In reply to a post by RobertoS:

What's intriguing me is that for FTTC you do have to pay line rental to someone. So he would appear to be paying £10+ less that you in total, and he has a better fibre service from the same supplier.

As it is 40/10 as long as the FTTC alternative can sustain those speeds then for all intents and purposes the service is the same whether it is FTTP or FTTC. FTTP gives more options for the future but barring possibly lower latency gives no visible benefit in this case.

In reply to a post by ian72:

... . FTTP gives more options for the future but barring possibly lower latency gives no visible benefit in this case.

Also immunity from REIN, which has the potential to occur at any time.

There are plenty of FTTC connections that cannot achieve 40/10.

I did specifically say "as long as the FTTC alternative can sustain" - if you have a short FTTC line then there is in effect no difference between the two solutions. A good percentage of FTTC lines will handle 40/10 with no issue.

I agree that FTTP is the better long term option and for my package would be better (have an up to 80Mbps package getting 45/15) many users would perceive no difference between the technologies. Saying that it is £10 cheaper for a better service is not true if FTTC is able to sustain exactly the same service on that connection.

REIN apart, in the special case of a full sustainable 40/10 sync it is still £10 cheaper.

If we all made sure not a single word of our post could be queried these forums wouldn't get far. I also think it highly unlikely that many would regard full sync 40/10 FTTC as being as good as 40/10 FTTP, but the point really isn't worth arguing about.

I admit I was being very pedantic - given the choice I would have FTTP but as long as the 2 perform the same for a particular location then there is no end user benefit to doing so. Future proofing and avoidance of [traditional copper] issues make FTTP better but in actual use there is virtually no difference at this level.

However, you could of course argue (as you do) that it is better because it does appear it does not need the line rental hence the £10 saving.

EDIT : Added the bit in []'s for clarity

Edited by ian72 (Tue 12-Aug-14 13:42:10)

In reply to a post by ian72:

avoidance of issues make FTTP better

Nearly split my tea over the keyboard when I read this.

Sorry but as an FTTP user, you do get problems with FTTP. And when they hit you, the suppliers are not clued up enough to solve them. My service had been in for 8 months working perfectly, then hit an issue with speeds as low as 500Kbps for 18hours at a time. Problem also affected other FTTP users from all ISP's within my area. It took 4 months to solve as Openreach/ISP's/OEM manufacturer would not accept it was a problem in the exchange. Eventually Openreach swapped out several components in the exchange (but over a period of a month) and service came back to normal.

So FTTP is not a cure for every problem. Nor is it unbreakable. It is badly supported though.

I didn't intend that as such a wide sweeping statement - "avoidance of common copper issues" perhaps would be better. Fibre does not suffer the same decay/crosstalk issues that cause problems on ADSL/VDSL technologies.

Anything from the exchange backwards isn't an "FTTP" issue per-se but it is possible that depending on the design certain components will only be servicing the FTTP user base and therefore could be seen as an FTTP issue (I'm assuming this was the problem with yours).

And of course FTTP could get other issues with damage to the fibre itself (perhaps from other BT works pulling new cables through that could snag and damage existing fibre). I suspect the joints in fibre could also be a potential problem area.

So yes, FTTP will of course have it's own problems but avoids the main "traditional" copper problems.

He could - because $dayjob does not require you to have your PSTN with us.

What is $dayjob? Who is "s"?

The point is it appears there is no need with AAISP FTTP to have a PSTN line at all.

Edit - oops, I didn't check which of my posts you had replied to. Sorry. The thread is still about having no PSTN line.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 13-Aug-14 01:06:20)