the infrastructure design of OR FTTP (exclude OR subtended head ends implementations) is far-far superior than that of GC.
Thought I made it very clear that I believe OR are better than GC because of the infrastructure design, sorry you missed that 
It would be good to understand why the infrastructure design is so much better.
Two examples off the top of my head
1) GC rely a fair bit on chaining fibre cabinets together as they go deeper into the community and that is why pushing through an extra fibre in the field improved the throughput for many cabinets for example.
2) OR have a truly passive optical network in the field (apart from a few hundred SHE's) which means their is less in the field to go wrong.
1) GC appear to have nothing in place to detect when their links are congested, this is very bad. They should have been aware they were close to capacity and know exactly which link(s) were impacted, well before it impacted a single customer, even if they couldn't fix it in time to prevent some degradation in service. It should never have gotten as bad as it did before they finally admitted there was a problem.
If they can't do some sort of rate limiting to ensure a base level of service for every customer when there is contention, they need to be far more pro-active to identify and fix the problem quickly.
It gives the impression they have a network where they roll it out and hope for the best, rather than actively manage it.
2) OR AFAIK are pro-active about monitoring their network and making sure this sort of thing never happens, by aiming for a minimum level of service per customer so even if it slows down, its at least usable until they can fix the problem.
No doubt it helps that OR have contractual obligations to the ISPs leasing capacity on their network, whereas GC do not.
Edited by alexatkin (Sat 09-Dec-23 16:24:38)