Thanks for your thoughts.

I understand the argument that punters may not wish to pay extra for 80 services when they only get 60. So they choose 40.

I'm looking at an area where punters can get 80 or indeed 300 on FTTP with no drop off for line length and they still don't buy it.

Anybody who is time served in the local loops will know that chucking stuff unprotected in the ground in shallow trenches is madness.

Especially when said plant does not show up on a common or garden cable detector.

It will end in tears. It always does.

In reply to a post by partial:

I'm looking at an area where punters can get 80 or indeed 300 on FTTP with no drop off for line length and they still don't buy it.

Surely the point is that a large number of people will opt for 40 or 80Mbps on FTTP and simply upgrade (as liitle as possible) if they find it inadequate?

Take a household with high income and three kids controlling their parents, yes 300Mbps makes sense. But it is hard to see how 80Mbps or perhaps 152Mbps is going to be insufficient for more than 5%?

While cost is undoubtedly a factor there is not as of yet a so called 'killer app' that demands an ultra fast connection.

For most, a stable 8 or 12 Mbps connection is probably enough to allow them to stream a bit, use a PC to browse/game and to use a tablet simultaneously so why pay more if you don't need to?

From a personal perspective I went from an ADSL connection (which ran between 3.5Mbps to 4 Mbps because of line length) to FTTP because of work as I'd ummmed and ahhed about the cost for quite a while however in my current job I support a lot of home workers who have to keep working irrespective of if the main office I work out of is closed due to weather or not.

In December it looked like a fair amount of snow was going to be dumped on MK over the weekend and while it is fairly stable most of the year, I tended to notice that my connection flapped a bit while people were setting up Christmas lights and sure enough I got home on Friday evening to find my connection going up and down which it continued to do for most of Saturday and Sunday and I was dreading having to explain this to my boss by phone on the Monday if the office was closed so it kind of forced my hand.

Fortunately the snow held off but I didn't want to run that risk again so I rang Zen (whom I've dealt with for a number of years and I've found to be the best support wise) and placed the upgrade order. but I did go for the cheapest package which was at the time of writing this 39.5 Mbps down 9.5 Mbps up and that is ample for me and those in my household

Edited by techguy (Fri 11-May-18 21:27:04)

In reply to a post by partial:

Is there really any demand for FTTP? Would these areas be better off if BT used the money to increase payments to staff, pensioners and shareholders who would in turn spend the money in the local economy rather than spending on stuff nobody wants to buy?

There is a demand for FTTP which is why companies such as Gigaclear who specialize in rural areas and Hyperoptic who specialize in multi occupancy urban dwellings can succeed.

What each of us choose depends on price and what the alternatives are.

I agree with the last paragraph - except in Openreach�s case they are driven by the CP�s demands ... so all the CP�s hold off it makes Openreach feel more tentative about its plans to roll out full fibre.

There seems little doubt that demand for more bandwidth will only rise, but nobody wants to pay for it ...... no customer demand = no CP demand = no drive for full fibre

Catch 22

We've just had Virgin Media installed in our area, and pretty much as soon as it went live I signed up to the fastest package available - Vivid 350.

I've only gone for broadband, no phone or TV, only reason I went for Vivid 350 was for the upload which even on the fastest package they do is only 20Mbps, but it is fastest enough for us and a huge improvement over the 42/6Mpbs on FTTC

If there was a cheaper package with the same upload speed then I would of gone for that.

Overall I would have rather stayed away from Virgin, but it was the only way to get a decent upload on a single line.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The ownership and installation of ADSL2+ equipment in exchanges is nothing to do with Openreach. Other than the technical aspects of carrrying out the job as a contractor to BT Wholesale and LLU companies.

On the last line I was making reference when BeThere ISP was around and we had ADSL2+ for many years before any other ISP started using it, including BT's own ISP. I didn't realise this until it came up in conversation recently. I had assumed everyone was using ADSL2+ when BeThere was, but it seems it wasnt a thing until around 8 years later.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

I agree with the last paragraph - except in Openreach�s case they are driven by the CP�s demands ... so all the CP�s hold off it makes Openreach feel more tentative about its plans to roll out full fibre.

There seems little doubt that demand for more bandwidth will only rise, but nobody wants to pay for it ...... no customer demand = no CP demand = no drive for full fibre

Catch 22

I understand the dilemma. You're right about the catch22 situation.

I would still like to see the original plan for G.fast on poles idea along with full fibre networks. I think G.fast in that form would have satisfied the hunger for speed while keeping costs low.

I�m sorry, but I disagree, g.fast, even to DP�s would still only be a stop gap, squeezing the the last few drops out of the legacy network....

Straight to FTTP I say, cut out the �middle man�.

Absolutely!

�Is there a demand for ultrafast?�

The simple answer to that is a wholehearted YES!

Technology and demand for a truly �ultrafast� service has increased greatly over the last few years at expedited speeds. [no pun] For instance I have 6 x 4K Tv�s in my home in various rooms, PC�s, Sky Q, Apple TV and a plethora of other internet connected bandwidth demanding devices. Obviously not all running at the same time. I am lucky to get 30Mbps on each of the 2 fibre lines I pay for and try to load balance all the devices over 2 separate hard wired networks, unfortunately a 4K Netflix movie can take that full 30 Mbps to load properly stripping bandwidth from other areas.

With interconnected devices subsequently progressing further as their respective technology advances we are finding ourselves stuck in a techie rut with no obvious advances in my area for years to come. I am left powerless and connected to a dinosaur while BTW try throwing every last bastion of bandwidth down ancient copper tails. Not to mention the congestion problem my local exchange suffers from on a yearly basis. I won�t mention the fact that I am surrounded by huawei cabinets but I am connected to an ECI cab twice as far away as the nearest huawei cab.....

There are comments on here about new build properties equipped with FTTP yet unfortunately that is not the case in general, it may be in some areas.
So who is going to pay for all the new glass?
Who is at fault for not upgrading the network to new builds?
Who is going to upgrade and pay for all the existing pairs to be replaced?

Questions I can�t answer so therefore I wont be dragged into a �who what where� argument.

One thing for sure, and I said this 10 years ago, if we fail to keep up with current technologies we will be extinct, just like the dinosaurs!

Like others on here I had a quote request from Cerberus and touching on £15,400+ VAT is a ridiculous amount of money especially as it will then offer my neighbours native FTTP. In reality I am kicking myself and angry at wholesale for not allowing me to have the option of FTTPoD earlier last year before they introduced the new price tier system. I would have paid for the fibre then but not now.
If they made it cheaper then more people would pay for it therefore reducing the demand on thier copper network so surely this would be a better idea.


So.... is Ultrafast worth it....... YES YES YES. Please!