I thought I had read earlier in the year that this was part of BT's Ultra HD TV offering - increasing the DL speed on the basic FTTC package now covers this (for those on a line that can support it).

EDIT: I should have read the 55/10 thread first, it gets mentioned there...

Edited by b4dger (Fri 15-Apr-16 13:54:37)

And now today press news from openreach stated: BT Openreach Trial 18Mbps FTTC Broadband Speed for Slow ADSL Lines as a new FTTC 18/2.

No doubt to target cabinets with a low take up

Or to tempt those who don't want to pay the premium monthly fee that 40/10 attracts in comparison to ADSL. It's only going to be for selected cabinets that have poor ADSL connections though. For now anyway.

In reply to a post by lee111s:

I don't think many people would take it up. 80meg is still more than plenty for most households. This is pretty much confirmed by the fact that majority FTTP customers still only go for 40/10 or 80/20 services.

The nice thing about FTTP (or, I guess g.fast, but BT could have done FTTP in a big way a long time ago) is that it would give everyone what they want, without worrying about distance from something, or where they live. It would also help businesses that need more speed or reliable connectivity but do not want or can afford a leased line. Power users can have 100Mbit or 1Gbit while their neighbours can go for some ultra cheap and nasty TalkTalk 40Mbit deal

Saying "80Mbit is plenty" all the time doesn't really say anything and it's not a good justification for BT's decisions. Especially when on FTTC, that 80Mbit is highly likely to end up a lot less, especially as crosstalk sets in and lowers things further (are we ever getting vectoring?)

There's no reason why BT couldn't at least offer a 100Mbit tier on FTTC (especially if they ever turn on vectoring) - and leave it to the market to sell. It's not as if it costs BT considerable sums of money to add a new line profile to the cabinets...

Edited by deleted (Fri 15-Apr-16 15:13:33)

Indeed - FTTP would be great. It also would have meant that we would have had a lot more people still on very slow ADSL now compared to what we do with the FTTC rollout. Even if the money had been there managing a workforce large enough to rollout FTTP to the same scale would have most likely been beyond any supplier. Plus FTTP potentially requires digging up driveways, gardens, etc which many people have issues with.

In reply to a post by ian72:

Indeed - FTTP would be great. It also would have meant that we would have had a lot more people still on very slow ADSL now compared to what we do with the FTTC rollout. Even if the money had been there managing a workforce large enough to rollout FTTP to the same scale would have most likely been beyond any supplier. Plus FTTP potentially requires digging up driveways, gardens, etc which many people have issues with.

I've never bought the "it'll be too slow to rollout" argument - not when I can look at reality and see how much FTTP BT has rolled out where I live, and where (from city centres to the literal middle of nowhere) - it's just a shame it's so inconsistent

FTTP has been a viable technology for over a decade - e.g. Verizon's FiOS started rolling out in 2005 - which would have been plenty of time to get going and have a very considerable rollout by now. It's not as if BT had to start in 2015.

Some people may have to have their drives dug up, but a lot of people won't (as they'll have existing ducting or are on overhead cabling). It's no worse than getting Virgin installed, where you will need your drive dug up in almost every case because it's always underground. It doesn't seem to have stopped people taking up their service.

Unfortunately, in this country we prefer to find excuses to justify mediocrity, even if the excuses don't stack up - and G.Fast is no panacea, as it will need fibre to be run even deeper into the network to be viable, even if not to every home. FTTC hasn't eliminated that, merely allowed for procrastination

As for being stuck on ADSL - is it really any better to be stuck on the end of a dog slow FTTC service due to line length (or be told that you can't have it as you're too far?)

Edited by deleted (Fri 15-Apr-16 15:22:59)

I do buy into the fact FTTP would have been a long and expensive rollout so I guess we won't agree on that.

And over 90% of the country should be able to get above 30Mbps now - I don't believe that would have been the case if FTTP had been done on the same timescales (saying BT could have started in 2005 is irrelevant as they didn't and definitely couldn't prove a business case to do so at that time).

Comparing to other geographies is difficult as areas have differences - we can compare to Australia who have pretty much given up on FTTP or with Hull where they have significantly lower coverage because of the FTTP route or Korea where they have excellent coverage - in the end comparisons can be made to meet many different arguments but to do a proper comparison would take significant analysis.

Cabinets that currently have a low up take

In reply to a post by ian72:

I do buy into the fact FTTP would have been a long and expensive rollout so I guess we won't agree on that.

The county I live in has something like 1/3rd of properties being able to get FTTP. This is in about 4 years. That isn't bad at all, and that's without BT even really trying. Now imagine what they could do if they were actually serious about it, rather than using it only in instances where FTTC can't be made to work, or when the coin-toss flipped in its favour

I don't doubt the cost - it would certainly be expensive - but it's clearly the superior option, and wouldn't result in the impending obsolescence of the FTTC equipment

An often missed advantage of FTTP (or I guess G.Fast can do this too) is that you can move towards shutting down the old copper networks, with the resulting cost savings from reduced maintenance/troubleshooting efforts

In reply to a post by ian72:

And over 90% of the country should be able to get above 30Mbps now - I don't believe that would have been the case if FTTP had been done on the same timescales (saying BT could have started in 2005 is irrelevant as they didn't and definitely couldn't prove a business case to do so at that time).

We have no idea if BT actually seriously considered it back then (I mean, they still thought 2Mbps ADSL was wonderful then, even when others were looking towards faster speeds and ADSL2) - but the fact is that they could. They could also have started in 2010-2011, when the FTTC started to go in.

30Mbps isn't really something to be proud of. For a lot of people, 30Mbps is going to be a near maximum, not a baseline. Any increase in that speed is a long way off, depending on if BT feels like giving them G.Fast/FTTP

In reply to a post by ian72:

Comparing to other geographies is difficult as areas have differences - we can compare to Australia who have pretty much given up on FTTP or with Hull where they have significantly lower coverage because of the FTTP route or Korea where they have excellent coverage - in the end comparisons can be made to meet many different arguments but to do a proper comparison would take significant analysis.

Well, I brought up an area of the UK where BT themselves have deployed FTTP - though the US will have similarities since it's not an ultra urbanised area like South Korea or Hull (which I certainly did not mention)

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, what's done is done - and some of us will be waiting for G.Fast to get what our neighbours down the road can already get today on FTTP, thanks to the technology lottery

Edited by deleted (Fri 15-Apr-16 15:53:08)