In reply to a post by gazzyk1ns:

If you select the "next two weeks" option on the roadworks site, you can see the works going from Hadleigh right to Bildeston - they've already started in Hadleigh out to the A1071, which is presumably what your wife saw?

Anyway, the description of the works when they get to Bildeston includes putting a fibre cabinet in too, specifically it says to be connected to PCP7.

I live miles away from Bildeston which has had FTTC for some time. Not sure exactly what my wife saw as she was too busy watching the road and only got an impression in failing light but the next day they were putting in black cable with a yellow stripe leaving a coil coming from inside the chamber and taped for now to my telegraph pole. I have now discovered that the hold up is some more trench work has to be done for more ducting which will entail closing my road. This cannot apparently be scheduled before mid December so the time scale for my FTTP has slipped to March.

In reply to a post by APTMAN:

So if you are getting FTTP is it going to cost you more ?, our exchange is FTTC but I would like FTTP even if I help to put in the fibre !.

Not sure if you are addressing this question to me but the answer for me is no, the cost is the same. The Suffolk BDUK has decided that all the connections to my cabinet will be provided with FTTP so as it is native FTTP it will not cost me any more. A different cabinet has already got FTTC and other cabinets will not get fibre at all. Don't know how they decide such things but I have hit lucky, it is just a long wait.

It was Gigaclear.

you'e right, you are tied, but if the choice is between c 1Mbps or I Gb then I guess it might not be such a hardship?

In fact, their 200Mbps up/down worked out as cheaper than the equivalent BT package for FTTC, including telephone rental. And it's not "up to" 80Mbps, but the full 200Mbps each way, since it's FTTP. It seemed a bargain to be fair.

But ultimately getting it is a lottery, since you have to hope you're not on the BDUK plans to stand a chance of getting it!

In reply to a post by shure:

It seemed a bargain to be fair.

True, but almost no-one takes into account the reliability & robustness levels of the voice service, and access to emergency services.

I recently read of a place that lost its phone service for a day; the three emergency services stationed vehicles out there 'just in case'. We're not in that sort of place for internet-based voice services yet.

I fear that many people are sleep-walking into a situation where they end up relying on a service that is simply "best effort".

There may be a small difference in set-up costs, as with FTTC the non-engineer visit to the home means a cheaper £50 wholesale cost, rather than the £99 charged for engineer to visit on either GEA-FTTC or GEA-FTTP (ignoring FoD which is what you don't have)

In terms of decision making it will be

a) Cost of the cabinet for FTTC versus FTTP for an area
b) Benefit i.e. if only say 20 out of 100 lines could get superfast from a cab, then FTTP is more likely, but depends on (a)
c) If businesses on the cabinet and project has some EU money it can sway things sometimes.
d) Just random luck and slip of a planners pen

At the end of the day money is big decider, FTTC is used so much simply because with the limited funding available they can cover more premises and gives leeway for options (b) and (c).

In reply to a post by shure:

It was Gigaclear.

you'e right, you are tied, but if the choice is between c 1Mbps or I Gb then I guess it might not be such a hardship?

In fact, their 200Mbps up/down worked out as cheaper than the equivalent BT package for FTTC, including telephone rental. And it's not "up to" 80Mbps, but the full 200Mbps each way, since it's FTTP. It seemed a bargain to be fair.

But ultimately getting it is a lottery, since you have to hope you're not on the BDUK plans to stand a chance of getting it!

It is good for those that can get it. The risk is if the company needs to reduce costs that they could end up contending services massively and the customer would have no choice of anywhere else to go to. But, if I had the choice I would be signing up - unfortunately I don't.

I don't think they would benefit from that.

The way they operate is to target communities that do not have public money being spent on them under the BDUK initiative. If they generate sufficient interest within a community (currently 30%) then they install FTTP to the ENTIRE community, otherwise it's not commercially viable for them, since the biggest cost is in the digging and laying of cables. At least, to just outside each property. then any new householder can just request connection and pay the set up fees (c£100) to bring it into the property. if they don't want it, the connection just remains outside.

Home owners (or businesses) can choose to keep their old BT line or disconnect entirely and use e.g. Vonage for phone services. But the old BT infrastructure will still remain in place. Now we are talking 1Gb FTTP connections (therefore both up and down) and largely rural communities (since urban conurbations will undoubtedly be receiving attention from the BDUK funding), so contention issues are highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. And people could always go back to their 1Mbps BT line if they wanted!

the catch, if there is one, is that at least 30% of a community has to register interest before they will start digging. They won't just go to an individual's house for obvious reasons. But if you are being left off the BDUK plans then you have nothing to lose by registering interest with them

Contention isn't necessarily just in the local area. They are presumably handing off to a central network somewhere that will have other links from there. The peering links and backhaul could well cause contention depending on their model.

There is also the fact the company could potentially decide to double their charges overnight. Or the company could go bust.

I am not saying this is likely but it is a potential risk.

It's a valid point, but even if it drops down to "only" 200Mbps, it's still faster than anything else out there and having the same speed both up and down is a bonus in this heavily digital age, especially with all the cloud computing going on.

But backhaul could affect anybody, so the risk for them is not greater than anyone under the BDUK umbrella. I think the only possible risk is in the charging, which is always dangerous with a monopoly. But again, you could always fall back on the 20CN BT lines...

But they are about to IPO and they have ambitious growth plans. Just how far do you think they would get if tales of villagers held hostage to unethical price rises were to leak out to the general public? I don't think pricing themselves out of the market would do them any favours, so I'm inclined to think that's not a huge risk. To be honest, I'm inclined to think that somewhere down the line they'd probably have to do their own version of LLU once they reached a certain size, and had to open up their network to competition.

In reply to a post by shure:

I think the only possible risk is in the charging, which is always dangerous with a monopoly. But again, you could always fall back on the 20CN BT lines...

The lesson of South Yorkshire suggests that there is a risk of the company failing to fund their business model, and attract enough income. The result would be that they simply walk away, or hike the prices.

IMO, the real lesson comes from our existing broadband: It is treated as a free commodity, given away as a sweetener when you sign up for much more expensive TV packages.

It wouldn't surprise me if a naked-FTTP company ended up having to do *something* with TV packages in order to make a financially-viable bundle.

they'd probably have to do their own version of LLU once they reached a certain size, and had to open up their network to competition.

Hmmm. VM cover 48% of the country, and haven't hit that hurdle yet.