In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Ethernet over copper needs powered repeaters. As standard it has a 100 metre limit.

Don't believe that is strictly true. Cat3+ standards (10baseT) for Ethernet have a distance limitation of 100 metres. There are other ways to run Ethernet over copper. Both thick (10base5) and thin (10base2) wire had very different characteristics and distance capabilities than modern twisted pair Ethernet. Thick wire had distances of 500 meters whereas thin wire was 185 metres.

You can actually run at much longer distances as long as you change the parameters of the connection. The main parameter is timeout for acknowledgment of packet receipt on 10baset - if you lengthen the timeout you slow down the connection but extend the distance.

You don't pay extra, its rolled into the cost of the service

You would only get one if you are also taking FVA - Fibre voice access

If talking ratios then Google Fibre is possibly just about the size of Gigaclear in the UK

Larger geography and more spread out suburbs where people don't mind overhead cabling makes FTTH more likely than FTTC.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You don't pay extra, its rolled into the cost of the service

That's good to know, last time I checked the FTTP 330Mbit package with BT was approx. £50p/m or there about the last time I checked, not sure on the price for the FVA option, but maybe the FVA will remove that intermittent static screeches we hear now and then on the phone.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

You would only get one if you are also taking FVA - Fibre voice access

Well that's something to think about for when we finally get FTTP maybe 2 to 4 years time

Thanks
Paul

They include the battery backup in all installs (even without FVA) for some reason.

It has zero use without FVA though as you lose broadband in the event of a power outage.

Ta, guessing its easier to have installers doing the same thing everywhere.

There is rather more to the difference between the US & the UK than just geography and business structures. The old Bell system was broken up and then gradually re-emerged under what are now AT&T and Verizon plus CenturyLink (which incorporates the old US West/Qwest Bell spinoff).

The first two companies have largely lost interest in their copper networks except in relatively dense urban & suburban areas. In such cases, control of ducts seems to be the real reason for keeping their copper networks. Outside these areas AT&T and Verizon have sold their telephone systems to second tier operators in order to finance their wireless and fibre networks. CenturyLink and its peers have gone heavily into debt to fund the purchase of telephone networks. They don't have the resources or face significant competitive pressure to roll out fibre (FTTH or FTTC) or even faster ADSL.

Cable penetration is higher than in the US. Further, overhead lines are used in most suburban areas for power & communications. As a consequence, the FCC and states (which share regulatory responsibilities) have promoted competition between infrastructure networks rather than requiring open access to incumbent networks. Lobbying by the large ex-Bell companies has played a large part in this.

The outcome is very uneven provision of faster broadband services with heated disputes about access rights and universal service obligations. Broadband prices are pretty high in non-competitive areas, which is why there are many more fixed wireless ISPs. However, where broadband is bundled with phone services and content - as for most cable and fibre systems - it is hard to allocate where the value and profits arise.

Translating this to the UK (or other European countries) the key issue is the role of a national monopoly controlling the copper network with no unbundling or regional operators (excluding Kingston). That was never the situation in the US, even under the Bell system. BT and its European peers have strong reasons to extend the life of their copper networks as long as possible, whereas AT&T and Verizon are going down a rather different path. The number of copper lines is falling rapidly in the US and for much of the population the future is clearly going to be a combination of fibre and wireless.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I can't argue with what they say about their own service, but it isn't the generally understood meaning of it. It makes buying the high speed FTTP/FTTPoD an idiot choice if it's varying by the amount your neighbour's does.

The BT Wholesale network appears to be going through another phase of struggling for capacity in a number of areas right now.

The SVLANs are also a bit 'skinny' on the whole to have 330Mb services running on them.