G.fast is always a good talking point on this forum, those that love it and those that don't, sadly either way there are many who will never live close enough to the pod to benefit from it.

In reply to a post by MCM:

You're obviously entitled to your opinion nevertheless there are many users who disagree with you and are perfectly happy with their G-Fast connections.

Do you have a Gfast connection? If you do, how do you find it?

I do wonder how many pods will ever recoup the full cost to Openreach of installing them. Never mind the original research and design costs, which of course having been spent cannot be unspent.

Many FTTP areas only have the option of FTTP whereas G.Fast areas is a choice.

Looking at the data Mr Saffron collates, my reading is that G.Fast is performing very well but customers have very little demand for faster speeds in either G.Fast or FTTP areas.

Another often overlooked benefit of G.Fast is the very fast install time and cost compared to adding another VDSL cabinet in fully subscribed areas.

Always a shame to see kit installed but it not being used because of the lack of demand.

I'm not exaggerating when I say there is probably 30 houses at the very most connected on my cab that can get Gfast - it's a [censored] deployment when a 240 meter line can't have Gfast. There is hundreds of houses on my estate who just won't benefit from this poor technology..

As a few folk on here say it's just BT meeting some obligations and stat padding to look like they are meeting targets with this skewed way of deploying it.

Edited by lockyatlrg (Mon 01-Jul-19 14:18:03)

Hi

G.Fast was always going to be a low take up and a bit of a waste of time as soon as they dropped the closer nodes at the distribution point that would have shortened the copper length and changed to deployment from a cab, something it was never really designed to do.

Yes some people will get >300 down and > 30 up, giving them a good speed boost and perhaps tempting them to move over, but those people are very few on any given cabinet due to it being so distant dependant.

There is a high percentage of people that will get a speed boost from G.Fast but not enough to make the expense and hassle of changing worthwhile, as these same people will be on 80/20 on VDSL. There is also the risk for those not having the G.Fast pod as their next door neighbour that their upload speeds will be reduced, hardly an incentive to "upgrade". So overall, G.Fast is an improvement for only the lucky few that are already on a fast service where it makes the least impact.

Regards

Phil

Edited by deleted (Mon 01-Jul-19 14:47:16)

In reply to a post by partial:

Looking at the data Mr Saffron collates, my reading is that G.Fast is performing very well but customers have very little demand for faster speeds in either G.Fast or FTTP areas.

This is one point. But remember G.fast is only available to the people already getting the maximum out of their FTTC connection. So they are less likely to upgrade.

The further we go away from the cabinet peoples FTTC connections aren't performing well and so they would be more likely to have upgraded to G.fast if it had become a possibility of getting a higher speed.

I'll assume you have an ADSL type of connection?

>>The further we go away from the cabinet peoples FTTC connections aren't performing well and so they would be more likely to have upgraded to G.fast if it had become a possibility of getting a higher speed.

I'm not sure this statement is evidence based. Think Broadband mapping from my reading doesn't show very high take up of the fast speeds in town or country, G.Fast, FTTP or cable.

In reply to a post by MCM:

so they have made the worthless tech even more worthless by increasing limits..

Worthless to you perhaps but far from worthless for the many with useful functioning G-Fast connections.

Many? Last I heard it was three people, one of whom had ordered it by mistake