In reply to a post by WWWombat:

A 3% demand for ultrafast speeds is about one-tenth of the demand for superfast speeds. A G.Fast DPU probably only needs to be able to handle 16-32 lines, and would cope with all the demand in the PCP area, even if it could only reach half of the subscribers.

I think BT would be laughed at if they only roll out G.Fast to existing cabinets such that only 50% of the possible users on a cabinet could actually get a better service than they already have with VDSL2.

With VDSL2, BT can get away with selling "up to" speeds, as almost everyone gets much better speeds on VDSL2 than they would have got with their existing ADSL2 service. For instance, I am 1.5Km from my fibre cabinet and I get 20Mbit/s download and only 800Kbit upload. Yes, this is way less than the 40Mbit download, 10Mbit upload service that I am paying for, but it is still way better than the 1Mbit download, 800Kbit upload ADSL2 service I had previously.

You're paying for the speed you were quoted at the point of sale. Not the maximum potential of the product.

In reply to a post by rgp:

After all, if BT can really get 100Mbit/s to most people by going down this route, where will the value be in ever rolling out fibre all the way?

Removing so much complexity and operational cost. FTTP cuts all the BS - no expensive, power hungry, weather sensitive equipment on poles or in cabinets. No need to source power supplies for them all. Absolute futureproofing compared to any copper technology.

In reply to a post by rgp:

The losers will be those that are too far from their cabinet to benefit (i.e. more than 800 meters, which will particularly affect rural households) and everyone else who struggles to get a reliable broadband connection over their existing cruddy and outdated copper wiring which BT refuses to fix. I anticipate that BT won't care about any of these "uneconomic" customers who can't get a decent service from them, providing that most people can and more critically that BT does not lose too much market share to Virgin.

Depending on where you live, those customers may well be enjoying FTTP today. Such is the BT technology lottery, where some rural dwellers (and I mean really rural) get the very best, some are on the end of FTTC (whether they're on great lines or poor ones) and others get relegated onto satellite.

Edited by deleted (Wed 04-May-16 21:12:07)

Just because you have an aluminium line which is more than 500 metres long, you are wrong to think that the majority of lines are >500metres.

Also, I suspect the amount of aluminium in the network isn't that great in % terms - certainly not a significant % (how much do you think there is?)

In reply to a post by rgp:

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

A 3% demand for ultrafast speeds is about one-tenth of the demand for superfast speeds. A G.Fast DPU probably only needs to be able to handle 16-32 lines, and would cope with all the demand in the PCP area, even if it could only reach half of the subscribers.

I think BT would be laughed at if they only roll out G.Fast to existing cabinets such that only 50% of the possible users on a cabinet could actually get a better service than they already have with VDSL2.

I think your maths is rusty.

A capacity that is 50% of subscribers on a PCP is about what an Huawei 288 cabinet manages in some locations. Adding a 32-port DPU is going to be nearer 5%.

What is the problem in supplying limited capacity when there is only limited demand? It is the principle that telecoms has worked on for over a century.

. Yes, this is way less than the 40Mbit download, 10Mbit upload service that I am paying for

Yawn. There went any signs of sensible discussion.

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

BT definitely have a choice to make: retain VDSL2, but add vectoring and profile 35b (which is the standardised name for the two proprietary ideas of Vplus and superVector); or use G.Fast.

I suspect that profile 35b was never in any real prospect of being rolled out in the UK.

If it hadn't been for the decision to concentrate on g.fast I believe we would have seen profile 30a here instead.

Edited by gt94sss2 (Thu 05-May-16 00:40:45)

I don't think it was about capacity but about the number of people that would actually get an up lift. If you only have 30% of users signing up to a service and only 50% of those could see an up lift from G.Fast then essentially you only have 15% of users in a cabinet that you can sell the service to (and not all of those would bother to upgrade because they will already be getting decent FTTC speeds).

The real benefit on G.Fast is moving the node closer to the property so that those with lower FTTC speeds actually get a quantifiable increase that they would be willing to pay extra for - that is much less likely if you only do G.Fast at the cab.

Just about any infrastucture build in the late 1960's and 1970's will most likely be aluminium based because of the global copper shortage at that time.This would also include cable repairs of the existing infrastucture during that period.

It may not be a significant percentage overall but in towns that had a lot of development during that period there will be a fairly high percentage of properties served by all or part aluminium cabling.

In reply to a post by simon194:

Just about any infrastucture build in the late 1960's and 1970's will most likely be aluminium based because of the global copper shortage at that time.This would also include cable repairs of the existing infrastucture during that period.

It may not be a significant percentage overall but in towns that had a lot of development during that period there will be a fairly high percentage of properties served by all or part aluminium cabling.

Both my lines are partially aluminium, this cuts me from an 80/20 sync (as was the estimate at the time of order) to a ~43/6 sync on both lines (as the BT Wholesale estimate now says after engineer visits etc).

The average age of houses on my road must be about 300 years, mine is about 500 years for the main house, extended in the Victorian era, so unless the lines were not installed until ~1960/70 for some reason, BT just decided they liked aluminium here.

You have your answer in that the news is reporting a BT objective of installing FTTP to 2 million more premises (in addition to what is being done under BDUK).

However, I think the areas chosen will probably be relatively high density with suitable passive infrastructure. If you look at the north Swindon trial using connector-based technology, then this might well be the roll-out model that's chosen. In areas where g.fast is a significantly more cost-effective method of delivering ultrafast, I think that will take precedence. There will also be a certain amount of politics in this in deal. Partly BT will want to be able to claim they are the UK's largest FTTP operator, and partly to mollify Ofcom who, for good or ill, will see the FTTP figure as important in international comparisons.

What I don't expect to happen is these 2 million premises being largely rural infill.