It is fine, where it is fine, but it often is not fine. It is great at our house on a rural edge of a small town, where I get 80/30 reliably (and is now my primary Internet connection).

When I'm out and about in high density parts of London however, it is often sub-ADSL levels of not fine.

Note the poster and content I replied to. Your situation is irrelevant to my post. He was ruling it out because of data caps, not speed.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 11-Jun-19 12:42:04)

There is no rule that every comment thread should get more and more razor focussed as it goes down the tree..

You pointed out that there are no limits on Three and claimed that "streaming on Three is fine".

I expanded on that to say that Three isn't always fine and in many areas of London (which is where the poster was talking about) it can be worse than poor ADSL.

If the poster's mobile speeds were poor I would be 95% sure they would have said so at the same time as pointing out the caps problem. It is far more important. Don't you agree? So I took it for granted they were fine.

As for being razor focussed, that's exactly what my post was. So is this one of yours. If you had replied to hvis42 raising the speed question I would not have been bothered, but for the above obvious reason as a reply to me I was not pleased by it.

Simples.

I have never been able to get a steady bandwidth good for 4k from a 4g service. They seem to become saturated at prime time.

Of course 4k streaming is not a human right and very much nice to have. It just seems sad that areas in arguably the most vibrant city in Europe areas will be depending on internet solutions one would expect to find in rural areas only - just because there is no business model to make it worthwhile for anyone to provide anything better.

The only existing business model is community fibre partnership but these are complicated in London where people do not generally know (or even want to know) their neighbours, 70% of which will be tenants anyway.

On the positive note Hyperoptic et al seem to have lowered their threshold and they are now interested in smaller blocks of flats as well. This leaves only houses in limbo.

Which mobile provider are you with?

Not anything anymore, my fixed line problem is luckily solved now with Hyperoptic. The townhouses across the street is a different story.

I was with Relish and got 30Mbps early mornings and 2-5 at evening prime time. As I was able to get decent speed out of hours I assumed it was just network saturation.

In reply to a post by hvis42:

Despite spamming and a badly written petition EO lines are a pain. They are the most expensive to upgrade and it seems that they are just being ignored.

In my area, last year a new cabinet sprung up to serve just 29 properties which were on EO lines. So it's clear that some things *are* being done - just not fast enough for everyone's liking of course.

Why they didn't just put an FTTP splitter there, I have no idea.

In reply to a post by hvis42:

Quite a lot of investment goes now to upgrading FTTC areas to FTTP or FTTC to G.Fast as the current Openreach business model just does not have an incentive to do anything to the areas expensive to upgrade. There is always a new technology or something else that directs the investment to non-EO areas.

You're not missing out on FTTP investment because you're on an EO line.

Costs to roll out FTTP to EO lines are similar to those on cabinet fed lines.
The copper is left as it is now, wether the line is connected to a cabinet or direct to the exchange.

An Exchange Only line in the middle of London is probably going to get FTTP before my 45Mb FTTC line in a small semi-rural town.

They should target those with the lowest speed regardless of how the line is fed.

There's many lines with FTTC who get lower sync speeds than EO lines on ADSL.
There's also many cabinet fed lines with only ADSL who sync lower than shorter EO lines on ADSL.

I think the whole "nothing is done about EO lines" is nonsense.
The hundreds/thousands of infill cabinets and FTTC cabinets outside exchanges across the country shows they are making an effort to reach EO lines.
There's also all the FTTP that's been rolled out to such lines.

Someone here explained to me a couple of years ago that EO lines are actually more expensive to upgrade to FTTP as they need to do more digging - it is easier to use the shorter conduits from cabinets. Not sure if this is true.

In my area we are not even in plans or programmes yet according to BT checker. I don't think their priorities are wrong in this case despite being frustrating to homeowners in the area. As altnets have cabled all blocks of flats, it is only houses scattered around a large geographical area that currently need an upgrade. Despite having to do a lot of cabling take-up would not be too impressive. £35 for 150/150 from Hyperoptic is competitive and similar services from OR based operators tend to cost more - people in blocks of flats would not switch back to OR network even if it became available.

Maybe they will do the area one day but as we are not even in a programme yet, it will be years before anything happens there.