There is no 10 day training period on FTTC.
There's no training period at all.

I'd get back on to BT and don't be fobbed off.

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

This is referring to Openreach specifically.

Gigafast has a massive marketing machine to drive initial take-up and advantage of vertical integration.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

That's interesting, I've sync'd at the full 80/20 for a long time (attainable currently showing as 82136/25811) but had always assumed my distance to the cabinet (around 450m) would rule me out if G.fast ever arrived.

Edited by kasg (Fri 24-May-19 09:51:25)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

Not so sure. A native 80/20 FTTP which actually delivers 80/20 is unless I am mistaken the same price as a 80/20 FTTC which for most people not likely to deliver the full 80/20. So if you have native FTTP available to you and are currently getting say 50/15 usable, might as well upgrade to native FTTP. Yes by most standards 50/15 is a good broadband speed, but 80/20 is better.

It would not be surprised if Openreach removed the option of an FTTC connection where native FTTP was available. Taking the long view it would make sense.

How many upgrade to a ultrafast speed is another matter entirely.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

My DSL Checker say 68/19 with handback 62 and got G.Fast 184/12 with handback 152 and will not ordered G.Fast because upstream are slower than FTTC. Staying with my current FTTC with 68/19.

There's obviously some interesting variations. I don't have access to modem statistics (still on the original HG612) but I'm getting around 68Mb/s on speed checkers over wifi and the availability checker records my highest observed downstream rate as 74.38 a month ago. When I first got FTTC I was connecting at full speed (79999) and I think the attainable was over 90. Obviously cross-talk has impacted it over the years but there's no mention of G.FAST on the checker for me.

Long term plan is to remove FTTC in the FTTP overbuild areas and remove VDSL2 in G.fast areas too

The marketing and messaging from Ofcom importantly is that full fibre is ultrafast (we flag it as both superfast and ultrafast), so you'll be surprised how many think they can only buy the 160 Mbps or faster variant...

One of the way of spotting the roll-outs is seeing 80/20 speeds in locations where it is not expected, so I do have a good idea that we are not seeing a big take-up, actually very similar to G.fast. The exception is those jumping from no VDSL2 or EO lines to having FTTP, though most will be in a contract with Virgin Media.

Once the marketing machine gets moving which will be when Sky and TalkTalk get up to speed and the TV adverts start to push full fibre things will change.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Distance is also a major factor in G.FAST. If you're not currently syncing at 80Mb/s you're probably out of range of G.FAST.

I've seen plenty of people that have got G.fast that had a lower sync rate than 80, including my parents who had a sync rate of 65 and now enjoying a sync rate of 140 with G.fast

Who undoubtedly have a slower upstream now.

It's not a hard and fast rule by any means but for the majority if you don't get 80/20 on FTTC then G.Fast is either out of range completely or will more than likely offer a small increase in downstream with a loss of upstream.

I'll ignore the comment about seeing plenty under 80/20 who have G.Fast. The take-up is dire.
I couldn't even say "I've seen plenty with G.Fast."
God knows where you're seeing so many at the very end of the range.

Typical example is the road my parents live down, it consists of 14 houses and 6 of them have now gone to g.fast. Would not call that dire.

Also, don't just judge what you are seeing on forums as most people that don't have any problems tend not to post.

The engineer who was fitting my pod the other day told me that take up for g.fast now it's being deployed and going live in many areas seems to be going better than expected.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

There's no training period at all.

I think that's not strickly true any more. Wth lines now being put on interleaving initially, then that being removed and g. inp applied, then dBx you could say there is an initial period of adjustment, but then after that the DLM will react if things change.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

Not so sure. A native 80/20 FTTP which actually delivers 80/20 is unless I am mistaken the same price as a 80/20 FTTC which for most people not likely to deliver the full 80/20. So if you have native FTTP available to you and are currently getting say 50/15 usable, might as well upgrade to native FTTP. Yes by most standards 50/15 is a good broadband speed, but 80/20 is better.

That's the real point: those who already get 80/20 are least likely to feel the need for higher speeds. I'd probably be quite happy with 80/20 if I could get it, but I get 30/4.

So I would expect a low takeup for G.fast (where it's only available to people who can get close to 80/20 already), and high takeup of FTTP for users without good FTTC. However a high proportion of the latter might only take 80/20 or even 40/10.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If the take-up of G.fast is dire, then the same should be said of FTTP built in areas with superfast access already.

Not so sure. A native 80/20 FTTP which actually delivers 80/20 is unless I am mistaken the same price as a 80/20 FTTC which for most people not likely to deliver the full 80/20. So if you have native FTTP available to you and are currently getting say 50/15 usable, might as well upgrade to native FTTP. Yes by most standards 50/15 is a good broadband speed, but 80/20 is better.

That's the real point: those who already get 80/20 are least likely to feel the need for higher speeds. I'd probably be quite happy with 80/20 if I could get it, but I get 30/4.

So I would expect a low takeup for G.fast (where it's only available to people who can get close to 80/20 already), and high takeup of FTTP for users without good FTTC. However a high proportion of the latter might only take 80/20 or even 40/10.

You sat that you would be happy with an increase in speed, but then go on to say that other people would not bother why? It just doesn't make sense why you would be happy with an increase but others would not.

By your logic VM would not have any customers above 80 meg then? Which they have plenty and growing each day.