Home
 » ISP News » 
Sponsored

Sckipio Unveils Next Generation G.fast Ultrafast Broadband Chipsets Today

Monday, September 18th, 2017 (2:00 pm) - Score 2,150
gfast_sckipio

Israel-based Sckipio, which created some of the kit that Openreach (BT) piloted as part of their 330Mbps G.fast broadband roll-out, has promised “true 1Gbps speeds” by becoming one of the first to launch a chipset based off the ITU-T’s Amendment 3 (212MHz) profile. Plus there’s a 96-port DPU.

The G.fast standard that Openreach is currently rolling out to 1 million UK premises by the end of 2017 (here), before reaching 10 million by 2020, is an evolving one and there have been a number of key amendments to it this year. For example, the current generation of G.fast silicon is designed to work with up to 106MHz of spectrum frequency, while the latest amendment 3 from the ITU-T can handle 212MHz, as well as other changes like coordinated Dynamic Time Allocation (cDTA).

For example, Openreach’s recent Fibre-to-the-distribution-point (FTTdp) based test of pole mounted G.fast distribution points from NetComm Wireless made use of 212MHz to achieve Gigabit class speeds (here). Amendment 3 could also help G.fast to reach longer copper lines or faster speeds via its current street cabinet (PCP) based deployment model.

In that sense Sckipio is today boasting that their new SCK-23000 family of chipsets can support the aforementioned changes, which they claim could theoretically enable speeds of up to 2Gbps in both downstream and upstream directions.

Sckipio claims that it can also support cross-DPU vectoring, without the need for external vectoring. This allows for smaller DPUs to connect and increases the vectoring port density. For example, it allows 8-port DPUs to be connected together to address different port configurations to 32 ports, without requiring additional SKUs to manage and test.

David Baum, CEO of Sckipio, said:

“This chipset is breathtaking. It delivers four times the vectoring capability, twice the bonding speeds, and supports coordinated DTA for symmetric-like performance in both downstream and upstream. This enables a gradual path to capacity that optimizes the CapEx for telcos.

Many telcos are under market pressure to support 1Gpbs bandwidth services to residential subscribers. Sckipio’s newest chipset supports this goal cost-effectively while providing seamless pay-as-you-grow options.”

In reality you’re unlikely to see anything like that sort of real-world speed from a G.fast deployment in the United Kingdom (in the commercial mass market sense), unless the distribution point (DP) is stuck right outside your door, but it makes for good PR spin. Of course we’d be happy to be proven wrong on that, although the real-world environment is often rather different to that of theoretical capability.

Sckipio also claims to have launched the “world’s first” 48-port Gfast distribution point unit (DPU) running on the 212a profile, which can be connected together to support 96 ports via “Sckipio’s cross-DPU vectoring technology“. The DP2-48-V6-2201 uses the same SCK-23000 chipset as covered above and claims it can “offer true 1Gbps downstream service to 96 concurrent subscribers over the same copper binder.”

Openreach has been testing a similar 96 port solution in its labs, although at launch they will only offer a total of 48 ports because vectoring 96 ports can create all sorts of challenges with things like power and heat. Meanwhile Sckipio’s latest silicon will become available to manufacturers during Q4 2017 and thus we can expect to see it inside the first kit during 2018.

cross dpu vectoring

Add to Diigo
Tags: , ,
Mark Jackson
By Mark Jackson
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on Twitter, , Facebook and Linkedin.
Leave a Comment
42 Responses
  1. Avatar MikeW

    Impressive performance to get the vectoring capabilities for both Amd 3 and 96 ports.

  2. Avatar Marty

    I imagine the heat coming from this thing won’t require external power in theory. The thing could almost power itself without the cooling

  3. Avatar Ixel

    All good to hear but I imagine it will only benefit those near the cabinet, those more than around something like 400 meters distance will most likely be out of luck and forced to stay on either ECI inferior FTTC technology or if lucky Huawei FTTC technology, or perhaps worst for some being no FTTC at all.

  4. Avatar Ultraspeedy

    Just a shame BTs roll out is not pole mounted, a shame the higher the MHz you go the more interference is likely and a shame even if they adopted this, its only capable of delivering the top speeds within a relatively small distance which equates to only around 1/3 to 1/2 the premises at best. On to the next day dream story…

    • Avatar New_Londoner

      So perhaps “only” as many will benefit as can currently access cable? Not sure you’ve thought this through!

    • Avatar GNewton

      @New_Londoner: A waste of time. Users on short FTTC lines already have full, or near full, VDSL speeds, and in many case also have the choice of Virgin Media, why would they pay more for something when there is hardly a marked demand for it? I wonder why there is no outcry from BT shareholders lime Steve Jones, the money could have been invested in more lucrative business, or it could have helped to reduce the ever growing BT pension burden.

    • Avatar CarlT

      Been informed by someone quite senior in BT that they have something amazing for those a distance from the cabinets that doesn’t involve nodes closer to homes or deeper fibre.

    • Avatar Steve Jones

      @GNewton

      I suspect some rather cleverer people than you and I work on these systems. I recall a time when people claimed that you would never be able to get more than 64kbps down a phone line (albeit, a rather long one).

      When it comes to more speed, then it’s simply not possible to stand still, especially as there is competition, and nor is it viable to come up with some grand plan that takes many years to produce significant revenue and costs unaffordable amounts of money which nobody will finance. All to do with the art of the possible and finding innovative and cost-effective ways of doing things.

    • Avatar Alan

      “So perhaps “only” as many will benefit as can currently access cable? Not sure you’ve thought this through!”

      1. More than 33%-50% can get cable in this country, by 2019 it will reach 60-65%
      https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/02/cable-operator-virgin-media-grows-4-92-million-uk-broadband-users.html
      So significantly more coverage and better speeds to more people than G.fast.

      2. Those 60% can order 300Mb and actually get it, unlike G.Fast where only a few will be able to get the 330Mb top speeds the rest will have to have 160Mb variant and the really unlucky ones will get 100Mb or slower, so not much better than FTTC top end speeds.

      3. No doubt the truth of the situation is not thought through either eh?

    • Avatar Alan

      “Been informed by someone quite senior in BT that they have something amazing for those a distance from the cabinets that doesn’t involve nodes closer to homes or deeper fibre.”

      I hope that is not wireless or worse a satellite solution that they currently do not even provide 🙁

    • Avatar Bill

      “that doesn’t involve nodes closer to homes or deeper fibre”

      Is that supposed to be a good thing?

      The previous propaganda regarding FTTC rollout was that it would push fibre further into the network i.e. A Good Thing.

      Someone’s changed their mind all of a sudden? Or was the initial propaganda a load of cobblers and BT have no intention of expanding fibre based on the FTTC footprint?

    • Avatar AndyH

      “Those 60% can order 300Mb and actually get it, unlike G.Fast where only a few will be able to get the 330Mb top speeds the rest will have to have 160Mb variant and the really unlucky ones will get 100Mb or slower, so not much better than FTTC top end speeds.”

      Around 30% of people on cabinets are forecast to get the top speeds with G.fast, so it’s more than just a ‘few’.

      “Users on short FTTC lines already have full, or near full, VDSL speeds, and in many case also have the choice of Virgin Media, why would they pay more for something when there is hardly a marked demand for it?”

      Based on fact or opinion regarding the market demand? Why do VM offer faster speeds if there is no demand for it?

      You seem to lose sight of the fact that this is a premium product, not a replacement for every cabinet user who already gets FTTC. There will be demand because you can read on here and TBB that some people are happy to pay for faster speeds. It’s a small number, but that’s entirely what G.fast is targeted towards.

    • Avatar Alan

      “Around 30% of people on cabinets are forecast to get the top speeds with G.fast, so it’s more than just a ‘few’.”

      Hurrah its simple maths time for the BT cult members…

      So the roll out of G.fast will reach between 33%-50% TOTAL of premises (or that is roughly around 10,000,000 premises total for the roll out in the UK).

      The amount that will be able to get G.Fast at its max of 330Mb from that 10 Million is only 33% of that figure. I make that only approx 3.3 Million premises (3.3 Million is 33% of 10 Million), getting full 330Mb speed.

      If we say there are 25 million premises in total in the UK that means of the whole country only just over 13% of the countries properties will get G.Fast at its current maximum of 330Mb.

      Im glad you are happy with that, i personally find it laughable.

    • Avatar MikeW

      “simple maths time”

      … complete with a lesson taught by someone patently not skilled in the art.

    • Avatar 125us

      @GNewton

      I’d imagine that in the areas where Virgin already offer higher speeds, BT would quite like to have some of those customers for itself. Easy to serve urban customers buying top-end packages provide the subsidy that funds the rollout in rural areas, I’d imagine.

    • Avatar craski

      @CartT
      “something amazing for those a distance from the cabinets that doesn’t involve nodes closer to homes or deeper fibre”

      Care to elaborate?

    • Avatar Ultraspeedy

      Alans figures and my 1/3 to 1/2 figures seem to be correct, perhaps you would care to explain which figures mentioned are not correct. Please ensure your calculator has batteries first to avoid your typical long winded debates.

    • Avatar asrab

      They are going to provide some sort of service like this – https://www.6ginternet.com/6g-at-home for people outside the g.fast range

      Fixed wireless access ????

    • Avatar GNewton

      @CarlT: “Been informed by someone quite senior in BT that they have something amazing for those a distance from the cabinets that doesn’t involve nodes closer to homes or deeper fibre.”

      Would you mind sharing with us what kind of technology this would be? I assume you are talking about some kind of wireless solution which wouldn’t be much faster than existing VDSL.

  5. Avatar Bill

    The more we find out about it the more it looks like a complex nightmare.

    Someone in BT has really got their decision-making circuits cross-wired. Wait till the fault reports start coming in from the fortunate customers.

    • Avatar Alan

      Its like the original “aims” for the FTTH roll out (IE 10% of the numbers quoted) or profile 30 talk for FTTC of years gone by, just more BT hot air that its disciples lap up.
      Its nothing new just another BT puff piece to try to get the share price back after mario and chums in Italy destroyed it.

    • Avatar Steve Jones

      @Alan

      Has it escaped your attention this is not a BT announcement but one by an Israeli company?

    • Avatar Alan

      I thought it was tagged as an Openreach item and the word Openreach was mentioned numerous times in the story, perhaps that escaped your attention.

    • Avatar Steve Jones

      @Alan

      Openreach was mentioned in the article, but you described it as a “another BT puff piece”. There are valid editorial reasons for ISP Review to refer to what relevance this might have to the Openreach strategy and network but precisely zero for you to call it “another BT puff piece”.

      So by all means consider any relevance to OR strategy, but unless you’ve some evidence that this came from OR marketing your statement is without merit.

      So I repeat again, did it escape you attention that this is an announcement by and Israeli company and not a “BT puff piece”?

    • Avatar Alan

      “So I repeat again, did it escape you attention that this is an announcement by and Israeli company and not a “BT puff piece”?”

      Did the missing letter “r” escape your attention?

  6. Avatar Simon Peters

    Alan/GNewton/Ultraspeedy

    Can you please give the BT trolling/bashing a break? I am tired of reading your non-stop BT trashing comments.

    This article is about hardware developments for Gfast and you’ve turned it into another anti-BT tirade.

    • Avatar Alan

      Since when was figures and stats bashing?

    • Avatar MikeW

      “Its nothing new just another BT puff piece”

    • Avatar MikeW

      “Hurrah its simple maths time for the BT cult members”

    • Avatar Ultraspeedy

      Puff piece means…
      An article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary. How is pointing out a story may have more than one point of view bashing?

      BT cult members…
      Unless BT truly do have a cult and it is in some way a bad thing to be a member of that cult, how is that bashing?

      Could mean it in a good way. The same as Apple users are used to being called a cult, and in many cases quite happy to be named a cult as Apple is a product they love and desire.

      The word cult in a non-religious sense i think you will find basically just means something that has a popular following.
      Feel free to purchase a dictionary to check.

      Your next complaint is what??

    • Avatar Steve Jones

      @Ultraspeedy

      But is isn’t a “BT puff piece”. It’s an announcement by an Israeli company. By all means comment on any implications for OR strategy, but the claim it’s a “BT puff piece” is a clear misrepresentation unless you have some evidence that it’s been released by that company.

    • Avatar Ultraspeedy

      Ill quote from the news item for you…

      “In reality you’re unlikely to see anything like that sort of real-world speed from a G.fast deployment in the United Kingdom (in the commercial mass market sense), unless the distribution point (DP) is stuck right outside your door, but it makes for good PR spin.”

      Who is deploying G.fast in the UK? I think you will find that is Openreach. The author much as i agree be it (Sckipio) or (BT) the statements of GB and even 2GB speeds are nothing more than PR spin, or as Alan called it a BT puff piece.

      In fact id go further and say any claim from any company or even linking the claims of one company to another which are not real life experience are “puff” pieces.

      Does that sound better and make you happier to call it a puff piece without the BT bit added, even if we are talking about a product the United Kingdom is soon to get and said product in this country will be delivered by Openreach…. Happier?

  7. Avatar Steve Jones

    @Ultraspeedy

    So among all that waffle you are admitting the claim it’s “another BT puff piece” is just made up supported by precisely no evidence.

    Is you want to claim it’s a “puff piece” by Sckopio, then that’s up to you. In the meantime pay a bit of attention to whose news release it is.

    • Avatar Ultraspeedy

      “Is you want to claim…”

      I agree with the author its PR spin.

      I do not know why you find the term “puff piece” be it with or without BT or any company name added to it, to be derogatory, offensive or even negative in any manner.

      The meaning of the phrase is not negative it means as already explained an opposing view which is obviously what Alan has with regards to anything G.Fast which includes BT and its roll out.

      It is not negative in any fashion no matter what company name you place in front of it.

      People are entitled to an Opposing view and perfectly entitled to comment on news item content, the news content mentions G.Fast and 2 companies. Alan obviously does not have the same viewpoint on G.Fast as what Sckipio, BT or you have, he is entitled to his opinion and he obviously believes anything G.Fast, BT or sckipio is a puff piece.

      Why you think commenting only on who releases a news item and not the entire content of the news item i do not understand. Should we only be commenting on the individual or organisation that released a news item and not its entire content of the news?

      If we are only supposed to comment on who is releasing news items, then why did you mention and/or give your opinions on BT, the BBC, Ofcom on this story….
      https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/09/large-virgin-media-cabinet-frustrates-light-seeking-scottish-pensioners.html
      It was not released by any of those organisations or even had any content in the story referring to those organisations, but you linked them all in some manner to the comments you decided to make on that story. Much like Alan has linked BT to this item and decided to comment about them.

      PS, before you reply……………
      If you continue to have concerns over others phrases, i do not know what you expect me to do about it or why you keep responding to me, when all i have done is explain the meaning of words to you. I trust that is enough.

    • Avatar Alan

      [Admin Edit: Comment removed. Please do not make personal snipes against other posters and remember that posts made via fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked as per the rules. Far too much trolling going on]

    • Avatar AndyH

      It’s fairly obvious who Alan is and he has been doing this for some time under various aliases, it’s just childish that he feels the need to substantiate his arguments by creating multiple personalities.

    • Avatar Ultraspeedy

      Dunno if any of that is supposed to be aimed at me but as i explained all i done is point out the meaning of the phrases he used.

  8. Avatar Salek

    Hey guys this reading is interesting – quite the opposite of what sckipio is expecting for commercial viability,

    (The Clock Ticks for Gfast in Europe)

    http://www.lightreading.com/gigabit/dsl-vectoring-gfast/the-clock-ticks-for-gfast-in-europe/d/d-id/736536?

    • Avatar Steve Jones

      It’s a bit more balanced than you imply as it references cost differences (albeit that I think that $600 to $80 comparison per property for fibre vs g.fast is, perhaps, not the full cost in either case, but that of the final hook-up for a nearby network as the wording implies).

      I also references the Google Fiber and the Australian NBN having overreached themselves.

      There is also another issue, and that is speed to market. Whilst OR stated a target of g.fast being available to 10m homes by 2020, it won’t even be in their wildest dreams they expect that number of customers. Indeed I don’t think there would be anything like the capacity in the pods-on-cabinet roll-out to provide service to that many properties,at least by 2020.

      As it is, then it looks like things will progress for the next 2-3 years as expected. The g.fast on a cabinet process will continue as it’s cheap, fast to deploy and speed of deployment matters – it gets some revenue rolling and, on headline figures at least, it will give some ammunition against VM.

      We will also see more pure fibre concentrated on new builds and BDUK (and follow-on) projects in more rural areas. There might be some places suitable for FTTP retrofit by the nature of the passive infrastructure, but much of it will not be suited.

      Quite what will eventually fill the gaps too far from the cabinet, who knows. It’s likely to involve deeper fibre penetration, but CarlIT seems to have some hint that there’s some sort of copper BB alchemy being researched. I’m not wholly convinced though.

      As it is, cabinet-based g.fast is clearly not the end of the story, but merely one of those steps. There is a hankering by some after a “clean”, pure fibre infrastructure, but the way the government and Ofcom are thinking, along with the market dynamics their regulatory approach has taken points to a much more fragmented system. It might be in their search for as much infrastructure level competition as possible the retail side might suffer.

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 £20.00 (*22.00)
    Avg. Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Direct Save Telecom £22.95 (*29.95)
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.99 (*34.98)
    Avg. Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £60 Cashback
  • Origin Broadband £23.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £23.00
    Avg. Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Prices inc. Line Rental | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. BT (2488)
  2. FTTP (2144)
  3. FTTC (1645)
  4. Building Digital UK (1590)
  5. Openreach (1402)
  6. Politics (1399)
  7. Business (1223)
  8. Statistics (1088)
  9. FTTH (1046)
  10. Mobile Broadband (1022)
  11. Fibre Optic (963)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (908)
  13. Wireless Internet (894)
  14. 4G (884)
  15. Virgin Media (850)
  16. Sky Broadband (592)
  17. EE (582)
  18. TalkTalk (572)
  19. Vodafone (506)
  20. Security (408)
New Forum Topics
Promotion
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Sponsored

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