General Discussion
  >> Fibre Broadband


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Wed 10-Feb-21 18:06:12
Print Post

one fibre network


[link to this post]
 
Would it be a good idea if these providers got together and built one network instead of having a load?

I know Open reach is kind of doing that and opening the network to over providers, just like they did with FTTC. It seems senseless and a waste of money to build multiple networks, also changing from one to another could be a pain in the neck. I know there can be problems changing on FTTC, but it don't happen very often.

The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User gary333
(experienced) Wed 10-Feb-21 19:37:36
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
Private companies don't waste money by investing in their roll outs, so there has to be a business case for overbuild, as it would be silly and somewhat seen as negligent by the shareholders if not. Even if there was money being wasted, it's not coming from the tax payer, so I don't really understand the issue.

I think it would be a terible idea for the government to have any form of control (in terms of ownership and day to day running) of our telecoms networks. The most effective model for almost everything in our world (apart from maybe healthcare) is a heavily & properly regulated private set of companies providing a service

People pick the wrong pony in this race, and simply look at companies bad, governments good. Let's be frank with all it's faults capitalism is always going to be better than communism. It's the regulators and thus governmentents who need to be setting targets & licensing requirements to encourage progression, this gives us the social improvements whilst allowing companies with real experience to deliver the economies and development.
Standard User Fastman3
(member) Wed 10-Feb-21 19:41:17
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: gary333] [link to this post]
 
really back the GPO -- you want A =- well the only think is b ands you wait 2 years for it

next question


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User Fastman3
(member) Wed 10-Feb-21 19:45:34
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: gary333] [link to this post]
 
Digital Region which was built in Yorkshire and cost 83m and realised only 2.7% of Digital Region's required 108,000 customers had signed up.

The estimated total cost of the project once it has ended is £83.3m.

this is why it does not with public networks
Standard User gary333
(experienced) Wed 10-Feb-21 19:56:04
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Fastman3] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Fastman3:
really back the GPO -- you want A =- well the only think is b ands you wait 2 years for it

next question


Eh, why are you quoting me, I certainly don't want anything to do with public ownership like i said!

In fact I was one of the people who gave multiple pieces of feedback at the public consultations against the Digital Region use of FTTC technology via Doncaster council. Even back then it was clear that unless it was FTTP then the money would end up being wasted - which is was. They were told by many at the time it was a white elephant!
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 10-Feb-21 20:01:53
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.
That ship sailed in the 1980s when Thatcher privatised BT. She realised that the progress we have enjoyed since would never have occurred in state hands.

The pace of change in telecoms (and Information Technology) is too fast for political leadership, unfortunately.

I agree that building two or three GPON networks in a town is lunacy, but that is how commercial competition works. You have to "pass" enough homes to get to a take up percentage for the network to be viable. A big enough town/city, can support this.

The long term question is can the networks be maintained. As we see with Virgin Media's cabinets that are often neglected, will the same happen to the alternate FTTP networks? Will they invest in XGPON or faster when the time comes.

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User heathrow
(regular) Wed 10-Feb-21 20:11:00
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
On Community Fibre which uses OR's ducts and poles. It already has XGPON.


Once a fibre network is built out, upgrade say from GPON to XGPON is mainly a matter of replacing splitters and the boxes at either end. Much much cheaper than initial fibre rollout costs.
Standard User MC31
(committed) Wed 10-Feb-21 20:46:54
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
I cant think of one thing the Government runs well so why would you trust then to deliver FTTP ?

these comments are my own and in no way represent any company that i may or may not be linked too.
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Wed 10-Feb-21 20:49:47
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: heathrow] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by heathrow:
On Community Fibre which uses OR's ducts and poles. It already has XGPON.


Once a fibre network is built out, upgrade say from GPON to XGPON is mainly a matter of replacing splitters and the boxes at either end. Much much cheaper than initial fibre rollout costs.

Shouldn’t have to change splitters, as they’re also part of the passive network (PON). The only things that change from GPON to XGSPON are the actives on each end. Furthermore GPON and XGSPON kit can happily coexist together on the same PON as they use slightly different wavelengths on downstream and upstream. So providers could roll it out gradually as they desired, wouldn’t need to Big Bang it.

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Wed 10-Feb-21 21:01:02
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
Would it be a good idea if these providers got together and built one network instead of having a load?

I know Open reach is kind of doing that and opening the network to over providers, just like they did with FTTC. It seems senseless and a waste of money to build multiple networks, also changing from one to another could be a pain in the neck. I know there can be problems changing on FTTC, but it don't happen very often.

The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.

Definitely 100% no!

The modern case study of what can happen when the politicians get their grubby claws into what starts as a seemingly well intentioned idea about a “National Broadband Network” .....is to look over the water at what happened when Australia tried exactly that with their NBN. It was an unmitigated disaster.

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Wed 10-Feb-21 22:29:10
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Pheasant] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pheasant:
It was an unmitigated disaster.
cost a fortune and took so long the next set of politicians neutered the vision. So the money was spent and the homes (taxpayers) in many areas ended up with no better than they started with, unreliable DOCSIS coax on aging hardware.

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Thu 11-Feb-21 08:50:37
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: gary333] [link to this post]
 
Ok, I get the point from all the replies, so no government involvement smile. But it still seems stupid to have different networks, maybe if all the providers got together to set up a network and all have a share in it, I am not fond of the idea that Openreach should have full control over it. Have enough problems with open reach not doing repairs as it is, not me, but other people.
There was some news in our local paper last week of someone losing money because OpenReach are taking so long to fix her line.

Also, one network would make it easier to change providers, just like on FTTC/ADSL. We have a fibre company digging up the roads and laying fibre down as I type this, so if another fibre company decided to set up here, we would have another lot of digging up the roads. I know Open Reach uses drop cables for their fibre, maybe a better way of doing things, save digging up gardens or driveways.

What happens if this company that is doing fibre here don't get enough subscribers, they will go out of business and then the network is left, unless another company takes it over.

it just seems a waste to me.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User dect
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 11-Feb-21 09:32:09
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
I agree with the other comments, you only have to look at the recent £5 billion promised for full fibre (or was it gigabit capable, who knows) and what is actually now going to be spent to know any government is going to make a mess of it.

We can only dream of a single full fibre infrastructure across the entire UK where you have the freedom to choose what ISP you go with but its never going to happen anytime soon (if ever) sadly.

Edited by dect (Thu 11-Feb-21 09:33:16)

Standard User witchunt
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 11-Feb-21 09:44:46
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: dect] [link to this post]
 
We already have one National ( nearly) telecoms infrastructure provider. Makes sense to use them.
Standard User Woolwich
(experienced) Thu 11-Feb-21 09:46:41
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
The network should also be owned by the public and not a private company.


Yes, comrade. Even before I read the replies I know you were in for a hard time. I half joked about voting Labour and got a grief.

I remember cable TV companies digging up the streets - and the fuss that caused. But, as I remember, cable TV was built on a franchise basis: there was only one company digging up your road and if you wanted to subscribe there was only one option. (Younger viewers may not be aware there was a time before Sky.) I had Videotron. It was known at the time that the real money wasn't in TV, but in the phone services which came with the telly. As the years past the cable companies merged into a single operator, Virgin Media.

So now what's happening. Capitalism is allowing anyone with deep enough pockets to come along and dig up your road for FTTP. Near me there are three sets of cables, Openreach, Virgin and CityFIbre. Those are the three 'big' players. But in other areas small operators are doing the same. Clearly there's a lot of money to be made. But are these smaller companies in the communications business or are they planning on becoming just big enough and valuable enough to be bought out by the bigger firms? I predict there will only be three or four big FTTP providers in a few years, they will all either merge or be bought out.

When that happened with TV there was only one set of cables down your street. But when it happens to FTTP there could be three cables all belonging to the same company. What a waste. Not only of money but the environmental cost must be huge.
Standard User dect
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 11-Feb-21 10:26:57
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: witchunt] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by witchunt:
We already have one National ( nearly) telecoms infrastructure provider. Makes sense to use them.
Its an interesting one, a lot of non Openreach (aka BT) money from the likes of BDUK, individuals, communities and local authorises have been ploughed into funding (no stake so it isn't being invested with a financial return) the Openreach owned infrastructure but the only financial beneficiaries of that is BT shareholders. I don't know what else can be done but this has never sat well with me.
Standard User dect
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 11-Feb-21 10:33:21
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Woolwich] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Woolwich:
I half joked about voting Labour and got grief.
If its the post I'm thinking of I remember you getting off very very lightly wink politics is reserved for firework nights in 'The Park'
Standard User ft247
(learned) Thu 11-Feb-21 10:39:47
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Woolwich] [link to this post]
 
Long-term what makes the most sense is for the whole country to have a single 1:32 PON deployed with some kind of neutral wholesaler. In fact, deployment of CBTs with 5% of outlets (or more near commercial properties) being direct (non-PON) cores back to handover points would allow for fast setup of PtP links for leased lines... if you're thinking big that might save money.

Public ownership makes a lot of sense, but the points about telecoms and politics not mixing are valid. I'll sit on the fence.

Given the current situation in the UK I'm glad altnets have a viable business model, as they are what will drag Openreach towards symmetrical speeds. It's hard for BT/OR to sell 900/110 when an alternative is offering 900/900 for a lower price.

On the question of environmental cost, disruption etc. - with the use of PIA that will be reduced. My area is scheduled for both Openreach and Community Fibre infrastructure - OR have started at one end clearing ducts and CF have started at the other. By the time they cross over the ducts should be clear and far fewer civils will be required.
Standard User heathrow
(regular) Thu 11-Feb-21 10:46:52
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Pheasant] [link to this post]
 
That's good. I worked in a telecoms related role - the cost of a dig in London was £90/metre. Avoiding truck rolls is key to keeping upgrade costs down.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 11-Feb-21 11:51:20
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Woolwich] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Woolwich:
I remember cable TV companies digging up the streets - and the fuss that caused. But, as I remember, cable TV was built on a franchise basis: there was only one company digging up your road and if you wanted to subscribe there was only one option. (Younger viewers may not be aware there was a time before Sky.) I had Videotron. It was known at the time that the real money wasn't in TV, but in the phone services which came with the telly. As the years past the cable companies merged into a single operator, Virgin Media.

Thatcher planned this in the 1980s and wanted to copy the USA model. Thankfully others realised the problems the US had.

Friends in the US have only ONE internet provider available, distances are too far for DSL, and so its coax HFC cable. (Or mobile data, which may become the only competition in time).

You can see why Starlink is interesting to many in the USA.

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User broadband66
(knowledge is power) Thu 11-Feb-21 12:09:33
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
Which of the dozen owning companies would fix the issues when they arise?

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk, upgraded to fibre 40/10
Standard User tikka69
(member) Thu 11-Feb-21 14:02:03
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: gary333] [link to this post]
 
I agree, and I worked on it for 3 years !

If they had gone straight to FTTP that would have got peoples attention, they were too late to the FTTC party and BT were just overbuilding where we deployed.
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Thu 11-Feb-21 17:42:40
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: dect] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by dect:
Its an interesting one, a lot of non Openreach (aka BT) money from the likes of BDUK, individuals, communities and local authorises have been ploughed into funding (no stake so it isn't being invested with a financial return) the Openreach owned infrastructure but the only financial beneficiaries of that is BT shareholders. I don't know what else can be done but this has never sat well with me.


Yep, this is the problem I had when OR used to get the contract to put new networks in from BDUK, another private company getting money from the public purse.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Thu 11-Feb-21 17:43:34
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: broadband66] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by broadband66:
Which of the dozen owning companies would fix the issues when they arise?


They would put money in to set up a company to do just that, fix problems.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Thu 11-Feb-21 17:51:20
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Woolwich] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Woolwich:
Yes, comrade. Even before I read the replies I know you were in for a hard time. I half joked about voting Labour and got a grief.

I remember cable TV companies digging up the streets - and the fuss that caused. But, as I remember, cable TV was built on a franchise basis: there was only one company digging up your road and if you wanted to subscribe there was only one option. (Younger viewers may not be aware there was a time before Sky.) I had Videotron. It was known at the time that the real money wasn't in TV, but in the phone services which came with the telly. As the years past the cable companies merged into a single operator, Virgin Media.

So now what's happening. Capitalism is allowing anyone with deep enough pockets to come along and dig up your road for FTTP. Near me there are three sets of cables, Openreach, Virgin and CityFIbre. Those are the three 'big' players. But in other areas small operators are doing the same. Clearly there's a lot of money to be made. But are these smaller companies in the communications business or are they planning on becoming just big enough and valuable enough to be bought out by the bigger firms? I predict there will only be three or four big FTTP providers in a few years, they will all either merge or be bought out.

When that happened with TV there was only one set of cables down your street. But when it happens to FTTP there could be three cables all belonging to the same company. What a waste. Not only of money but the environmental cost must be huge.


I am not bothered with them giving me a hard time and in some ways I understand what they are saying, but it just seems such a waste. We have never had Cable TV here and I doubt it will happen now, we have got a company digging around to put fibre in if you read my other thread in this part of the forums. It is just a shame that it will only be used by one provider so no real competition, like people are finding out that use virgin, prices go up and what can most of them do, but leave Virgin and go back to some FTTC service. This is one reason why I am thinking very carefully if I want to leave the network I am on. don't get me wrong I am no fan of the company called BT and yes I know plusnet is part of them, but they operate separately and so far have been good and I don't end up chatting with someone in another country if I have a problem. I went to Plusnet after I left my wireless broadband, because they offered me a service at a good price.

To be honest, this country is so far behind other countries.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User candlerb
(fountain of knowledge) Thu 11-Feb-21 19:49:55
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
we have got a company digging around to put fibre


Which one? Several of them have wholesale arms (e.g. Gigaclear), or are wholesale only (e.g. Cityfibre). That means you get a choice of ISPs on the network - perhaps not as big a choice as on Openreach, but a choice nonetheless.

If you are happy with Plusnet and FTTC, then good for you. If you want something better, try fibre. If you are unhappy, you can always move back to Plusnet.
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Thu 11-Feb-21 21:22:53
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: candlerb] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by candlerb:
Which one? Several of them have wholesale arms (e.g. Gigaclear), or are wholesale only (e.g. Cityfibre). That means you get a choice of ISPs on the network - perhaps not as big a choice as on Openreach, but a choice nonetheless.

If you are happy with Plusnet and FTTC, then good for you. If you want something better, try fibre. If you are unhappy, you can always move back to Plusnet.


A company called Zzoomm and the spelling is not a mistake. They are only in one place and that is Henley on Thames, we are their second place, I have no idea why they choose here, i think they have been paid a large amount of money to come here.
The CEO of Zzoomm, Matthew Hare used to own Gigaclear.

I have said in the thread on here that I put about Zzoom, that I am undecided, I do not need the speed, so if Plusnet does me a good deal that is cheaper than Zzoomm I may stay as I am, but if the price is close to Zzoomm, then it will certainly give me more of an incentive to change. i have 11 months to make up my mid at least as my contract don't run out until next year and then that depends on if the network is up and running around here by then.


I just think it would have been a good idea for companies to get together. i doubt we will have another one anyway apart from BT and they will no doubt use their own ducts.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Fri 12-Feb-21 06:18:59
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: heathrow] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by heathrow:
That's good. I worked in a telecoms related role - the cost of a dig in London was £90/metre. Avoiding truck rolls is key to keeping upgrade costs down.

Definitely. It’s the raison d'etre of a PON architecture network. The “glass” really has terabits of potential bandwidth. Bandwidth upgrades should be a matter of replacing the active components at either end.

There already is news of Nokia and Vodafone lab testing 100G PON...
https://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/pon-systems/art...

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Fri 12-Feb-21 08:02:11
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
To be honest, this country is so far behind other countries.

Depends on your lens. Be be careful what you wish for.

Here is a summary of the Australian experience of their own National Broadband Network effort. It’s been a decade+ long debacle.

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/nat...

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User heathrow
(regular) Fri 12-Feb-21 08:48:01
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Pheasant] [link to this post]
 
I loathe the expression 'future proof' but deploying redundant FTTP should mean that no digs would be required for a very long time.
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Fri 12-Feb-21 09:22:00
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Pheasant] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pheasant:
Depends on your lens. Be be careful what you wish for.

Here is a summary of the Australian experience of their own National Broadband Network effort. It’s been a decade+ long debacle.

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/nat...


Then you learn from others mistakes, I know this country is not very good at learning and is way behind on technology, sad really because we used to be up there with other countries.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Fri 12-Feb-21 09:30:35
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
Then you learn from others mistakes, I know this country is not very good at learning and is way behind on technology, sad really because we used to be up there with other countries.

I have family in the USA, and they would really like our FTTC services and choice of ISP via a neutral network such as OpenReach. The USA is way behind us.

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Fri 12-Feb-21 10:47:37
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
Again that’s your point of view not necessarily grounded in either reality or fact.

The broadband landscape (technologies and spread/access) is fundamentally and rapidly changing, both here and abroad. There is massive external capital investment going on in next generation access technologies. The technology that Zoomm are laying in your street is pretty much at the cutting edge. It really doesn’t get much better than 10G symmetric fibre broadband.

Trying however to get your “arms around” that and leverage it as a singular, uniform (presumably government led/sponsored) regional single network...well that failed abysmally already in Yorkshire. It failed again in Australia when they attempted a similar national level project.

What makes you think it will be a wonderful success anytime now?

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User broadband66
(knowledge is power) Fri 12-Feb-21 11:12:29
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
Plenty of issues with VM and their high latency and slow downs in the evenings in certain areas. Gamers usually switch to FTTC for a better experience.

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk, upgraded to fibre 40/10
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Fri 12-Feb-21 17:28:40
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
I have family in the USA, and they would really like our FTTC services and choice of ISP via a neutral network such as OpenReach. The USA is way behind us.


I know that parts of the U.S have naff broadband, but I also know that when things go wrong it can be a pain to get things fixed as different providers argue with either about who is responsible to fix the problem.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Fri 12-Feb-21 17:38:09
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Pheasant] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pheasant:
Again that’s your point of view not necessarily grounded in either reality or fact.

The broadband landscape (technologies and spread/access) is fundamentally and rapidly changing, both here and abroad. There is massive external capital investment going on in next generation access technologies. The technology that Zoomm are laying in your street is pretty much at the cutting edge. It really doesn’t get much better than 10G symmetric fibre broadband.

Trying however to get your “arms around” that and leverage it as a singular, uniform (presumably government led/sponsored) regional single network...well that failed abysmally already in Yorkshire. It failed again in Australia when they attempted a similar national level project.

What makes you think it will be a wonderful success anytime now?


I did say ok maybe not government led when people did not seem to like the idea, but maybe a consortium of companies just for the network. I never thought I would ever say that as i believe in competition, but i just don't think it makes sense in putting more and more fibre in the same street, digging up roads again and again, bad enough when the Gas digs up the road a day after it haver been dug up for electric repair or service

As for Zzoomm being cutting edge, maybe, but they are charging another tenner a month to get the same sped up and down, on the 100Mb/s download it is a measly 10Mb/s upload, more or less what I get now unless I paid extra, the same with a static IP address being a tenner a month. Maybe that is how they keep their prices lowish.
We will see what happens when/if it eventually reaches me.
My main problem with Zzoom is they are a new company, run by a CEO who already bailed out of one fibre network provider when he was offered a load of money,

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Fri 12-Feb-21 17:40:12
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: broadband66] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by broadband66:
Plenty of issues with VM and their high latency and slow downs in the evenings in certain areas. Gamers usually switch to FTTC for a better experience.


I have heard about VM problems, I know people who use them and a couple are on the verge of moving elsewhere, one because of the constant problems, which does make me think if fibre is really more reliable, the other because of the price rise.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User dect
(fountain of knowledge) Fri 12-Feb-21 17:53:46
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
If there was ever to be one fibre network (which I don't expect there ever will be) whoever run it would have to be accountable to the end customer, one annoying problem with Openreach currently is that they hide behind the fact that your a customer of the ISP not them so they have lots of wriggle room when issues occur.
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Fri 12-Feb-21 18:16:16
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
In reply to a post by Pheasant:
Again that’s your point of view not necessarily grounded in either reality or fact.

The broadband landscape (technologies and spread/access) is fundamentally and rapidly changing, both here and abroad. There is massive external capital investment going on in next generation access technologies. The technology that Zoomm are laying in your street is pretty much at the cutting edge. It really doesn’t get much better than 10G symmetric fibre broadband.

Trying however to get your “arms around” that and leverage it as a singular, uniform (presumably government led/sponsored) regional single network...well that failed abysmally already in Yorkshire. It failed again in Australia when they attempted a similar national level project.

What makes you think it will be a wonderful success anytime now?


I did say ok maybe not government led when people did not seem to like the idea, but maybe a consortium of companies just for the network. I never thought I would ever say that as i believe in competition, but i just don't think it makes sense in putting more and more fibre in the same street, digging up roads again and again, bad enough when the Gas digs up the road a day after it haver been dug up for electric repair or service

As for Zzoomm being cutting edge, maybe, but they are charging another tenner a month to get the same sped up and down, on the 100Mb/s download it is a measly 10Mb/s upload, more or less what I get now unless I paid extra, the same with a static IP address being a tenner a month. Maybe that is how they keep their prices lowish.
We will see what happens when/if it eventually reaches me.
My main problem with Zzoom is they are a new company, run by a CEO who already bailed out of one fibre network provider when he was offered a load of money,

If it was commercially viable / attractive for private enterprise to JV a single grand-unified-master network at a regional or even national level it would have been done already. However would it really be desirable on many other levels from security, reliability, resiliency etc etc to have only one network - even if it could theoretically be economically justified?

Having discrete fibre networks serving the same area to my mind is not in itself "wasteful" Its actually rather beneficial in many ways - part of the reason why its relatively cheap to get leased circuits in the capital is due to the abundance of fibre in close proximity. However digging up roads six times and laying 4 sets of ducts is both disruptive, expensive and wasteful.

Something along the lines of what Emtelle have been pushing the industry to try and adopt is to my mind far more workable and sensible. The so called "one dig" strategy....

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/09/emtell...

Even getting to that lofty goal would be a major achievement!

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Fri 12-Feb-21 19:36:19
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
I know that parts of the U.S have naff broadband, but I also know that when things go wrong it can be a pain to get things fixed as different providers argue with either about who is responsible to fix the problem.

Its not "naff" as such, my family and friends in different parts of the US are all on cable, and have varying speeds from 100 Mbps upto 500 Mbps.

The problem is that there is no competition for cable, so if you want to change ISP, you have to move home (and city, and often state!).

So don't fall out with your ISP....

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Sat 13-Feb-21 08:49:36
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: Pheasant] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Pheasant:
If it was commercially viable / attractive for private enterprise to JV a single grand-unified-master network at a regional or even national level it would have been done already. However would it really be desirable on many other levels from security, reliability, resiliency etc etc to have only one network - even if it could theoretically be economically justified?

Having discrete fibre networks serving the same area to my mind is not in itself "wasteful" Its actually rather beneficial in many ways - part of the reason why its relatively cheap to get leased circuits in the capital is due to the abundance of fibre in close proximity. However digging up roads six times and laying 4 sets of ducts is both disruptive, expensive and wasteful.

Something along the lines of what Emtelle have been pushing the industry to try and adopt is to my mind far more workable and sensible. The so called "one dig" strategy....

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/09/emtell...

Even getting to that lofty goal would be a major achievement!


That is the problem if it all comes down to being commercially viable, but surly digging a ton of trenches all over the place is not commercially viable, but the many it is.

It was just a thought.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Sat 13-Feb-21 08:57:47
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by jchamier:
Its not "naff" as such, my family and friends in different parts of the US are all on cable, and have varying speeds from 100 Mbps upto 500 Mbps.

The problem is that there is no competition for cable, so if you want to change ISP, you have to move home (and city, and often state!).

So don't fall out with your ISP....


Chatting to someone last night in the states, and she kept losing connection, she says it have been going on for a few weeks, and it is difficult to get anyone to look at it.

The problem is will we end up in the same situation? Some places still only have one Fibre company, so if they fall out with their ISP they have to go back to FTTC, in the years to come, who knows how long FTTC will keep going?
Be the same here when Zzoomm is up and running, want true Fibre, Zzoomm will be the only option. Open reach don't even have this city on their map for FTTH. There are some places around here, out in the sticks that have Gigaclear, which surprised me.

We will have to wait and see what happens

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Sat 13-Feb-21 09:33:14
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
In reply to a post by Pheasant:
If it was commercially viable / attractive for private enterprise to JV a single grand-unified-master network at a regional or even national level it would have been done already. However would it really be desirable on many other levels from security, reliability, resiliency etc etc to have only one network - even if it could theoretically be economically justified?

Having discrete fibre networks serving the same area to my mind is not in itself "wasteful" Its actually rather beneficial in many ways - part of the reason why its relatively cheap to get leased circuits in the capital is due to the abundance of fibre in close proximity. However digging up roads six times and laying 4 sets of ducts is both disruptive, expensive and wasteful.

Something along the lines of what Emtelle have been pushing the industry to try and adopt is to my mind far more workable and sensible. The so called "one dig" strategy....

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2020/09/emtell...

Even getting to that lofty goal would be a major achievement!


That is the problem if it all comes down to being commercially viable, but surly digging a ton of trenches all over the place is not commercially viable, but the many it is.

It was just a thought.

Nobody wants multiple re-trenching of streets etc. A “one-dig” strategy therefore is a more feasible alternative than forcing competing networks to join as one super provider.

Beyond “one dig” there are several other things the regulator could do to appropriately enable competition without duplicating duct or network infrastructure.

1. Make PIA a far more (commercially) attractive proposition than what it is currently (although it’s better than what it first was). Less incentive to dig if it’s cheaper to use exiting pit and pipe.

2. Enforce similar wholesale network access as exists on the Openreach network. Although the weighted advantage of Openreach versus a relative minnow alt net would need careful consideration.

My opinion is that’s it wholly preferable to have a choice of several real network providers that then can challenge, innovate and compete on product choice and price rather than one monolithic, monopolistic player that would be a 40 year throwback to the bad old days of state owned monopoly telcos.

My Broadband Speed Test
Standard User candlerb
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 13-Feb-21 10:32:58
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
I have heard about VM problems, I know people who use them and a couple are on the verge of moving elsewhere, one because of the constant problems, which does make me think if fibre is really more reliable, the other because of the price rise.


VM is essentially a cable TV network, adapted for broadband. In some parts of Virgin's network, hundreds of homes are sharing the same data bandwidth, and there are serious oversubscription issues.

Note also that most of Virgin Media's network is not fibre. Those parts which are are using RFoG (Radio Frequency over Glass), which is the same cable TV architecture delivered over fibre.
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 13-Feb-21 12:42:09
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: candlerb] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by candlerb:
VM is essentially a cable TV network, adapted for broadband. In some parts of Virgin's network, hundreds of homes are sharing the same data bandwidth, and there are serious oversubscription issues.
A legacy of the 20+ companies that built each area to different standards. Of course in 1991 they were building for cable TV, not for broadband. Not impossible to resolve, but hard without income, and with a poor network, customers don't stay.

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM
Standard User zyborg47
(legend) Sat 13-Feb-21 19:30:56
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: candlerb] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by candlerb:
VM is essentially a cable TV network, adapted for broadband. In some parts of Virgin's network, hundreds of homes are sharing the same data bandwidth, and there are serious oversubscription issues.

Note also that most of Virgin Media's network is not fibre. Those parts which are are using RFoG (Radio Frequency over Glass), which is the same cable TV architecture delivered over fibre.


Our phone network was never meant for broadband either, copper wires was certainly not meant for what it is being used for, but I do get your meaning about the Virgin network.

Adrian

Desktop machine Ryzen powered with windows 10 , reluctantly.

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User jchamier
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 13-Feb-21 20:04:34
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
Our phone network was never meant for broadband either, copper wires was certainly not meant for what it is being used for, but I do get your meaning about the Virgin network.

A big difference is the POTS network is point to point, the VM cable network is a shared medium. In 1991 it was all analogue television channels, and broadcast to multiple homes, with some sort of descrambler in the "set top box".

Broadband changed this, which is where the DOCSIS standard comes from, and it required quite a few UK companies to retrofit their street cabinets to allow two way communication!

Here we were NTL (formerly CableTel) and in summer 1999 they started a trial in the Guildford head-end, which included my town. So I jumped on the trial, in my old place, with the 3com modem - most of the country was using un-metered dialup services at 56k.

Then in early 2000 Telewest's ISP division Blueyonder did something similar. However friends of mine lived in areas served by Eurobell cable, whom took years to upgrade, and still never managed it, eventually selling out to Telewest. Which meant in those towns, ADSL via the Openreach copper became popular. Telewest & NTL then merged quite late, and bought the mobile business and rebranded as VM.

At this point we had a large enough company to start to challenge BT / Openreach in many towns and cities, if not nationwide.

21 years of broadband connectivity since 1999 trial - Live BQM

Edited by jchamier (Sat 13-Feb-21 20:06:30)

Standard User Pheasant
(committed) Sat 13-Feb-21 20:32:31
Print Post

Re: one fibre network


[re: jchamier] [link to this post]
 
About the same time, 1999 I was one of the first getting connected to the same thing in Sydney - Optusnet which was a new the new HFC network somewhat controversially aerially overlaid over the predominant Telstra legacy wired infrastructure, although they too were rolling out Foxtel HFC. As I recall it was a screaming 10M down/512K up service and the cable modem was around half the size of a shoebox - but around half as thick.

Two years later I was in N7, Holloway in North London connecting to much the same thing but courtesy of Cable London /Telewest.

Edit - deep concentration after a few glasses of Pinot, I recall it was actually 1998 and the gear (modem and a much of the gear like the in-line amps on “hardline” coax strung up between poles (bloody yuck) was Scientific Atlanta. We imported a lot of tech from the seppo’s including their cable tv tech.

My Broadband Speed Test

Edited by Pheasant (Sat 13-Feb-21 20:54:12)

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to