Sponsored Links

For the multi-gigabit deniers

Both OR and VM currently focused on their revenue base.

The New Year greeting of 2024 is probably the wrong one as they will have all their new installs and overlays using XGSPON in 2025.
 
While I have a multi-gigabit domestic service myself, it should be noted that current peak usage averaged over a home user base is not much over 10Mbit per subscriber. I wouldn't expect that to grow past

Openreach, sadly for us enthusiasts, have determined accurately that the maximum return on investment comes from GPON at the moment as it meets the vast majority of domestic customer needs.

The only place they are likely to feel competitive pressure for higher speeds is from VM, I suspect that is the driver behind the 1200/120 and 1800/120 products. They've done enough to stay competitive until VM's XGSPON is widespread and the premium segment demands services greater than 2000 down. The first will take a while, the second will take longer.

If you take generous estimates of 15Mbit current average peak and 25% sustained year on year growth, average peak doesn't exceed 100Mbit until 2030. Openreach can still support that on 32-split GPON.
 
Sponsored Links
While I have a multi-gigabit domestic service myself, it should be noted that current peak usage averaged over a home user base is not much over 10Mbit per subscriber. I wouldn't expect that to grow past

Openreach, sadly for us enthusiasts, have determined accurately that the maximum return on investment comes from GPON at the moment as it meets the vast majority of domestic customer needs.

The only place they are likely to feel competitive pressure for higher speeds is from VM, I suspect that is the driver behind the 1200/120 and 1800/120 products. They've done enough to stay competitive until VM's XGSPON is widespread and the premium segment demands services greater than 2000 down. The first will take a while, the second will take longer.

If you take generous estimates of 15Mbit current average peak and 25% sustained year on year growth, average peak doesn't exceed 100Mbit until 2030. Openreach can still support that on 32-split GPON.
Networks are not built for average peaks but actual peaks. As mentioned previously on this forum Openreach is already deploying XGSPON in "combo" to GPON. Of course they do have a massive GPON installed base they will need to upgrade too but at least they should adding more legacy kit. My prediction is that Openreach will need to move to XGSPON sooner rather than later. The presure from Altnets and VM which on DOCSIS 3.1 can do 10/2 Gbit will mean they will start to drain users.
 
With VM trialling 2Gb download and 200Mb upload with their current XGS-PON customers, I suspect we'll see that become their top speed offered across their entire network (DOCSIS included) sometime in 2024.

Perhaps OpenReach will react to that and offer the same unless they want more ISP's such as Sky to use CityFibre which is already offering those speeds to their partners.

It wouldn't surprise me if 2Gb becomes the top speed offered by all the national providers by 2025, though availability highly dependent on FTTP access.
 
With VM trialling 2Gb download and 200Mb upload with their current XGS-PON customers, I suspect we'll see that become their top speed offered across their entire network (DOCSIS included) sometime in 2024.
I agree with VM launching their 2Gb package 2024

Perhaps OpenReach will react to that and offer the same unless they want more ISP's such as Sky to use CityFibre which is already offering those speeds to their partners.
Can't see Sky offering 2Gb(ish) next year

It wouldn't surprise me if 2Gb becomes the top speed offered by all the national providers by 2025, though availability highly dependent on FTTP access.
I agree can see more providers moving to offering 2Gb as their new premium package
 
Now can we please have multi-gigabit plans from Openreach and VM? We need some good competition with Altnets.
Nah what you on about, 40/10 is enough for me only who watches the odd Netflix show in HD and browses Facebook 🤣
 
Sponsored Links
While I wouldn't put myself in the "multi-gigabit denier" camp, I do keep an eye on my router's reported throughput graph.

It can saturate the 150Mb/s Community Fibre service on a speed test (and actually I've seen 200Mb/s plus split between WAN connections) but on any use other than speedtests I don't reach the limit of 150Mb/s.

In the last week my top WAN data throughput was 82.430Mb/s. Extrapolating to get the data used in a month, it is 330 GB in a month so my usage is extremely "peaky" and should that peak be limited a bit, it doesn't impact me much in practice.

Connection speed would not be a driver for an upgrade in 2024 for me from what I have at the moment.

The thing that actually I value most is the symetrical connection speed from Community Fibre and hence a decent uplink speed.

Saturating the VDSL uplink on occasions was the driver for getting the Community Fibre service.
 
Networks are not built for average peaks but actual peaks. As mentioned previously on this forum Openreach is already deploying XGSPON in "combo" to GPON. Of course they do have a massive GPON installed base they will need to upgrade too but at least they should adding more legacy kit. My prediction is that Openreach will need to move to XGSPON sooner rather than later. The presure from Altnets and VM which on DOCSIS 3.1 can do 10/2 Gbit will mean they will start to drain users.
Wouldn't count on anything more than 2.2Gbit from the DOCSIS network now, a lot of the network is far too old and would need substantial rebuilding to reach 10/2 Gbit shared.
 
I’m new to gigabit, but looking at how expensive it is for any equipment that can run at more than 1Gbit locally I don’t see any widespread demand for faster services coming soon.

Openreach can leave the top speeds to the altnets and focus on serving millions of normal folk.

Your average user sticks with their ISP router. Those that buy fancy network stuff seem to now be expected to pay £500 for a router that can do speeds above a gigabit.
 
Can't see Sky offering 2Gb(ish) next year
I don't think Sky will either. However, I think Sky will start using CityFibre if two things happen at the same time.

1. Virgin Media announces 2Gb across the UK (pending upgrades like always).
2. Open Reach doesn't offer Sky a 2Gb competitive product.

If both of those things happen I could see Sky utilising CityFibre (where available) to at-least advertise parity speeds to Virgin Media just because of the perception. I wouldn't see that occurring in 2024 though, this is a 2025 kind of thing.
 
Sponsored Links
Just to play devil's advocate, these are aggregate numbers. Today's internet is designed for 50-100 mbps download. Streaming 4K uses 15-25 mbps. Average usage is probably sub-10 mbps. This is why FTTP/gigabit takeup is slow, and it's a challenge to get most non-enthusiasts to switch from something like 80/20 VDSL2 to 1000/1000 FTTP because they don't feel speed-constrained. The average download speed in the UK is still around 80 mbps even though 80% of households have access to gigabit.

This is in stark contract to the 1990s and early 2000s when we always needed faster internet and speed increases were demand-driven, so as soon as alternatives to dial-up came out, people switched en masse. Today, having a 1 gigabit connection is still insane overkill. The only thing it's useful for is downloading and uploading giant files/datasets, which is a niche use case, and even for that 200 mbps is very adequate.

So as total traffic and peak usage increase, they may need to upgrade backhauls, but 1 gigabit per subscriber will not be any sort of a bottleneck any time soon. 100 mbps is hardly a bottleneck, let alone 1000.

That being said, of course I want everyone to have gigabit and multigigabit connections because - why not? If we have the technology and it continues to evolve in accordance with market forces, then we should. There is nothing wrong with overkill if it's affordable. So yes, I hope everyone has 10 gigabit internet in 10 years, that would be great, but it won't really be needed unless some new use case emerges that actually demands it.

To me the value of FTTP is not so much in speed, but rather the quality of the connection - but alas even that is lost on most regular people.
 
Last edited:
And for a lot of people, the quality of FTTC is fine. I have a reliable connection that connects at 80/20, never drops sync except for maintenance or power cuts, and latency to "the internet" is around 6ms. I'm not going to gain any material difference in *quality* whenever I am finally offered FTTP - I don't spend all day running speed tests and pinging 8.8.8.8 for bragging rights.

I'll still upgrade, probably to gigabit, the instant it is available, but it isn't the mindblowing "wow" factor that I remember having on the day I finally moved from dialup to 2Mbps ADSL years after everyone else (rural exchange, one of the last to get upgraded). I do have a use case for upload speeds above 20Mbit so that will be nice.

I agree with other posters - for a lot of users, multi-gigabit is just an alt-net differentiation point rather than a useful, necessary, needed service. Openreach will do whatever their customers (their ISPs) want - and if there's demand to meet or exceed the alt-nets then they'll work on it. Of course there is the new 1.8Gbps GPON based service though some will say the upload speed is still too low.
 
Well it was bound to happen, the multi-gigabit denier post...

Just to play devil's advocate, these are aggregate numbers. Today's internet is designed for 50-100 mbps download. Streaming 4K uses 15-25 mbps. Average usage is probably sub-10 mbps.
That's what you use, so you think that's what the internet is built for which couldn't be further from the truth. The internet is not built just for you. When a single Steam connection can saturate even a 1gb connection you quickly realise that the internet is built for peak usage not average usage. Why? Because it's simple math, once you handle the peaks you will be able to handle the off peaks...
This is why FTTP/gigabit takeup is slow, and it's a challenge to get most non-enthusiasts to switch from something like 70/20 VDSL2 to 1000/1000 FTTP because they don't feel speed-constrained.
Ha! I had 70/20 5 years ago to this date! I was on BT watching BT Sports 4K (~30mb), the wife on the other TV watching Netflix 4K HDR (~30mb) and as soon as my daughter started to play online games everything went downhill as there was no bandwidth left (*). So 5 years ago I had to leave VDSL2 and trade latency and reliability for bandwidth by going to VMs 350MB which was the fastest option I had at the time. It felt like a backwards step but it was the only thing I could do to cope with the usage from the house. And believe me, I spent 5 years regretting it having to deal with VM's Retentions Team to get a decent renewal price and their internet going up and down like a roller coaster. And that's 5 years ago.

FTTP take is slow because not everyone has the same needs. Take up is slow because 1 in 7 people are lazy and don't look for better deals. The fact is FTTC is currently more expensive than FTTP so this proves my point. Some people are happy to say they can survive with 70/20 and any more than that it's an excess. Some people use PAYG and count every MB/GB so they only pay for what they use. Others get an unlimited SIM and don't need to worry about data. I would say most people don't know what's their peak usage is, so how can they actually buy a speed that suits their needs properly? (ie good networks are built for peaks not averages)

The average download speed in the UK is still around 80 mbps whereas something like 80% of households have access to gigabit.

This is in stark contract to the 1990s and early 2000s when we always needed faster internet and speed increases were demand-driven, so as soon as alternatives to dial-up came out, people switched en masse.
Averages flatten peaks. And since good networks are build for peaks you should ignore these useless stats. Mark makes a lot of valid caveats when posting about speed tests. Most uses do this via wifi which in most cases is far from being able to properly saturate a broadband router. However given the right conditions you can see proper speeds. Have a look at the Fastest streets for broadband in the UK article for instance. You can see there that people are on 500mb and 1gb plans otherwise you wouldn't be able to see averages of 500-900mb. Then look at the Full Fibre Altnets by Avg. Download table. Looking at the top 4 Altnets: CityFibre, Hyperoptic, Community Fibre, Netomnia (YouFibre) all offer "slower" plans 150mb or below yet when you see that table the speeds are way faster. What that is telling you is that people want faster speeds but they want it cheap. Make the difference between 150/500/1000mb a few quid and you are going to have a lot more people on the upper tiers. Just like fixed rate mortgages and unlimited broadband and SIMs most people would always prefer peace of mind, if it is available at decent price.
Today, having a 1 gigiabit connection is still insane overkill. The only thing it's useful for is downloading and uploading giant files/datasets, which is a niche use case, and even for that 200 mbps is very adequate. So as total traffic and peak usage increase, they may need to upgrade backhauls, but 1 gigabit per subscriber will not be any sort of a bottleneck any time soon. 100 mbps is hardly a bottleneck, let alone 1000.
This couldn't be further from the truth. You can call me a niche if you want, however I would say you are stuck in the past. Like I said a single Steam download can saturate a 1gb connection and I doubt that's niche. No wonder the record peak usage events all get broken when new games/updates being released. And while I couldn't find updates stats on Steam UK users the latest I found says they have 120m active monthly users and 3% are in the UK. So that's 3.6m "niche users" right there for you. Of course you can say how many times you download games from Steam and I would say lots. Games get updated monthly now, sometimes even faster. Lots of different games means lots of different updates. Even all my Apple devices get monthly updates that go from half a gig to several gigs and that's for every Apple device in the house, which I wouldn't want to even count them. But of course even all that usage won't keep my Community Fibre 1gb symmetric connection busy all the time. But remember, good networks are built for peaks not averages! So yes a 1gb is perfectly suitable for my usage patterns (which I haven't even started to list, just gave a sneak peak) specially when you consider that it only costs me £27/month.
That being said, of course I want everyone to have gigabit and multigigabit connections because - why not?
And here I disagree again with you. Do I want everyone to have gigabit and multigigabit connections? Not really. I want them to have the option to get it, but I am going to force people to get things they don't know if they need or want them. Most people don't even know the difference between their wifi speed and their broadband speed, who am I to say they should get 1gb when they don't even use a wired wifi mesh system which is way more likely to improve their internet availability a lot more than a faster connection? These things are hard and if you don't invest time to research on it you will most likely end up with a wasteful setup. But I am not one that will say what people should or shouldn't buy. What I really want is everyone to have the option to get multigigabit internet and have a good competitive market so prices are low.
To me the value of FTTP is not so much in speed, but rather the quality of the connection - but alas even that is lost on most regular people.
Both things go together. Low latency is great but low latency without enough bandwidth is useless as my 5 year predicament above proves. And remember most people are ignorant so they don't really understand the difference between latency and bandwidth. Perhaps this also explains why they aren't jumping at FTTP when offered to them.

(*) Incidentally I then found that Microsoft Flight Simulator uses around ~20mb because it streams all the land textures in real time. And while try try to do a good job in replicating the real world these are of "low" quality. Imagine what's goign to happen when they beef up the scenery to be upscaled 4K quality using machine learning and make as realistic as possible?
 
PS: My latest use case for the all the bandwidth I have which is an "insane overkill" is to download YouTube videos. I do this for three reasons:
  1. For offline viewing on my work commute
  2. For offline/background listening on my cycling
  3. Recently YouTube ads got really annoying so I want no ads
YouTube Premium would solve the above but at £12.99 I believe it's overpriced. I rather support the content cretors directly as well, YouTube/Google makes enough money as it is.

My 1gb "insane overkill" connection allows me to download videos at 600mb which means a few seconds for most videos, so I pretty much watch whatever I want whenever I want. On a slow connection I would have to queue all my downloads and wait for them to download to watch...
 
Well it was bound to happen, the multi-gigabit denier post...


That's what you use, so you think that's what the internet is built for which couldn't be further from the truth. The internet is not built just for you. When a single Steam connection can saturate even a 1gb connection you quickly realise that the internet is built for peak usage not average usage. Why? Because it's simple math, once you handle the peaks you will be able to handle the off peaks...

Ha! I had 70/20 5 years ago to this date! I was on BT watching BT Sports 4K (~30mb), the wife on the other TV watching Netflix 4K HDR (~30mb) and as soon as my daughter started to play online games everything went downhill as there was no bandwidth left (*). So 5 years ago I had to leave VDSL2 and trade latency and reliability for bandwidth by going to VMs 350MB which was the fastest option I had at the time. It felt like a backwards step but it was the only thing I could do to cope with the usage from the house. And believe me, I spent 5 years regretting it having to deal with VM's Retentions Team to get a decent renewal price and their internet going up and down like a roller coaster. And that's 5 years ago.

FTTP take is slow because not everyone has the same needs. Take up is slow because 1 in 7 people are lazy and don't look for better deals. The fact is FTTC is currently more expensive than FTTP so this proves my point. Some people are happy to say they can survive with 70/20 and any more than that it's an excess. Some people use PAYG and count every MB/GB so they only pay for what they use. Others get an unlimited SIM and don't need to worry about data. I would say most people don't know what's their peak usage is, so how can they actually buy a speed that suits their needs properly? (ie good networks are built for peaks not averages)


Averages flatten peaks. And since good networks are build for peaks you should ignore these useless stats. Mark makes a lot of valid caveats when posting about speed tests. Most uses do this via wifi which in most cases is far from being able to properly saturate a broadband router. However given the right conditions you can see proper speeds. Have a look at the Fastest streets for broadband in the UK article for instance. You can see there that people are on 500mb and 1gb plans otherwise you wouldn't be able to see averages of 500-900mb. Then look at the Full Fibre Altnets by Avg. Download table. Looking at the top 4 Altnets: CityFibre, Hyperoptic, Community Fibre, Netomnia (YouFibre) all offer "slower" plans 150mb or below yet when you see that table the speeds are way faster. What that is telling you is that people want faster speeds but they want it cheap. Make the difference between 150/500/1000mb a few quid and you are going to have a lot more people on the upper tiers. Just like fixed rate mortgages and unlimited broadband and SIMs most people would always prefer peace of mind, if it is available at decent price.

This couldn't be further from the truth. You can call me a niche if you want, however I would say you are stuck in the past. Like I said a single Steam download can saturate a 1gb connection and I doubt that's niche. No wonder the record peak usage events all get broken when new games/updates being released. And while I couldn't find updates stats on Steam UK users the latest I found says they have 120m active monthly users and 3% are in the UK. So that's 3.6m "niche users" right there for you. Of course you can say how many times you download games from Steam and I would say lots. Games get updated monthly now, sometimes even faster. Lots of different games means lots of different updates. Even all my Apple devices get monthly updates that go from half a gig to several gigs and that's for every Apple device in the house, which I wouldn't want to even count them. But of course even all that usage won't keep my Community Fibre 1gb symmetric connection busy all the time. But remember, good networks are built for peaks not averages! So yes a 1gb is perfectly suitable for my usage patterns (which I haven't even started to list, just gave a sneak peak) specially when you consider that it only costs me £27/month.

And here I disagree again with you. Do I want everyone to have gigabit and multigigabit connections? Not really. I want them to have the option to get it, but I am going to force people to get things they don't know if they need or want them. Most people don't even know the difference between their wifi speed and their broadband speed, who am I to say they should get 1gb when they don't even use a wired wifi mesh system which is way more likely to improve their internet availability a lot more than a faster connection? These things are hard and if you don't invest time to research on it you will most likely end up with a wasteful setup. But I am not one that will say what people should or shouldn't buy. What I really want is everyone to have the option to get multigigabit internet and have a good competitive market so prices are low.

Both things go together. Low latency is great but low latency without enough bandwidth is useless as my 5 year predicament above proves. And remember most people are ignorant so they don't really understand the difference between latency and bandwidth. Perhaps this also explains why they aren't jumping at FTTP when offered to them.

(*) Incidentally I then found that Microsoft Flight Simulator uses around ~20mb because it streams all the land textures in real time. And while try try to do a good job in replicating the real world these are of "low" quality. Imagine what's goign to happen when they beef up the scenery to be upscaled 4K quality using machine learning and make as realistic as possible?

Steam actually provide some data on data rates.


VM have the highest UK rate but it’s clear their customers are mainly on slower services.
 
Sponsored Links
Ok @GreenLantern22 I can't respond to all of that but I will just say that I'm not a multi/gigabit denier, as I said I want everyone to have access to affordable 1 gig+ plans. I hope the cheapest plans in 5 years become 1 gig, why not. It's strictly better than slower speeds.

My point was that at this point, increases past 100 mbps simply aren't demand-driven for 80-90% of the population. I remember when they were and everyone was eager to jump on faster speeds. Today the technology is mature. Ookla reports rather small annual increases for most countries even though gigabit is becoming ubiquitous.

I don't even know what we're arguing about honestly. I want to see FTTP deployed everywhere with gigabit and multigigabit options, I'm all for investment in that direction.
 
And for a lot of people, the quality of FTTC is fine. I have a reliable connection that connects at 80/20, never drops sync except for maintenance or power cuts, and latency to "the internet" is around 6ms. I'm not going to gain any material difference in *quality* whenever I am finally offered FTTP - I don't spend all day running speed tests and pinging 8.8.8.8 for bragging rights.

I'll still upgrade, probably to gigabit, the instant it is available, but it isn't the mindblowing "wow" factor that I remember having on the day I finally moved from dialup to 2Mbps ADSL years after everyone else (rural exchange, one of the last to get upgraded). I do have a use case for upload speeds above 20Mbit so that will be nice.

I agree with other posters - for a lot of users, multi-gigabit is just an alt-net differentiation point rather than a useful, necessary, needed service. Openreach will do whatever their customers (their ISPs) want - and if there's demand to meet or exceed the alt-nets then they'll work on it. Of course there is the new 1.8Gbps GPON based service though some will say the upload speed is still too low.
Indeed, well I think HFC more so than VDSL2, but it's definitely much better than copper all the way to the exchange/headend. Other than latency there's also jitter, bufferbloat, packet loss, and overall stability. But yes, the vast majority probably won't notice the difference between FTTC and FTTP.

And yes the upgrade to gigabit will not feel anything like going from dial-up to 2 mbps in the early 2000s or even going from 10 to 100 in the mid 2010s. But if you frequently download games or other large things or want to use your cloud storage almost as local storage, then it's handy.

And it's just cool to have, after you download that first big thing in minutes you won't want to go back. I don't think I can go back at this point even though I rarely take advantage of it, but it's just become the new standard for me.
 
Last edited:
I think the younger people want faster connections than the older ones. Like I just got my girls a PS5 and some of the downloads for new games are over 60GB. It's a similar story on my PC if I'm downloading a big game from Steam, 90GB to 125GB is not unheard of.

My father-in-law who doesn't play games at all he's fine with 10Mb but not in our house haha with three kids it's untenable. By the way, we have 1.2Gb from VM right now and we get that speed on Steam at least, I see 135MB-140MB/s downloads (MegaByte not Megabit). When I only have limited time to play a game with my friends over the internet being able to get the same game as them in 10-15 minutes is important to me.

I read the other day that 78% of UK teenagers now play video games for more than 1.5 hours every day. And the sorts of games they're playing are in the multi-gigabyte download category, look at Call of Duty for example driving the highest peak usage of bandwidth every year in the UK etc

I think the speed test sites are a bit deceiving since they only see what people test. I think the majority of people who go to test are the ones who feel their internet is not working correctly or it feels slower than usual and they want independent verification. Just my thoughts.
 
I just don't think downloading video games is what the average internet connection is going to be used for the vast majority of the time. If you have 3 kids that are constantly downloading AAA titles, then yes of course, you can definitely use gigabit.

When I was a gamer, I would download maybe 1 game a month on average, and I wouldn't delete them for years. 95% of the time I played the same game over and over again. Unless I was downloading more often than 1 game per week, I wouldn't care if a 100GB download finished in 40 mins or 10 minutes.

Games have been ~100GB for a decade, people were downloading them on 20-50 mbps connections. I'm not saying we shouldn't want faster connections, all I'm saying is that I don't think more than 10% of people at most right now on sub-200 mbps feel their connection is slow and are making a purchasing decision based on speed, and I think figures show that. I would bet more than 50% of consumers right now would go for 200/200 over 1000/1000 if it was £5/month cheaper.

And that's all about gigabit vs. slower. The thread is about multi-gigabit. I don't even know if Steam can serve you faster than gigabit right now. How often are you downloading games that you're actually noticing having to wait on a 1 gig connection, aren't you going to fill up your storage quickly? 2 gigabit is HDD speed.

Like... I remember having to wait 20 seconds for a web page to load and everyone switching to DSL when it became available within 2 years, I guess I'm thinking about this a little differently than some people here. Also, I think Ookla on average measures max connection speed pretty well, although Wi-Fi is a bottleneck past 400 mbps. But again - I think if the average person actually needed much faster speeds you would see the average Ookla speedtest quickly climb to north of 300 mbps, given that over 80% of people in the UK have access to speeds like this. But no, we are at 80 mbps average for home connections.

Sorry I'm typing and posting too much.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6028)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2440)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1902)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

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