I'm just curious about why people need superfast broadband.
Well, I've almost always been connected, one way or another. The first stuff was with a 1200/75 modem (you whippersnappers with 9.6k modems!) for Prestel-type services and 300/300 speeds for BBS.
I lived in Sweden for a while in 1989, pre-internet, and can definitely tell you what it felt like to be out of contact with the civilised world. When the only truly viable thing to watch on TV was MTV, you know you are stuffed. And at £5 a pint (1989 prices), the pub wasn't a brilliant alternative either.
I then spent years flying to Sweden regularly - the hotel living, and swapping of timezones wasn't a heap of fun at all. You'd get back worn out, but at least the flights gave you time to read a paper.
[So, @Lethe, save your comments about what you'd get up to when abroad, until you've actually experienced it. It isn't all a bed of roses!]
My first forays online were in 1991 using mail-FTP servers to download linux. No web back then, but Demon followed in 1994.
I then worked in Sweden again for a while in 1998-9, when dial-up was prevalent. It wasn't good enough speed to carry either VoIP or webcam video, so didn't do much for keeping in contact with family. However, you could easily follow world events and news with text/image websites. A vast improvement.
2Mbps broadband in 2000, and "always on" with the phone left free for calls, was an eye-opener that made working from home viable. And readily doable for odd days. Upload was an issue at getting finished product uploaded though.
8Mbps in 2006ish made working from home fully viable for 2 people, with almost no need to attend an office. The upload speed would still be an issue, especially when having to deploy software to clients. But download was plenty.
The 8Mbps could be tested at times by 2008, with 2 users, as video became more prevalent - especially iPlayer.
We moved to 40/10 FTTC in 2011, at roughly the same cost - and I deliberately wanted the higher upload speed for my work. The wife found that this increase in upload speed enabled her to switch to using the office VoIP systems for calls, so we could lose a phone line, making everything cheaper. Download speed was more than enough, then. The increase in package size, and impending teenagerdom for the daughter meant that the speeds are being used more and more now.
And of course, we can now video the family in Australia.
We went to 80/20 in 2012. At first as part of a trial, but later as an integral part of the package. The enhancement is useful, but probably not needed.
Now, of course, there's a whole array of equipment connected. Three mobile phones (and the femto cell, due to poor indoor coverage) and two tablets, three laptops, two desktops and a console. It all adds up.
When the SD PVR (a Topfield; we rather like its re-programmed recording abilities) goes kaput, it'll probably get replaced by something Youview-like, which'll certainly add to the demands.
Our needs change across the day, but I think we need a downstream of around 15-20Mbps, sometimes higher, and an upstream of at least 10Mbps.
If you can get a decent ADSL2+ connection, then why do people need or choose FTTx or whatever? Or are people choosing Fibre mainly because their alternative copper connection is dodgy?
The truth is that around 20% can get what I'd class as a decent ADSL2+ speeds - 15Mbps+ at 2km from the exchange.
But once a cabinet is converted to FTTC, that speed is probably available to 85% of the properties connected to it.
So the real gain is for the 65% who can't get decent ADSL2+ speeds but can get those speeds via FTTC.
And VDSL2, on the shorter line segment, generally seems to be more stable than ADSL2+ on the full line length. Less people seem to get issues.
But the real thing is yet to come... BT's full push at triple-play. IPTV, including HD.
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
Zarjaz
