Not sure how else you get 500 Mbps and more to the DP

The kit in trial was all taking a fibre as input

In reply to a post by TheEulerID:

I'd call it FTTPoD if things like splitters had to be installed. Also the final leg of the fibre run might be a bit longer than on FTTP, depending on where the FTTrN or G.Fast node would be. However, it would be a fraction of the connection cost of the current service as there's much less fibre to run, and I'd expect monthly costs to be comparable to copper-based for the same speeds (the installation charge could cover any capital costs fully).

Anyway, just my thoughts at this stage. The advantage of G.Fast is that it saves a whole lot of work as that last run and replacing in-house masters is the most time consuming. It's especially true in my case which uses direct buried cable in the street.

if the install costs came down to £100 to £250 for most fttpod installs, then the take up would be greater. but the commercial case for g.fast has to be proven and could be a pr nightmare.

I've just read this article. Have you seen it?

I thought the bit about the negative impact of coexistence with VDSL2 (if that was required) was worth noting.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Given standard only just set you cannot berate an operator for not using g.fast yet

Wasn't VDSL2 ratified in 2005 with BT's service launching in 2010? Are we going to wait five years for a BT G.fast commercial deployment?

G.fast or native FTTP rolled out nationwide would cost tens of billions.

Who pays for it?!

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Wasn't VDSL2 ratified in 2005 with BT's service launching in 2010? Are we going to wait five years for a BT G.fast commercial deployment?

No, probably be longer than that.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

G.fast or native FTTP rolled out nationwide would cost tens of billions.

Who pays for it?!

Unless you live in a blessed area where political and other considerations mean commercial upgrade this would be the taxpayer.

Given previous experience with BT it would seem sensible to assume they'll be tapping the taxpayer up for the majority of the cost.

Scrap HS2 and then it's simple.

Presumably if you scrap HS2 which is due to be built and paid for over the next 2 decades then you will be happy for the same timescale to be applied to any FTTP/whatever installed in its place then?

I don't think you quite understand how government finance works
The government does not have any money itself - it is all borrowed money or received money as taxes from us the consumer. The government spends more than it receives every year, this annual overspend or deficit is added to the national debt each year which gets bigger - and the government has to pay ever more interest on this debt mountain.

There is no magic pot of money just sitting in treasury coffers there to pay for HS2 which can be used for FTTP instead - HS2 is all due to be paid for out of future borrowings and future taxes from us the taxpayer over the next 2 decades and the same timescale would have to apply to any alternative project in its place.
You cannot just cancel the future HS2 program and start instead building FTTP now -the money does not exist.

In a debate in a government committee, BT said they couldn't roll out the BDUK stuff any faster, even if they were given more money. They are ultimately limited by the amount of people, sufficiently skilled, that they can throw at the problem.

I reckon a nationwide rollout of FTTP would take the same kind of timescale as HS2, and burn through money at about the same rate - £2bn per year.

Not that I think HS2 should be scrapped - it shouldn't.