I cant understand why this is so difficult for people to comprehend

If it was a full 1GB, after overheads the customer could receive 942mb, therefore the ISP could sell a 942mb product.

If they are selling a 900mb product, add the overheads on top of that you do not need a full 1gb to provide the service.

I am not redefining a GB.

If it was a full 1GB, after overheads the customer could receive 942mb, therefore the ISP could sell a 942mb product.

They aren't allowed to advertise it as the absolute maximum theoretical speed someone can achieve with perfect conditions and zero congestion.
They must advertise what a % of users can achieve during peak times.

Yes they could indeed sell it as a 940Mb/s connection. That leaves zero room for flexibility and leaves the ISP skating on thin ice.

If they are selling a 900mb product, add the overheads on top of that you do not need a full 1gb to provide the service.

What exactly are you complaining about? The fact they provide higher than they advertise?
They sell it as they do to stop people who don't understand overheads from complaining that they don't receive speeds that aren't even possible.

It's a gigabit connection, sold as lower than that because of a combination of overheads, congestion and rules on advertising average speeds achieved.

I cant understand why this is so difficult for people to comprehend.

Hi John,

When you say 'The fact they provide higher than they advertise?'

So it is the case that you could pay for the 900mb package and the end user could actually receive a higher throughput of say 940mb?

Exactly that yes.
Anyone who orders 900Mb will connect at 1000Mb/s and can receive 942Mb/s.

It's technically gigabit, at exactly 1000Mb/s. It's only advertising rules that mean the provider sells it as 900Mb.

My brother told me he order Full Fibre 900 with BT and his line stats was 1000/115 but throughput speed around 940/114

In reply to a post by adslmax:

My brother told me he order Full Fibre 900 with BT and his line stats was 1000/115 but throughput speed around 940/114

- "Full Fibre 900" is the BT Retail product description for the service.

- 1000/115 is the name of the wholesale Openreach GEA-FTTP product (speed tier) that is used to provide that particular service. It is not an indication of line stats and as pointed out already, at least from a downstream perspective, NOT an attainable *net* data throughput from the output of the ONT

- 940/114 sounds like the net data throughput from a Speedtest.

In reply to a post by Ripley:

Just out of interest, why are Openreach currently building a product as part of the nationwide gigabit rollout, where the end user can only purchase up to a 900mb package?

They may be missing something here, unless 900mb counts as a gigabit connection

As Openreach are a network builder and wholesale network service provider, they sell amongst other things broadband products to their customers, the ISPs/CPs , which you and I as and-users buy services from.

The GEA-FTTP network that Openreach are building nationally currently operates in excess of "Gigabit" in both downstream and upstream directions. Actually 2.488 Gbps in the downstream direction and 1.244 Gbps in the upstream direction.

Openreach publish product guides, called SINs (Suppler Information Notes). For GEA-FTTP the relevant note that describe the FTTP service is SIN 506. You can find it here.

Openreach have taken the decision to provide FTTP Products at up to a maximum of 1000/220 Mbps. Within the SIN - for the highest tiers 1000/220 and 1000/115 Openreach state as follows:

"The 1000M product provides a max Ethernet frame throughput of 987Mbps (excluding IFG and pre-amble). This is limited by the 1000BaseT interface and Ethernet framing overheads"

Basically as pointed in posts above, these are inherent limitations on the "net" data throughput of an Ethernet interface - which is the interface that is used to connect the customer.

Now Openreach could take the decision (admittedly unlikely) to provision higher download (and indeed upload) data rates on the current network. Other providers like CityFibre already do this effectively offering symmetric upload and download using the same GPON technology as the Openreach network. Indeed they could actually over-provision the download above 1 Gbps (like certain providers outside the UK) - however this would necessitate a different ONT which wouldn't be capped with a 1000BaseT customer connection.

The other matter to reflect on here is that the 'network' really is a passive network from the exchange to the user premises. This will undoubtedly remain for as long as the copper network has. It is entirely possible and probable, that at some point when it becomes commercially sensible that Openreach will "upgrade" this Gigabit-class network to become either a 10 Gbps, 25 Gbps or 50 Gbps (all current GPO=ON standards) network on the backbone - whilst simultaneously maintaining and running the original "Gigabit" connections to existing customers.

In reply to a post by Ripley:

Canlerb I think you miss understand my point.

And that's a bit of a cop out to say gigabit is just an alias for fibre.

Everybody else above has claimed contrary to you, that they cant deliver gigabit. Obviously you think otherwise.

I haven't seen a 942 mb product on the market yet...

Zzoomm has a 900Mb/s.

In reply to a post by Ripley:

I cant understand why this is so difficult for people to comprehend

If it was a full 1GB, after overheads the customer could receive 942mb, therefore the ISP could sell a 942mb product.

If they are selling a 900mb product, add the overheads on top of that you do not need a full 1gb to provide the service.

I am not redefining a GB.

As many, many others have pointed out there is no 900mbps product from Openreach. the 900mbps is an advertising rule, the products is still 1000mbps delivered to the customers ONT which equates to around 942mbps of "usable data"

My ISP is Vodafone and I pay for a "900mbps" products but speed tests reach around 920-940mbps so yes, almost all FTTP ISPs advertise 900 but deliver mode. The difference was even wider when i was on 500mbps product but used to receiver 570mbps

Don't believe me, here's the proof: https://www.speedtest.net/result/12280870147

Ripley to be frank you are causing arguments over established conventions.

There will always be overheads in sending data, From RS232 days to nvme and tcp/ip. If you have a problem with how things are defined, please make your case to the various standards bodies.

Even with storing data, you have "padding" because you need to keep data integrity.