In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The Gig Openreach is set to be 1000 down, 220 up

Note: the *current* extremely expensive Gig Openreach product is 1000 down, 220 up. There is also 500/165.

The soon-to-be-launched consumer-oriented products are 1000 down 115 up, and 550 down 75 up.

This might be of interest

Openreach to Trial Symmetric 1Gbps UK FTTP Broadband Speeds

If the trials go well, I don't see why symmetric speeds won't be rolled out to residential/SME FTTP services on the Openreach platform though I suspect only the higher end services (0.5 Gbps & above) will see symmetric speeds. Expect to pay a handsome premium though!

Well I wouldn't mind testing it for them LOL

Peak Speed: 550/550Mbps
Prioritised Rate: 220/220Mbps

Would be the one I would go with, if the price was right.

I would also be happy to pay the £500 fee.

Paul

In reply to a post by pleasence:

Is there an inherent technical limitation to why the Openreach FTTP products are all asymmetric?

From what I can see in other parts of the world, FTTP products are often symmetric as standard.

The stuff already mentioned alongside that Openreach guarantee the upload speed will be as advertised.

The CIR / Committed Information Rate they sell to their customers is the same as the maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committed_information_...

You'll note that their customers like BT Consumer guarantee 100 Mb/s on the 160 Mb/s based product and 150 Mb/s on the 330 Mb/s based product, those are based on Openreach prioritised rates, but they sell the upload at exactly maximum.

Business decision on the part of Openreach to not contend the upstream.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Wrong again, domestic internet access has at times been asymmetric but in general internet access has always been symmetric.

End user, whether residential, SME or large enterprise, usage of the Internet is generally asymmetrical. It's obviously balanced by data centres serving the content outbound but access networks human beings connect to the Internet through see asymmetrical trends.

The access network technologies serving us all reflect this. xDSL, cable and nearly all PONs are configured asymmetrically.

As far as proportions go the trend is towards broadband and away from leased lines for many enterprises. Access becoming more asymmetrical but it not being a problem - for the cost of 100 Mb/s of MPLS an enterprise can potentially purchase 20 Mb/s of MPLS, 45 Mb/s of G.fast upload, 35 Mb/s of cable upload, 50 Mb/s of FTTP upload, 19 Mb/s of FTTC upload, combinations of the above and end up with similar uptimes to the 100 Mb/s MPLS and higher performance but asymmetry.

I'd point to the network you work on as an example of this - its ratio is largely inbound, not balanced, even though the connections JISC have to the Internet at large are symmetrical.

I imagine that is what the poster was referring to in their definition of 'Internet access'.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Hyperoptic is NOT PON based. They are dedicated circuits to the building and then fibre to the floor and Gigabit Ethernet into each apartment (or GigE from basement if distances are short enough).

Don't forget the GPON split, some UK GPON firms use 32 some go all the way to 128.

I thought that Hyperoptic had made a big fuss about FTTC being called fibre. In which case using some Cat6a (assuming they are future proofing themselves for 10Gb and are not cheaping out on Cat5e) is rank hypocrisy.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Thanks. I thought they were all using the same as B4RN.

I have never understood B4RN deployment. They use standard fibre so you have separate up and downstream fibres. Even at the time frame that B4RN started deploying BiDi optics where common place and not much more expensive than a normal SFP. These days even a 1Gbps BiDi SFP is under £10. Would have halved the amount of fibre required and halved the number of splices, for an extra £5 per user in capital costs (which is probably less than the capital cost of the extra fibre and labour costs of the extra splicing) and a lower environmental impact though using less materials.

That said once CWDM-PON is standardized as long as you have kept your splits lower than 9:1 you can build a point to point PON network and go fully symmetric without the expensive lasers that a traditional time division PON network would require on all the upstream ONT's to become symmetrical. Noting that is the reason PON networks are traditionally asymmetric, it's down to cost of the laser in the ONT's.

xDSL doesn't have lasers at the consumer end, but has always been asymmetrical. That suggests to me there is more to it on FTTP than the cost of the laser in the user's ONT. I accept it could be a factor of course.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Thanks. I thought they were all using the same as B4RN.

I have never understood B4RN deployment. They use standard fibre so you have separate up and downstream fibres. Even at the time frame that B4RN started deploying BiDi optics where common place and not much more expensive than a normal SFP. These days even a 1Gbps BiDi SFP is under £10. Would have halved the amount of fibre required and halved the number of splices, for an extra £5 per user in capital costs (which is probably less than the capital cost of the extra fibre and labour costs of the extra splicing) and a lower environmental impact though using less materials.

That said once CWDM-PON is standardized as long as you have kept your splits lower than 9:1 you can build a point to point PON network and go fully symmetric without the expensive lasers that a traditional time division PON network would require on all the upstream ONT's to become symmetrical. Noting that is the reason PON networks are traditionally asymmetric, it's down to cost of the laser in the ONT's.

B4RN use BiDi / 1000Base-BX and always have...

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

xDSL doesn't have lasers at the consumer end, but has always been asymmetrical. That suggests to me there is more to it on FTTP than the cost of the laser in the user's ONT. I accept it could be a factor of course.

SHDSL is symmetrical, VDSL has symmetrical profiles. A decision was made on how to allocate the limited RF bandwidth.

XGSPON increased cost is a combination of more expensive ONT optics and lower port density on line cards in OLTs.