Disappointing Broadband ( in the UK? )

Just a moan really.

You know I have been living at my current address for ten years. In that time, my PC has massively increased in power, as has my monitor and everything else attached. My TV's are now internet savvy and I even have security cameras and other stuff that all accesses the internet. And yet in that time, my internet service is still exactly the same as it was ten years ago. FOR HEAVENS SAKE openreach, get a damn move on. Why are you so darn slow at upgrading peoples service? ( rhetorical question ).

Moan over. Lol.

In reply to a post by D11187:

Just a moan really.

You know I have been living at my current address for ten years. In that time, my PC has massively increased in power, as has my monitor and everything else attached. My TV's are now internet savvy and I even have security cameras and other stuff that all accesses the internet. And yet in that time, my internet service is still exactly the same as it was ten years ago. FOR HEAVENS SAKE openreach, get a damn move on. Why are you so darn slow at upgrading peoples service? ( rhetorical question ).

Moan over. Lol.

I understand your frustration but Openreach are rolling out full fibre but not everyone can be first. There are also other Altnets who are also rolling out fastest broadband so you may want to look into them in your area as well as looking at 4G maybe.

PS - You don't say what speed you're currently getting.

I think it was around 2001 I jumped onto broadband with 256Kb connection.

Through the years I have moved to 512Kb, 2Mb, 8Mb, 20Mb, 40Mb, 60Mb, back to 40Mb, 150Mb, 300Mb and now 1Gb. So in 20 years I have had a 4000 times increase in speed.

I would say the BT rollouts are running at a reasonable pace considering the size of the country and the complexities involved. But some will always wait much longer than others. Building consumer electronics is relatively easy - design once and just repeat. Building infrastructure has many more complexities and requires specific planning for each build (although there are patterns that set in general how each build type would go).

Openreach are rolling out full fibre but not everyone can be first

I think the problem is that there is a perception that the areas getting FTTP are those that already have FTTC, and the ADSL only corners of the country are being left until last (as usual, and for the usual reasons).

In my area things have improved in the last decade - we got an upgrade from ADSL Max to ADSL2+ three years ago. OR do have plans for FTTP for neighbouring areas that already have FTTC, but nothing for nearby areas without superfast broadband.

In reply to a post by D11187:

Why are you so darn slow at upgrading peoples service? ( rhetorical question ).

Assuming you are checking for alternative options? Guessing you are on FTTC/VDSL and have had service since 2011, which would be one of the earliest areas built. My town only went live with FTTC/VDSL starting in 2012 and much of the town wasn't able to order until 2013. Outside of Openreach, do you have any virgin cable in your area, and any 4G or 5G services? Friends of mine whom only had 20 mbps from openreach, now have 1Gig fibre from one of the small AltNets. (I am very jealous).

In reply to a post by sheephouse:

I think the problem is that there is a perception that the areas getting FTTP are those that already have FTTC, and the ADSL only corners of the country are being left until last (as usual, and for the usual reasons).

I think the perception is not far off the truth, Openreach commercial rollouts are done based on if they are financially viable as they are a private company, so even in Fibre First areas not all will get full fibre. If people have FTTC then they do have the option for full fibre if they want to pay although we all know its not cheap.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by sheephouse:

I think the problem is that there is a perception that the areas getting FTTP are those that already have FTTC, and the ADSL only corners of the country are being left until last (as usual, and for the usual reasons).

I think the perception is not far off the truth, Openreach commercial rollouts are done based on if they are financially viable as they are a private company, so even in Fibre First areas not all will get full fibre. If people have FTTC then they do have the option for full fibre if they want to pay although we all know its not cheap.

I would slightly disagree, based on what we are seeing, that many ADSL only areas have become focus areas for FTTP.

In the past 2 years, we have seen more of our current customerbase being able to move directly from ADSL -> FTTP, than current customers moving from FTTC to FTTP.

Depends on where you live I suppose. 2010-11, in HCMC, Vietnam, I had 20mb/s and cable TV. Back in the UK in 2011 I couldn't even get a phone line installed! Using BT Fon I was lucky to get 0.25mb/s from the neighbours connection. From 2012 to 2015 I had a very fast 1.2Mb/s line. Heady speeds indeed. Then FTTC came along and that shot up to 80/20mb/s. But FTTP. A pipe dream if it had been left to the likes of OR. According to the checker, they had no plans at all.

Fortunately an Altnet came along. And it didn't take them long to network the entire 2 halves of the village and the surrounding, isolated houses. Speeds of up to 1Gb, up and down, on offer. Their 120/120 service is fairly cheap too, only £19 a month - fixed for 2 yrs.

The OP needs to check out whether other suppliers are getting their act together. With OR you might have to wait some.

And while OR might well be a private company, so are all the rest that supply broadband.

In the past 2 years, we have seen more of our current customerbase being able to move directly from ADSL -> FTTP, than current customers moving from FTTC to FTTP.

But is that simply because those on FTTC don't see the need to upgrade?
Since FTTC is no longer being built the only upgrade path for ADSL is to FTTP (whether OR or AltNet),
And even the AltNets are increasingly prioritising areas with FTTC rather than ADSL only areas (which are often more expensive to build to) - for example Gigaclear are now building in Lydney covering FTTC areas - and now OR have announced they will cover the same area with FTTP - while both ignore the ADSL only areas (which Gigaclear has a BDUK contract to build - originally due to complete by the end of 2018).

Exactly, that's why I count myself lucky that I've already been able to order FTTP. There are a lot of places, even very close to me, that still don't have it that IMO should've been prioritised over our village. But, I guess it's just the way it is!

Not around here, they seem to be prioritising rolling out FTTP to areas that can order FTTC not ADSL.

I think that's why. There are a lot of areas around me that have FTTP where FTTC speeds are already 80/20, the takeup in those areas is incredibly low compared to areas that were either only able to order slow ADSL or both slow ADSL/VDSL.

In reply to a post by sheephouse:

But is that simply because those on FTTC don't see the need to upgrade?

Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear earlier.

Within our current customer base, we sample monthly what products customer can have v's what they have now.

What we are seeing are "ADSL only" areas becoming FTTP enabled, quicker, than we those who are in FTTC coverages areas. This especially appears to be the case where current FTTC speeds are 60Mbps+.

Therefore we are seeing evidence that Openreach do seem to be giving, what historically would be ruled out "non commercially viable" areas as much consideration as larger built up areas.

I think the problem isn't the rollout it's people in general thinking that their area, wherever that is should be prioritised,most folk seem to think the area they live in is more needy than elsewhere:-human nature

No 56k dial up perhaps from BT?

You need to remember that BT, including OR, have been shackled. In the late 80's BT wanted to run co-ax to provide TV and oice services, They tried again in the 90's and even now they are shackled by have charges capped at level where they cannot make a return.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by sheephouse:

I think the problem is that there is a perception that the areas getting FTTP are those that already have FTTC, and the ADSL only corners of the country are being left until last (as usual, and for the usual reasons).

I think the perception is not far off the truth, Openreach commercial rollouts are done based on if they are financially viable as they are a private company, so even in Fibre First areas not all will get full fibre. If people have FTTC then they do have the option for full fibre if they want to pay although we all know its not cheap.

I live in a small town close to Bath. About 12000 people. I moved here just over ten years ago and the service was FTTC. Not only has it not been upgraded to FTTP, but they have now run out of space in the cabinet so it's no longer possible to get VDSL any more. Openreach have no plans at the moment to upgrade. There are no other companies in the area.

In reply to a post by MHC:

You need to remember that BT, including OR, have been shackled. In the late 80's BT wanted to run co-ax to provide TV and oice services, They tried again in the 90's and even now they are shackled by have charges capped at level where they cannot make a return.

You mean that BT were told they couldn't exercise their usual greed.

I remember the days when BT used to mercilessly drain the public of every penny they could. When I first started using the internet my phone bill was £900 a month. Even back then it was impossible to justify that level of charging.

You don't say what speed you're currently getting.

In reply to a post by D11187:

You mean that BT were told they couldn't exercise their usual greed.

I remember the days when BT used to mercilessly drain the public of every penny they could. When I first started using the internet my phone bill was £900 a month. Even back then it was impossible to justify that level of charging.

A good opening post but now nonsense about greed, its a regular occurrence with those frustrated with their broadband speed.

In reply to a post by D11187:

I live in a small town close to Bath. About 12000 people. I moved here just over ten years ago and the service was FTTC. Not only has it not been upgraded to FTTP, but they have now run out of space in the cabinet so it's no longer possible to get VDSL any more. Openreach have no plans at the moment to upgrade. There are no other companies in the area.

12,000 people - and every single FTTC cabinet is showing totally full?

Perhaps if you post up the exchange and cabinet number details here, so some kindly person in the know can check what the expansion/upgrade plans are for those cabinets?

Not everyone, I certainly don't think that. We can already receive decent speeds via VDSL, so it doesn't really make sense why we can get FTTP, but properties just down the road on either slow ADSL or both ADSL & VDSL, can't!

In reply to a post by Grimers:

I think that's why. There are a lot of areas around me that have FTTP where FTTC speeds are already 80/20, the takeup in those areas is incredibly low compared to areas that were either only able to order slow ADSL or both slow ADSL/VDSL.

Yah. I've always felt that FTTP is future proofing and that the future is not here yet. A good FTTC connection is fine even for a family with a couple of kids. The kids might moan a bit about having to wait ten minutes before their game has downloaded but sensible parents will just ignore their moaning and present it as useful life lesson about patience and 'good things come to those who wait'

I will jump to FTTP as soon as I can have it but that's just because I'm a geek. I will probably go for the lowest 'faster than FTTC' package. I really can't justify ultra-fast speeds (hardly ever max out my current 18/68 of throughput.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Yah. I've always felt that FTTP is future proofing and that the future is not here yet. A good FTTC connection is fine even for a family with a couple of kids.

I really can't justify ultra-fast speeds (hardly ever max out my current 18/68 of throughput.

I think you've answered your own query there. I agree if you have an excellent (as you do) FTTC connection then there is in most cases no need to change. But most of us have or had very asymetric connections. My "upto 80" line ran at 45 downlink, but dropped from 9 Mbps to 4 Mbps over the 5 years I owned it. My parents "upto 80" line runs at 50 down and 7 up.

I moved to cable, and they are waiting for CityFibre to reach their road.

The reason for needing upload? Home working!

In reply to a post by D11187:

my internet service is still exactly the same as it was ten years ago. FOR HEAVENS SAKE openreach, get a damn move on. Why are you so darn slow at upgrading peoples service? ( rhetorical question ).

We have FTTC and get the speeds below, there is 3 of us in the house and when we are all online we never have any speed issues, does the average household really need more than that at the moment?

I was the first connection on our cabinet which was enabled under BDUK in January 2015. As we are on an approx 1KM line down a country lane our speeds have never been above 24Mbps down or 1.6Mbps up. As you can see this has deteriorated over the years and as there are no spare pairs to move to it is what it is until Fttp comes along.

The low upload is what kills our connection and is quickly saturated when the kids are at home.

When i first moved to my current house only ADSL was available, it was usable, but only just.
Then FTTC came along and i jumped onboard strait away lol. I was a very early mover to FTTC in my street.
I wasn't a member here at the time so have no records to show, but i know for a fact i was getting 75 down and much the same up as i do now. Below is what i get now.



Obviously the drop in download speed is down to contention/crosstalk. But to be honest, it's not bad at all.
Being the person i am though, i would love to have FTTP Of course OR will never roll out FTTP in my street............because we already get what we do. BUT..............and this can be biggie................Wimpy want to build 330 houses less than 300m from my house. In a statement they made ages ago now, they promised any new builds they do will have a minimum of 2 FTTP supplies to any property. In my mind, any fibre layed to that site has to come past my house.....................................happy days ahead.

Being the person i am though, i would love to have FTTP Of course OR will never roll out FTTP in my street............because we already get what we do.

I believe you are wrong. It’s coming, maybe via an Altnet, maybe Openreach. You might have to wait a bit, but I’ll have a bet with you now that it does happen.

I got a rock solid 80/20 sync on FTTC, can get Virgin here If I wanted too, but they still put g.Fast on my cab, and now I have a rock solid 330/50 sync. At the end of our road there are a couple of new developments which are both FTTP.

I just don’t believe your theory pans out.

There is, you remove copper out of the equation, which means less likelihood of a fault, interference, etc.

True. The main reason we're moving to FTTP is future-proofing, and faster downloading/uploading, as well as just out of interest (me being fascinated with broadband). But, most of the time we won't make use of the bandwidth.

No, but I do think that people should be on FTTP not FTTC, just because of how much more reliable it is.

Exactly. Just because you may get 80/20, doesn't mean that you'll not get FTTP. FTTP is the future.

In reply to a post by Grimers:

I do think that people should be on FTTP not FTTC

FTTC is fit for purpose and millions of UK homes are happily using it, to say 'people should be on FTTP' is pushing it not by a little but a lot.

I didn't say it wasn't "fit for purpose". But, it's using an aging copper infrastructure that is gradually falling apart. We should've all been on FTTP years ago...

A good part of the problem has been the false promises of better broadband cumming soon. Started on 1Mb fixed ADSL, with ADSLmax in 2006. Around that time Superfast Scotland were saying faster broadband coming soon, I asked even for the properties outside the village, the answer was yes. The village got FTTC in 2014, but of course too far from the cabinet. Told not to worry, upgrade coming to my postcode in 2017. 2017 saw an infill cabinet, which was still too far away. Had the minor upgrade of ADSL2+, which gave slight lift in speed at the expense of stability. In 2020 gave up on the 3Mb/350Kb ADSL2+ to use 4G, which can vary from OK to good, but always better than the ADSL2+. Now being told FTTP in the first 6 months of next year.
So expectations repeatedly raised, and not met.

In reply to a post by Grimers:

No, but I do think that people should be on FTTP not FTTC, just because of how much more reliable it is.

As we already have the copper and cabinets wouldn't it be quicker to move everyone that wants a bit more speed to FTTC and those that want a lot more speed to FTTP later as i imagine those that need 150Mbps plus and more are in a huge minority.

You would think so, but FTTP is way more reliable and has fewer faults than FTTC.

The VDSL2 that FTTC provides attenuates far more than ADSL2+, which in turn attenuates more than ADSL2. Which is usually but not always better than ADSL.

There are quite a few places that can have FTTC, in that it is shown as available to them, but it would be slower than what they are on.

Because in internet terms the UK and a third world country and you can thank BT and the government for that..

In reply to a post by Grimers:

But, it's using an aging copper infrastructure that is gradually falling apart.

And in my case possibly some aluminium so I was told by one of the engineers who've tried to sort my line out in the past 20 odd years

In reply to a post by MHC:

You need to remember that BT, including OR, have been shackled. In the late 80's BT wanted to run co-ax to provide TV and oice services, They tried again in the 90's and even now they are shackled by have charges capped at level where they cannot make a return.

+1

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at. Copper is not sustainable in the long run...

In reply to a post by Grimers:

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at. Copper is not sustainable in the long run...

Aluminium has never been a good conductor for broadband and is not as easy to work with compared to copper. Yes we need to move to fibre but to make statements like fibre is more reliable is being a little unfair to some E-side main cables that been in the ground for 50+ years without any issues.

I'm talking about on the whole, yes some parts of the copper network have been reliable, but a lot of it hasn't, repeatedly becoming faulty etc.

Coax? That's copper.

AIUI BT were intending to go full fibre until Thatcher kiboshed it.

For me personally, the move to fibre is all about the ability to have faster speeds above those available via FTTC and G.fast. All the telephone lines I've every had have been very very reliable so that is not a factor for me although others will have different experiences and some who get fibre may also have these experience sometime in the future.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

AIUI BT were intending to go full fibre until Thatcher kiboshed it.

I think in the 80s full fibre would have been prohibitively expensive, but since they wanted to compete in TV (internet wasn't a thing then!) most likely they would have deployed coax, no?

I remember Thatcher licensed the "local cable firms" as she wanted telephone competition with BT and she wasn't bothered by television. Of course personal mobile telephones (PCS/PCN) revolutionised portable telephone costs, and digital terrestrial & satellite quickly hit the cable TV firms almost about the same time as network build complete.

A politician's vision is about 2 weeks.

That's not what I have read just today. It has been said many times that BT wanted to start installing FTTP when she was PM.

The story actually begins in the 70s when Dr Cochrane was working as BT's Chief Technology Officer, a position he'd climbed up to from engineer some years earlier.

Dr Cochrane knew that Britain's tired copper network was insufficient: "In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity we needed for the future."

He was asked to do a report on the UK's future of digital communication and what was needed to move forward.

"In 1979 I presented my results," he tells us, "and the conclusion was to forget about copper and get into fibre. So BT started a massive effort - that spanned in six years - involving thousands of people to both digitise the network and to put fibre everywhere. The country had more fibre per capita than any other nation.

"In 1986, I managed to get fibre to the home cheaper than copper and we started a programme where we built factories for manufacturing the system. By 1990, we had two factories, one in Ipswich and one in Birmingham, where were manufacturing components for systems to roll out to the local loop".
...
But, in 1990, then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decided that BT's rapid and extensive rollout of fibre optic broadband was anti-competitive and held a monopoly on a technology and service that no other telecom company could do.
....

In reply to a post by pluralist:

That's not what I have read just today. It has been said many times that BT wanted to start installing FTTP when she was PM.

Thanks for the link & quote. Interesting, perhaps she was right, only the effective monopoly and ability to charge customers "whatever they wanted" would have given the income to deploy FTTP back then. Many people have for decades disliked the BT (probably now "retail") price list, once you understand it, it gets changed. Perhaps Thatcher was one of those? After privatising wanting to ensure they were not still operating a monopoly.

I note in the US the national split of "Bell" into the "Baby Bells" had a different impact, regional monopolies. I read a rumour Thatcher was a fan of the US regional approach, hence the sheer number of small cable TV licences. (which financially never worked, hence the market amalgamation)

Now being repeated with these small Alt Nets.

Yes, I don't see how all the Alt Nets will survive if BT decide to over-build once they've got the main coverage done. Punters thinking of moving into restricted availability areas could well be deterred once they find they can't stay with their existing supplier. Forcing the house prices down.

They will need to merge like, or possibly join, Virgin Media (aka NTL).

In reply to a post by Grimers:

You would think so, but FTTP is way more reliable and has fewer faults than FTTC.

I have been on FTTC for around 12 months i have lost connection once in that time and that was not for long so i wouldn't class it as unreliable.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Yes, I don't see how all the Alt Nets will survive if BT decide to over-build once they've got the main coverage done. Punters thinking of moving into restricted availability areas could well be deterred once they find they can't stay with their existing supplier. Forcing the house prices down.

Depends if customers realise the only thing separating most ISPs from each other is the email address. If you switch to a provider neutral (e.g. webmail) service then all you need is IP connectivity. Perceived 'quality' concerns go away when you're offered 900 Mbps or higher.

The Alt Nets will survive as they are offering symmetric, whereas OR are only offering asymmetric connectivity. The explosion in home working has made many realise the advantages of faster upload (one of cable's problems today).

They will need to merge like, or possibly join, Virgin Media (aka NTL).

VM isn't just NTL, its NTL & Telewest that as a joined company (NTL:Telewest Ltd) decided to buy Virgin Mobile from Richard Branson, and that enabled them to use the Virgin name (they still have to licence it from Virgin Enterprises as every other Virgin company).

NTL & Telewest both individually went on a buying/merging spree across the UK, and it was the merger of the two big companies that started to provide economies of scale.

The question will be the percentage "take up rate" in streets with "homes passed" as this is the only measure of interest.

Since I retired and began doing some voluntary work, I've found remarkable few people using any email service but BT, Hotmail or gmail. A few Sky and a few Zen. Plus of course ntlworld, with even small businesses on VM using that.

Own domains are usually people with or having had a business.

BT used fibre for new estates in the 1990s for voice as tt got over the distance limitation of using copper, and removed the need for new exchange buildings in some places.

When OFTEL mandated LLU they had to go back and provide the copper giving sub 0.5Mb BB due to the distances involved and got lots of complaints.

They have now been going back and providing FTTP as evidenced by Andrews monthly roundup of FTTP by area type..

I remember it well. When BT was mandated to provide LLU at any property BT had over 300000 premises only served by Fibre and had to stop rolling it out and retro fit Copper. ( Camborne near Cambridge was all TPON when the build started )

Local planners had been using TPON to serve all new estates over around 80 premises as it was cheaper to do than pull in new copper, especially those distant from the local exchange. It was also used on remote Islands, (I think Caldy off West Wales was one plus some Scottish Islands)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Since I retired and began doing some voluntary work, I've found remarkable few people using any email service but BT, Hotmail or gmail. A few Sky and a few Zen. Plus of course ntlworld, with even small businesses on VM using that. Own domains are usually people with or having had a business.

yes, the ISP mailboxes are common, but perhaps its a generation gap, the majority of younger people are using Gmail or Outlook.com (which is hotmail renamed) or Yahoo, as they access the email on their mobile device, using a computer or laptop is seen as "old skool".

It is of course a lock in attempt by the ISP to stop you moving to the competition!

The adults paying the bill for the broadband connection are more likely to be using the mailboxes the ISP provide. I get 10 virginmedia.com mailboxes with my connection, I haven't even configured one as I have lost track of domains and webmail accounts I've had!

Edited by jchamier (Sun 19-Sep-21 14:46:03)

You can't determine the typical reliability of FTTC by looking at a single line for a year !

Yes, I admit I'm a bit biased. We've had so many faults, particularly on ADSL...

That's in your experience. Lots of people are posting their own experience, and not looking at the big picture. FTTP has a lot less faults than FTTC.

Exactly! At least someone gets what I'm trying to describe!

In reply to a post by pluralist:

AIUI BT were intending to go full fibre until Thatcher kiboshed it.

I believe they had a couple of factories set up in the UK to manufacture the fibre. Once Thatcher killed it, the factories were sold to the Japanese......

In reply to a post by Grimers:

I admit I'm a bit biased.

I need say no more

In around 84-86 ish, I was working alongside a team doing coax based developments for voice and tv distribution. They were working with BT. The BT fibre work came about after that maybe around 89-91 ish.

All, and more, covered in my link and quote here .

In reply to a post by andynormancx:

You can't determine the typical reliability of FTTC by looking at a single line for a year !

Well i visit this forum and Kitz every day and and i can honestly say i don't remember a thread about FTTC unreliability and if there are one or two i missed it certainly is not something posted regularly.

really massive disinformaiton as ever

kitkat

retro new sites are nothing to do with the sites from 1990s they are liike to be copper new sites built with new PCPS prior to 2015 before FTTP was default for new sites (so these will be bulds (when registered with Openreach and offered) around 2011 - 2017

Fastman

From latest news article

147,760 premises in properties constructed between 1996 and 2005, increase of 9,163 premises

In reply to a post by dect:

FTTC is fit for purpose and millions of UK homes are happily using it, to say 'people should be on FTTP' is pushing it not by a little but a lot.

FTTP can be used for 40/10, 80/20, 160/30, 330/50, 500/70, 900/110 I think the choice and price down to customer choice.

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

kitkat

retro new sites are nothing to do with the sites from 1990s they are liike to be copper new sites built with new PCPS prior to 2015 before FTTP was default for new sites (so these will be bulds (when registered with Openreach and offered) around 2011 - 2017

You couldn't be more wrong.

I've seen OpenReach RNS (Retro New Sites) work go back to properties from 1986.
Thousands and thousands of properties from the 90's fall under RNS.

Basically anything fully ducted in the last 40 years could qualify for RNS.

".Wimpy want to build 330 houses less than 300m from my house. "

Why would a burger chain want to build houses?

Only had 3 faults in 10 years with ADSL and one was a router issue.

Upgraded to FTTC because of pandemic and Zoom / Teams calls due to faster upload required.

No difference to the everyday internet use. FaceAche, emails, streaming, etc.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Grimers:

I do think that people should be on FTTP not FTTC

FTTC is fit for purpose and millions of UK homes are happily using it, to say 'people should be on FTTP' is pushing it not by a little but a lot.

Not really. Both ADSL2 and VDSL rollouts were stopgap technologies to bridge the transition of copper to fibre rather than any kind of solution for more than the short term. G.Fast thankfully was stopped in its tracks but even the fact they rolled some of it out shredded even the last bit of competence credibility OR and BT had. The fact BT and OR used it for so long was an error of Ofcom and the government not pressurising them and consumers not speaking up. OR still needs to die a horrible and painful death.

So yes, I agree with the OP that UK broadband has lagged severely behind as a result of egregious profiteering and downright inertia in OR, because we're only now in the transition where OR needed to be 10 years ago. But the physical network isn't the only issue, but also service standards have fallen tremendously over the last 10 years as well. The fact most ISPs, particularly alt nets, don't offer even basic things like static IPs or the use of PPPoE on an ethernet link is preposterous.

So there's an issue service side as well, as MTU, latency, contention and tunnelling rather than adopting more modern techniques such as EVPN per customer is drastically falling short of acceptable service levels too.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

The fact most ISPs, particularly alt nets, don't offer even basic things like static IPs or the use of PPPoE on an ethernet link is preposterous.

What wrong with not offering PPPoE? Why would you actually want PPPoE?
It has no place on a modern full fibre network.

Talktalk are the only OpenReach ISP to use plain IPoE and imo that's just madness.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by zzing123:

The fact most ISPs, particularly alt nets, don't offer even basic things like static IPs or the use of PPPoE on an ethernet link is preposterous.

What wrong with not offering PPPoE? Why would you actually want PPPoE?
It has no place on a modern full fibre network.

Talktalk are the only OpenReach ISP to use plain IPoE and imo that's just madness.

Hmmm, this concerns me.
I'm supposed to be going live with them tomorrow on this. (TalkTalk over OpenReach FTTP). I thought they used plan old PPPoE.

Now I'll need to dig in to the OpenWRT setup to see what's needed to make the connection work 🙂

EDIT: oh it's just DHCP 🤦🏻‍♂️

Edited by MilesR (Tue 21-Sep-21 16:44:02)

Zero credentials. By far the easiest OpenReach ISP to authenticate with.

Automatic IP/IPoE/DHCP.

Bit of a shame there's no static IP options or IPV6 mind you.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Grimers:

I do think that people should be on FTTP not FTTC

FTTC is fit for purpose and millions of UK homes are happily using it, to say 'people should be on FTTP' is pushing it not by a little but a lot.

Not really. Both ADSL2 and VDSL rollouts were stopgap technologies to bridge the transition of copper to fibre rather than any kind of solution for more than the short term.

Lets be honest your average internet user doesn't need more than 25Mbps which would allow Ultra HD on Netflix for those that must have 100Mbps plus speeds then i guess you're quote above will be the case and its holding them back (if they cannot get it) for the rest of us 80/20 will do nicely, i assume the need for speed will continue and i imagine i will be jumping on that bandwagon some time in the not too distant future but i am in no rush like the majority of the country.

A Netflix Ultra HD.
A steady internet connection speed of 25 megabits per second or higher.


The average broadband speed in the UK rose by 18% last year, regulator Ofcom says.

BBC News -
The annual home broadband report says the average home speed is now 64 megabits per second (Mbps), up from 54.2Mbps the year before.

The 18% boost is in line with growth in previous years.

Data for the report was gathered in November 2019, but updated with changes during the coronavirus lockdown, when speeds fell by 2%.

Ofcom says the small decrease shows that performance "is holding up well" during the pandemic, despite the increased demand.

The government began to ask people to stay at home on 16 March, so the speeds from the last week of March were compared to the beginning of the month.

Virgin Media was the worst affected, with speed dipping by nearly 10% at one point - although the report noted that since Virgin has higher speeds than most providers, customers were unlikely to have noticed.

The Ofcom report is compiled from a panel of volunteers who have the speeds measured from their routers, and is considered to be a very accurate way of measuring the data.

Edited by Jack_Hackett (Tue 21-Sep-21 17:05:14)

On Openreach FTTP
- TalkTalk residential use IPoE (DHCP)
- TalkTalk Business use PPPoE

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

On Openreach FTTP
- TalkTalk residential use IPoE (DHCP)
- TalkTalk Business use PPPoE

Nice one, thanks @Pheasant

No worries. As I found out (by accident rather than design) the PPPoE credentials do not matter at all for TTB - the service went live using my previous ISP creds for PPPoE

Of course if your using TT resi none of this matters a jot.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Zero credentials. By far the easiest OpenReach ISP to authenticate with.

Automatic IP/IPoE/DHCP.

Bit of a shame there's no static IP options or IPV6 mind you.

Thanks.

The lack of static IP doesn't worry me to be honest (same for IPv6). There's always dynamic DNS for getting over the lack of static IP (for my use case anyway).

Lets be honest your average internet user doesn't need more than 25Mbps which would allow Ultra HD on Netflix for those that must have 100Mbps plus speeds then i guess you're quote above will be the case and its holding them back (if they cannot get it) for the rest of us 80/20 will do nicely, i assume the need for speed will continue and i imagine i will be jumping on that bandwagon some time in the not too distant future but i am in no rush like the majority of the country.

I agree on the speed front.
I'm on a 40/10 FTTC package...and for 95% of the time this is more than enough for what we use.
I suspect the same is true for most users.

However, there's a few times where I've wanted to download sizeable files (PC / PS4 games etc.) and the download speeds are just frustrating. The 500/75 FTTP package I'm getting is only £8 more per month than I'm paying, so feels 'worth it' to me at this point.

I used to be on VirginMedia's 200/20 package, but it was just terrible (latency was horrific at times and speeds would drop to as low as 0.5Mbps in peak times). They eventually let me out of the contract because of a repeated failure to resolve the problems.

In reply to a post by zzing123:

Both ADSL2 and VDSL rollouts were stopgap technologies to bridge the transition of copper to fibre rather than any kind of solution for more than the short term. G.Fast thankfully was stopped in its tracks but even the fact they rolled some of it out shredded even the last bit of competence credibility OR and BT had. The fact BT and OR used it for so long was an error of Ofcom and the government not pressurising them and consumers not speaking up. OR still needs to die a horrible and painful death.

So yes, I agree with the OP that UK broadband has lagged severely behind as a result of egregious profiteering and downright inertia in OR, because we're only now in the transition where OR needed to be 10 years ago. But the physical network isn't the only issue, but also service standards have fallen tremendously over the last 10 years as well. The fact most ISPs, particularly alt nets, don't offer even basic things like static IPs or the use of PPPoE on an ethernet link is preposterous.

So there's an issue service side as well, as MTU, latency, contention and tunnelling rather than adopting more modern techniques such as EVPN per customer is drastically falling short of acceptable service levels too.

Summarising your opinions there:

1) You want Openreach, which has the biggest network in the UK, to cease to exist.

What organisation do you suggest should replace it?
What should happen to its rollout of GEA FTTP? Should it be stopped?

2) Most ISPs don't offer static IP addresses and you think that wrong.

Are you talking about IPv4, IPv6, or both?
You may not be aware of the impossibility of everyone having a static IPv4 address.

3) The alt nets are particularly bad in that respect.

The same questions arise for each one as in (1) and (2). How should all they all integrate to provide a national network given that under your plan Openreach will not exist.

4) EVPN is the answer.

I have to admit I'd never heard of it, but from this article which I have only skimmed, it looks to me that you are requesting a total revision of the whole of the World-Wide-Web. It doesn't seem to be something a single country could implement.

zzing123

It was not BT/OR that stopped the early rollout of FTTP, it was OFTEL/OFCOM under pressure from LLU operators ( Mainly Sky/TalkTalk and others). In 2004 there was an ITT run by BT on FTTP that had two successful suppliers. However BT were prevented by the regulator from rolling out FTTP except in a trial new town ( Ebbsfleet) which had no infrastructure at all. BT was VERY disappointed and this pushed the Implementation of FTTP in the UK back nearly 10 years.

Basically BT was told that if they provided FTTP they would also have to provide copper. it took another 4 years before Industry agreed that BT could provide FTTC ( along with SLU for LLU operators) and FTTP on new build sites other than Ebbsfleet without the provision of copper.

It was only around 2016-18 the the regulator agreed that OR could remove copper from some sites completely making the economics much better than having to run two networks, this was agreed in the USA in 2004 and was the driver for Baby bells to start their Fibre rollouts. BT wanted to do this in 2004 too which was the driver for the ITT!.

The regulator protecting the Sky and Talktalk busniss model of maximising LLU revenue rather than enabling FTTP has the real blame (Look at when Sky actually started selling FTTP 02/11/2020 )
.

Exactly why BT shouldn't own OR.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

1) You want Openreach, which has the biggest network in the UK, to cease to exist.

What organisation do you suggest should replace it?
What should happen to its rollout of GEA FTTP? Should it be stopped?

Yup. I've summarised this before, but each line should be assigned to a premises, and the ownership of the line changes dynamically based on the ISP providing the service. There would still be an Openreach of sorts, just that it's shareholding is defined by whoever is providing a service on the line at that given time, not by BT. Think of OR being run as a nationwide LINX, whereby each ISP rents some space in exchanges and has a load of peering agreements.

The 'GEA' bit of FTTP (and FTTC) should be ceased. FTTP is the physical layer and whether you use PON or point-to-point connectivity is neither here nor there. It's how OR handoff to ISPs that's the cruft that needs to reconfigured as OR should have no visibility into the L3 layer.

In reply to a post by pluralist:

2) Most ISPs don't offer static IP addresses and you think that wrong.

Are you talking about IPv4, IPv6, or both?
You may not be aware of the impossibility of everyone having a static IPv4 address.

And that's a key decision factor for me personally not to choose them or give them wayleave.

4) EVPN is the answer.

EVPN is one method, MPLS is another. Effectively provisioning an L2 VPLS to every subscriber, without having the 4096 VLAN limitation. What happens on the L2 network is between the ISP and you as the customer. It is managed by iBGP and/or OSPF and whatever routing protocol you want to use, so you can dynamically route between routers and have multipathing and resilience built in. You can also choose to provide a basic service, like PPPoE or DHCP on the L2, or you can then give the customer an overlay network to do what they want. Have a look at 'Dynamic routing using iBGP/OSPFv2 & v3/MPLS' towards the end of this page: https://stubarea51.net/2020/03/03/starting-a-wisp-gu... except replace 'tower' with an exchange. In essence you're talking about an underlay network (OR's bit) and an overlay network (the ISP). You can then add yet another overlay (customer private WAN). Everything gets routed accordingly to each CPE and ISP as needed without any interference: you just get the service you agree with the ISP, be it a full leased line, a multisite WAN or a bog standard broadband service, all over the same infrastructure.

Right now, yes. Although Netflix is not the biggest consumer and certainly not the target you should set speeds against.

But in 40-50 years time? Because that's how old the copper is, when only half the households had colour TV's, let alone 4K, so it's probably best to think ahead a bit...

In reply to a post by zzing123:

Exactly why BT shouldn't own OR.

^^ This - I hate BT! But well done on Openreach speedy up FTTP rolling out in UK but BT still disappoointed because BT want to keep the copper line!

In reply to a post by adslmax:

... but BT still disappoointed because BT want to keep the copper line!

Enforced by Ofcom so that LLU ADSL2+ and FTTC can continue. Both of those need the copper.