In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Don't panic I follow what you are saying.

*Phew* I was beginning to think I was going somewhat mad. I thought a PDF from BTWholesale would be the most poignant example of the change.

Devils advocate

Maybe the FTTP did not sell in the volumes they expected, i.e. the techies said everyone will love it because of the speed, then BT discovered at the retail level hardly anyone bothered with anything more than the 40/10 product.

Its best to remember most of us commenting on FTTP speed/availability are outside the demographic of normal broadband buyer. Or put more bluntly, I've not upgraded my own Sky ADSL2+ to FTTC yet, because it can handle HD streaming and is fast enough as a backup line to primary FTTC.

Only thing I've not done with FTTC so far is stream YouTube 4k without buffering, but then I only get 20 Mbps due to line length.

I think this is actually the problem, when "Up To" products were introduced this actually makes the whole nga project as vague as can be.
If things were categorised differently.
Say the UK was put into bands, kind of how they did the leaked pcp spreadsheets.
So say 50% can get 60+Mbps, 15% 30-60Mbps, 20% 10-30Mbps, 10% between 2 and 10Mbps and 5% chuff all squared.
Or even in tighter bands than that,I even suspect there are calculations done within BTo which more than likely paint a very poor picture of the general copper network condition.
But with fttc sold as the solution for nearly every problem, to fully admit it's failings in practical terms within the existing bt infrastructure would have some serious consequences (especially bduk related)

Edited by deleted (Sun 02-Mar-14 20:50:14)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

By 2015, the average family might require 40-55Mbps; young single adults between 20-35Mbps

Seems reasonable to me. A little high, perhaps, for a single adult.

that sheet was in internal decisioning sheet and not a statement of fact - one uhopt is FTTC is cheaper to devloepr that FTTP so that makes more exchnages commerical than they woud have been - there are a number of FTTC exchange that made the cut doe to lesss FTTP

ok I admit I havent read it yet, so to confirm BT are pushing for openreach to be fully seperated?

That means they are seeing it as a burden? I guess with the possible cost of future FTTP rollouts and a weak state of the copper local loop been highlighted with the large drops of speeds people are seeing with FTTC?

The Oklahoma costs appear to be pretty much in line with figures reported elsewhere for FTTH installations in rural parts of the US. There is a lot of useful information on the roll-out of FIOS (fibre) services in the US and Canada that can be garnered from the reports and analysis published on:

http://www.dslprime.com/home

One important point, that is often neglected in the UK, is that US phone companies have extended the areas served by ADSL 2+ and increased speeds to 40+ Mbps by a combination of repeaters and other upgrades. While they are not working to NGA type targets, they operate under strong regulatory incentives to extend the life of their copper loops as much as possible rather than to lay new fibre. The payback period for such upgrades is much shorter than the anticipated periods required to recover the cost of investment in fibre.

The charges for use of the Google system in Kansas City (up to $70 pcm) are far higher than most UK households would pay - especially bearing in mind that the relevant sales tax is much lower than 20% VAT.

The other side of this picture is that the US has a much more active wireless ISP sector that fills in the gaps between phone or cable company coverage. And if anyone thinks that BT is uniquely unpopular, they should look at the responses to the performance of companies such as Qwest in thinly populated states which it serves. Because of its financial structure Qwest is largely run to generate cash to pay off debt and is notorious for under-investment in its network. Similarly, Verizon has sold off its telephone networks in small rural states to focus on a smaller number of major markets.

Well that area of Oklahoma has never seen ADSL2+ range extenders, was distinctly ADSL type speeds

Google Fiber until they release some take-up figures is for me treated with the same respect as CityFibre and Bournemouth. Looking at Google Fiber with the same scrutiny we use on BT figures, the coverage does not justify the excitement unless you are happy to move home into a fiberhood.

The PDF was presented to BT Wholesale's customers in January 2012.

The expectation was that it would be economical to both deploy NGA to 2/3rds of the UK's homes and businesses and that 10% of homes and businesses would be passed by FTTP.

Guess it goes to show how much more expensive the enterprise has been than expected if FTTP had to be pared back so severely to provide the originally planned level of coverage, though it does seem a bit strange that even with all this additional expense it is to be completed a financial year early, some stragglers excepted.

Edited by deleted (Mon 03-Mar-14 13:19:47)

I guess my post is rubbish, read it now and I think I misunderstood the first post.