach). Look for the tables under "OPERATIONAL" - "Network Deployment" and "Network Usage".

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

� I wonder if Openreach will ever achieve a positive ROI on G.Fast�

The development cost of G.fast was already sunk - originally it was conceived as something you would put in the basements of buildings and in DPs. That turned out to be impractical.

So they had the technology, and all they had to do is slap it on the side of a PCP, when there's already a powered VDSL cab nearby. Could just be a day's work in some cases.

OTOH, the long term support costs of G.fast, with increased engineer visits when people don't get the expected speeds, could eat into any profit.

I expect BTG aren't really interested in an absolute ROI, but it's more about propping up the share price based on having 2.4m more "ultrafast" lines available and thus keeping ahead of the altnets.

It's interesting that Tunbridge Wells, which already has quite a lot of G.fast coverage, has recently been announced in the Fibre First programme. I wonder if they'll be replacing G.fast, or using fibre to fill in other areas only.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

I feel OR has missed an opportunity for G.Fast in multi-occupancy-dwellings (MDU) e.g. small blocks of flats. Small blocks often have entry phone and fire detection systems (a lot have been installed since the Lanarkal House fire). This means communal power is available.

The lengths of copper wiring through the property to 6 / 12 / 18 flats from a interior DP would make G.Fast much more cost effective than drilling FTTP through the walls. Problem is most flats are wired to external DP's in ground chambers, with no power.

I hadn�t thought of that idea. It could make a lot of sense, particularly if for some such properties they could redeploy G.Fast hardware from new FTTP areas.

Additional G.Fast kit would probably be needed as well of course.

The outside chamber could well have room for miniaturised G.Fast hardware, with power back fed? By �miniaturised� I envisage pre-connection inside it�s box to external connections for the existing copper. Removing the existing DP.

Hmmm. Thinking more, maybe it wouldn�t be as good long term due to the maintenance requirements compared to passive fibre all the way to an outside wall mounted fibre DP and drilling into each flat from outside.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

The development cost of G.fast was already sunk - originally it was conceived as something you would put in the basements of buildings and in DPs. That turned out to be impractical.

I know that was the original idea, but unsure what you mean my �sunk�.

It has certainly never been recovered from direct income, so I regard it as still part of the equation for assessing whether it was a cost-effective spend. In other words, true ROI.

It could well have disappeared from overall accounts and written off within an R & D budget, but that is just for public accounting jiggers-pokery. Internally it is money that could well have been spent on something that provided real net profit. A positive ROI.

That is because it is a figure not pushed to labs as a direct availability figure

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/8565-pace-of-ope...

Compares different FTTP areas and there is little difference in over 80 Mbps take-up in Fibre First areas compared to G.fast areas

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/8579-bt-group-fi...
Has some maths from the revenue FTTP generates, higher revenue than FTTC but then you have a higher per premises roll-out cost, but this may balance in longer term with lower maintenance costs.

Retention against VM is probably not a big worry, I would suggest that the provider with the most to lose is Virgin Media in current climate from the competing FTTP roll-outs.

G.fast is FibreFirst areas - it will not vanish but you will find the footprint may change slightly with some premises losing the G.fast option even if in range of the pod, i.e. FTTP be the sole ultrafast option over the Openreach network. This is based on what I've seen in other urban areas with a high G.fast coverage when FibreFirst FTTP has appeared. Original position was that no-one would have both G.fast and FTTP options but plenty of addresses actually do (and I mean addresses not postcodes).

What G.fast will allow for is once the need for higher speeds becomes more common that those in old flats where landlords are blocking FTTP that they will get an option for better speeds.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I know that was the original idea, but unsure what you mean my �sunk�.

It has certainly never been recovered from direct income, so I regard it as still part of the equation for assessing whether it was a cost-effective spend. In other words, true ROI.

It could well have disappeared from overall accounts and written off within an R & D budget, but that is just for public accounting jiggers-pokery. Internally it is money that could well have been spent on something that provided real net profit. A positive ROI.

Well, we're talking about G.fast deployment to PCP pods.

A "sunk" cost is one which is not recoverable. If G.fast wasn't deployed to pods, then that money is gone. But I don't think it's fair to book that entire cost against the newer, tactical G.fast deployment.

The choice was either (1) bury G.fast entirely, or (2) do the PCP deployment. On that basis, the incremental cost of the PCP deployment is low.

We shall have to agree to differ about the original choice. Openreach were quite clear in all pre-announcements that the pods would be widely distributed well away from the main cabinets.

It was only when the penny dropped that wasn't cost-effective that they came up with the current deployment, so as not to write off the full project.

As the project has not been closed down and written off, the costs so far all count towards the overall project's ROI. No argument. Otherwise they would have to appear somewhere in the accounts as write-downs.

If you remove those development costs from the ROI of PCP-attached pods, you completely falsify the accounts. My bold:-

A sunk cost is a cost that was incurred in the past and cannot be undone. Since most transactions cannot be undone, most amounts spent in the past can be described as sunk. In other words, a past or sunk cost will be there regardless of what you decide to do today or in the future.

The cost is still there to be placed against the project.

ROI tries to directly measure the amount of return on a particular investment, relative to the investment's cost. To calculate ROI, the benefit (or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment. The result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio.

I accept there is a difference of treatment between the fundamental research and the ongoing development costs, but both remain relevant to ROI in respect of management decision-making.

Openreach will never make a direct profit from having researched, developed and deployed the product. BT Group may, over many years.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

We shall have to agree to differ about the original choice. Openreach were quite clear in all pre-announcements that the pods would be widely distributed well away from the main cabinets.

Absolutely. The idea was that it would go into DPs, leaving the last hundred meters or so as copper. In that scenario, using the high frequencies that don't overlap with ADSL and VDSL was quite reasonable.

That idea has failed. Some unknown but possibly large amount of money was burnt on developing, testing and trialling the idea.

Imagine that company went bust. Its remaining assets - the design of electronics for G.fast - were bought up in a "fire sale" by a different company. It takes those assets and deploys them in a way unrelated to what they were originally developed for.

The second company doesn't have to account for all the money spent by the first one that went bust. It paid what is accepted by both sides as a fair and reasonable price for what was left after the first company failed, and that's what shows on its books.

That's how I think of the tactical G.fast deployment. It's a separate project that doesn't have to account for the full costs of the blind alley that the first one went down. It would have to account for the fair value of the assets it took on, but not for example all the failed deployment trials.

If it weren't for LLU, then VDSL 35b could have been deployed instead, and the residual value of G.fast would have been zero.

Amounts spent internally and buying up assets and rights from companies in liquidation are two very different situations. You cannot equate them in that way.

If Openreach had been in a completely separate company from BT Group as opposed to wholly owned, then BT had bought its assets at a low cost either direct or into a newly-formed "BTOR Ltd" for instance your idea would be valid.

The same happens frequently in fact with (commonly retail) companies going into liquidation, sometime voluntary liquidation, and the directors setting up a new company the next day and buying the whole shebang cheaply from the liquidator.

Eradicating its debts to suppliers at the same time.

You cannot do that in the case of Openreach as a healthy company within BT Group. You may wish to think of it that way, but its internal accountants and auditors cannot.

Having said that, as I pointed out earlier, the waste of money will just be "disappeared" within the overall research and development budget. Some projects are bound to fail completely, some to be open to redeployment and the recouping of some of the initial loss. As in the case of G.Fast. Allowances are made in such budgets, and for reasonable variations.

For all such projects there will be some form of ROI calculation and also a risk assessment before authorising it to go ahead. If at some stage it looks like those assessments were badly wrong then the project is reconsidered. Think for instance of HS2 at the moment, where ongoing costs are continually reviewed and doubts about continuing it raised.

Changing the route of HS2; or cutting out plans to extend it after Phase 1; or terminating it just before London (which has been discussed); or lowering the expected maximum speed in order to lower costs as I think happened a while ago, do not and cannot result in the costs to the date of any such revision being zeroised.

In essence the two situations are the same.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Having said that, as I pointed out earlier, the waste of money will just be "disappeared" within the overall research and development budget. Some projects are bound to fail completely, some to be open to redeployment and the recouping of some of the initial loss

So you'd be happy that if G.Fast had been canned completely, the entire budget could be written off against failed R&D.

But you say that if *any* limited deployment of G.Fast takes place, its business case has to carry the *entire* cost of G.Fast R&D, including the blind alleys? That doesn't make sense to me. Surely a partial write-off is perfectly reasonable here.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The cost is still there to be placed against the project.

It is available, but it doesn't have to be accounted for in that way.

G.fast is very low in UK and not good for Openreach or BTWholesale profits. G.fast will never be a Fibre - still copper just like ADSL2+ (up to 24Mbps) upgrade from ADSLMAX (8Mbps) the same with FTTC (up to 80Mbps) upgrade to G.fast (up to 330Mbps).

Full Fibre (FTTP) is best way forward ahead.

I accept it makes sense to you. You said that in your post that I replied to.

I gave you an explanation of why it doesn't work in that way in real world business, and an excellent high level example of the principle that applies at any level.

If you think changing the start and end points of the HS2 track could remove the billions of pounds spent up to that decision, so that on completion of the reduced system they could say it only cost what was incurred following such a decision, you really do need to rethink.

In reply to a post by Scientistnsaint:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The cost is still there to be placed against the project.

It is available, but it doesn't have to be accounted for in that way.

Then explain how, as many thousand accountants, auditors, civil servants and government ministers (of all parties when in office) would be extremely grateful.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

G.fast is very low in UK and not good for Openreach or BTWholesale profits. G.fast will never be a Fibre - still copper just like ADSL2+ (up to 24Mbps) upgrade from ADSLMAX (8Mbps) the same with FTTC (up to 80Mbps) upgrade to G.fast (up to 330Mbps).

Full Fibre (FTTP) is best way forward ahead.

Yes FTTP is the way forward, but for many it's not a today product. Where as g.fast can be installed very quickly.

It's like you don't walk into a supermarket, just to find out that they won't be having any food for two years. One because you would like to eat food before two years and second the supermarket would not last long if it had nothing to sell.

Fair enough. But I have no plan to have G.fast if I want it, but no thanks. I am stick with FTTC until the G.fast price drop around FTTC price then I will change over to G.fast. For my line I can get double speed from FTTC to G.fast but not paying £48 a month for that.

Companies can invest in R&D without being compelled to allocate that expenditure to the costs of any product or service which they offer.

There may well be sound business/tax/PR reasons for wanting to do so, but that isn't the same.

Well G.fast 160 Mbps products are now selling for the price of FTTC 80/20 products i.e. £39.99/m so things are shifting

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Well G.fast 160 Mbps products are now selling for the price of FTTC 80/20 products i.e. £39.99/m so things are shifting

Where can I find this price £39.99 from? So far, the isp only offer me G.fast at £60 per month

I�m switching from Plusnet 80/20 costing £36 per month, to EE 330/30 costing £43 per month.

EE has/had £150 Quidco cash back available at time of sign up too. Which if you�re bothered about splitting to a per month deduction, works out at being �£8 and a Chomp�, bringing EE in at around £35 per month. Assuming the Quidco pays out.

Was it easy to set up router from EE and can you see all the stats from the router?

BT Ultrafast 1 £39.99 but on a 24 month contract.
Probably cash back available though

Don't like 24 months too long plus BT can put up price at anytime during this contract

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Don't like 24 months too long plus BT can put up price at anytime during this contract

Is there anything you do like? You seem to be always complaining about everything. It would be fun to see a YT video of your complaining when you're at work

Edited by robertcrowther (Tue 05-Nov-19 11:24:50)

Pretty sure that if BT put the price up then you can move elsewhere without penalty - that means price increases actually become get out of contract opportunities.

Surely if you are told that prices may increase, and are told what the limit on the increase would be, and then go ahead knowing that, you can't cancel if they do what they told you they might and you agreed they could?

Interesting, in the past mid contract price rises would trigger a get out of contract free clause but it seems to be a little murkier now that BT mention them in the contract. Looks like you may be right that because it is now baked into the Ts&Cs the ability to cancel may have now disappeared.

Post deleted by adslmax

Two days ago you said ...

But I have no plan to have G.fast if I want it, but no thanks.

... and have been known to fabricate untruths about orders.

Please don�t go down that route again thank you.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Was it easy to set up router from EE and can you see all the stats from the router?

I�m not activated until 18/11. I�m hoping it�s an OR modem & separate router anyway, as I�ll be hooking the modem into my existing pfSense setup all being well.

Post deleted by adslmax

EE sent me a "SmartHub" (BT SmartHub) with built in modem. Openreach engineer rocked up and said "That's no good", went away and pulled out an OR modem, he hooked this up to the SmartHub and did the necessary tests, confirmed my line was getting full 330Mbps, and went on his way.

I promptly re-routed the OR modem to my pfSense setup and I too was on my merry way.

292/48 @ https://www.speedtest.net/result/8773707930