Got ya know yes... those are the customers that are hard to turn to FTTC, for now anyway.

Higher upload speeds now and Higher download speeds in the future may tempt them.

LLU ADSL2+ can't go any further its peaked

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Does FTTP long term make sense?

In ages past villages have been abandoned when a local business collapsed, the rising cost of travel to work has the capacity to create an upheaval over time, of people moving closer to where they work, meaning that expensive work to put fibre in the ground may not be a good idea.

At some £6k per property or so for fttp in not-spot areas the need for faster than say BET technology has to be pretty compeling if you take a 30 year view even. The TV argument is mute, as in most rural areas satellite is a reasonable option for TV signals.

Also with fibre in the long term the network kit has little in the way of long term lifespan, so replacing this every 10 years or so is not cheap. The fibre will last longer unless broken, but what about the stuff sending the light down the fibre, and converting it to something useful.

I live in a rural area. I accept that I'm likely to get fairly dire broadband here. We have a line length of 3680m which is capable of a 1750kbps profile (poor quality line). Better than our neighbour's which manages 1Mbps. But that has little to do with it being rural and it's way better than we could get in Welwyn Garden City.

The rural thing is a bit of a red herring. Most of the so called "final third", by population, will live in built up areas over 3km from the exchange. Yes BT, there really are towns with people living that far from your exchanges. Plenty of them.

For rurals, however, I agree. FTTP for really small villages doesn't make sense from any commercial perspective unless the villagers are happy to chip in to the cost through setup fees or higher subscriptions.

FTTC might work in a very small, highly clustered village, but our village isn't clustered. It *is* a real logistical problem.

Having begun a local campaign, I'm amazed at the initial response here which is that there *is* a fair amount of demand. Even the telephone service doesn't work well round here, apparently - dropped calls, failed connects, crackles when it rains, etc. and people *will* support a private solution. When it comes to people putting their money where their mouth is - a key point made by several posters - well, we'll have to see on that.

With ever increasing petrol costs and the potential for peak oil at some point in our lifetimes, yes, the village could become an empty shell in the end. Very small remote areas are a special case.

However the part of Welwyn Garden City I lived in still can't get any broadband service today (I won't use VM's definition of 10Mbps, let's use 4Mbps. Even 2Mbps. Still can't get it). The market has failed, mostly because there isn't, actually, a market.

It might well be reasonable that people living in tiny hamlets 20 miles from the nearest town can't get broadband. They probably don't have easy access to a supermarket for the same reason. I am not arguing that we should have, or even seek, access for 100% of the population.

It cannot be reasonable, in 2011, that hundreds, maybe a thousand or more people in Welwyn Garden City or any similarly sized town with only one exchange can't get a broadband service.

What I can conclude from this thread is that we've been daft to leave it to the private sector where no market exists. This does not bode well for the future of some towns, let alone villages.

The same seemingly intractable problems continue. That bit of Welwyn Garden City might get a FTTC service, and if the cabinets are near enough they might even jump to "superfast broadband" in one go. But that's just one town. There is still no comprehensive plan for any action at all nor any compulsion to supply what is becoming a basic utility to a built up area.

Should we be able to compel a private company to invest in specific areas? No, not really.

Should we have solved this problem a long time ago? I think so.

3.6km cable should be around 42 to 50dB attenuation, and if closer to 60dB, then you have more cable than people have told you.

If the attenuation is bad due to joints, generally it will vary a lot when wet/very dry. Attenuation should normally be pretty static.

I would accept your comments about poor lines, if there was not so many people with wiring issues that are holding their speeds back and an hour or two can squeeze more out of lines.

How many homes in Welwyn Garden City cannot get broadband at all?
broadband map does not show any big issue, unless the one not spot in Essendon counts.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

3.6km cable should be around 42 to 50dB attenuation, and if closer to 60dB, then you have more cable than people have told you.

If the attenuation is bad due to joints, generally it will vary a lot when wet/very dry. Attenuation should normally be pretty static.

2.5km from exchange, can follow the route. 3680m is from BT's database. I'm surprised it's that long actually. It doesn't go "round the houses". We can get 3G @ 3Mbps, so we got rid of the landline 3 years ago.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I would accept your comments about poor lines, if there was not so many people with wiring issues that are holding their speeds back and an hour or two can squeeze more out of lines.

That old chestnut again. I'm sure it's true in some cases, but just open up a broadband map of pretty well anywhere and 2Mbps to 6Mbps is the norm in town, with some truly shocking figures towards the outskirts.

We have no "internal wiring". The service wouldn't even activate in Welwyn Garden City, so it wasn't that. Same in Blackpool...

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

How many homes in Welwyn Garden City cannot get broadband at all?
broadband map does not show any big issue, unless the one not spot in Essendon counts.

For one example, put in AL7 2QF.

Marvel at the broadband speeds available at just over 3km from the exchange. Pan left a bit and you can see where the cable network ends (called the "Panshanger" area) and the xDSL broadband wilderness begins.

At least most of Welwyn Garden City is cabled, were it not for that, I suspect the voices coming from there would be a bit louder. But that doesn't help the people who literally have no broadband solution available.

So where are the people who cannot get the service?

No one has bothered to register their anger at not being able to get a service at that postcode, or in any of the fields to the east before you reach the next exchange.

Two locations and no DSL signal at all, or did the providers not even try and activate it?

LLU backhaul will allow TalkTalk et al to offer a better FTTC experience than other providers

A MSAN providers voice, xDSL and fibre connectivity options, only those LLU providers who did not use a modern MSAN are in trouble.

Sure, I'm saying ADSL2+ though, it has no-where to go LLU providers can't stick with 2+ forever

The main reason for lack of interest in VOD is that current Broadband speeds do not really support it properly. Yes it can be done but the result is not good

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Does FTTP long term make sense?

In ages past villages have been abandoned when a local business collapsed, the rising cost of travel to work has the capacity to create an upheaval over time, of people moving closer to where they work, meaning that expensive work to put fibre in the ground may not be a good idea.

At some £6k per property or so for fttp in not-spot areas the need for faster than say BET technology has to be pretty compeling if you take a 30 year view even. The TV argument is mute, as in most rural areas satellite is a reasonable option for TV signals.

Also with fibre in the long term the network kit has little in the way of long term lifespan, so replacing this every 10 years or so is not cheap. The fibre will last longer unless broken, but what about the stuff sending the light down the fibre, and converting it to something useful.

I live in a rural area. I accept that I'm likely to get fairly dire broadband here. We have a line length of 3680m which is capable of a 1750kbps profile (poor quality line). Better than our neighbour's which manages 1Mbps. But that has little to do with it being rural and it's way better than we could get in Welwyn Garden City.

The rural thing is a bit of a red herring. Most of the so called "final third", by population, will live in built up areas over 3km from the exchange. Yes BT, there really are towns with people living that far from your exchanges. Plenty of them.

For rurals, however, I agree. FTTP for really small villages doesn't make sense from any commercial perspective unless the villagers are happy to chip in to the cost through setup fees or higher subscriptions.

FTTC might work in a very small, highly clustered village, but our village isn't clustered. It *is* a real logistical problem.

Having begun a local campaign, I'm amazed at the initial response here which is that there *is* a fair amount of demand. Even the telephone service doesn't work well round here, apparently - dropped calls, failed connects, crackles when it rains, etc. and people *will* support a private solution. When it comes to people putting their money where their mouth is - a key point made by several posters - well, we'll have to see on that.

With ever increasing petrol costs and the potential for peak oil at some point in our lifetimes, yes, the village could become an empty shell in the end. Very small remote areas are a special case.

However the part of Welwyn Garden City I lived in still can't get any broadband service today (I won't use VM's definition of 10Mbps, let's use 4Mbps. Even 2Mbps. Still can't get it). The market has failed, mostly because there isn't, actually, a market.

It might well be reasonable that people living in tiny hamlets 20 miles from the nearest town can't get broadband. They probably don't have easy access to a supermarket for the same reason. I am not arguing that we should have, or even seek, access for 100% of the population.

It cannot be reasonable, in 2011, that hundreds, maybe a thousand or more people in Welwyn Garden City or any similarly sized town with only one exchange can't get a broadband service.

What I can conclude from this thread is that we've been daft to leave it to the private sector where no market exists. This does not bode well for the future of some towns, let alone villages.

The same seemingly intractable problems continue. That bit of Welwyn Garden City might get a FTTC service, and if the cabinets are near enough they might even jump to "superfast broadband" in one go. But that's just one town. There is still no comprehensive plan for any action at all nor any compulsion to supply what is becoming a basic utility to a built up area.

Should we be able to compel a private company to invest in specific areas? No, not really.

Should we have solved this problem a long time ago? I think so.

BT like to give the impression that its isrural areeas which paint the picture of a small hamlet with half a dozen houses miles from anywhere

The reality is that many large towns and cities are not full enabled and at best can get about 3Mb ADSL on a good day. AS you say places around Welwyn and many other similar non rural locations are abandoned by BT

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So where are the people who cannot get the service?

No one has bothered to register their anger at not being able to get a service at that postcode, or in any of the fields to the east before you reach the next exchange.

Two locations and no DSL signal at all, or did the providers not even try and activate it?

Without gettiing stuck on a discussion about WGC and Blackpool - those were examples - yes, at WGC two different providers tried to activate it, and on both occasions the result was "Sorry, you can't have a broadband service".

Some of the houses can just about hang onto a half to one meg connection there it seems.

There is nothing to the east of it until you get to Hertford.

I'd venture that nobody there needs 100Mbps downstream. However, something would be nice. Perhaps an extreme example, perhaps not that untypical with such long and/or bad lines. It's all hit and miss. Most of Milton Keynes appears to be another example.

ADSL was only ever supposed to be a stopgap, not any long term broadband solution. While it is perhaps impressive that a phone line can do 20meg if it's very, very short and sufficient gauge, the average is only, what, 6 meg, we surely should have progressed beyond this years ago, not be discussing it now.

The discussion, to me, is not "Do we need to move beyond ADSL" but "why, for heavens sake, is it sill the only option available to half the country in this decade" and this thread supplies all the reasons why. What it doesn't supply is a solution and beyond the state building it all over again with fibre, I can't see that there is one.