By: MarkJ - 22 November, 2011 (9:42 AM) - Score: 2407 - Fixed Line Broadband
Communications provider Entanet UK, which supplies a number of smaller and medium sized broadband ISPs with internet access solutions, has warned that Geo Networks sudden exit (last week) from the governments Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) process (here) could have "negative implications" for competition.Geo Networks withdrew from the BDUK bidding process last week over concerns about the cost and flexibility of access to BT's cable ducts and telegraph poles (PIA). The move meant that Geo would not bid for a slice of BDUK's initial budget (£530m), which is designed to help 90% of people access a superfast broadband (24Mbps+) ISP service by 2015.
On top of that the Bath & North East Somerset Council (BNESC) recently echoed related problems with BDUK (here) and Cable & Wireless's position in the process is also uncertain. Entanet now fears that councils and ISPs "will start to lose interest and faith in the BDUK’s ability" to deliver on its promises.
Neil Watson, Entanet's Head of Service Operations, warned (blog):
"The importance of the BDUK and the Government’s plans for superfast broadband have already helped sway Ofcom to force BT to reduce its original PIA pricing but Geo Networks (and other potential suppliers) believe this has not gone far enough and their withdrawal from future bids has serious implications for the delivery of superfast broadband to rural and hard to reach locations.
This means the BDUK are likely to become more reliant on the main existing broadband network providers such as BT and Virgin Media to reach the last third, which has obvious negative implications on competition within the market."
"The importance of the BDUK and the Government’s plans for superfast broadband have already helped sway Ofcom to force BT to reduce its original PIA pricing but Geo Networks (and other potential suppliers) believe this has not gone far enough and their withdrawal from future bids has serious implications for the delivery of superfast broadband to rural and hard to reach locations.
This means the BDUK are likely to become more reliant on the main existing broadband network providers such as BT and Virgin Media to reach the last third, which has obvious negative implications on competition within the market."
Watson also fears that the situation could result in a "broadened digital divide", although he balances this against the prospect that BDUK "will continue to find new potential network providers". We're not sure who that could be but time will surely tell.
Neil Watson explained:
"Furthermore, although the effect of the PIA pricing will be important, the BDUK are already investigating alternative delivery methods to reach the more rural areas such as satellite. So, even though this news is concerning for ISPs targeting communities within the last third, there remain plenty of other options, albeit they may rely on the larger providers such as BT and Virgin Media or on alternative technologies such as satellite."
"Furthermore, although the effect of the PIA pricing will be important, the BDUK are already investigating alternative delivery methods to reach the more rural areas such as satellite. So, even though this news is concerning for ISPs targeting communities within the last third, there remain plenty of other options, albeit they may rely on the larger providers such as BT and Virgin Media or on alternative technologies such as satellite."
Some critics, such as BT itself, have suggested that Geo wasn't a major player and that its departure didn't come as a surprise because fibre optic deployments require a "high degree of commitment and expertise". Indeed the BDUK process has shown only limited signs of engagement with smaller providers.
At present it's still incredibly difficult to gauge what kind of impact this will have, especially over the longer term. In any case there are no signs of the problem areas being addressed, at least not for another year or two, which would probably come far too late for smaller operators.
Tweet
Comments: 55
A FergusonPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 10:53 AM
Link to comment
Look at the vast success of South Yorks FTTC which is wholesale, but where non of the household names are on board, for perhaps a reason to stick with bigger names for roll-out.
dragoneastPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 11:09 AM
Link to comment
I realise that in the UK we have an addiction to bureaucracy and complexity, but if you try and take the heat out of the situation, isn't it obvious that the most economic (and sensible) solution is to upgrade and expand existing national infrastructure where that is or can be made viable i.e. BT and Virgin. Where it isn't then other alternatives such as Satellite or local fibre or wireless schemes may fill the gaps.
The only problems are (as usual) money and time. Back to that third English addiction, the queue; and I certainly don't blame anyone if they jump it when they can (but that's a different game).
bobPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 11:27 AM
Link to comment
The Big ISP's willnot get involved in these small BDUK schemes it is just to costly and they are not going towant to deal with dozens of small schemes it makes no economic sense
The key to getting real comptition is to truely open up the local loop. Whilst the incumbent operator has control of it you cannot get real competition
I dont blame BT. Whilst they own it they want to keep the competition out as far as they can.
If you change that situation and an independent company owns the local loop and they are barred from supplying end users the gamechanges totally. It is then in this companies interest to get as many companies as possible to use it
dragoneastPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 12:22 PM
Link to comment
Bob, I have to confess I don't fully understand your point. In non-LLU rural exchanges how does your "independent" local loop by-pass the BT monopoly (which a lot of posters seem to think is the source of all evil) to get from the exchange to the ISPs POP?
Mark J: have you thought about changing the site's wave logo to a roll of red tape to better represent the state of UK broadband?
bobPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 12:26 PM
Link to comment
The one bit of the network where there is no effective competition (outside of cabled areas) is the local loop
Competition in the very rural areas may still be limited but outside of the rural areas you would get real competition.
The greater the competition and demand the more viable some rural areas become. I agree though in very rural areas there may still be no competion other than at ISP level but currently e have Cities & Large towns with no competition
BigBadJonPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 1:27 PM
Link to comment
Wasnt the main point of BDUK to get better access for rural areas. Even before the money was given out it had a doomed future. The real losers here are the consumers that have no LLU, and a slow connection with no one wanting to invest in upgrading their local exchanges.
desouzrPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 2:34 PM
Link to comment
I live in a market town in rural North Yorkshire. Market 1 exchange. The plan here is to use the BDUK money to upgrade the larger exchanges to provide FTTC/P. More rural areas of the county will probably get covered by FiWi (as is already happening), with the really hard to reach places having to do with satellite. The winning bidder is due to be announced next June. Based on the list of companies pulling out it may be a choice between just BT and Fujitsu (with BT the odds on favourite no doubt). Either way just hoping that plans don't change resulting in just ADSL2+ for us.
BobPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 3:01 PM
Link to comment
Well at least the basic strategy is sound. FTTC and Wirless from the Cabinet to the rural areas is probably the best approach.
It will though probably end up with BT because it is just not viable for a small company to manage asmall network which in effect except for the Wirless link and ISP part of it will be the BT network
desouzrPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 3:29 PM
Link to comment
If it does go to BT then at least it will not end up like the South Yorkshire digital region fiasco and we will know what to expect retail price wise. There may also be a higher take up from those who are only familiar with well known ISPs.
BobPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 4:41 PM
Link to comment
BDUK is really going down a simlilar road to what haapned with Cable TV hich the government divided the UK up into dozens of small franchises none of which ever made a profit. Slowly they all consolidated untill today we prety much just have VM which has only just started turning in a small profit but has a huge amount of debt still
What is really needed is a wholesale competitor to BT in the none cabled areas with ISP's & Telecos providing the retail service.
This seems to be what the Fujitsu Open Network Consortium is about but it needs government funding to kick start it,
DeductionPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 4:42 PM
Link to comment
quote"There may also be a higher take up from those who are only familiar with well known ISPs"
Yeah and judging by the reviews Talk Talk and BT get (IE the 2 biggest that use conventional phone lines) far more unhappy people with the service also. If thats even possible.
Mind you its no shock small business never stood a chance, and the BDUK scheme was nothing but a shame to make it look like competition would be encouraged.
Developing business and smaller successful businesses are all but dead in this country, basically raped of any cash and resources they give to the population forcing them into closure or to set up overseas.
Guess this government scheme and the monopolies involved in it is no different.
Broadband in this country is poor considering we are supposed to be a rich developed country, come 2015 the quality gap is only getting bigger. Though i saw it from the start.
SledgehammerPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 5:47 PM
Link to comment
Given the government and MP's have been involved with this fiasco from the start is it any wonder that reports like this one are starting to surface.
Let BT do their best, I think when 4G and LTE get started in a couple of years time then you will see some competition. Not before, OFCOM will procrastinate along with the government to drag this sorry state of affairs out for as long as possible.
While BT controls fibre connections ISP's are going to find it very difficult to sell FTTC to any customers.
New_LondonerPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 9:28 PM
Link to comment
@Bob
The proposed "Fujitsu Open Network Consortium" is Fujitsu buying Cisco boxes, installing the network and then selling to ISPs including Virgin and TalkTalk. So its really the brand name for a network from Fujitsu that will try to emulate Openreach. Nothing wrong with that but not sure the "Consortium" bit would pass muster with the ASA.
BerksPosted: 22 November, 2011 - 10:01 PM
Link to comment
Its unlikely BDUK will end up like cable tv did, as either BT or Fijitsu will win the funding, which you need rather then small companies as they have the funding and size to deliver on a large scale.
There are some very good local companies that will do well in small rural area's but thats likely to be the furthest extent to which they extend to.
BOB considering the 'Open Consortium' needs 500m the BDUK pot is not enough to reach it as i doubt they will compete for every single tender by councils.
There is still the 2 billion national framework network tender from the goverment that needs to be awarded.
By the time the 'Open consortium' gets moving BT will be pushing out further as there rollout extends further so they will likely be playing catch up at a slower pace.
How many people will take a FTTH service when they can get the speed they need for a cheaper price earlier on.
DeductionPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 3:40 AM
Link to comment
quote"How many people will take a FTTH service when they can get the speed they need for a cheaper price earlier on. "
They wont have the option if BT get all the cash they are only planning around 2% coverage with FTTH
MarkPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 8:00 AM
Link to comment
Ah, but if they're to get all the cash to put in superfast broadband, that would necessitate about 35% to 40%* FTTP for the properties too far away from the cabinets and/or with poor quality lines.
Sadly, I suspect they'll get the cash to put in FTTC, not necessarily superfast broadband, and local bodies will be gullible enough to believe that one = the other.
* My rough guess based on proximity to cabs and general network quality
BerksPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 3:18 PM
Link to comment
FTTH offers the fastest speeds but FTTC along with asdl+2 etc will offer the speeds and price that alot of people will need they will get those services now or sooner then they will see FTTP.
People dont want to pay much for BB. Thing is what option would you take for example, say 80% FTTC coverage or a 10% FTTP coverage in the next 5 years for the same price?
A full FTTP network is decades and billions away from being made, FTTC may not be everyones cup of tea but it improves for the majority of people.
DeductionPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 3:57 PM
Link to comment
Virgins service is capable of faster speeds than FTTC and already covers just under 50% of the UK so using that rather flawed logic give all the money to Virgin who already are capable of supplying a fair chunk of the UK and with a network capable of more than BTs FTTC system.
Further more the current average speed for FTTC seems to be mid 20Mb to low 30Mb rates, so if we are talking price the 30Mb service from Virgin is also cheaper for the punter than FTTC.
BT FTTH products will only cover around 2% of the country by 2015 at speeds of a potential UPTO 300Mb, Virgin have 200Mb coming next year to 50% of the country already.
Personally i wouldnt like to see either company get all the funds, but if we are talking coverage, speed and price to punter than out of the 2 Virgin should be getting all the cash.
DeductionPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 4:00 PM
Link to comment
They also have a much more reliable system for things such as IPTV than what decades old phone lines are. That is meant to be the next big thing (though i wont be paying for it).
Seems a bit bizarre once again all the money is likely to go to the poorer option in this country.
New_LondonerPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 9:51 PM
Link to comment
@Deduction
Why give Virgin any money if they have not responded to the tenders? Is the cable network "much more reliable system for things such as IPTV", let's see how it holds up as more people move to the higher speed services as early reports of performance when congested suggest otherwise.
FTTC average speeds - over 30Mbps according to the Ofcom survey, and that's before the move to Profile 17a.
@Mark
"35% to 40%* FTTP for the properties too far away from the cabinets and/or with poor quality lines"
Andrew Ferguson at TBB suggests over 90% of the population are within 1km of a cabinet. Not sure of his source, but I bet its more reliable than anything either of us are able to quote.
DeductionPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 11:34 PM
Link to comment
Why let local authorities give money to BT? Stupid question.
It is more reliable Virgin is the second largest ISP in the UK. If the best you can come up with is its congested in some areas then here is a shock for you same applies to BT.
FTTC average speeds are not over 30Mb, the top result ive seen is 38.5Mb the lowest ive seen is 16Mb. It is like ADSL dependant on line distance except instead of to exchange its to the cabinet.
Even with profile 17a and other fantasy things you can think off that dont exist for it and have no evidence will ever happen except for BTs word, Virgins cable system is capable of higher speeds than FTTC. Easily 200Mb+.
Andrew Ferguson is clearly wrong then or never looked at an ordnance survey map and the location of some cabs. Many even for inner city areas are over 1km distance.
DeductionPosted: 23 November, 2011 - 11:37 PM
Link to comment
Ive yet to read one good reason why giving all funding no matter where it comes from to any single company is a good thing, be it BT, Virgin or anyone else.
That being said if its all going to one company you may as wel give it to a company that has 50% of the population covered already let them finish off the country with a system which is clearly the better performer both technically and in reality. and can deliver far more services over it.
MarkPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 12:42 AM
Link to comment
I kind of agree with you, Deduction. The point about congestion on the cable network is a straw man argument. Because precisely the same is, or will become, true of the BT network eventually: possible congestion at the cabinet, then possible congestion at the exchange (which happens now anyway and in such cases, there is no line of accountability whatsoever in terms of forcing a fix, the customer ends up stuck between BTW and the ISP who can do nothing). The choke points are basically the same. Virgin do themselves no favours by catering for the "unlimited use" users, but then that's the way BT have had to go with Infinity too, both have to be traffic managed. Yet, the cable network will alweays outperform FTTC overall thanks to closer cabinets, co-ax not thin copper/aliminimum, and amplification. Crucially, it gives the customer a choice of speeds, not "you get what you're given".
MarkPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 12:46 AM
Link to comment
.. However :)
There are ways of solving this which don't involve giving any money to any private companies which I've posted before. Where the Government acts in its supposed true role of facilitator with regard to ducting, the biggest issue.
We had a state monnopoly on phones. Along came cable. We privatise the phones. Except not quite, because it was given a Crown Guarantee. So it's a sort of quasi-private company which has an infrastructural monopoly in half the country.
Then, just like energy prices, or trains (anything which travels down a limited number of fixed "pipes") the Government looks to "do something". And then finds that, since it's in private hands, they can't do anything effective. So BT then get jerked around by OFCOM and we apply one sticking plaster over another to try and hide the inadequacies of the setup. I can see why BT shareholders are probably aghast...
MarkPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 12:50 AM
Link to comment
The other issues centre around people thinking that broadband has some kind of relation to phones, and that BT is somehow expected to roll things out (Why should it? What if it decided not to bother with broadband, and shut all the services down? Why shouldn't they be able to do that if they want?) and act as some sort of universal centralised wholesaler. Why should it?
We've actually created a "market" which is no market at all. We've set up the perfect set of conditions to completely stifle innovation and progress.
And then you have the Government coming out with anodyne platitudes about how we'll be the "Best in Europe". You really couldn't make this stuff up.
MarkPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 1:00 AM
Link to comment
FTTC average speeds over 30Mbps? Not the last time I had a look at a long thread on ThinkBroadband called something like "line stats". And, of course, if you consider rollouts in areas that have been done, there's just the possibility that BT haven't bothered to do some areas because the line length is too long and/or their engineers know the quality of the lines isn't up to it. Fine if the taxpayer is paying, though, of course. But it's not a superfast broadband solution, is it.
My initial stab at an estimate was that if every cab in the country was done, about 60% of people would have access to a superfast service. Believe I read that about 75% have a D side of 650m or less, if true, then knock that down a bit for line quality and I reckon you'd be at about 65% coverage.
Thus, if the whole country were done "by BT" as it were, that's 65% FTTC and 35% FTTP to deliver superfast bb.
New_LondonerPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 6:45 AM
Link to comment
@Deduction
The average speed according to Ofcom is over 30Mbps for FTTC based on measured performance rather than your or my opinion. Profile 17a is hardly a fantasy as it is already being deployed in advance of the 40/10Mb line caps being removed - plenty of evidence of this from line stats on TBB.
@Mark
The congestion on cable is different to that at an exchange. For the latter you sinply add more backhaul, for the former you have to install more cable segments. The problem will continue to get worse if more people opt for the higher service speeds as there simply is not enough available bandwidth on the coax.
DeductionPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 9:16 AM
Link to comment
Where is this ofcom data? and how many lines is the data based on.
Profile 17a already being deployed? Really where can you buy a BT based FTTC service that is rated as above 40Mb down speeds then? I see no such product or deployment anywhere, please show otherwise.
Mid 2012 if anything is the earliest thats likely to make its way into users hands and then we only have BTs word on the matter, which is to all purposes, worthless as they change their minds on facts and figure like the weather.
DeductionPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 9:19 AM
Link to comment
Oh and to suggest cable will suffer contention more than your profile 17a based upto 100Mb BT fibre product when some exchanges struggle with capacity now just supplying ADSL rates is laughable.
Virgins product like it or not is technically superior to BTs FTTC solution, it can go faster, deliver more content over it and already has triple play all down one cable. (Oh and Dont even dare call BT vision a TV service LOL let alone one to compare to satelite or cable).
SomersetPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 9:45 AM
Link to comment
VM don't bid because they do not do wholesale.
DeductionPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 10:17 AM
Link to comment
Using that logic its already decided BT get all the cash then, is it not?
BerksPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 1:34 PM
Link to comment
There is still the open consortium, but BT will end up with the majority of the money.
Anyone could have seen that from the start, with the rules that BDUK imposed for bids.
How far the money goes will be the interesting part with councils funding adding to their share of bduk funds combined with BT's match funding.
DeductionPosted: 24 November, 2011 - 9:11 PM
Link to comment
Ont go far if some of the figures to do just some towns and counties are to be believed.
BobPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 12:29 PM
Link to comment
What the government ought to be doing is to ensure there is an infrustructure competitor across the UK in the Urban areas. Untill that happens the UK will lag behind the rest of the world and what we will have outside of the cabled areas is a regulated monopoly where OFCOM tries but fails to get some degree of competition
MarkPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 12:42 PM
Link to comment
"The congestion on cable is different to that at an exchange. For the latter you sinply add more backhaul, for the former you have to install more cable segments. The problem will continue to get worse if more people opt for the higher service speeds as there simply is not enough available bandwidth on the coax."
Why do you keep pushing this nonsense. (It's a rhetorical question, I know why). At a certain point, there will be congestion at BT cabinets in addition to congestion at exchanges.
So BT could add more capacity, and cable can add more capacity. Granted, with so many sub-exchanges "head end cabs" it's more work for VM, but clearly it happens since the actuals reflect the headline speeds in the vast majority of cases. Let's see similar open monitoring of FTTC based connections.
BobPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 2:54 PM
Link to comment
The big problem FTTC faces is noise. The copper local loop was never designed for HS data and it is being pushed beyond it's reasonable limits. As BT roll out higher FTTC speeds the situation will get worse
New_LondonerPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 4:45 PM
Link to comment
Bob
"The big problem FTTC faces is noise. The copper local loop was never designed for HS data and it is being pushed beyond it's reasonable limits. As BT roll out higher FTTC speeds the situation will get worse."
No doubt you noted in the recent paper on vectoring that this deals with both near- and far-end crosstalk affecting FTTC pretty effectively? You will also be aware that various new developments already suggest speeds of up to 200Mbps are feasible, and that it is relatively straight-forward to substitute fibre for individual copper links in an FTTC architecture, unlike in the "bus" structure used by cable?
New_LondonerPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 4:46 PM
Link to comment
Contd.
How do you overcome the fundamental bandwidth limit on coax that is increasingly impairing cable performance, showing up as congestion, jitter etc? The relatively few customers with 50Mb and 100Mb services (<200k) are causing this to spike, what happens if take-up increases? It will only get worse if Virgin launch the 200Mb service!
New_LondonerPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 4:58 PM
Link to comment
@Deduction
"profile 17a and other fantasy things you can think off that dont exist"
1. Suggest you read up on FTTC on TBB, look at the comments posted there by a growing number of people regarding the availability of Profile 17a on their connection, the projected performance on their line when the performance caps are removed next year.
2. Vectoring - will deliver faster performance at longer distances with Profile 17a (> 40Mb at 1km). See previous links to third-party reports on this.
3. Profile 30a - increases speeds further still to up to 200Mbps. See the relevant ITU reports on this.
So all easy to verify with third party materials, hardly "fantasy things".
New_LondonerPosted: 25 November, 2011 - 5:03 PM
Link to comment
@Mark
"At a certain point, there will be congestion at BT cabinets in addition to congestion at exchanges. "
It relatively easy to increase backhaul bandwidth at the exchange and to the cabinets. It is far more difficult to have to sub-divide coax segments as the divided sgements will each then need to be connected to cabinets etc, requiring much more labour across a franchise area to alleviate the growing problem of congestion.
DeductionPosted: 27 November, 2011 - 1:20 AM
Link to comment
Where can i buy profile 17a enabled FTTC service in the UK?
You cant thus it is a fantasy, doesnt exist.
Vectoring doesnt exist either, you are doing nothing but guessing and hoping.
If its easy for BT to upgrade exchanges to beat congestion perhaps they should do it for all those that suffer it just with ADSL/2/+
You lose VM where it comes to hybrid fibre solutions is superior.
New_LondonerPosted: 27 November, 2011 - 9:47 AM
Link to comment
@Deduction
Suggest you take a look at the many comments on TBB which confirm that Profile is already enabled for large numbers of connections. Or do you think that all the posters are suffering from the same fantasy?
And if vectoring doesn't exist you'd better tell the ITU that the papers submitted to them are fake.
ANd is cable really is so much better, please explain why so many people started complaining about congestion as soon as the 50Mb and 100Mb services were launched. (Shared coax to 100s of homes is not ideal for faster services!)
DeductionPosted: 27 November, 2011 - 4:46 PM
Link to comment
It isnt enabled if it were speeds in excess of 40Mb would be available, those "posts" you refer to are nothing more than people reading stats about what MAY be possible.
Vectoring doesnt exist in this country, how many more times, show mre a product with it enabled if it does.
Cable is better, it is capable of faster speeds than FTTC and capable of delivering more services over it.
FTTC speeds both top end and average will never match Virgin cable, every speed study in the world will show that, theres a reason even with around 30% of the FTTC roll out average speeds for BT compared to virgin still suck balls
New_LondonerPosted: 27 November, 2011 - 9:24 PM
Link to comment
@Deduction
Suggest you read my post again, which clearly says that "it is already being deployed in advance of the 40/10Mb line caps being removed".
Vectoring clearly does exist, you've read the papers yourself, no reason to pretend it exists in the rest of the world but not here! If you mean that it has not been deployed comercially (?) then I agree, never said otherwise, however that does not make it unreal.
As to whether cable "is better, it is capable of faster speeds than FTTC and capable of delivering more services over it", let's wait and see when there is sufficient take-up of the higher speed services on both networks and then see how throughput, jitter etc compare between them.
DeductionPosted: 28 November, 2011 - 2:35 AM
Link to comment
You can not buy it here it doesnt exist, seriously is it just your sole purpose in life to spout nonsense that talks BT up as being great.
You can not buy a vectoring product in this country, and unless you can show otherwise it doesnt exist, and as for now changing your arguemnet to it being in development, as i said we only have your word and BTs on that. Which frankly is worthless as they can not even make up their minds what the speed will if anything be boosted to.
It is superior there is no need to wait and see, its 100Mb now, thats faster than 40Mb, and its gonna be 200Mb likely by this time next year, which will also be faster than the likely 80Mb FTTC is boosted to.
As for jitter and ping, in ideal circumstances for both products it wins in that area also, no silly cross talk on a coax system.
New_LondonerPosted: 28 November, 2011 - 5:13 AM
Link to comment
@Deduction
Curious to see your argument that something (vectoring) doesn't exist if you cannot buy it! Absolutely not true to say that you only have my word for it, you've already read documents submitted to the ITU on the subject and commented upon it.
As for cable being better for jitter and ping, suggest you read up on the ASA judgement against Virgin's adverts stating that cable was best for gamers. The ASA report noted that Virgin could not substantiate claims that its 50Mb service had better ping, and that it had higher upstream jitter than all other services, aside from its own 20 Mbit/s service.
So the real-world performance of cable is not quite as you describe. Like I said previously, let's wait until there is sufficient take-up of the higher speed services on both networks and then see how throughput, jitter etc compare between them.
DeductionPosted: 29 November, 2011 - 2:36 AM
Link to comment
It isnt available, if its not available its nothing more than a deluded fantasy. Where can i buy it.
Theres nothing to say they couldnt build a Knight Rider car in this day and age but you cant buy one of them either.
There is no vectoring product and rather than continually spout nonsense there is why dont you point everyone to where they can buy it.
Er and nope ya wrong on that also, its BTs infinity TV and Press ads that got banned for its gaming boasts first.
Their current boast about being at the centre of the 2012 olympics network and 4 times faster than sky should be banned anytime soon also. Unless sky shared with the competition what speeds they delivered thats a fantasy claim also.
DOCSIS in real world and technically is better than FTTC, would you like an argument about that or like to explain why massive areas of the USA and EU use a DOCSIS based system if its so bad?
DeductionPosted: 29 November, 2011 - 2:36 AM
Link to comment
Seriously just stop talking cack you sound like a BT PR spin machine.
New_LondonerPosted: 29 November, 2011 - 5:36 AM
Link to comment
@Deduction
The only reason that large parts of the US have cable is historic - it wasn't possible to get a decent TV signal any other way. On gaming, the ASA banned the ads because the "evidence" provided by Virgn to substantiate the claims (a report by Ofcom) actually proved the opposite, namely that its jitter was worse than other providers.
To quote your words "seriously just stop talking cack you sound like a Virgin PR spin machine".
DeductionPosted: 29 November, 2011 - 3:52 PM
Link to comment
Back in the decade you mention things were analogue and cable didn't carry a broadband signal so that's nothing to do with the reason it is used nowadays for broadband.
Actually unlike you i dont need to defend a company, i have no links to BT or Virgin, my ISP is neither, my ISP is a LLU provider.
The only one talking cack is a person which has BT FTTC, obvious ties to BT (you defend them and talk fantasy in every story about them) and is trying to flog that as being the best option.
BTs infinity adverts with its gaming claims was banned before Virgins, it was BT that complained about Virgin, like the childish brats they are as their ad was banned first. Want me to start linking to ASA judgements from their website, to show that is FACT also?
Oh and vectoring doesnt exist, still waiting for you to point where i can buy a FTTC vectored product. BT dont do one and neither does anyone.
JacksonPosted: 23 January, 2012 - 2:09 AM
Link to comment
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
JacksonPosted: 23 January, 2012 - 10:16 AM
Link to comment
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
New_Londoner and his Multi aliases are like cancer
Generated in 0.57728 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).