I can tell you this.

If I want to run a test on any of my customers who pay my wages, they are told about it before hand and can opt out.

People pay for a commercial service, they dont pay to be put on speculative trial's.

I will admit I am surprised someone has came on here to defend this practice.

Also i checked the t&c of 3 major isp's before I made that post, not any of them declare the isp has the rights to try experimental technology on the customer's service.

Openreach inform the isp's as is their duty, but the isp's dont inform their own customers.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 17-Apr-16 17:33:12)

my point is, that BT seem under pressure to only roll out technologies that are financially viable for rural, they cannot rollout something only to city area's becaose of the risk of upsetting rural based citizens.

It shouldn't be either FTTP for everyone or no one, but it does seem to be the case.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The final part of your quote is interesting. At the time, I'd have interpreted the "constantly exploring new technologies [to enhance] FTTC" to mean vectoring, but in hindsight it could equally have applied to G.Fast.

Or VDSL 2 profile 30a. G.fast was a long way from coming off the drawing board when that quote came from BT, 2012 if I remember rightly.

I think 30a looked less likely in 2012, certainly compared with vectoring. The existing modems weren't capable, and the SIN specified 17a, if my recollection is correct, in mid-2012.

However, while G.Fast still required all the standardisation work completing, as of 2012 the feasibility research was almost over. There was plenty still to be done, but there was perhaps enough knowledge to start making strategic calls. At least a call that only needs to put a pause in FTTP thinking, for a year or two.

This presentation gives some overview of the timescales, up to 2014.
http://www.joepeesoft.com/Public/DSL_Corner/Docs/Pre...

Source:
http://www.joepeesoft.com/Public/DSL_Corner/_Index.html

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I will admit I am surprised someone has came on here to defend this practice.

I hugely agree with this.

Communications is a mission critical aspect to many people and businesses. Being put on a trial with unknown performance is highly unlikely to allow a provider to meet SLA terms.

The latest version of SIN498 (v7.1, Feb 2016) still only specifies support for 17a, no mention of 30a anywhere in it so it still look unlikely almost 4 years on.

Agreed.

If they were going to do anything now, VDSL2-oriented, I reckon it would be profile 35b. Vectoring-compatibility with 17a has some worth.

However, BT's race for G.Fast means they will want to save the spectrum above 17MHz for that, rather than enhanced VDSL2. The two probably have similar coverage distances, so they need to pick one over the other.

V

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

However, BT's race for G.Fast means they will want to save the spectrum above 17MHz for that, rather than enhanced VDSL2. The two probably have similar coverage distances, so they need to pick one over the other.

Can't see anything other than G.fast being close to adequate given Virgin's capabilities alongside what we hope will be a considerable FTTP deployment from alternative operators.

I note Eircom deploying FTTP en masse despite previously committing themselves to enhanced copper thanks to competition and hope we see the same in the UK.

How fast Openreach will go with FTTP is going to hinge on how things perform both in time saved and take-up levels in areas like Haydon Wick.

For the public the big change is that the 2 visit needed for FTTP install should be gone and for engineers it is much more like handling copper, and thinner fibre bundles for linking the FTTP components mean less duct clearing needed and no more external CSP. Once get through some other stuff on to-do list should have a short blog item with the odd photo.

In reply to a post by sor:

Australia had it the right way - moving towards one universal network, run by an impartial operator (who has no retail arm) with everyone subject to the same terms. They are slowly messing it up by moving from a mostly FTTP network to a mostly FTTC one (and seem to be doing a worse job of it than BT did!) - though there are rumours that they may salvage it by moving to FTTdp w/ G.fast

Or alternatively they realised they'd bitten off more than they could chew (ie; done it wrong) and have learnt from our experience (and are starting to do it right).

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Or alternatively they realised they'd bitten off more than they could chew (ie; done it wrong) and have learnt from our experience (and are starting to do it right).

Looks more like politics interfered to me, and the MTM plan is going to end up costing not far off as much as the original plan in the shorter term, then cost more as upgrades have to be done.

There is no reason for anyone without an existing copper network to protect, which the NBN as envisaged wasn't as copper was to be withdrawn within 18 months of FTTP deployment, to do anything other than deploy FTTP in most cases.

As it is one botched FTTN rollout and overrunning costs on the HFC upgrades required in the MTM later back to the drawing board to try and salvage the project.