in some instances, FTTC is quite slow on the outskirts and perhaps it warrants reconsidering "superfast broadband" if it's no faster than ADSL.
FTTC can only follow the physics. The speed you receive depends on
Thanks for trying to teach me that there are a variance of speeds dominated by physical criterion.
Of course you completely miss the point of my post, by answering a question I never asked.
It is irrelevant whether you feel I've missed the point of your post or not. So long as the forum rules are respected, a poster has unfettered discretion to follow up any part of any previous post in any way they choose, whether or not that changes the direction of the thread.
Other than context, there's no way to distinguish between a reply to someone, and a post following on from a previous contribution. The post you replied to fell into the latter category.
Amongst other things, you posited that FTTC is maybe not superfast, which was the sole point I started from, so I restricted the quote accordingly. I explained that the whole superfast / not superfast distinction is essentially artificial and regulatory in nature. From the individual consumer's point of view, they can view a speed estimate for FTTC if it is available to them before making an informed decision whether to take up an FTTC based service.
The underlying purpose of your post was to support adslmax's statement despite criticism of it. I chose to avoid direct rebuttal of adslmax's points, but posted something that was intended to act as an implicit rebuttal. As you appear unable to find the implicit rebuttal of his points in my post, I'd better make those points explicit.
adslmax was incorrect to imply that it is BT (or, more accurately, Openreach) that are the prime movers in the whole superfast / not superfast debate. The superfast definition, in the sense it is now most commonly understood, originated from the EU rules on State Aid that govern the BDUK process. In most of their technical documentation, Openreach refer to "Generic Ethernet Access - Fibre to the Cabinet". Openreach mostly restrict the use of the "Superfast" term to the marketing areas of their web site.
adslmax was certainly incorrect to say "Because BT are waste of million of pound of putting too many cabinets below 25Mbps and the distance is unbelieved too far away". As adslmax's statements aren't always clear, so I need to give my understanding before replying. I know you have criticised me for doing this before - but
The first part of this says "BT (well, Openreach) have wasted millions of pounds installing cabinets that do not offer service faster than 25 Mbit/s". Every cabinet is capable of 80/20 Mbit/s on the current product range, a little more if Openreach ever offer "Profile 17a Max", and more still in the (possibly unlikely event) that a Profile 30a service is launched.
As you understand, Simon, but the general public don't, the available speed is determined by the line, not the cabinet: attenuation (primarily a function of line length, but also cable type and condition) and the noise environment determine the available speed. The only relatively straightforward and cheap technical solution to improve speeds is to launch vectoring, which minimises the effects of crosstalk noise. There are no cheap technical solutions to line length or condition.
Forgive me - but I simply cannot parse the second part of adslmax's sentence: "the distance is unbelieved too far away". I can make a guess, but it is only a guess.
This is a technically orientated forum, albeit one that tries to engage with the general public, so points made in these forums must stand or fall partly on their technical merits. Unrebutted technically incorrect points help nobody.
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
adslmax
