There are no R&D breakthroughs to G.Fast. It's a classic BT bodge-it-on-the-cheap. With mountains of corporate spin to fool us otherwise. Announcement and re-announcement from the telco's Propaganda Dept; aimed at convincing us that they're frightfully clever. On the brink of releasing something quite magnificent.

Washed down with copious technobabble; all designed to titillate the City. One press release after another where BT speaks of its New Vision for the Fibre Future. Tediously redefining Old Technologies (like G.Fast) in its own meaningless NewSpeak ("Premium Hybrid-Superfast Fibre"; for chrissake); verbal diarrhoea to spatter ceaselessly across the City.

It's what they call City Plate-Spinning. A mesmerising trick to retain the mind-blown investors' attention - and more importantly retain their cash; arresting any capital flight to richer pastures in the sector and beyond.

At component level, the G.Fast is just a bolt-together of time-old technologies; a "Heath-Robinson" make-do-and-mend. An off-the-shelf, low-powered core with in-built DSP extensions, welded to a 30¢ optical transceiver, a DSL line driver and AFE. If there's any novelty at all - it's on the reverse-feed power-side - and even there, the innovation is minimal to non-existent.

Same old BT. Very telling that the tart-of-telcos is trialling its "glittering" G.Fast product on the Portman Road exchange, Ipswich; the red-light district. If you can't pimp out your b�tch down there, just where can you?!

Edited by deleted (Mon 16-Feb-15 17:17:16)

I don't think there should be a one size fits all approach. FTTC allows BT to provide a large number of connections at relatively low cost, and it clearly works where the cable distance from cabinet to end customer is realtively short.

It does not work where the cables from customers to the cabinets are several kilometers long. In those areas FTTP has the big advantage of not being so distance dependent as well as offering higher speeds.

Where I live I am lucky that there is a Gigaclear project. I see no reason why BT could not have had a similar project, unlike B4RN, all Gigaclear's installation work is done by sub contractors who might just as easily have been commissioned by BT. About the only advantage that Gigaclear have is that people might be a bit more willing to let them lay cables across their land. BT appear to have neglected areas such as where I live. They would far rather spend large sums of money showing football.

The one issue I now have to solve is what I do about making phone calls during power cuts. Should I just rely on my mobile phone, even if the battery is flat the phone will likely work if I connected it to my car?

yeah I am not doubting it, I read the same article. But if its going to be cabinet only then it doesnt excite me as I dont have the cabinet next to my wall. I hope they extend the fibre shortly after.

Initially cabinet only to avoid high power install costs but DC power from cab or exchange are future options

Urm BT do use sub-contractors for a fair amount of the civils work for both the C and P roll-out.

BT is also deploying some FTTP via the gap funded projects.

I think what you are actually suggesting is that BT should run a demand led scheme where people hand over cheques before construction starts?

With BT being the big slow to react/adapt firm then it does mean there is room for people like Gigaclear which is a good thing.

One of my arguements is that the installation costs for Gigaclear and BT should be similar. So if Gigaclear can have a finacially viable project then BT should be able to do the same.

The demand led bit is quite interesting. The Gigaclear approach relies on some local residents persuading others to sign up. You can imagine the frustration this causes as the target gets close and some people are reluctant to commit.

different business cases tho.

gigaclear dont have existing network as an alternative revenue source whilst BT do, as much as it sucks as long as copper makes BT enough money, they wont willingly ditch it.

BT would do better to have their own fibre network rather than lose out completely to Gigaclear. - Though that may not happen very often. The copper network takes alot of maintenance where Iive.

Time will tell whether Gigaclear's fused fibre connections are more reliable.

I have just found out that I will be connected to a sub cabinet which will live under a manhole cover, there will then be 6 fibres going to the main cabinet which is some miles away.

It takes maintenance, but its still cheaper to keep it in the short term than replacing it. Shareholders priorities are the short term.

With g.fast I dont think BT are doing any mass FTTP any time soon. They probably not too worried about gigaclear, no advertising budget, very limited rollout, not as cost competitive, no brand awareness. But if they do get worried they can probably rollout g.fast as a competing service in gigaclear areas, and then brainwash the public that its technically the same.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 18-Feb-15 04:56:19)

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

One of my arguements is that the installation costs for Gigaclear and BT should be similar. So if Gigaclear can have a finacially viable project then BT should be able to do the same.

Are Gigaclear also having to give away a lot of the profit in their network through a wholesale scheme as well?