2Gb FTTP Broadband Slower Than BT VDSL?

I've recently switched to a 2Gb symmetrical FTTP broadband connection from a provider called ZZOOMM, the speeds are very good as you can see below, although I note on TBB speed checker the upload is always low, must be a 1Gb connection on TBB's side? Anyway, since switching web pages seem to load very slow, and Netflix and streaming services seem to buffer or go to low quality mode, this is despite me getting claimed speeds in excess of 2Gb/s on Netflix's fast.com.. Can anybody give me any pointers? Latency seems fine as well everything seems fine but real world responsiveness on the web is poor?

The upload limit almost certainly isn't anything to do with TBB: they will have a proper symmetrical connection in a data centre. It could be your client device; or it could be Zzoomm's network not being as symmetrical as they claim. Filling 2Gbps on a consumer device (especially Windows) can be difficult.

DNS problems can cause general poor browsing experience. But that would not cause streaming services to buffer or switch to lower bitrates.

Do all client devices behave the same? For example, streaming to a PC versus streaming to a TV with a Roku / Firestick or similar?

Does Zzoomm supply the router, and are you connecting all devices into it, or do you have some sort of LAN of your own? The problem may be in your LAN. Look for broadcast storms with wireshark; check spanning tree is running and preventing loops. Try turning off any wifi extenders you have and running everything *directly* into the router.

Also configure BQM if you can, then see if you see any pattern of packet loss to the router from the outside.

In reply to a post by lewisp8:

must be a 1Gb connection on TBB's side?

Or a provider between Zzzoom and ThinkBroadband's network having a limit on traffic per user from Zzzoom. (perhaps down to how much Zzzoom pay).

Thanks for the reply,

The router supplied is Zyxcel 10Gb router connected to the ONT via 10GbE Cat 6 cable which is plugged in to a 10Gb ethernet adapter in to a Mac, I've connected the ONT directly to the PC and still has the same behaviour. In regards to the upload every other speed test including iperf seems to show nearly band on 2Gb up and down across a veriety of servers hence my suspicion of it being on the TBB side.

Streaming on other devices has the same result, oddly if you manually set bit rate / quality to highest setting its fine with no buffering.

I'll have a play about with DNS settings

In reply to a post by lewisp8:

. In regards to the upload every other speed test including iperf seems to show nearly band on 2Gb up and down across a veriety of servers hence my suspicion of it being on the TBB side.

There are thousands of interconneted networks on the "inter" net.

maybe @seb will see this and comment.

Maybe best to have a word with Zzoomm, but looking sat their facebook page they do seem to be having a lot of problems, some is to do with their router, but since you are on 2Gb/s you get a Zyxel which should be better. The other thing is maybe TBB checker can't cope, try another one.

With all the hype that Zzoomm is putting out, they should be amazing. I have had another letter from them advertising their broadband, must be the 6th in less than 4 weeks.

Does your public IP address reported on speedtest sites match what your router thinks your external IP is?

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by lewisp8:

must be a 1Gb connection on TBB's side?

Or a provider between Zzzoom and ThinkBroadband's network having a limit on traffic per user from Zzzoom. (perhaps down to how much Zzzoom pay).

That isn't a thing.

I would also be querying the single stream speed.

Best to check single thread perf. with another machine (or two) could be processor (or software) bound by the machine running the test.

That single threaded speed seems on the low side although not low enough to be a big problem.

On my gigabit connection my laptop does 400, and my PC over 800 single threaded from TBB.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

That isn't a thing.

Ok, makes sense. Maybe I'm thinking of some ISPs that had only limited capacity at an exchange point and routed all traffic that way.

But if the processor could only handle 200Mbps on single threaded, it is odd that for x6 is is near 2000 which is equivalwent to ~ 300 on each.

I would just use Task Manager, run the two and see what rough figures are. Then use the TBB down load files - run one alone then 2,3, 4 and see what happens.

In reply to a post by MHC:

But if the processor could only handle 200Mbps on single threaded, it is odd that for x6 is is near 2000 which is equivalwent to ~ 300 on each.

I would just use Task Manager, run the two and see what rough figures are. Then use the TBB down load files - run one alone then 2,3, 4 and see what happens.

Quick test with another device, even a phone on WiFi should be able to sink more than 500Mbps on single thread TBB. will prove or disprove the connection/router is the issue rather than the box running the test.

None of this explains video stream buffering or dropouts though; a 20Mbps line would be able to handle that just fine. The implication is that something is dropping out intermittently, maybe for 5-10 seconds at a time. It could be on Zzoomm's network but could be on the LAN side too.

If you could run two continuous pings:
- one to the router IP on the LAN
- one to somewhere reliable on the Internet (e.g. 8.8.8.8)
that could give some clues, if it shows packet loss around the same time as the video issues.

Doesn’t sound like it’s LAN. OP had said in their second post they are experiencing the same behaviour with PC (Apple? was referred to earlier not sure it’s the same box but anyway) connected direct to ONT.

Therefore it’s either the box running the test or the ONT / Zzoomm network.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

That isn't a thing.

Ok, makes sense. Maybe I'm thinking of some ISPs that had only limited capacity at an exchange point and routed all traffic that way.

The transit providers in between ISPs / ASNs charge per megabit per second per month as well as for a port so want ISPs to use as much capacity as possible as it's how they make their money.

ISPs with limited capacity at exchanges will generally move traffic around so that is uses alternative paths. Given the options people have in the UK shaping for the sake of the pretty minimal cost the transit and peering comes in at is a bad idea. Way more expensive to get the customer traffic to the edge than to get shot of it.

In reply to a post by lewisp8:

I've recently switched to a 2Gb symmetrical FTTP broadband connection from a provider called ZZOOMM, the speeds are very good as you can see below, although I note on TBB speed checker the upload is always low, must be a 1Gb connection on TBB's side? Anyway, since switching web pages seem to load very slow, and Netflix and streaming services seem to buffer or go to low quality mode, this is despite me getting claimed speeds in excess of 2Gb/s on Netflix's fast.com.. Can anybody give me any pointers? Latency seems fine as well everything seems fine but real world responsiveness on the web is poor?

Please use this instead: http://embeddable-speedtest.samknows.com/ and post back result

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Way more expensive to get the customer traffic to the edge than to get shot of it.

ah-ha, okay, so issues much more likely to be inside an ISP network than on the border. Thanks!

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Way more expensive to get the customer traffic to the edge than to get shot of it.

ah-ha, okay, so issues much more likely to be inside an ISP network than on the border. Thanks!

100%. Looking at the BT Wholesale price list it's 10s of Pounds a megabit a second a month though I'm quite sure ISPs don't pay close to list price. Collecting data from all over the country, sometimes from relatively remote places across relatively small links, is way more expensive than moving it across big links and fibre backbones. Shifting 5 Mb/s from the Isle of Skye to London across a gigabit or 10 Gb link is more expensive than shifting 5 Mb/s to Australia across huge amounts of capacity leased on multi-Tb capable fibre. Even as a single user I only pay 70p/Mbps/month for transit and peering.

Economies of scale and all that. The bigger the pipe your traffic is riding on the more customers the cost of that pipe is split between.

I’m also on Zzoomm with Home2000 and using zyxel ax7501-b0. TBB upload test is always poor for me too.

I did have what you describe about slow streaming etc but that only lasted for a couple of days and not been seen since. I believe Zzoomm did some changes as my BQM sows practically zero dropped packets.

I use cloudflare for DNS

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Economies of scale and all that. The bigger the pipe your traffic is riding on the more customers the cost of that pipe is split between.

Thank you for the update, that all makes perfect sense!

You are very welcome!

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Economies of scale and all that. The bigger the pipe your traffic is riding on the more customers the cost of that pipe is split between.

So what is the point of changing, then?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

So what is the point of changing, then?

Not everyone is happy with the awful slow speeds of FTTC ( 38 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload ) that you're happy with

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Not everyone is happy with the awful slow speeds of FTTC ( 38 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload ) that you're happy with

36Mb/s download and 9 up, 36 is not awfully slow and most people don't notice the difference unless they have a load of people in the house watching 4K video at the same time. Other half have FTTP with gigaclear and most of what she does don't make a dent in it, watching a 4K video use a tiny pittance of the bandwidth. A lot of people going to FTTP will do so because they listen to the propaganda, not because they need it.
Even if I went for FTTP I would go for the slower cheaper version, but I say again, if people are not getting the speed they think they are going to get then what is the point?

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

36Mb/s download and 9 up, 36 is not awfully slow and most people don't notice the difference unless they have a load of people in the house watching 4K video at the same time.

You've been told this before, but stop assuming other people's needs. There are a range of products at various speeds over different delivery mediums. (copper pair, coax cable, FTTP) and whilst you are happy with yours, it wouldn't meet my needs. You worry about yourself Adrian.

Agreed, each thread is about the OPs circumstances only, we don't need to hear an opinion of how relatively slow FTTC is adequate each time someone posts a thread about fibre, in the same way we don't need to know a certain person's current sync statistics every time somebody else is reporting a fault.

I, for example, would be unable to work from home with 9Mbps upload.

Edited by jpm (Tue 20-Dec-22 12:35:03)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

36Mb/s download and 9 up, 36 is not awfully slow and most people don't notice the difference unless they have a load of people in the house watching 4K video at the same time.

You've been told this before, but stop assuming other people's needs. There are a range of products at various speeds over different delivery mediums. (copper pair, coax cable, FTTP) and whilst you are happy with yours, it wouldn't meet my needs. You worry about yourself Adrian.

The way you are saying it as if 36Mb/s is really slow, it was not that long ago that we were on 512kb/s broadband and before that dial up, now those are awfully slow, even the 3Mb/s I could get on ADSL a few years ago was awfully, slow, but 36Mb/s
is not awfully slow. If you can't cope with 36Mb/s speeds then you must be blasting your broadband, you know this you need a faster speed is all propaganda to get us onto FTTP .
sure, there are some people where the faster speed is better for them, certainly if they have a few people in the house, my neighbour but one have too teenager girls, and they have their boyfriends around, so a faster speed connection would be useful I presume. A single person in a house normally need that high speed unless they are downloading a load of large files, but many people don't as they use streaming these days.

Sorry, but I still think gets higher speed because they think they need it and get caught with the propaganda and sales rubbish, just like people do with needing the fastest best mobile phone or a few years ago the fastest computer, even if they only browsed the web and wrote the odd letter with it.

i am so glad i don't get caught up with the propaganda

Different people have different requirements, it doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong or have been captured by advertising.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

Economies of scale and all that. The bigger the pipe your traffic is riding on the more customers the cost of that pipe is split between.

So what is the point of changing, then?

Given your comments here and elsewhere I think I've about hit the point where I've no interest in responding to you on this or any other matter. Between the uninformed conspiracy theory echoing on such diverse subjects as 5G and CoViD, the endless repetition on how you aren't interested in FTTP and comments about how little interest you have in Internet as a whole posted on websites devoted to broadband I'm about done. You're welcome to read and respond to my posts as you see fit but aren't getting any kind of response as I'm not going to waste any more time. You've clearly no idea about the topic in hand and I'm not going to bother with discussion, not least because it won't change anything: you've your opinions and silly things like facts aren't going to intrude.

Consider me another of the sheep drinking in the propaganda and having taken the blue pill

Cheers.

Edited by XGS_Is_On (Tue 20-Dec-22 12:52:07)

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

i am so glad i don't get caught up with the propaganda

Its not propaganda, we all do different jobs. In 1999 I paid £50/month for 512kbps/128kbps cable, which achieved 300/90 most of the time (it was a pilot). I now pay around the same for 250Mbps/25Mbps, and when the local FTTP provider arrives I can pay £27 for 900 Mbps/900 Mbps. I work in an IT job and use the speed, I don't just stream 4K netflix as you suggest. I suggest you stop the assumptions and focus on your own needs, not other peoples.

Looks like the word for the day is propaganda do I get a prize for guessing correctly 🤣

In reply to a post by dect:

Looks like the word for the day is propaganda do I get a prize for guessing correctly 🤣

And of course propaganda doesn't need to take account of such irrelevant matters as reliability.

@lewisp8
FWIW: I am on BTO/BT 900/110Mbps package No Zooommmm in my area just yet, Regarding speedtest's on TBB i find it really useful as it provides a brief insight into the capabilities of connections in single/multimode.
Since 15th Dec, I have done a couple of tests here on TBB and I notice that single-thread tests hits the high 400's Mbps then multi-thereadded mode It hits my full speed ~950's Mbps

For comparison my AX89X router internal oloka embedded speedtest ramps up fast to burt speeds, straight to 900+ and pins it there all the way through to end of the test same with upstream. Testing from Wales to London Server..

As has been mentioned earlier if problem/issue persists it may well be worth you focusing on single thead testing then go from there..

Next steps would then to maybe thinkink about TBB testbox is located in relation to your ISP Gateway
Although I doubt that would be a thing .. It would be a different matter if TBB testbox was located in a totally different geographical location as the ISP your using it over (as in, if based in a differnet country) Then it may be grounds to investigate ISP routes/peering etc.

Then again, even shortest path may not be optimal path.

If I were you I would also ensure that TBB testbox is testing either IPv4 or IPv6 (if Zzomm offers ipv6 prefix) Just confirm that Both IPv4/IPv6 resolve back to same device/gateway.

It would state this in the bottom of the test and during initial test to choose IPv4 or run in IPv6 mode.
Perhaps this could be a factor?

If you only just been activated perhaps that could be a thing too.? links being esatblished/sessions being created.. IDK. Just spit ballin' here! HTH.

In reply to a post by jpm:

Different people have different requirements, it doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong or have been captured by advertising.

I never said they were doing anything wrong and I agree some people do find use for the extra, but there are people who are certainly captured by the advertising as you put it. All the adverts are about is speed, the leaflet from Vodafone I had delivered is about how much faster they are compared to BT, just a shame that they compared different technologies. It does say up to 5 times more reliable, more reliable than what? They can't say their service is more reliable than BT FTTC or any FTTC service,how can it be more reliable than something that is reliable?

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Its not propaganda, we all do different jobs. In 1999 I paid £50/month for 512kbps/128kbps cable, which achieved 300/90 most of the time (it was a pilot). I now pay around the same for 250Mbps/25Mbps, and when the local FTTP provider arrives I can pay £27 for 900 Mbps/900 Mbps. I work in an IT job and use the speed, I don't just stream 4K netflix as you suggest. I suggest you stop the assumptions and focus on your own needs, not other peoples.

Everything these days is propaganda, even supermarkets does it to try to get people to use their self scans or scan and shop.

As for propaganda with networks, when they print complete bull, like Vodafone saying about reliability, the majority of people I know that uses FTTC don't seem to have reliability problems these days, they have slow-downs now and again, but that have been happening for years and I doubt FTTP will solve that problem.

I went to ADSL in 2000, more or less when it was launched, BT gave me free connection, but yes it did cost a fair bit of money, over £45 i think, but i had a lodger here then, and we had both our computers connected to a third machine and used internet connection sharing, so dial up was really slow and it made sense to go for ADSL, with the cost shared between us. I would not have gone onto ADSL at the time otherwise. We used the same system in sharing the internet, but had the Frog modem connected to the third computer instead of my Us robotics courier.
I know my own needs, and I what I have suits me.

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

And of course propaganda doesn't need to take account of such irrelevant matters as reliability.

I hear this thing about reliability, but how can it be more reliable than reliable? If I was losing sync all the time or going on a go slow then I would think differently.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

And of course propaganda doesn't need to take account of such irrelevant matters as reliability.

I hear this thing about reliability, but how can it be more reliable than reliable? If I was losing sync all the time or going on a go slow then I would think differently.

Adrian

Once again you are advancing personal experience as an exemplar when you are only a very small sample of what happens in the real world. Can you please lift you head just a little and realise that this Forum has a rather wider community than a one-off poster in one of the smaller county towns. No one is denying anything that you have said about your own personal experiences, wants or desires but for most people reading postings on this Forum you are an irrelevance and saying that those who do not want to be part of the Adrian world which hijacks other threads just to add some irrelevant personal experience can skip over your postings is perhaps arrogating a bit more importance to yourself than you really deserve.

Please accept that there is nothing personal in these comments and I would gladly go for a pint with you if I ever get to Hereford but we need to keep the global reach of the Forum in context.

Edited by GonePostal (Wed 21-Dec-22 00:52:33)

Others have sort of covered this already but if you took 2,000,000 FTTC lines and 2,000,000 FTTP lines then the FTTP lines would on average be more reliable than the FTTC lines. Advertising is not specifically directed at one individual line/person.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

I hear this thing about reliability, but how can it be more reliable than reliable? If I was losing sync all the time or going on a go slow then I would think differently.

Believe it or not but they don't use data specific to your specific line when sending out mail to everyone who now has FTTP available.

The increased reliability quoted isn't made up, or propaganda. It's a direct compassion between copper broadband and full fibre broadband using verifiable figures.

The fact your FTTC is stable is lucky for you and you alone. It doesn't make FTTP less reliable for everyone else.

On the whole FTTP broadband is much more reliable than FTTC broadband.

@OP. What do the TBB speed test Analysis results show?

Given the slow single connection results and the problems with variable rate streams it suggests some significant short term changes in speed possibly caused by packet delays / order.

Regarding your streaming problems, I'd suspect that CDNs use algorithms that are quite conservative in a sense that they will tend to operate at lower rates if the connection shows even short term limits.
It could be that these algorithms are more tuned for mobile use than they were.

The only way to get a proper result is to use Fast.com.

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

The only way to get a proper result is to use Fast.com.

Should've told us you're a comedian...🙈😂

https://postimg.cc/q6gcyyZp

[a GbE connection above for the avoidance of doubt]

If you :
A) uninstall any “security software”
B) use a private browsing window
C) compare with others to get an average

Then fast.com along with all browser tests are worth using together.

It can work reliably but not on all browsers or setups. Same as any of the others that rely on browsers sadly.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

It can work reliably but not on all browsers or setups. Same as any of the others that rely on browsers sadly.

Apparently my phone can manage 1.0Gbps on WiFi....

https://postimg.cc/KRYHKnNb

Somehow I think.....not.

And thats the rub of all speedtesters imo.

Although i have just used the Speedtest.net app and compared with Fast, and both were quite close in terms of results.

If I use the TBB speedtest i get around 2-400Mbps, and thats on most browsers.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Somehow I think.....not.

Agreed, something is up, it would be interesting to investigate. I tend to see my 250 Mbps WAN speed quite reliably, and at work we get around 800/900 from our shared 1Gbps leased line circuit (but quite a lot of users). On mobile of course the CPU sleeps a lot. The speedtest.net "app" is probably a bit better than a web page. And on iOS its only worth using Safari as the other browsers are forced to use WebKit, its unclear if they get the faster Javascript implementation. (viz, EU complaint...).

Fast.com always overestimates my line. That goes for Chrome/Firefox on Windows and my Android phone.

Just run this test wireless on my phone.

https://postimg.cc/fVHYX4Ns

570Mb/s is not bad for the 550/75 Openreach product.

In reply to a post by GonePostal:

Once again you are advancing personal experience as an exemplar when you are only a very small sample of what happens in the real world. Can you please lift you head just a little and realise that this Forum has a rather wider community than a one-off poster in one of the smaller county towns. No one is denying anything that you have said about your own personal experiences, wants or desires but for most people reading postings on this Forum you are an irrelevance and saying that those who do not want to be part of the Adrian world which hijacks other threads just to add some irrelevant personal experience can skip over your postings is perhaps arrogating a bit more importance to yourself than you really deserve.

Please accept that there is nothing personal in these comments and I would gladly go for a pint with you if I ever get to Hereford but we need to keep the global reach of the Forum in context.

Nah you would never want to come here I can tell you now,

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Believe it or not but they don't use data specific to your specific line when sending out mail to everyone who now has FTTP available.

The increased reliability quoted isn't made up, or propaganda. It's a direct compassion between copper broadband and full fibre broadband using verifiable figures.

The fact your FTTC is stable is lucky for you and you alone. It doesn't make FTTP less reliable for everyone else.

On the whole FTTP broadband is much more reliable than FTTC broadband.

I realise they don't use data specific to my line, but a lot of the people I know don't seem to have any problem with FTTC, unless some telecom worker cuts the cable. A few years ago yes, but it seems to be reliable these days and certainly better than old ADSL. I am shocked, it is stable for me to be honest.

My problem is what pushing is going to be done to get me to go to fibre? This what I am bothered about as I have heard that one provider, Talk Talk have sent letters to people saying their broadband is being upgraded and not asking them if they want it or not.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

My problem is what pushing is going to be done to get me to go to fibre? This what I am bothered about

What is going to happen whether you like it or not is this. The copper network is going to be retired and everyone is going to be moved on to the new Fibre network.

But if you are adamant you don't want to move that's fine, you have that choice. Your choice however will result in you having no broadband or going on to 4G etc.

Other people you know won't care, they will just get a new deal with their provider for the same price or maybe even less but with faster speeds, and you know what, they'll take it. They'll then be moved over to the new network. They will then live their lives happily ever after, without a care in the world if their broadband is coming over a copper or fibre cable, all they'll know is that it works at a price they are happy with.

That is all there is too it.

In reply to a post by TheInstaller:

What is going to happen whether you like it or not is this. The copper network is going to be retired and everyone is going to be moved on to the new Fibre network.

But if you are adamant you don't want to move that's fine, you have that choice. Your choice however will result in you having no broadband or going on to 4G etc.

Other people you know won't care, they will just get a new deal with their provider for the same price or maybe even less but with faster speeds, and you know what, they'll take it. They'll then be moved over to the new network. They will then live their lives happily ever after, without a care in the world if their broadband is coming over a copper or fibre cable, all they'll know is that it works at a price they are happy with.

That is all there is too it.

I realise it is going to happen at some point, but when I have to or if I decide to i will do so on my terms, no silly long 24 month contract for a start, if they want me to change to fibre then give me a decent contract, and don't charge too much for it. I am in no rush, i need to sort the network out first, change things around before I even think about FTTP,I would love to put the ehternet net cables through the walls to be honest, but not sure If I can, certainly the one from up here, I do have a TV antenna socket up here that goes to the downstairs, I wonder if there is space in there and I can pull a Ethernet cable down there, I can replace the TV sockets as I don't watch TV. Mmm,that is a thought, maybe I can look at that when I am feeling better. I can still leave the TV cable in place.
If this was my own house and I had the money I would do the whole house with Ethernet wall sockets.

If I could do without broadband I would, I have said that many times, just another monthly cost, but my whole house relies on it now plus my entertainment in streaming video and music, plus it is needed these days for life. i did think about 4G to be honest, I looked at three, but they say their home mobile broadband is not available here which is strange, I get, We're on our way
We're busy expanding our network to connect more homes.

I have until June next year when my contract ends, I will see what is around at that time and how things are life wise.

What people I know do is up to them, I am not one who do what other people do, I don't try to keep up with the Jones so to speak. I just don't like being pushed and the more I am pushed the more I will rebel and go a different way

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

the more I am pushed the more I will rebel and go a different way

You will have a few years as you said yourself Openreach FTTP isn't yet fully around your town. When it is, and stop sell on copper occurs, then the clock will start for withdrawal of your existing service.

Perhaps no need to post on this topic until then?

If you could send Openreach down to Farnborough to upgrade us first, quite a few of my neighbours and I would like an alternative to our slow FTTC and expensive Virgin Media options.

Edited by jchamier (Mon 26-Dec-22 18:06:05)

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

the more I am pushed the more I will rebel and go a different way

You will have a few years as you said yourself Openreach FTTP isn't yet fully around your town. When it is, and stop sell on copper occurs, then the clock will start for withdrawal of your existing service.

Perhaps no need to post on this topic until then?

If you could send Openreach down to Farnborough to upgrade us first, quite a few of my neighbours and I would like an alternative to our slow FTTC and expensive Virgin Media options.

I think he maybe a bit annoyed that lots of people are now able to get FTTP, and his town is way down the list meaning he wont be able to get it anytime soon and trying to justify why FTTC is far superior.

In reply to a post by Alucidnation:

I think he maybe a bit annoyed that lots of people are now able to get FTTP, and his town is way down the list meaning he wont be able to get it anytime soon and trying to justify why FTTC is far superior.

Wrong, I have access to an Alt network called Zzoomm, while I would have to wait for my contract to run out in June to be able to get that, it is now available I think half the city.
Also, Openreach have also got FTTp in maybe a quarter of the city including my road, they seem to be following ZZoomm, so If I wanted to get FTTP via Plusnet, I could order it now. So yes, FTTP is available to me, I am shocked that it is, but it is.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

You will have a few years as you said yourself Openreach FTTP isn't yet fully around your town. When it is, and stop sell on copper occurs, then the clock will start for withdrawal of your existing service.

Perhaps no need to post on this topic until then?

Openreach seems to be following Zzoomm, so when zzoomm have done with a road or area openreach is there soon after if not at the same time.
i saw Openreach around here a few times when Zzoomm was here, i wondered why they were here as I did not think open reach was coming here for a couple more years. So since Zzoomm is supposed to finish the city by spring next year, I doubt openreach will be far behind them, and then it will become a stop sell for copper I think, I think I may have till the end of my contract to make up my mind

If you could send Openreach down to Farnborough to upgrade us first, quite a few of my neighbours and I would like an alternative to our slow FTTC and expensive Virgin Media options.

I will ask them the next time I see someone and tell them they can leave Hereford alone for a few months. How slow is your FTTC?

This is just out of interest really, you say you have slow FTTC, so how slow is it and does it stop you doing what you need to do?

My sister-in-law have just had 400Mb/s BT fibre installed and I was there on Christmas day and while my phone was a bit faster on browser when connected to their network, even via wi-fi the speed tests were over 300Mb/s, so pretty good, I wonder if they will get any benefit from the higher speed for the price they pay, after all they had around 60Mb/s on their FTTC. They do get a cheaper price for a few months which for the first 2 years will bring it down to FTTC price, more or less over those two years, but they are also paying for BT mesh system, I don't think I would pay a subscription for better wi-fi in my own home.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

This is just out of interest really, you say you have slow FTTC, so how slow is it and does it stop you doing what you need to do?

We’ve had this conversation in at least two other threads.

I don't think I would pay a subscription for better wi-fi in my own home.

Its just the 2022 version of renting a telephone handset from BT, most people work out quickly its cheaper to buy outright.

Edited by jchamier (Tue 27-Dec-22 14:29:01)