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

What a ludicrous and childish comment. You only have to read these forums to know that more than three people have G-Fast. In my case I'm aware of more than that number on one cab alone.

OK, take up is low for higher speed services be those services cable, FTTP or G-Fast. One only has to look at the significant numbers who opt for the lower speed FTTC connections let alone those still on ADSL2+ through choice rather than finance driven. Whilst only a minority currently want a higher speed connection let's not deprive them of the opportunity.

In reply to a post by MCM:

Whilst only a minority currently want a higher speed connection let's not deprive them of the opportunity.

Even if we all have to contribute to the capital cost �.

Including shareholders, and BT pensioners like myself. In December 2018 we had "... in recent years the fund has racked up a deficit of more than £11billion, partly because of rock-bottom interest rates".

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 01-Jul-19 16:57:55)

How is it stat padding? If they say its only available to 30 houses then that is what they'll be recording in their own stats.

Do they not go off how many houses are connected to the cab and not how many can receive gfast from said cab? I think they do...

In reply to a post by lockyatlrg:

Do they not go off how many houses are connected to the cab and not how many can receive gfast from said cab? I think they do...

False.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Even if we all have to contribute to the capital cost �.

Including shareholders, and BT pensioners like myself. In December 2018 we had "... in recent years the fund has racked up a deficit of more than £11billion, partly because of rock-bottom interest rates".

As much as I hate to reply to any of your posts I don't believe BT Pensioners via the BTPS are contributing toward BT infrastructure capital costs. The contribution holiday's BT took in the 90's added to the scheme being benefit based rather than contribution based is where the deficits started.

They don't do that

If I turn off the speed filter on my data I get 2.84 million premises
Enable the 120 Mbps filter and this drops to 1,725,524.
With the old (i.e. yesterday morning) 100 Mbps filter in place it was 1,912,797

In reply to a post by partial:

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.

I'm still paying for the top rate of FTTC. But my sync speed is now connecting at 58Mbps (used to be in the 70's), the next step down would be cheaper and I'd only be losing 6Mbps on the sync. So if I wanted to save some money and dropped down a package, in the stats it would list me as having the higher tier available but I chose the slower package. When in reality I'm not really getting the full speed of the top tier, but in the stats it would look like I would.

I just wonder how many are in a similar situation to me.

What stats?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

What stats?

The ones that people refer to as showing that "people pick the slower speeds even when higher speeds are available".

In those kind of stats if I decided paying top tier prices for only a 6Mbps difference wasn't worth it and dropped down to the upto 52Mb tier, it would look like I'd chose the slower speed package even though technically I still could get the higher tier.