https://www.thinkbroadband.com/how-broadband-works

For those who are interested one of our guides has a G.fast range table in it.

And to add the G.INP roll-outs, and less successfully vectoring, but these have seen Huawei cabinets doing better on average than ECI by a few Meg now.

Also LR-VDSL but needs ADSL/ADSL2+ turned off.

People don't want a BT Group monopoly, but they also want someone to do a standard service everywhere, perhaps the answer is Government buys all commercial operators and does a NBN ala Australia, but then they are spending a lot more money than the UK government has done.

Estimate is across all cabinets 64% are in range for a minimum connection speed of 100 Mbps

As infill continues this number may flex around a little.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

and less successfully vectoring, but these have seen Huawei cabinets doing better on average than ECI by a few Meg now.

A side-note that virtually all of BDUK deployment has been done with Huawei cabinets. Addition of vectoring and/or LR-VDSL is thus feasible to most of these areas.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/how-broadband-works

For those who are interested one of our guides has a G.fast range table in it.

Those seem quite optimistic speeds!

Aside:
Can I point out that, at some point in the future, it will become important to label these estimates by the version of G.Fast that is in use.

When FTTC came out here, we suffered from re-posts of old graphs, where it became unclear that some data related to 7MHz estimates, some 8MHz, and some 17MHz.

Just trying to preempt the arguments in 3 years time...

In reply to a post by kebabselector:

You'll find those on left with ADSL are not economically viable hence Openreach are waiting for someone else to pay for it.

Anyone know if BDUK funded cabs are getting G-Fast - If so what makes them economically viable now?

General answer:

There are different reasons for "not economically viable" in each case...

Exchanges might not be viable for ADSL2+ because there is no physical space.

PCPs might not be viable for FTTC because of a difficult and costly distance for power.

PCPs might not be viable for G.Fast because of the density of housing within 300m (though the density within 1km is fine for VDSL2).

So ... it is plausible for a PCP cabinet to have needed BDUK funds to get the power issue addressed. But now power (and fibre) is there, that BDUK cabinet is no more costly to upgrade to G.Fast than any other in the country.

Meanwhile, the best economically-viable PCP might not be able to get a G.Fast upgrade because the PCP is physically sited too close to an obstruction, that is too costly to move/remove. No room for a pod.

Specific answer:
BT reported they were including the "Allhallows" exchange in Kent in the trial. Every single PCP on that exchange that has been upgraded was done with a BDUK subsidy.

It will be interesting to see how accurate it is.

The VDSL2 table is possibly way out ... several lines I know of are at about 400-450m from the cabinet and have attenuations of about 16dB ±1 with speeds well into the 70s and potentially just over 80 compared to your predicted 9dBand42 Mbps.

My line, is 440m, by road and I know here most of the ducts are - it cannot be shorter unless it went through a Church and graveyard! The single attenuation figure for downstream is 16.7 dB (the D1, D2 , D3 Line/Signal figures are 11.6/14.8, 28.0/27.7, 43.8/42.9) and I am currently sync'd at 80000kbps.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/how-broadband-works

For those who are interested one of our guides has a G.fast range table in it.

Thanks, that was what I was thinking of.

But - natch - more questions are raised. I kinda thought I could look at these tables and work out what speed G Fast might bring my line based on my FTTC speed. I appear to be 200m from the cabinet but I think my line takes a scenic route and could be longer. My router says I have 60481 kbps down and 20000 up with aa attenuation of 17db on the down side and 20 up.

The tables say - or suggest ? - 17db mean I must have an 800m line length and my speeds would be 28 down and 10 up.

I must be reading this all wrong or making assumptions...

It certainly needs to be remembered that everyone pays for the power consumption of the port at the DSLAM today; it is just hidden away within the money you pay your ISP, and they pay on to BT.

For reverse-powered G.Fast, it becomes an explicit issue that might have to be separated out...

In reply to a post by R0NSKI:

Was that cost split between four properties, so a max of £20 a year, if so I would be ok with that, but not sure about £80 of electricity. Suppose it would depend on the cost of the service as well.

The standards that have been written to provide reverse power generally allow for up to around 15W to be used, but examples I've seen suggest nearer 10W being used. Per port.

Over a year, 10W maps to 90kWh. At 12p per unit, that's roughly £11. About £1 per month.

Could this be handled by BT offering two wholesale prices that differ by £1 per month?

For comparison: In today's FTTC DSLAMs, a fully-populated 288-port Huawei consumes 600W, or approx 2W per port. About 20p per month of today's bills.

Note:
As chipsets take advantage of better manufacturing capability, power requirements generally drop ... so there is merit in waiting for later iterations of the hardware before plumping for a design that is to be reverse-powered.

They are amendment 2 i.e. what is being deployed