» ISP News » 

Sckipio Predicts Ultrafast 1Gbps G.fast Broadband Deployments for 2015

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 (9:06 am) - Score 1,876

Israel-based modem maker Sckipio has predicted that pressure from rival cable platforms could push telecoms operators like BT in the UK to begin rolling out next gen G.fast (aka – FTTC2 / ITU G.9700) broadband technology, which might deliver speeds of up to 1000Mbps over some hybrid fibre optic and copper lines, much sooner than expected.

Currently BT’s Fibre-to-the-Cabinet (FTTC) solution can deliver speeds of up to 80Mbps using 17MHz (radio frequency spectrum), which works by replacing the existing copper cable between street cabinets and your local telephone exchange with a fibre optic line. The final copper line run (between cabinets and your home) is then managed by VDSL2 technology, which is like ADSL but faster over short distances (VDSL works best at distances of below 400m but it can operate at over 1500m with much slower speeds).

By comparison G.fast works in a similar way to VDSL but it’s been designed for considerably shorter runs of copper cable (below 250m) and uses 17 – 106MHz (the specification allows for even higher frequencies), which means that to work at its best it needs to be moved closer to homes and this might require a Fibre to the Distribution Point (FTTdp) / Fibre to the Remote Node (FTTRN) solution (i.e. shortening the run of remaining copper lines from street cabinets by replacing part of it with fibre optic).

In theory G.fast could deliver aggregate data rates ranging from 150Mbps at 250m to 1Gbps over cable lengths of less than 100m, which would be achieved using Vectoring technology to help cancel out crosstalk (interference). Vectoring works a bit like the noise cancellation technology in some headphones and would need to be activated on all of the lines in a street cabinet in order to work properly. One of Alcatel-Lucent’s recent trials demonstrated that 650Mbps was possible at 50-100m with vectoring enabled (FTTC can also use Vectoring).

gfast and vectoring 2.0 fttc vdsl2 speeds

At present the G.fast standard (ITU G.9700) is still going through its final approval process and many expect this to be completed by around Q3 2014 (here), although such a significant change is likely to require extensive testing before operators can even begin to consider deployment.

But Sckipio’s CEO, Dudi Baum, believes that faster speeds from cable operators (e.g. Virgin Media’s 152Mbps package) and true fibre optic (FTTH/P/B) providers could force some operators to fast-track the service into deployment (albeit only on a limited scale at first), possibly as soon as 2015. Baum said that they will provide the first samples of their new g.fast based modem chips “in a few months“.

In fairness Sckipio is an active member of the G.fast ITU study group and claims to have provided “over 20% of all the contributions” to the standards recommendation, which means that it’s in their interest to be optimistic; perhaps overly so. On the other hand BT, like many other operators, have already confirmed the first Huawei-based trials of G.fast at its Adastral Park R&D facility near Ipswich in Suffolk (here) and they’ve been lab testing it for quite a while before. FTTdp/RN trials are also on the way and Vectoring is already being tested in the wild.

The technology sounds like an effective solution but there are more than a few complex hurdles to overcome along the way. For example, VDSL2 and G.fast might use different spectrum to stay apart but they also use different signal duplexing schemes and this difference would make it difficult to use Vectoring technology to iron out interference (crucial for g.fast) in environments where VDSL2 and G.fast need to co-exist (e.g. BT’s network).

Various other complications also exist, such as conflicts with the kit used by Sub-Loop Unbundled (SLU) providers (arguably less of a problem now that Digital Region has kicked the bucket), a costly deployment (it might be less costly than FTTH/P but g.fast and FTTdp would by no means be cheap), a time consuming roll-out (several years – depending upon coverage targets) and the introduction of greater complexity in the management of BT’s network.

G.fast also uses a “parasitical power” setup, which means that it’s designed to work without mains power by drawing current from the customers own modem or router device (this would also benefit FTTdp/RN deployments). This might make some people nervous but it’s still a fairly low-power consumption and the cost / regulatory savings that BT would make here (not having to contract and build dedicated power supplies for each local node) would make this aspect easier to deploy.

So a late 2015 introduction might not be impossible for some countries but it seems unlikely for the UK, where G.fast and FTTdp/RN are only just entering the very earliest of trial phases and Vectoring has yet to extend its existing trial into more areas.

BT will want to deploy Vectoring first, assuming they do go ahead with it (they’ve been very quiet since the end of last year), in order to improve their existing FTTC speeds and that will take time to complete. G.fast is likely to be last on the list so, once all is said and done, 2017 might not be an unreasonable target for the UK and that’s assuming the eventual field trials are successful.

Leave a Comment
81 Responses
  1. Avatar Chris Conder

    The most sensible thing to do is proper fibre to the home. Cost effective. Futureproof. The governments which realise this are going to run the countries who lead the digital revolution. The ones who keep patching up the copper are going to be left behind.

    • Avatar TheFacts

      Are you saying that the government should fund the £20B or whatever it will cost?

    • Avatar Phil

      100% agree on this one. Fibre to the property is the best way!

    • Avatar Unknown101

      How do you plan on funding this network? £20-£30Bn required for this type of work.

      Bringing the fibre close to the home is the best option gradually over the next five years then if people want FTTP then they can pay to have the fibre brought into their home. Not everyone wants or requires FTTP so for most the country it would be pointless exercise.

    • Avatar DTMark

      “Are you saying that the government should fund the £20B or whatever it will cost?”

      Why do you make the assumption that telecoms infrastructure should be 100% government funded?

    • Avatar George

      Not only that DTMark but why does the troll assume the upgrade to get those lucky enough to live within a couple of hundred metres to G.Fast will be cheap anyway?

    • Avatar FibreFred

      there are so many repeat comments and comments on comments these days, does no one have anything new to add?

    • Avatar George

      Agreed repeating yourself about costs is very repetitive.

    • Avatar JNeuhoff

      “there are so many repeat comments and comments on comments these days, does no one have anything new to add?” Fully agree, just look at FibreFred’s comments for a start.

    • Avatar FibreFred


      What I mean is its just getting so samey, Chris’s copper cabal comments , who will fund full FTTP, why do you assume it would all be the government etc etc

      All exactly the same comments posted probably just a few days ago in another story

      And Georgy’s comments I presume making me out to be an multi-id poster again, very dull, I assume I am TheFact and/or Unknown?

      Don’t bother answering just assume I’m everyone else but you and JN

    • Avatar George

      It is quite clear who you are, a bitter little BT employee with some axe to grind against altnets. You attack Chris as just one example no matter what they have to say both on here and TBB, only on there you repeat yourself with another bunch of names. Rather than carrying on attacking very specific individuals like chris maybe you should actually fix BTs broken, congested and rated bottom service.

    • Avatar No clue

      It is entirely obvious who fred is as he has a very predictable course of posting.
      An example being here…
      and his comments about 15Mb being the minimum FTTC speed

      and over at TBB here…
      with one of his many TBB aliases and the post of
      “Posted by WWWombat 1 day ago
      Are you talking BT Retail and their Infinity product?

      They usually do limit things, but to a speed of 15Mbps, not a distance.

      I’m sure I’ve seen cases of longer distances with Plusnet.”

      We then have his other behaviour of stalking Chris in this story on an hourly basis with his comments..

      While doing the exact same thing at the exact same times over on TBB… Except over there its the WWWombat and GMAN IDs while here its the Unknown and Fred IDs

      SO YES a MULTI ID TROLL, unless of course there is another individual out there that has a deranged need to follow Chris around at the exact same time of day and post at the exact same time of day, WHILE coincidentally being 2 people at the exact same time WHILE ALSO thinking for some reason there is a minimum 15Mb speed guarantees with FTTC which were done away with a long time ago and reduced down to 5Mb and then 2Mb in 2013 is a different individual….. If so they must have the same genetic defect. AKA STUPID!

    • Avatar George

      No, no, no it is not him there are 4 characters living in lala world that all like to post on 2 separate sites at the same time the exact same crap.

    • Avatar Ignitionnet

      Cost effective? At current levels of FTTx takeup you are talking over £5k per customer even in the cheapest areas to enable. How do you plan on recovering that without charging a small fortune per month?

      Many people still rather like their £7.50 a month ADSL.

    • Avatar Raindrops

      Do BT care about recovering costs when a significant part of the costs are not from their pocket?
      Oh and LOL @Noclue good spot.

    • Avatar MikeW


      Fred is right. It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation or discussion around these parts nowadays.

      We need some ‘do not feed the trolls’ signs put out here.

    • Avatar George

      “It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation or discussion around these parts nowadays.”

      That does not appear to have stopped you switching to one of your many aliases you have not used here for a while and trying to continue it.

    • Avatar Raindrops

      It is OK he is now calling himself Steve and writing new essays in other items.

  2. Avatar DTMark

    OK, so to take an example – the road I live on. The shortest D-side is already 1280m long and given that ADSL performance on these lines is a joke, suggests line plant quality isn’t what it might be.

    So the pole outside gets one of these devices attached to it, serving the grand total of three properties.

    Further up the road, the next property is about 300m away. That pole gets one of these devices serving… another three properties.

    To imagine that this is efficiently scalable would seem to be madness.

    • Avatar Unknown101

      Have you ever thought that they’ll put the devices underground on the feed to these poles (say where there is a 50-100 pair cable) and although not being on top of your pole it’ll be a couple hundred metres away but feeding more than “three” premises.

      Also I don’t think the government should fund it all but I don’t see any other company about to spend that sort of money on a national FTTP. HS2 is going to be mostly government funded – but train companies are going to be using the track so should the rail companies using the track fund it all?

    • Avatar DTMark

      Because if you install it where there is any significant mass (50+) of cables, that would be at the cabinet. So it achieves nothing because it’s a highly distance limited technology and it’s too far away.

    • Avatar Unknown101

      So your saying where you live from your property to the cabinet the cable is only a 20pair cable? and then only when it gets to the cabinet (1280m away) the feeds start to get to approx 50-100 pairs? Im pretty sure there would be a cable between 50-100pairs a couple hundred metres away.

      With vecting this should still allow you to get speeds of over 100mbps.

    • Avatar George

      Im pretty sure if you start spending serious money digging up streets and replacing cables and adding new equipment you may as well blow full fibre anyway.
      Or maybe in some weird fashion you think digging up millions of metres of street to upgrade copper is in some way cheaper?

    • Avatar Unknown101

      George – who said they will be digging streets up…. There’s a thing call ducting that’s already in the ground!

    • Avatar Raindrops

      There is not much ducting from cabinet to pole which is what you refer to in your post here.

      If ducts ran all the way from exchange to peoples homes you would not have to mess around with FTTC in the first place it would be cheaper and easier to just blow fibre straight to a persons home rather than fit “devices” on “underground” copper feeds.

      Oh and 100Mb via vectoring will not happen for many according to that chart unless the “device” on feeds you refer to is within 200M for everyone. Unlikely considering most streets are longer than that, so unless you are going to put a magical “device” every 200M then 100Mb for all is a NO. Then again you work for BT and think everyone currently gets 15Mb minimum from FTTC LOL.

    • Avatar MikeW

      I agree Mark, your particular property clustering would not appear to be suited to G.fast topology. Slightly better for FTTRN topology though – vectored 100Mbps to six properties. Are there more properties beyond the second group of 3?

      At a guess, your building density puts you a long way into the final 5%; the 95%-mark is probably a cluster of 40 houses in a 500m x 500m box, or a 200m x 1,000m box.

  3. Avatar Karen

    FTTdP/FTTrN – Is this a half way strategy to make any future FTTP easier? Could FTTP(oD) actually then only need to be done to the new remote node/distribution point. Therefore any future upgrade to full fibre is a lot cheaper/easier?

    • Avatar JNeuhoff

      The answer is NO! BT has no interest in promoting Fibre-on-demand. FoD is a dead product, only hopeless BT trolls on this forum think it’s a great thing (though none of theme uses it themselves). BT has no interest in undermining its leased line business case.

    • Avatar Unknown101

      Yes this is correct, a lot quicker and cheaper as the fibre will be closer to your property then the cabinet.

    • Avatar George

      Cheaper how?? After you have spent the money to bring it a few hundred metres closer in the first place

    • Avatar Raindrops

      He is going to put magical devices every 200M to give each individual 100Mb+ and it is going to be cheaper than just blowing a cable down a duct.

      Yep confused me also.

    • Avatar MikeW

      FTTC certainly brings fibre closer, as the aggregation nodes are installed closer to premises. Those are the nodes that will be shared with any future fibre GPON architecture, whether that is the nascent FTTPoD (business) product, or the starting point of residential FTTP in a decade or more.

      FTTRN or FTTdp could bring fibre even closer if it also brings further distribution capability with it. That could be in the form of further aggregation nodes, or it could be just dark fibre or empty ducting from the existing aggregation nodes towards joint boxes for splitter nodes.

    • Avatar George

      As Raindrops has pointed out to get 100M with vectoring you have to be within a couple of hundred metres of the node. There are roads longer than that and telephone pole lines several time that length so unless you are going to scatter these nodes every 200M then not everyone will get 100M or anywhere close to it.
      FTTC may bring fibre close to the user, though why you keep saying that with every name is a mystery. It should bring it closer considering before it BT offered no consumer fibre product.

    • Avatar Raindrops

      Maybe the Scottish engineer trolls idea is to dangle “devices” every few hundred metres along long runs of overhead copper cable like baubles on a Christmas tree.

  4. Avatar Phil


    High Speed Internet Profiles:

    Line Length (max) – Down (Mbps) – Up (Mbps)
    300m – 100 – 20
    450m – 90 – 20
    525m – 80 – 20
    600m – 60 – 20
    750m – 50 – 20
    850m – 40 – 10
    1000m – 30 – 8
    1200m – 25 – 8
    1300m – 18 – 5
    1500m – 15 – 3
    1700m – 12 – 1
    2000m – 7 -1

    High Stability profiles (for eVision)
    Line Length (max) – Down (Mbps – Fixed) – Up (Mbps – Rate Adaptive)
    300m – 85 – 5 to 20
    450m – 80 – 5 to 20
    525m – 70 – 5 to 20
    600m – 60 – 5 to 20
    650m – 50 – 5 to 16
    750m – 40 – 5 to 16
    850m – 34 – 5 to 16
    1000m – 28 – 50 to 15
    1200m – 20 – 2.5 to 8
    1300m – 18 – 2.5 to 7
    1500m – 12 – 0.25 to 1
    1750m – 10 – 0.25 to 1
    2000m – 4 – 0.25 to 1

    • Avatar MikeW

      These are the profiles that Eircom use for their vectored-VDSL2 products, right?

      Do you have any idea how comparable the Irish local loop architecture is to ours?

    • Avatar George

      It makes no difference, tech and distance = speed will be consistent on any copper network.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      “It makes no difference, tech and distance = speed will be consistent on any copper network.”

      Feet in your mouth again?

      So Eirecom use exactly the same gauge copper as BT do? BT don’t even use the same throughout the whole of its network AFAIK, MikeW will no doubt confirm

      Thanks for another entertaining post 🙂

    • Avatar Raindrops

      Unless you are an engineer at Eircom you have no idea what gauge wire they use.
      So you can forget that repetitive nonsense you have been over before.

    • Avatar No clue

      Never mind any of that relevance who the heck is “Eirecom”. We could perhaps discuss organisations with him if he even knew their name.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      Pulling me up on an E that shouldn’t have been in there? I must have touched a nerve 🙂 as you were…. I believe you and your DID buddies were telling us that VDSL speeds are consistent on any copper network.

      Feet at the ready 😉

    • Avatar MikeW

      Yes Fred.

      It has been said, on here even, that the UK network varies in gauge between 0.32mm (IIRC) and 0.9mm. BT’s SIN models the network based on equivalence to 0.5mm, and it seems that a lot of the D-side is that size or higher. The narrower cables tend to be in the E-side.

      The ADTran presentations on vectoring state that the reach of various speeds is 1.3x greater in 0.5mm cable than in 0.4mm.

      While aluminium is known to be slower, it also seems to have been used at the smallest gauge. Bizarre.

      Obviously speed *does* vary with distance. Caused by many factors. Presumably these factors are unknown to our resident trolls. Or known and deliberately ignored – “never let the truth get in the way of a good trolling,” seems to be the motto for some people on here.

      As I asked: How comparable is the architecture of the Eircom access network to ours? That means I am asking what gauge of cable they use, and how do they model it. What the average D-side lengths are. Do they have DP’s. Do they use drop cables or lead-in cables. Do they have spare pairs for bonding. All sorts of things that can affect the speed.

      I already know that they tend to use the same power masks as specified in our ANFP. That would be another factor that can change the speed.

    • Avatar George

      So short version as suggested you do not know what tech Eircom have.

    • Avatar No clue

      At least with his repeated 0.5mm measurement he did not try to claim its a cubic cable this time 🙂

  5. Avatar Chris Conder

    Its just a patch up. Like on the knees of old jeans. Eventually you need new jeans. But you are thrifty, and patch ups can keep some areas going a bit longer. The rural areas and very long lines have no jeans at all. Best to start with them and work inwards towards the exchanges, bringing in all the fibres to the main feed. This is essential upgrading, which should have been ongoing before the jeans wore out.
    Putting billions into an overgrown train set for a few fat cat commuters is a waste as well. Digital is the future. Canals are lovely, but they are now part of the leisure industry. Trains won’t be needed as much when people can work from anywhere, because if we did real fibre instead of this ‘superfarce’ we would have connectivity which is fit for purpose. The UK are failing miserably because the government is forcing the incumbent to provide voice phones as a USO so they still have to maintain POTS. Its time to get digital. Before it’s too late.
    101 – the fibre isn’t getting any closer. FTTC is a dead end and choke point, despite the hype of the copper cabal. Fibre to the home brings two fibres directly from the hub (or exchange) to every home. It doesn’t take a fibre to the cabinet and then expect it to propagate to hundreds of properties through phone lines. They would have to run more fibre to make cabinets work as hubs, only enough goes to get vdsl to work for a few. The whole job will be to do again one day. Its a tatty patch.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      The fibre isn’t getting any closer?

      You see Chris, this is why your posts attract so much laughter. Fibre spines have been built out from the exchanges to within (mostly) 1km of the home, for me about 550m’s

      That’s no closer than it was before?

      And then if G.fast comes into play that fibre will no doubt end up on the pole that is 20ms from my house or in a duct close by

      That’s no closer still?

      3million km of fibre being laid ( http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/the-big-build ) yet strangely according to you its getting no closer? 🙂

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      And putting billions every year into a subsidy dependant UK farming industry whilst simultaneously keeping retail prices artificially high is a waste as well, costs every one of us hundreds of pounds every year. Let’s put in place a timetable to withdraw the subsidy and either use the money to invest in assets not operating costs, or cut our taxes.

      If we did that we might have a way to fund a national FTTP network. In the meantime, why should you expect the rural areas to reap the benefit of billions of pounds of subsidy every year AND also have the rest of us pay for you to have FTTP too?

      And don’t imagine HS2 is just for “fat cats” as the tabloids claim, if you read up about the project properly you’ll find it frees up a lot of rail capacity to get freight of the motorways on onto rail.

      When we cut out the CAP we can fund FTTP over around 6 years, then fund HS2 too.

      This is my funding plan for a national FTTP network, something you fibre fetishists have repeatedly failed to provide. In fact I’m offering a national FTTP network, HS2 and lower food bills. Over to you!

    • Avatar FibreFred

      Sounds good to me, if an industry cannot be profitable on its own surely there’s something very wrong that needs fixing? You can’t just keep throwing money at it forever?

      Short term to make it viable again of course I’m all for that but this has been going on for decades.

    • Avatar Ignitionnet

      Most of the FTTP/B in the world either brings a single fibre via a passive network to the property or to an apartment block basement to be honest. Optics are expensive at scale and GPON kit is nearly the same price as FX.

      G.Fast is actually pretty much FTTB. I don’t see people in Romania, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, etc irate because they receive service via copper to a DSLAM/MSAN/switch in a basement.

      This is an excellent solution for MDUs and a great step between FTTN and FTTP as it misses out the costly and time consuming build of the fibre drop and civils in the property.

      CD, the Huawei DSLAM in my cabinet can handle 20Gb/s on each of its 6 line cards. It has a 1.5Tbps backplane and 640Gbps switching capacity. It could easily be repurposed to deliver GPON backhaul to FTTdp nodes, and use XPON for its own backhaul to the exchange.

      Yes, those cabinets you so loathe and think need loads of fibre to act as hubs (my local one incidentally has 8 fibres going to it, which using XPON is 4 times the bandwidth of a B4RN hub) have everything they need to do it with just a change of line cards.

      Please read something other than blogs from people with a passing interest and plenty of opinions but a lack of knowledge of the material.

    • Avatar DTMark

      Apparently, BDUK will be funding cab 3 round here, so VDSL will be available to us.

      1300m – 18 – 5

      This is just comedy now. That’s pretty much a best case. If an aluminium line, halve those performance figures.

      Had that downstream and about half that upstream from Three 3G years ago after upgrading from ADSL to 3G.

      We have 4G now (about 25/20 non-optimised).

      Lets rush to downgrade to VDSL..

      The “fibre” (cab 3) is nearer – much nearer – than the 4G cell. Just 700m away.

      Yet, it might as well be 700 miles away.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      So Ignitionnet, seems quite upbeat about G.Fast and has the same thoughts on full FTTP

      Yet none of the trolls are slating his views? I do find that amusing 🙂

    • Avatar MikeW

      Repurpose, and reuse. There is nothing wrong with that … especially if it can be done cheaper, and yet gives people more than they need.

      Obviously DTMark isn’t one of those – though he might change his mind on the 4G service if he is unlucky and it becomes congested. There will be plenty more, like him and Chris, in the final 2-3% for whom FTTC and G.fast are not suitable. I fully agree with that, but it doesn’t make it a wrong choice for the first 90-95%.

      And to comment on Ignition’s perfectly sensible post: G.fast is indeed like FTTB, but is perhaps more useful to buildings that are already wired with Cat 3 telephony twisted pairs. Even Hyperoptic have problems getting their FTTB solution accepted when they have to string Cat 5/6 Ethernet wiring around a building – the usual nimbyism means that only a few problem owners can scupper gigabit speeds for the whole building. G.fast takes them out of the equation.

    • Avatar JNeuhoff

      “Sounds good to me, if an industry cannot be profitable on its own surely there’s something very wrong that needs fixing? You can’t just keep throwing money at it forever?”

      Then lets start with BT! And scrap the BDUK. BT is NOT a charity.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      I agree they are not, how would these not spots get superfast without funding though? That was the reason for BDUK???

    • Avatar JNeuhoff

      @FibreFred: To quote from your own words a few months ago:

      “BDUK is a mess which as I’ve said many times before I agree. The whole BDUK process was a shambles, you won’t get any argument from me there, the BDUK process was a massive waste of money when you end up having one company winning all of the bids.”


      Public investment with ROI, where the taxpayer’s money will be seen again longterm, is a common practice for large infrastructure projects, but giving a £Billion of taxpayer’s money to a private company who has no need for it is a waste.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      I stand by those words I’ve not changed my mind, BDUK “the process” is a shambles. The government have publicly stated they are getting £20 ROI for every pound invested?

    • Avatar FibreFred

      “but giving a £Billion of taxpayer’s money to a private company who has no need for it is a waste.”

      You don’t seem to get that bit though.

      BT won’t go into those areas without extra funding as they are not commercially viable.

      So there is a gap

      BDUK was formed to fill that gap with funding acknowledging those areas are not commercially viable and “help” is needed through £££££ investment so the setup costs are offset.

      So…. without BDUK these areas wouldn’t get this new service, simple. Ok maybe some of them would in 5 – 10 yrs possibly but certainly not in the timescales the government wanted and some would simply never get it

      I know you hate BT but… forget that for now , do you understand why BDUK came about?

    • Avatar JNeuhoff

      @FibreFred: The issue is still the same, regardless of whether it is BT or another private company. You don’t just give public money to a private company without seeing it again. E.g. BT won’t give you, or the state, free shares, or shared revenues from this. The state won’t be able in the future to sell its shares, because it was given away. This company (BT) will still continue to charge you the same price as in its commercial areas, the new infrastructure has basically been given to this private company, helped by taxpayer’s money. And this using a questionable technology which is not very suitable for areas outside big towns. And BT can now spend a Billion on another adventure such as BT Sports. Everything done the wrong way! The BDUK was the wrong way to go, not public investment as such!

    • Avatar George

      Its far more simple than that, the government have given millions to BT, one of the most complained about ISPs.

    • Avatar FibreFred

      BT Openreach which are tasked with deploying the network aren’t actually an ISP

    • Avatar No clue

      Add todays ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/03/mysterious-case-bts-borrowed-copper-broadband-lines.html to their wonderful list of traits.

  6. Avatar cyclope

    All this talk of 1GB speeds,BT don’t seem to have enough capacity in some areas of the uk now, with mainly only 80/20 speeds , it wouldn’t have any hope in supporting 1GB speeds as things are now,

    Speeds of 100 or 200mbps ( symetrical ) none of this 100/30 shirking nonsense from BT would be more than enough

    • Avatar George

      Yep their network has had more than a few congestion issues recently.

    • Avatar Raindrops

      The BT network is an utter congested mess in the evenings, they do not have people in charge with enough intellect to remedy things.

  7. Avatar colin

    Fibre always attracts great interest and comment on this website but it would appear that Fibre is not currently the primary topic at recent world broadband forums in Amsterdam.

    The big word is ‘Copper’….strange that!

    • Avatar FibreFred

      As I keep trying to tell the regular numptys. FTTC, G.Fast etc etc isn’t a BT thing its either being used widely across the word or being looked at by many many telco’s worldwide

      Falls on deaf ears Colin, the FTTH brigade trying to spend money they don’t have and cannot find

      FTTH – Best technical solution, no doubt! Best financial solution? Very doubtful

    • Avatar Raindrops

      Or it could be everyone in Amsterdam laughed at that as they have gone the FTTH route for the majority.

    • Avatar MikeW

      Yup. The old technology of copper is getting all the new technology to wring the most out of it. The reason behind trying to do that is simple… It costs a heap of money to replace the copper in the ground with fibre. Especially when most people are content to pay Talk-talk bargain-basement subscription rates.

      Here’s a breakdown of the relative costs of FTTx:

    • Avatar JNeuhoff

      “It costs a heap of money to replace the copper in the ground with fibre.”

      No, it doesn’t, at least not in our town where the ducts and poles are already there, and the technology for blowing fibre through the ducts already exists, too (BT even wrongly claims to be the inventor of this technology).

      It becomes messy because of trying keep multiple (e.g. copper, fibre, wireless) local loops infrastructures, this is where a lot is wasted. Not to talk about all the wasted taxpayer’s money.

    • Avatar Raindrops

      The wasted tax payers hard earned is keeping this idiot in a job, that is the saddest thing.

  8. Avatar MikeW

    The numbers are conspicuous by their absence this year, but at last year’s FTTH council reported that the Netherlands had 6-7% takeup of FTTH/FTTB.

    Perhaps there are just too many people out there who don’t care what the transmission medium is made of, and just care about the cost vs the service they need.

    • Avatar George

      Amsterdam and their fibre tech is mainly FTTH products, what the take up is of those products does not matter, it you want to talk take up vs customer totals BTs FTTC take up is less that 20%. So thats a fail also.

      The Netherlands thrash us

      If they are mainly FTTC based like the UK they are obviously doing something better with the tech than us.

    • Avatar COLIN

      George, Nobody is taking about the telcoms infrastructure in Holland.
      Amsterdam hosts the WORLD broadband forum.

    • Avatar Raindrops

      “George, Nobody is taking about the telcoms infrastructure in Holland.”

      Oh is this the same broadband forum which takes place on 21st -23rd October 2014.

      Amazing not only are you stupid but now you think you can predict the future on what is being discussed at events.

    • Avatar No clue

      Maybe he is discussing what was talked about in 2013 at that event. Then again that would be a bit silly, using that logic we may as well discuss what was talked about 20 years ago and argue that is going to be relevant this year.

    • Avatar MikeW

      Who cares whether the Dutch tech is better, or their speeds are better? I certainly wasn’t commenting on that (even though it is true to some extent). I was commenting specifically on Raindrops’ comment:

      Quote from Raindrops: “everyone in Amsterdam laughed at that as they have gone the FTTH route for the majority.”

      I dunno about your maths, but in the real world, a majority means more than 50%. I don’t count <10% as "the majority" having gone for FTTH.

      So some facts…
      The Netherlands has better speeds than us because they've been deploying VDSL longer than we have, and the VDSL network was (in 2012) both larger and growing faster than their FTTP network. The "homes passed" figures were 18% for FTTP and 70% for FTTC (no more recent figures, I'm afraid). They're also in the process of rolling out vectoring this year.

      They have better speeds because virtually every property has access to NGA through cable. 97% of the country has access to Docsis 3 cable – which is an amazing figure.

      They have better speeds because a small portion of their network is indeed FTTP. Just not the majority, nor even close to it.

      The Netherlands has a superior choice of superfast technology, and it undoubtedly makes for a great competitive market there. But the FTTP market isn't close to being a majority.

      Unfortunately, Raindrops, your desire to get a cheap jibe in on Colin's statement meant you opened mouth before engaging brain. It appears we're still waiting for the latter part to happen.

      The best thing about posting on this site is that it gives the resident trolls more opportunities to show their level of intellect. When they pile in with glee on a comment, you just know the average IQ level in the conversation dropped, and watching them thrash around the shallow end of the gene pool is kinda fun.

    • Avatar George

      Looks to me like they are rolling out FTTH…
      Is this the same thing as you not understanding the USA and France and the tech they have?

    • Avatar Raindrops

      LMAO oh now that was a funny story a month or so back.

  9. Avatar Ignitionnet

    The SNR on here really does go from bad to atrocious when stories like this are published.

    May well be time to consider mandatory registration for comments. Reading this lot has just been an excruciating experience. Someone who actually has a lot to add to debates would simply turn away from this one reading this pile of ill-informed, unrealistic excrement.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Hyperoptic £19.95 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPER20
  • SSE £22.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.50 (*35.98)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £50 Reward Card
  • xln telecom £22.74 (*47.94)
    Avg. Speed 66Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Onestream £22.99 (*34.99)
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2741)
  2. FTTP (2670)
  3. FTTC (1768)
  4. Building Digital UK (1723)
  5. Politics (1631)
  6. Openreach (1592)
  7. Business (1403)
  8. FTTH (1330)
  9. Statistics (1223)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1195)
  11. Fibre Optic (1048)
  12. 4G (1027)
  13. Wireless Internet (1009)
  14. Ofcom Regulation (1004)
  15. Virgin Media (992)
  16. EE (678)
  17. Sky Broadband (662)
  18. TalkTalk (653)
  19. Vodafone (651)
  20. 5G (487)
New Forum Topics
Oppo 5G CPE T1 for UK?
Author: daleski
Author: Neilv
Data speeds - o2
Author: Hagz1990
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact