|
|
The regulator wants to un-block this log-jam by implementing a new rule that would require Openreach to upgrade its telegraph pole drop wires with fibre cables at the request of any telecoms provider who is offering full-fibre broadband to a customer. Openreach would then charge the provider for using the drop wire.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4007216/Open...
|
|
|
Deleted
Edited by ian72 (Wed 07-Dec-16 08:57:38)
|
|
|
It is a consultation , nobody has been ordered to do anything yet.
TBB NEWS
So Ofcom is consulting on whether to require Openreach to upgrade its drop wires with fibre at the request of any telecoms provider who is offering full-fibre broadband to a customer. Openreach could then charge the provider for using the drop wire.
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
|
Post deleted by Bob_s2
|
|
|
|
Sorry, just spotted the quote so had just deleted my comment...
|
|
|
|
It appears to have worked well in Spain
Quote "Other countries have seen duct and pole access used to extend fibre to people�s doorsteps. In Spain and Portugal, the resulting competition has helped deliver full-fibre broadband coverage of 79% and 70% respectively. This compares to around 2% currently in the UK."
|
|
|
|
issue is they want to do this and get it for free -- or eveing they get paid for it
its been available for 4 years !!!! -- but very few taken advantage of it
virgin only use their own network and don't allow any one else to use theirs
spain its primarlly telefonica think you have hardlly any choice in spain
|
|
|
|
I dont trhink you have understood the OFCOM proposal
|
|
|
|
If Openreach are forced to install fibre to the premises then how is it paid for? It will either make rental very high to cover the costs or is it expected that Openreach should do it out of their own funds?
|
|
|
The bit about the drop wire is being mis-used I believe...
The full consultation talks about problems with some drop wire from poles, i.e. adding another providers fibre drop would require a new pole and thus be expensive, so as part of the consultation it is looking at an option so Openreach will replace existing drop and the consultation does mention the copper/fibre combo drop wires that exist, i.e. small fibre tube and copper pair in one cable.
Of course for this to happen, the people asking for the drop wire swap would also have to be offering fibre across the rest of the network too. So its not about TalkTalk being able to put in a request for a fibre drop and thus forcing Openreach to install fibre all the way - the all the way part would be achieved via the PIA pole/duct sharing.
The Daily Mail article is so littered with mistakes and confusion that I'd expect Ofcom to be phoning them up for a correction or too.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
Can anybody apply to hang wires/fibre on existing poles?
We have a challenge where we are running a CFP, it may not happen.
We can use FWA running at +500Mb PTP in places, but would then prefer to use Fibre to connect up the properties at the end of the FWA link because there is a hill and some trees in the way.
So will I or my Parish Council be able to apply for rights to route fibre along the poles?
PlusNet Unlimited Fibre 3Mb to 5Mb
|
|
|
I would expect you will need to be a registered cp with openreach, maybe with code powers. I can't see any tom, dick and Harry being allowed to shimmy up any pole they choose and start handing cable off it as they please 
|
|
|
Hi Andrew, it is this quote that seems to be causing the confusion:
So Ofcom is consulting on whether to require Openreach to upgrade its drop wires with fibre at the request of any telecoms provider who is offering full-fibre broadband to a customer. Openreach could then charge the provider for using the drop wire.
That is from the Ofcom quote in the news article on the TBB home page. Until I read that I thought the DM article was rubbish and then deleted my post that said as much because that paragraph could be read the way the DM has and as I don't have the context I have no way of knowing what Ofcom actually mean. You may well know what that paragraph is actually saying beyond what it can be interpreted as saying.
|
|
|
Hence why I link to the consultation high up in the article
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
And you can already apply since PIA exists, this consultation is about making PIA v2 easier to use, i.e. work at larger scales and address price issues raised from the existing PIA solution.
Operators like WarwickNet already use PIA
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
It appears to be geeting equality of pricing. At present PIA is costed in a way that makess it uncompettive. OFCOM seem to be requiring BT to use the same costing model used for Openreach for PIA
|
|
|
|
If you look at page 8 of the Ofcom consoltation document you well see just how far behind the rest of the world we are with Full Fibre and with the curren tBT rate of installing it or rather not installing it we can only fall even further behind of the 30 countries on the chart the UK is 29th. Countries like Chile and Turkey and Mexico are well ahead of the UK
|
|
|
So what can you do a FTTP connection at 200 Mbps that you cannot do a on DOCSIS connection of 200 Mbps?
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
What has that ggot to do with BT? In my view it is far from impressive that BT has only managed to provide full fibre to only 2% of households and even more conserning is most new developments are still only being served by copper
|
|
|
most new developments are still only being served by copper
Why when they can get FTTP built in for free by openreach, now?
|
|
|
My post never mentioned BT.
By the way get the stats right BT is less than 2%, the 2% is all FTTP providers combined (as yet Project Lightning RFOG is not included in that figure)
As for the new developments, there is no easy list of postcodes that are new developments, so difficult to do a fact check on that one, but suffice to say we see a mixture of services delivered to new build estates.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
New build here with 400kbps sync. I'm over the moon.
|
|
|
Hence my comment of a mixture, e.g. in the last month have seen
IFNL FTTP
Openreach FTTP
Hyperoptic
Virgin Media Project Lighting RFOG
Virgin Media DOCSIS
Openreach VDSL2
And as you just ADSL/ADSL2+
So its entirely possible, and some interesting comments last week from non-BT people about landlords/builders that they are just now starting to get the hint that decent broadband is important.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
Thankfully we're expecting FTTC *soon*, but that could be anything from January to August 2017 so I've been reliably informed.
|
|
|
... only 2% of households and even more conserning is most new developments are still only being served by copper
Blame for that also lies at feet of OFCOM, UK.gov and Planning and Building Regulations
PlusNet Unlimited Fibre 3Mb to 5Mb
|
|
|
you well see just how far behind the rest of the world we are with Full Fibre and with the curren tBT rate of installing it or rather not installing it we can only fall even further behind of the 30 countries on the chart the UK is 29th. Countries like Chile and Turkey and Mexico are well ahead of the UK
But what is the consequence?
Measuring the amount of "full fibre" deployed only means something if, and only if, that "full fibre" gives you something unique as a consequence.
Earlier you mentioned that both Spain and Portugal had a high percentage of "full fibre", yet their "actual" speed measurements are lower than the UK's: showing, perhaps, that the people aren't buying high-specification packages.
https://s24.postimg.org/cxdh4kttx/Rob_Kenny_Ave_Spee...
Australia are now busy deploying their mixed-mode version of NBN, but how are the sales going on the FTTP portion? Here's some interesting figures:
http://commsthought.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/nbn-and-m...
The most recent release of data from NBN (Sept 2016) show FTTP subscriptions amounting to 950,000. The biggest four package selections are:
- 48% have chosen 25/5 packages,
- 33% have chosen 12/1,
- 14% have chosen 100/40, and
- 4% have chosen 50/20.
The price premiums involved? £5 to go from 12/1 to 25/5, and another £5 to go from 25/5 to 100/40. Even relatively low price increases adds stiff resistance to the higher packages.
From Ofcom's scorecard, I'd guess that high prices affect Spain in a similar way. It be a guess about Portugal.
Right now, there doesn't look to have been any particularly bad consequence in the UK's choice of copper-based superfast technologies. In fact, the UK has almost certainly gained because it has been able to get those technologies deployed further and wider then the more intensive alternatives.
In future, there might be bad consequences if the infrastructure owners don't continue to make improvements in a timely manner.
That they are making those improvements is indisputable. Whether it proves to be timely is another, entirely debatable, matter.
|
|
|
and some interesting comments last week from non-BT people about landlords/builders that they are just now starting to get the hint that decent broadband is important.
You mean they've started listening to punters?
Perhaps all those bad-news stories about people who have bought new homes with dire broadband has *finally* started to make an impression!
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if BT were to release a 25/5 package that retailed at £5 per month less if most people didn't choose that over the higher speed packages. A small number want superfast, most want quite quick and cheap.
My bother is in an area that has FTTP. He chooses to buy the 55/10 (well, it was the 40/10) package because that is "all he needs" - and to be honest he is right. If I lived there I would probably buy the top package - not because of need but because of want.
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if BT were to release a 25/5 package that retailed at £5 per month less if most people didn't choose that over the higher speed packages. A small number want superfast, most want quite quick and cheap.
In a sense, they already have that - with the 18/2 "trial" packages. Yes, they're only available to people that currently have poor ADSL speeds, so they're a bit limited right now. But they might be a pointer for the future.
My [brother] is in an area that has FTTP. He chooses to buy the 55/10 (well, it was the 40/10) package because that is "all he needs" - and to be honest he is right. If I lived there I would probably buy the top package - not because of need but because of want.
I have to agree - we don't really need 80/20.
In Hull, it was said (a while ago) that the vast majority of punters were going for the entry-level Lightstream package, which is currently 50/5.
|
|
|
|
no wont as you need to be a Ofcom registered provider
the only people who coudld do that would be via another provider / operator
that a completely different process
and would yet another change for the community requirement
|
|
|
|
Infinity 4 package is now £70.99 a month and Infinity 3 is £63.99 a month (both include the phone line rental).
I lived in a FTTP area and did know some people on those packages when they were originally being trialled. I no longer know anyone on them know - as soon as they started to pay themselves, they dropped right down. My neighbour was on Infinity 3 (up to 200Mbps) and he recently dropped down to Infinity 2. It saves him £14 a month and his kids didn't notice any difference.
It does make me wonder that some people what some people on here calling for full fibre access would actually order if they could get FTTP. I know some of the very 'vocal' people go for the lowest cost providers and try to negotiate the cheapest deals possible upon renewal.
|
|
|
|
It's not only the headline speed. It's that on fibre you get the connection speed you pay for (minus the odd congestion issue).
There's no ambiguity on speed, If you're on Infinity 1 you get a 55/10 connection rate, not an up to 55/10 connection rate.
Everyone on FTTP pays the same and gets exactly what they pay for. It removes the disparity that Bob around the corner gets 50mbps whereas John served by the same cab gets 15mbps.
|
|
|
|
Most people on FTTP take the 80/20 or 40/10 speed variants at present. Obviously what people pay depends on the ISP they take their service from.
On the higher speed products, there is an increased variance in the download speeds throughout the day. When I was testing the 330/30 line, actual downstream throughput was quite variable, anything from 80Mbps up to 285Mbps in the evenings. With these higher speeds, there are far more factors involved that could make a difference.
|
|
|
Monthly speed test results split out those specifically on the GEA-FTTP products, and that split happens across the various providers that sell the GEA-FTTP product, just needs more people on it to share the results.
What is interesting is that while the Infinity FTTP is faster than VDSL2 it is not massively so.
The issue with speed pricing on VDSL2 is people want to pay 1/3rd the price if they get 1/3rd the speed, but port and infrastructure costs mean its usually just a 50p to £1 per month difference or similar at wholesale level between speed tiers
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
If the effort to become an OFCOM registered provider is not too great, the supplier of the FWA network could do that
PlusNet Unlimited Fibre 3Mb to 5Mb
|
|
|
|
For me, the most noticeable difference between VDSL and FTTP connected at exactly the same sync speed is the latency.
It would be more interesting if more people shared their results and even more interesting if there were more providers selling FTTP (I guess you're pretty much limited to BT Consumer and Plusnet - with a odds and ends from Zen/A&A and others).
|
|
|
With just 1.3% UK coverage and PlusNet taking just a fraction of that still shy on numbers for PlusNet FTTH my guess is once coverage hits 2.5% we should see several GEA-FTTP providers in the list
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
Smaller supplier market is a current issue with FTTP - with certain key suppliers refusing to offer services over FTTP there is currently less choice when all you have is FTTP. As numbers increase then supplier market will grow but I wonder at what percentage of coverage Sky will start to offer services on FTTP?
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware, Plusnet still require people to be an existing customer and then to sign up for FTTP via the trials page.
There should be some 400k native GEA-FTTP by next March, with the 1 million expected to be passed in the next 18 months. Hopefully this will see some of the other larger ISPs providing GEA-FTTP services.
|
|
|
It does make me wonder that some people what some people on here calling for full fibre access would actually order if they could get FTTP. I know some of the very 'vocal' people go for the lowest cost providers and try to negotiate the cheapest deals possible upon renewal.
In my case I'd happily go for the gigabit package but then I'm an overpaid exception that proves the rule.
|
|
|
For me, the most noticeable difference between VDSL and FTTP connected at exactly the same sync speed is the latency.
For a VDSL line on fastpath this is about 4ms, Sir. Unsure how noticeable this is, mind you, even super state of the art games aren't going to be especially impacted.
Edited by deleted (Thu 08-Dec-16 11:05:58)
|
|
|
There are some with low latency like in the 4 to 9ms region who find they are at a disadvantage, it is OK if playing on a server where everyone has similar latency but lag compensation code can make things annoying.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
I have no idea what that means in practice. OR don't charge OR for their own passive infrastructure. It's not a wholesale service that is sold using equivalent processes. For that to happen, what would need to be done is split OR into one outfit that owned the passive infrastructure and another that owned the cables and fibres.
What OR will, presumably, know if how the passive part of the network costs to maintain. However, that does not resolve the issue about how are those costs apportioned. If you have a pole carrying one cable pair with several dozen pairs as well as (say) another with four fibre links, how do you split the cost? If people migrate from copper to fibre and that income is lost are the charges rebalanced to reflect that?
These are non-trivial questions. The passive infrastructure is worth a lot of money. Allowing free-riding without paying the owners (who bought the infrastructure off the government) are surely due some return on what they paid many billions of pounds for.
|
|
|
|
but that will between the FWA and Openreach and not part of a CFP and no involvement from community
|
|
|
Yes got it.
PlusNet Unlimited Fibre 3Mb to 5Mb
|
|
|
Yep, you're in a special group
I guess you'll be looking at £125-150 a month or so from the likes of BT Consumer - if they decide to sell it.
|
|
|
The issue with speed pricing on VDSL2 is people want to pay 1/3rd the price if they get 1/3rd the speed, but port and infrastructure costs mean its usually just a 50p to £1 per month difference or similar at wholesale level between speed tiers
Perhaps we should get rid of all notion of fixed price entirely...
- Short line = low line rental
- Long line = high line rental
- Low speed = low broadband cost
- High speed = high broadband cost
I wonder who'd win?
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
deleted
