New gear for 10 Mbps USO?

Thinking about the announcement today from David Cameron with regards the new 10 Mbps USO by 2020 (sounds a great idea to me), I'm wondering what sort of new �gear� might be needed by the end user to take full advantage of such a service when it arrives?

Will the existing, pretty standard 1 gig LAN networking stuff in our computers� our present batch of Modem/routers� and present Wi-Fi standards be enough to take full advantage of the sort of speeds we can all expect, or will all of this stuff need a major revamp to get us fully up and running by 2020 and the new USO proposals?

Suspect a hint of irony, but if not then yes consumer hardware will be fine generally, a lot depends on what service is used to deliver the 10 Mbps USO speed, who knows some areas might end up with Gigabit if a firm working the USO in that area decides to do so.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Suspect a hint of irony, but if not then yes consumer hardware will be fine generally, a lot depends on what service is used to deliver the 10 Mbps USO speed, who knows some areas might end up with Gigabit if a firm working the USO in that area decides to do so.

... no irony intended... just a genuine question about the gear we have now, and if it will be up to the job come 2020?

I guess taking your answer at face value, then all the gear we have now will be fit for purpose come 2020? In which case, no need to save up for the next big upgrade of computer/Lan gear/Wi-fi/Modem/router etc?

10 Mbps is well within the reach of even slower Wi-Fi kit, so anyone with 802.11n kit will be fine, obviously some homes will need extra access points to avoid wi-fi dead zones but that is down to the consumer or ISP if it wants to provide a full service solution (at a price).

What no one knows is how the service will be delivered and with 5.8% of UK premises falling at 10 Mbps or slower now and the superfast roll-outs continuing we can expect to see a wide range of different technologies used.

The 10 Mbps USO is not a technical problem to be solved, but simply a cost and time to achieve problem

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

10 Mbps is well within the reach of even slower Wi-Fi kit, so anyone with 802.11n kit will be fine, obviously some homes will need extra access points to avoid wi-fi dead zones but that is down to the consumer or ISP if it wants to provide a full service solution (at a price).

What no one knows is how the service will be delivered and with 5.8% of UK premises falling at 10 Mbps or slower now and the superfast roll-outs continuing we can expect to see a wide range of different technologies used.

The 10 Mbps USO is not a technical problem to be solved, but simply a cost and time to achieve problem

Thanks for the info... basically the sort of answer I was originally looking for with regards the existing equipment we are using now and what might be needed for the full implementation of the 10 Mbps USO in 2020.

It's good that we as consumers have what we need already....I guess just a question now of waiting for them network people to turn up in our roads and bring that nice fast fibre to our properties?

If it's not irony, then no equipment that we are currently using will be that useful in 2020. It all be antique. Most of us will be on, I would hope, 200-400 Mbps connections by then. Almost everyone will be streaming UHD media as dvd's, bluray will be out of date. For this you'll need at least 25Mbps for each device. As most households will have 2 or more devices doing this, 10Mbps will be as useful as dial up is now. Set the target as low as possible and it will always be achievable, but not useful. This promise is the equvalent of the Government in the 1900's saying that everyone could have electricity supplied, as a right, to their house, but it would only be 25 volt and only available for 2 hours a day.

But a huge number of homes, millions, have much higher speeds than 10Mbps now, and a large number have had ever since ADSL2+ came along from O2/Be, Sky and TalkTalk - before BT Wholesale had it widespread. Even most of those on slower connections will these days have kit capable of handling high ADSL2+ speeds.

Plus, I would be pretty sure the 10Mbps will refer to sync speed, or at least Ethernet-connected throughput. There are too many variables for anyone to guarantee 10Mbps wireless connection throughout a house.

There's no requirement either for the 10Mbps to be delivered over landlines.

In reply to a post by rogerfp:

If it's not irony, then no equipment that we are currently using will be that useful in 2020. It all be antique. Most of us will be on, I would hope, 200-400 Mbps connections by then. Almost everyone will be streaming UHD media as dvd's, bluray will be out of date. For this you'll need at least 25Mbps for each device. As most households will have 2 or more devices doing this, 10Mbps will be as useful as dial up is now. Set the target as low as possible and it will always be achievable, but not useful. This promise is the equvalent of the Government in the 1900's saying that everyone could have electricity supplied, as a right, to their house, but it would only be 25 volt and only available for 2 hours a day.

I think more than anything, the headline figure of 10 Mbps is conservative, even for 2015 but the hope would be that come 2020, most of us will be able to get much bigger broadband speeds than the USO proposal.

If anything, I think we should hope that the new USO for 2020 will actually be something that draws attention to the need for ever increasing broadband speeds and capacity and along with that of course will surely come new gear for the bigger speeds?

Need not be a fibre delivery system if only needing to deliver 10 Mbps

Hopefully, but this is the UK Government telling us this and we all know how their promises pan out. The target should be realistic for the age and the needs we live in, around 50Mbps by 2020. Hope it's not another broken commitment. .

Most of us already do exceed 10 Mbps by a large margin,

48.5% can order 200 Mbps if they want
87.1% have access to a 30 Mbps connection if they want to order it too

Reality is that just 5.8% of UK households only have access to a 10 Mbps or slower connection

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Need not be a fibre delivery system if only needing to deliver 10 Mbps

Indeed but my own personal take on the announcement today, over and above the headline 10 Mbps figure, will be that we can all expect (demand) a minimum broadband speed but the hope is that in reality, what will be available will be much bigger.

I think a lot of people for some time now have been proposing that broadband/internet access is a 'right', much like the traditional utilities that we all assume will be available to us where we live and again, enshrining this requirement in the form of a USO may well help in driving speeds and capacity up and new ways to deliver the service.

In reply to a post by sam_nospam:

... enshrining this requirement in the form of a USO may well help in driving speeds and capacity up and new ways to deliver the service.

How much do you pay for line + broadband per month, and what is your connection speed? What is your typical download amount per month in GB?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Most of us already do exceed 10 Mbps by a large margin...

I must be unlucky and know a lot of people who aren't in this situation.
Many on my friends, family and clients don't have FTTC as an option or even ADSL2+. These people are spread over many counties...

5.8% of UK households is roughly 1.6 million households, so would only be surprised if it was 0.00001%

And it seems that UK.gov has chosen the 10Mb number because it [1] sounds like a good number to most people and [2] the target value is already achieved *today* by using satellite broadband. So job done.

A poster in the comments section for the recent Superfast Essex announcement said that the most recent newsletter from Superfast Essex that they, and all other BDUK regions, will rely on satellite to meet the 10Mb USO.

So Yes they have announced a 2020 target for something that is already possible today. Well done to them.

In reply to a post by godsell4:

the target value is already achieved *today* by using satellite broadband.

For a given value of 'achieved'. There's not many people would consider 10Mb/s via satellite to be 'job done' :-/

If it was a pure tickbox then they'd have worked on gaining political capital by announcing ditching 2 Mbps USC totally and seeing 10 Mbps for the end of 2015.

10 Mbps USO would more than saturate current satellite broadband capacity in the Sky.

As a short term fix for a more robust solution it is reasonable though, or we could do as many seem to want and announce a 15 year FTTH 100% coverage plan, something now, or wait even longer?

In reply to a post by godsell4:

And it seems that UK.gov has chosen the 10Mb number because it [1] sounds like a good number to most people and [2] the target value is already achieved *today* by using satellite broadband. So job done.

Or [3] Ofcom recommended it, based on evidence that there was little improvement in the "quality of experience" at higher line speeds.

Given that the focus there is on "quality of experience", perhaps satellite might not manage to make much of an impact - especially if it has to cope with the current 5%+ that would need it today.

Given the government want to run a consultation, I'd hope that some of the other factors that contribute to the experience are considered, beyond just line speed.

[2] doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Any number up to 22Mbps could have been chosen, and still fit with "satellite" as the answer.

In reply to a post by sam_nospam:

Thinking about the announcement today from David Cameron with regards the new 10 Mbps USO by 2020 (sounds a great idea to me), I'm wondering what sort of new �gear� might be needed by the end user to take full advantage of such a service when it arrives?

Will the existing, pretty standard 1 gig LAN networking stuff in our computers� our present batch of Modem/routers� and present Wi-Fi standards be enough to take full advantage of the sort of speeds we can all expect, or will all of this stuff need a major revamp to get us fully up and running by 2020 and the new USO proposals?

We'll only get new fibre networks in the UK once the country is embarrassed enough to roll it out.

It's already pathetic that brand new houses in this country are provided with the same communication technology hardware as they were 60 years ago - copper and aluminium cables.

In reply to a post by dave2150:

It's already pathetic that brand new houses in this country are provided with the same communication technology hardware as they were 60 years ago - copper and aluminium cables.

Quite simple:

If the developers are willing to pay for the install then BT will install whatever the customer wants. However, most want to cut corners and save money so will opt for the absolute minimum they can get away with.

There are more players than BT that can supply broadband to new build estates too.

True, however, they will not pay for those services to be installed either.

Perhaps the answer is for people to stop buying these homes, or if a builder promised good Internet for lawyers to earn their money

In reply to a post by MHC:

Quite simple:

If the developers are willing to pay for the install then BT will install whatever the customer wants. However, most want to cut corners and save money so will opt for the absolute minimum they can get away with.

This seems somewhat shortsighted, given that the bulk of the cost of deploying fibre is getting it in the ground, and if they're already having to undertake major works to bring in and distribute copper as part of their USO, it should be fairly easy to add some fibre into the mix too.

It's bad enough that we use FTTC as much as we do, but not deploying FTTP to all major new developments is just ridiculous.

This seems to be understood by other telcos, but not BT it seems. I don't have to worry that the developer hasn't got the local electricity/water/gas companies to put in a suitable connection, why do I have to worry about telecoms?

The developers pay for new electricity, water, gas and sewage services to be installed.

What is the point of BT bringing fibre to the boundary of an estate if the developers will not put the infrastructure in place to run it to individual properties?

I think that is what sor is saying.

The developers have to provide the other three, plus street drainage and sewerage. They should have to provide ducting for fibre. End of.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 02-Feb-16 11:28:11)

No, they do NOT have to provide gas or mains connected sewage.

I agree that yes they should provide suitable ducting for fibre and the underground distribution ducting however they often will not. The finger is then unfairly pointed at, primarily, BT as well as the others.

I'm not pointing a finger at BT. I'm pointing it at the developers. So is sor.

Allowing for the fact mains-connected sewerage cannot sensibly be provided at a very few unusual sites, I'd like to see a developer sell new houses without it these days.

Edited by RobertoS (Tue 02-Feb-16 12:01:16)

As did I in my original comment.

I know of one development where there is only ADSL Max available - no ADSL2+ at the exchange. There is also VDSL however EO prevents that option. The exchange is less than 100m away ... and no, the developers will not provide any extra capabilities or ducting. The lines are provided from two poles which happen to be on the estate boundary.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Perhaps the answer is for people to stop buying these homes, or if a builder promised good Internet for lawyers to earn their money

Or as what has happened with the new build site I live on, VM have cabled and not provided enough capacity so in the evenings their 200 Mbps Vivd connection runs at ~ 1-3 Mbps if you are lucky and cannot stream anything. Openreach provided twisted pair is too far from the exchange so only runs at around 2 Mbps even though the feed for the site passes a fibre node (as all near by existing cabs are FTTC) they could have installed either FTTC or FTTP. 500 homes and nearly all with VM so Openreach have lost a lot of easy money!

And there is in lies an issue, if Openreach is nationally as bad as the headlines, then why are others not rushing in to cash in on the billion pound bonanza...

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Perhaps the answer is for people to stop buying these homes, or if a builder promised good Internet for lawyers to earn their money

If I ever buy a new home again, I'll certainly be checking what broadband is available first.

In reply to a post by dave2150:

We'll only get new fibre networks in the UK once the country is embarrassed enough to roll it out.

Its more likely to turn up when people accept the need to pay for it. C'mon ... who can't afford £1,000?

While we are unwilling to shell out, we really have to accept the risk factor that commercial companies are willing to apply. That's going to be a lot less, £200 - £300.