bit-tech.net

Lords ask for input on broadband plans

Lords ask for input on broadband plans

The Lords Select Committee on Communications wants to hear from you on the government's broadband investment plans.

The Lords Select Committee on Communications has launched a call for evidence as part of the government's plans to boost Britain's broadband to lead Europe by 2015.

Entitled 'Will superfast broadband meet the needs of our “bandwidth hungry” nation?,' the call for evidence asks organisations and individuals for their input to help drive policy debate for the government's approach to providing citizens with access to high-speed broadband connectivity. By 2015, the government has previously pledged, Britain's broadband network should lead Europe.

The document asks a range of questions of respondents, including what changes are expected to take place in the use of digital communications over the next 20 years and how such predicted changes should affect current and future strategic investment. Other questions include whether the government's investment - currently totalling £530 million - is being effectively applied in order to maximise social and economic benefit, whether broadband speed is the most effective metric for measuring success, and issues surrounding rural broadband and the current struggles with convincing telecommunications companies to invest in areas with very few prospective customers.

'Superfast broadband is clearly an important development across Britain, not just for economic growth but also because it will impact on how people do things such as view media content, shop and even access healthcare,' proclaimed Lord Inglewood, chair of the Communications Committee, in an announcemnent regarding the investigation. 'We want to look into the Government’s proposals to find out if its targets are likely to be met and whether it is being ambitious enough in its plans. Issues such as investment, Britain's market in fibre optic products and whether the advances in broadband provision will require regulatory changes are all things that need to be looked at to ensure the strategy works.'

The Committee has praised industry incumbents BT and Virgin Media for their work on high-speed fibre-optic broadband products, while predicting that speeds of 1Gb/s may be needed by 2020. 'Current investment,' the Committee warns, 'looks unlikely to be sufficient to deliver this.'

Feedback from the inquiry, which is open to the public as well as to commercial interests, will be used to shape government policy on broadband investment and provision. Under the government's current plan, high-speed broadband will be available to at least 90 per cent of UK premises by 2015 while speeds of at least 2Mb/s will be available to all.

The call for evidence can be downloaded from the Lords Select Committee on Communications in PDF format, if you feel like having your say on the matter.

49 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
TheStockBroker 20th February 2012, 10:44 Quote
I wish they would stop talking and start doing...something!

If they can't get us good internet access to the home now, can we not "go Japanese" (by which I mean do something crazy) and get some bulk internet transfer sites opened up across the capital?

I am desperate/gagging for moar internets!
TheKrumpet 20th February 2012, 10:50 Quote
Glad that the government actually asked people who know about the internet to advise them on the matter instead of doing things which quite clearly show how out-of-touch they are. Personally I'd like to see this advice come from independent parties (I.E. not ISPs), but considering what they're asking for, chances are only bigger ISPs like BT will have access to the metrics they need to make an informed decision.
Picarro 20th February 2012, 10:59 Quote
Gigabit (expandable to 10Gb) connections to every home in the country through fiber.

/thread.
greigaitken 20th February 2012, 11:14 Quote
once you take roadworks and labour expense into account - the equipment expense is pityful. surely more cost effective to just stick the fastest thing you have in place to avoid same situation in another 5 or so years
Stotherd-001 20th February 2012, 11:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greigaitken
once you take roadworks and labour expense into account - the equipment expense is pityful. surely more cost effective to just stick the fastest thing you have in place to avoid same situation in another 5 or so years

Yeah, the government doesn't really care about any time lines greater than 5 years. That's generally a "We'll worry about it if we get re-elected" problem.
damien c 20th February 2012, 12:28 Quote
It doesn't matter what the connection speed's are like to be honest considering the main thing that is stopping my ISP from upping the speed's to a high level is the, peering to Europe and the Trans Atlantic Link.

It will cost around £70 Million to put a new Trans Atlantic Link in place, then you have the Peering companies such as Level 3 who charge the ISP's for there services unless the Goverment build's one that every ISP can use with a high speed connection.

It's all well and good saying give us a 300Mb+ connection or 1Gb+ connection but, if the bandwidth is not there from the Peering companies and the companie(s) that own the Trans Atlantic Link, then it would basically be useless because you will only get about 150Mb from any site outside of the UK.

Most sites will only give a Max of 100Mb download speed's.

What the Goverment need's to do is spend money on the likes of BT's exchanges and get the old copper cables replaced with new cables or get them to provide Fibre to each house.
Paradigm Shifter 20th February 2012, 12:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Picarro
Gigabit (expandable to 10Gb) connections to every home in the country through fiber.

/thread.
That might be enough. As soon as 4K televisions become 'the norm' (which I doubt will take all that long, once they're available) bandwidth requirements for native resolution 60fps content will skyrocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
It's all well and good saying give us a 300Mb+ connection or 1Gb+ connection but, if the bandwidth is not there from the Peering companies and the companie(s) that own the Trans Atlantic Link, then it would basically be useless because you will only get about 150Mb from any site outside of the UK.

Most sites will only give a Max of 100Mb download speed's.

What the Goverment need's to do is spend money on the likes of BT's exchanges and get the old copper cables replaced with new cables or get them to provide Fibre to each house.
So that's a reason not to do it?

I would take that as all the more reason to do it, so that when Peering companies and the Trans Atlantic Link do catch up, all the better. Besides, there are faster connections to continental Europe, Russia, China, Japan etc... lots of content comes from there, too.

I agree that the old copper cables need to be replaced with fibre-optics though.
damien c 20th February 2012, 13:08 Quote
Not saying that there is no point in doing it, but all I am saying is that it's not just the home connection speed that need's to be improved.

I managed to test something the other day but I won't say how I did it, but I downloaded a file and it maxed the download speed at 16.2Mb and that is because the provider of that file doesn't offer a faster speed, and that is while someone in the house was gaming and someone else was streaming which had no effect on the speed of the download.

I'm lucky though because I have 100Mb for myself and no one else uses it, but for those who are on a slow speed that is where the money need's to be spent to bring them up to atleast 30Mb.
Redd13 20th February 2012, 13:14 Quote
it annoys me that everyone fixates on the maximum speeds.
its an easy way to ignore the minimum speeds i live in a 5 year old house in the centre of a large town and still get a max of only 3.5mb...
there's no fibre coverage and its apparently BT's crappy old exchanges that are holding it down... I dont feel BT should be congratualted at all for providing a commonly accepted rubbish service that only still exists because they own all the phone lines.
And lets face it, when parts of the country are still lacking basic cellular coverage... there isnt much hope of the Real average person seeing these speeds.
SexyHyde 20th February 2012, 13:38 Quote
What happened with the trials where they laid fibre in sewer tunnels to achieve fftp. Surely this saves vastly on labour and roadwork costs. I'd personally look into giving all the money to virgin media to be mainly used to extend their network.
erratum1 20th February 2012, 13:46 Quote
Sick of hearing how the few that can get high speed are having their speeds increased.

And those irritating adverts saying sign up for our 50 meg connection or whatever, they should be illegal because it's misleading.

They should increase the base speed everywhere and not just keep increasing certain areas.

Hate waiting for stuff to download it gets right on my tits! :(
damien c 20th February 2012, 13:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
What happened with the trials where they laid fibre in sewer tunnels to achieve fftp. Surely this saves vastly on labour and roadwork costs. I'd personally look into giving all the money to virgin media to be mainly used to extend their network.

It was mainly H20 that was doing that and iirc they went bust, but yeah for those on ADSL in areas where the minimum speed is quite slow then it would be a good thing for them.
damien c 20th February 2012, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
Sick of hearing how the few that can get high speed are having their speeds increased.

And those irritating adverts saying sign up for our 50 meg connection or whatever, they should be illegal because it's misleading.

They should increase the base speed everywhere and not just keep increasing certain areas.

Hate waiting for stuff to download it gets right on my tits! :(

Why should it be illegal, for VM to quote those speed's when nearly all there customer's get those speed's, the likes of BT shouldn't be able to quote up to 20Mb considering most of there customers don't get above 3Mb.

There is nothing misleading about VM's adverts since they say only available in cabled areas.

Download speed is nothing unless the server can actually provide the download speed you have.
B1GBUD 20th February 2012, 14:04 Quote
Never mind what the Lords tell you.... I want to hear it from Lady Garden!
Golygus 20th February 2012, 14:23 Quote
The minimum needs to be greater than 2Mbps by 2015. It needs to be at least 4Mbps preferably 10Mbps by 2015.

2Mbps is OK for a single user with occasional use, but imagine a family of 5 with all connected devices.

FTTC needs quicker and more widespread implementation.

As for previous comments about advertised speeds, nothing needs changing, though perhaps the marketing could include something alone the lines of "ADSL/2/2+ speed based on line length/condition". Either that or perhaps people need to read about what they are buying, which won't ever happen.
TheStockBroker 20th February 2012, 14:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
Never mind what the Lords tell you.... I want to hear it from Lady Garden!

Aaaaaand, here's your coat.
SexyHyde 20th February 2012, 14:45 Quote
Marketing should be made to put average user speed next to max.
fdbh96 20th February 2012, 16:29 Quote
Tbh after getting upgraded to fibre, I cant actually tell any difference apart from when I'm downloading files. But this soon stops as the bandwidth gets throttled to something ridiculous. There's no point having everyone on fibre if the providers won't let the users use the speed for what will actually make a difference.
damien c 20th February 2012, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Marketing should be made to put average user speed next to max.

Would be good, but that would bad for the likes of Sky and Talk Talk and the other non cable or Fibre providers.
B1GBUD 20th February 2012, 16:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStockBroker
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
Never mind what the Lords tell you.... I want to hear it from Lady Garden!

Aaaaaand, here's your coat.

Well she does exist.... http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/susan-garden/35605
sotu1 20th February 2012, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
Sick of hearing how the few that can get high speed are having their speeds increased.

And those irritating adverts saying sign up for our 50 meg connection or whatever, they should be illegal because it's misleading.

They should increase the base speed everywhere and not just keep increasing certain areas.

Hate waiting for stuff to download it gets right on my tits! :(

Why should it be illegal, for VM to quote those speed's when nearly all there customer's get those speed's, the likes of BT shouldn't be able to quote up to 20Mb considering most of there customers don't get above 3Mb.

There is nothing misleading about VM's adverts since they say only available in cabled areas.

Download speed is nothing unless the server can actually provide the download speed you have.

Agreed. It's like a 10mb connection costs £20 p/month and gets 3MB download, and a 20MB costs £30 p/month and gets you bugger all on top. ITS THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE, DON'T BE FRIGGIN CHEEKY.
TheStockBroker 20th February 2012, 16:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Marketing should be made to put average user speed next to max.

This won't happen as it will be extremely bad for non-cable business.

Virgin Media: Up to 30Mb, unlimited usage, average speed 30.62Mbps - £27.50 p/m

BTs nearest service: Up to 20Mb, unlimited usage, average speed 12Mbps - £35 p/m inc necessary line rental

Guess who the discerning customer would choose...



/OT Having had to look up accurate plans and pricing, I see Infinity is available to me... is it time I subscribed to my fourth concurrent broadband connection? :D
David164v8 20th February 2012, 16:57 Quote
What BT needs to do is stop selling homehubs with their broadband, and they also need to stop marketing them like they're the best thing since sliced bread. I have a HH2 and it's woeful. I'd be better off using bread as a router...
Paradigm Shifter 20th February 2012, 17:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Marketing should be made to put average user speed next to max.

Average and minimum, please.

And more detail about 'fair usage', at what point and by how much the connection is throttled if you exceed that fair usage limit... stuff like that.
ccxo 20th February 2012, 17:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
What the Goverment need's to do is spend money on the likes of BT's exchanges and get the old copper cables replaced with new cables or get them to provide Fibre to each house.

Well considering the cost for a full FTTP network in this country is about £29 Billion the goverment has shown no sign of investing this sort of funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
What happened with the trials where they laid fibre in sewer tunnels to achieve fftp. Surely this saves vastly on labour and roadwork costs. I'd personally look into giving all the money to virgin media to be mainly used to extend their network.

Labour and roadworks will always cost the most in any prodject, using sewers is alot more hassle then its worth mainly due to companies having to agree on access and work permits etc.
VM have roughly 50% coverage in the UK, they do not want to increase this as it would give them SMP and be forced to offer wholesale access to their network, watch the amount of problems then appear it wont happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golygus
The minimum needs to be greater than 2Mbps by 2015. It needs to be at least 4Mbps preferably 10Mbps by 2015.

2Mbps is OK for a single user with occasional use, but imagine a family of 5 with all connected devices.

FTTC needs quicker and more widespread implementation.

FTTC is going as fast as it can, considering BT where only given the green light back in 2009 to start a Fibre deployment, FTTC is the fastest option we have to play catch up, so anyone wanting a FTTP network would have to wait a few decades before it would be complete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
Tbh after getting upgraded to fibre, I cant actually tell any difference apart from when I'm downloading files. But this soon stops as the bandwidth gets throttled to something ridiculous. There's no point having everyone on fibre if the providers won't let the users use the speed for what will actually make a difference.

Depends what Fibre service you are with and what package you are on. Low prices in this country are great for the consumer but its hurt the consumer in the long run as tighter caps on bandwith and lower investment into faster services.

The simple problem with the 'best broadband in Europe by 2015' is what the targets the goverment have set, which will be very ambiguous and easy to achieve.
TheStockBroker 20th February 2012, 17:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter
Average and minimum, please.

And more detail about 'fair usage', at what point and by how much the connection is throttled if you exceed that fair usage limit... stuff like that.

You mean, exactly like VM does?

Down to the times, what's throttled, when, and by how much...
SexyHyde 20th February 2012, 19:14 Quote
i don't get why everyone moans about the fair usage throttles/policy. just think what would happen if they weren't there, a small portion of 'gimps' download more stuff then they could ever possibly play/use and everyone has an internet experience like they were back on dial up. I watch loads of movies/tv shows, download large files when i need to and game, never had a problem with throttling.
SexyHyde 20th February 2012, 19:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStockBroker
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Marketing should be made to put average user speed next to max.

This won't happen as it will be extremely bad for non-cable business.

Virgin Media: Up to 30Mb, unlimited usage, average speed 30.62Mbps - £27.50 p/m

BTs nearest service: Up to 20Mb, unlimited usage, average speed 12Mbps - £35 p/m inc necessary line rental

Guess who the discerning customer would choose...

i live in a cable area and went for talktalk £15-£20 a month inc line rental for upto 24Mb / get around 8Mb moved up to talktalk pro for £30 due to needed over 40Gb a month. BT charged me over £40 for 2Mb and 10Gb limit a month. BT dont deserve any custom. oh and BT also overcharged me £150 while i was with them - and it took me 5 months to get it back.
DeckerdBR 20th February 2012, 21:01 Quote
I have a 30 meg virgin connection, which for the most part is connected at 28/30Mbps according to speedtest.net. It's pretty reliable and was just as reliable as when I had 20 meg previously with the same provider. Before that I had ADSL and it was horrible, although I know with ADSL your at the mercy of your own older wires and the older exchanges.

But even with a 30 Meg connection, I find that the limiting factor is often a combination the throttling operated by virgin and the speed of any services you are using, like steam as an example. On a good run from a download site or service I get about 3.6meg a second but often, steam game updates can crawl at 180 to 320k a sec! I know that’s likely to be a steam content server capacity issue but in this world of downloaded content, where everything is gigs and gigs in size it's annoying to constantly be restricted like that.

Another example, I once tried to watch a 14gig high def film over xbox live, but (see the virgin tm table linked below) if I download more that 5 gig between the hours of 3pm and 8pm, my connection gets gimped by a 75% speed reduction. I have had this hit me on steam purchases, where you get your 5 gig and then you spend hours and hours waiting for the next 7 gig.

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/tm-table-su-large.jpg

Sadly there is only one provider of cable here, so it’s a case of stay with them or suffer ADSL, which here is quite poor in comparison.

Frankly, for what I pay for my connection, it’s annoying how out of touch the DL policy is with how people now use the internet.
ccxo 20th February 2012, 21:41 Quote
Deck is BT's FTTC service avalible to you?

Would be worth looking into as its a viable alternative to Virgins network, doesnt suffer Virgins traffic mangement.
Ninja_182 20th February 2012, 23:19 Quote
They need to get their ass in gear then. Mine seems to drop below 1.5Mb/s at times and if someone dares browse a webpage with pictures on while I'm on BF3 my ping jumps to 1s.

(there may be minor exaggeration on web traffic but I clocked it at 1.32s today)
rogerrabbits 21st February 2012, 01:40 Quote
My speed is quite good on VM cable, only problem is the over the top throttling. My main concern looking to the future is price. My 20mbit is fast enough for what I do, but I could do with the price coming down. Currently I pay a LOT for phone/tv/net.
Kruelnesws 21st February 2012, 01:49 Quote
Here where I live in Canada, 100mbps and I pay what $60 CAD and unlimited usage
Poor *******s
leexgx 21st February 2012, 05:07 Quote
BT FTTC for most houses should get 20-80mb/s (its not easy to do an avg speed with FTTC yet as due to distance the Drop off for VDSL is quite dramatic the farer you get from the FTTC box and line quality)
some unlucky ones will get 10-20MB/s (i know of 3 places where the DP box is more then 150 meters or so from there houses) still its better then 1mb/s, but then if your to far from the DP box you be stuck with ADSL still as VDSL will only work so far (300Meters aprox max)

and then there is Warrington where its not been even started to be rolled out yet at all (30-40% of the Warrington phone network is to far from the exchange so avg speed is 0.2-2mb/s on ADSL and None of the new houses are getting virgin cable)

yes the BTHub 2 Black and hub 3 are crap they are error prone with a lot of wifi products (i norm have to set the router to b/g mode as the N connection only works for about 2hrs to an day before you need to reboot the router to make it work again) but the problem is you Need N to use FTTC as you have more bandwidth then what wifi G can provide (about 20-25mb/s) good thing with infinity is that you can just go out and buy your own cable router with BT Infinity and not have to bother with poor ADSL routers as its all network cables

Virgin media cable the speeds you buy are Line rate speeds you pay for (normally unless the Node is overloaded then you have issues with Crap QOS that does not work on Virgin so you get packet-loss instead of lower speeds something that BT works Very well as i have seen it on an overloaded BT Exchange 7MB ADSL speed lock at an house but only getting 2.5mb but no packet loss),

only issue i have with the 90-95% throttling on usenet(5pm to midnight ish) that gets normaly partly bypassed using VPN {speed limit seems to be around 35mb/s with VPN active between 5pm-midnight }(they say p2p torrents are also throttled as well but does not seem to get throttled) and lesser issue is overloaded nodes on the outer parts of the network, last issue is Droping packets the Bandwidth provider (its the gateway that links Virgins network to the super pipes in the uk) seems to some times have issues and is dropping packets some times a lot of packets i wish they fix this issue as it would remove a lot of calls to india monkey support that do not understand its not my or there customers end that is the issue with packet loss (the Older 10-20mb DOCSIS 1.1 network does not suffer from this issue as they use an different bandwidth provider)
mclean007 21st February 2012, 06:20 Quote
The government could do a lot without plunging in with a full £29bn roll-out of FTTP - for starters, how about making it mandatory for companies building new homes to install a fibre line along with the BT line? Or for BT to do the same whenever a new line is installed - that way, if the road is being dug up ANYWAY, the additional miniscule cost of laying fibre alongside copper should be incurred. I'm hoping that BT's FTTC equipment can also split out the fibre connection for FTTP. If not, that should be mandatory too, so that when the copper into homes IS eventually replaced, fibre is a plug in replacement.
damien c 21st February 2012, 06:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruelnesws
Here where I live in Canada, 100mbps and I pay what $60 CAD and unlimited usage
Poor *******s

I have 100Mb and it costs me £40 a month with unlimited usuage and no reduction in speed.

I downloaded 50gb of data on Saturday from Origin, and because of the poor speed's that I get from Steam I buy all my games on disc that require Steam as I have never had more than 20Mb download speed from Steam.

BT's Infinity will be good for those who can get it, and aslong as there are not to many people on it as it will still suffer from the contention issues that there ADSL customers suffer and also, what the cable customers suffer when they are on a over subscribed UBR.

There will always be issues in the UK with broadband speed's because of the different providers, but one comment above said that the goverment should give VM money to expand there network but the problem with that is, some areas that they went to you had the people with the attitude of NO IN MY BACK YARD, because of where VM wanted to put the street cabinet and those cabinets have to go in certain places due to the distance from the house to the cab, so those people are the reason that some only a small amount but still some areas cannot have cable because of them, and BT had the same issue with there cabinets for Infinity.

I think the sewage pipes would be the best bet to use, for providing to each house as they all have a sewage pipe but then there is the problem of the cables needing to be protected and not to many, cables being put in 1 pipe then not to mention who is actually going to want to connect those cables up after they are pulled through the sewage pipes.
impar 21st February 2012, 11:06 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Why should it be illegal, for VM to quote those speed's when nearly all there customer's get those speed's, the likes of BT shouldn't be able to quote up to 20Mb considering most of there customers don't get above 3Mb.
I think that is the problem. The fact ISPs can market "up to" speeds and charge any customer with that "up to" speed the same, regardless what the effective speed is.
If a customer with "up to" 20Mbps gets 20Mbps, sure, he should pay 20.
However if a customer with "up to" 20Mbps gets only 3Mbps, he should only pay 3.
Only way I see to have ISPs increase the slow connections.
TheStockBroker 21st February 2012, 12:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
BT FTTC for most houses should get 20-80mb/s (its not easy to do an avg speed with FTTC yet as due to distance the Drop off for VDSL is quite dramatic the farer you get from the FTTC box and line quality)
some unlucky ones will get 10-20MB/s (i know of 3 places where the DP box is more then 150 meters or so from there houses) still its better then 1mb/s, but then if your to far from the DP box you be stuck with ADSL still as VDSL will only work so far (300Meters aprox max)

and then there is Warrington where its not been even started to be rolled out yet at all (30-40% of the Warrington phone network is to far from the exchange so avg speed is 0.2-2mb/s on ADSL and None of the new houses are getting virgin cable)

yes the BTHub 2 Black and hub 3 are crap they are error prone with a lot of wifi products (i norm have to set the router to b/g mode as the N connection only works for about 2hrs to an day before you need to reboot the router to make it work again) but the problem is you Need N to use FTTC as you have more bandwidth then what wifi G can provide (about 20-25mb/s) good thing with infinity is that you can just go out and buy your own cable router with BT Infinity and not have to bother with poor ADSL routers as its all network cables

Virgin media cable the speeds you buy are Line rate speeds you pay for (normally unless the Node is overloaded then you have issues with Crap QOS that does not work on Virgin so you get packet-loss instead of lower speeds something that BT works Very well as i have seen it on an overloaded BT Exchange 7MB ADSL speed lock at an house but only getting 2.5mb but no packet loss),

only issue i have with the 90-95% throttling on usenet(5pm to midnight ish) that gets normaly partly bypassed using VPN {speed limit seems to be around 35mb/s with VPN active between 5pm-midnight }(they say p2p torrents are also throttled as well but does not seem to get throttled) and lesser issue is overloaded nodes on the outer parts of the network, last issue is Droping packets the Bandwidth provider (its the gateway that links Virgins network to the super pipes in the uk) seems to some times have issues and is dropping packets some times a lot of packets i wish they fix this issue as it would remove a lot of calls to india monkey support that do not understand its not my or there customers end that is the issue with packet loss (the Older 10-20mb DOCSIS 1.1 network does not suffer from this issue as they use an different bandwidth provider)

What VPN are you using sir?
damien c 21st February 2012, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
BT FTTC for most houses should get 20-80mb/s (its not easy to do an avg speed with FTTC yet as due to distance the Drop off for VDSL is quite dramatic the farer you get from the FTTC box and line quality)
some unlucky ones will get 10-20MB/s (i know of 3 places where the DP box is more then 150 meters or so from there houses) still its better then 1mb/s, but then if your to far from the DP box you be stuck with ADSL still as VDSL will only work so far (300Meters aprox max)

and then there is Warrington where its not been even started to be rolled out yet at all (30-40% of the Warrington phone network is to far from the exchange so avg speed is 0.2-2mb/s on ADSL and None of the new houses are getting virgin cable)

yes the BTHub 2 Black and hub 3 are crap they are error prone with a lot of wifi products (i norm have to set the router to b/g mode as the N connection only works for about 2hrs to an day before you need to reboot the router to make it work again) but the problem is you Need N to use FTTC as you have more bandwidth then what wifi G can provide (about 20-25mb/s) good thing with infinity is that you can just go out and buy your own cable router with BT Infinity and not have to bother with poor ADSL routers as its all network cables

Virgin media cable the speeds you buy are Line rate speeds you pay for (normally unless the Node is overloaded then you have issues with Crap QOS that does not work on Virgin so you get packet-loss instead of lower speeds something that BT works Very well as i have seen it on an overloaded BT Exchange 7MB ADSL speed lock at an house but only getting 2.5mb but no packet loss),

only issue i have with the 90-95% throttling on usenet(5pm to midnight ish) that gets normaly partly bypassed using VPN {speed limit seems to be around 35mb/s with VPN active between 5pm-midnight }(they say p2p torrents are also throttled as well but does not seem to get throttled) and lesser issue is overloaded nodes on the outer parts of the network, last issue is Droping packets the Bandwidth provider (its the gateway that links Virgins network to the super pipes in the uk) seems to some times have issues and is dropping packets some times a lot of packets i wish they fix this issue as it would remove a lot of calls to india monkey support that do not understand its not my or there customers end that is the issue with packet loss (the Older 10-20mb DOCSIS 1.1 network does not suffer from this issue as they use an different bandwidth provider)

Some of the new houses in Warrington aslong as you mean Warrington Cheshire, are getting Cable TV.

There are a few sites near me that are getting it because I go past them everyday and have seen them digging the roads and the footpaths in the estates.

As for bypassing the TM thing on VM's service, if you use SSL then you can get round it nearly 100% because they are not allowed to restrict SSL traffic and use I think it is port 443.

The bandwidth provider that links VM's network to the other countries and through out the UK though, is the same for all the Docsis platforms as far as I am aware, the only reason you may see a difference between the packet loss between a 10Mb customer and a 100Mb customer is simply, down to the fact that they are on different Docsis platforms but if they were both on the same you would see the same issue.
Pooeypants 21st February 2012, 13:44 Quote
I would like to suggest that they stop aiming too high and try to spread the "wealth" a little. It's nice hearing that people in big towns and city will get 100Mbs soon but there are a lot of smaller towns and villages which are stuck on ~2 meg or less in some cases. This needs to be addressed or there'll be a huge digital gulf between them.
My parents are moving to a small village which, for some strange reason is linked to a exchange of another smaller village (as opposed to a town on the other side) with only about 700 residential homes so no upgrade on the exchange is planned. I see no reason why shouldn't pay for the service that we get, should only be reasonable, right?
rogerrabbits 21st February 2012, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooeypants
I would like to suggest that they stop aiming too high and try to spread the "wealth" a little. It's nice hearing that people in big towns and city will get 100Mbs soon but there are a lot of smaller towns and villages which are stuck on ~2 meg or less in some cases. This needs to be addressed or there'll be a huge digital gulf between them.
My parents are moving to a small village which, for some strange reason is linked to a exchange of another smaller village (as opposed to a town on the other side) with only about 700 residential homes so no upgrade on the exchange is planned. I see no reason why shouldn't pay for the service that we get, should only be reasonable, right?
I agree. No good pushing forward to 100mbit and beyond when a lot of places are left on 2. We need to move forward together. And again, I really want to see prices come down too, not just improvements in speed.

The guy from Canada reminds me that they have amazing infrastructure - even though it has to go over snowy mountains and hundreds of miles of wilderness etc.. Here we are on a tiny little island and we still can't get our **** together.
ccxo 21st February 2012, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
BT FTTC for most houses should get 20-80mb/s (its not easy to do an avg speed with FTTC yet as due to distance the Drop off for VDSL is quite dramatic the farer you get from the FTTC box and line quality)
some unlucky ones will get 10-20MB/s (i know of 3 places where the DP box is more then 150 meters or so from there houses) still its better then 1mb/s, but then if your to far from the DP box you be stuck with ADSL still as VDSL will only work so far (300Meters aprox max)

and then there is Warrington where its not been even started to be rolled out yet at all (30-40% of the Warrington phone network is to far from the exchange so avg speed is 0.2-2mb/s on ADSL and None of the new houses are getting virgin cable)

BT's FTTC VDSL is about 600m before 40/10 drop's off, copper qualilty will determine as its still used in the last part. however the move to profile 17a this year will see speeds go to 80/20 and extend the distance that 40/10 can be achieved, their is also profile 30a in the future.
Even houses that can only get sub 15meg on FTTC will see a massive improvement over what they could get before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
The government could do a lot without plunging in with a full £29bn roll-out of FTTP - for starters, how about making it mandatory for companies building new homes to install a fibre line along with the BT line? Or for BT to do the same whenever a new line is installed - that way, if the road is being dug up ANYWAY, the additional miniscule cost of laying fibre alongside copper should be incurred. I'm hoping that BT's FTTC equipment can also split out the fibre connection for FTTP. If not, that should be mandatory too, so that when the copper into homes IS eventually replaced, fibre is a plug in replacement.

For new builds fibre should be put in however the issue is of cost and developers not wanting to work with networks to connect the fibre up etc.
BT has already announced that starting in 2013 you will be able to order FTTP where there is a BT FTTC cabinet, cost are unkown at this time as it was only recently announced however come 2014 coverage of FTTC will proably be between 80-90% of UK households.
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
There will always be issues in the UK with broadband speed's because of the different providers, but one comment above said that the goverment should give VM money to expand there network but the problem with that is, some areas that they went to you had the people with the attitude of NO IN MY BACK YARD, because of where VM wanted to put the street cabinet and those cabinets have to go in certain places due to the distance from the house to the cab, so those people are the reason that some only a small amount but still some areas cannot have cable because of them, and BT had the same issue with there cabinets for Infinity.

I think the sewage pipes would be the best bet to use, for providing to each house as they all have a sewage pipe but then there is the problem of the cables needing to be protected and not to many, cables being put in 1 pipe then not to mention who is actually going to want to connect those cables up after they are pulled through the sewage pipes.

Openreaches FTTC cabs only has have restrictions in conservation areas, where they need planning permission aside from that, their code powers allow them to install where they like.
Virgin is not interested in expanding their network massively as it would like BT and KC give them SMP and be forced to wholesale, something Virgin is not interested in. Otherwise it would have bidded for the bduk funds itself.

Sewage pipes are not always everywhere espeically as you move out from cities and towns, the biggest problem with using sewage pipes is you need the agreements between the water and telecoms companies- this is where problems occur and costs rise as who gets to carry out the work/who's responsible for damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooeypants
I would like to suggest that they stop aiming too high and try to spread the "wealth" a little. It's nice hearing that people in big towns and city will get 100Mbs soon but there are a lot of smaller towns and villages which are stuck on ~2 meg or less in some cases. This needs to be addressed or there'll be a huge digital gulf between them.
My parents are moving to a small village which, for some strange reason is linked to a exchange of another smaller village (as opposed to a town on the other side) with only about 700 residential homes so no upgrade on the exchange is planned. I see no reason why shouldn't pay for the service that we get, should only be reasonable, right?

Urban areas will always be ahead of rural areas because the market is larger and is cheaper for a return in invesment, the goverments BDUK funding looks to address the issue between the increase gulf between urban and rural.

The bduk funds allocated to each County Council should see these 'white area's' where no market force will bring superfast broadband (25mbps+) see them brought up to a faster service. BT's FTTC will dominate most of the tenders speeds of currently 40/10 to 80/20 later this year depending on distance from the cabinet your're phone line is connected to.
rogerrabbits 21st February 2012, 20:30 Quote
Rural always being behind cities is fair enough, but 50 times slower? Not good.

Actually my mate lives on a farm and he doesn't even get clean water. It's ok to wash in but you wouldn't wanna drink it.
leexgx 22nd February 2012, 05:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c

As for bypassing the TM thing on VM's service, if you use SSL then you can get round it nearly 100% because they are not allowed to restrict SSL traffic and use I think it is port 443.

The bandwidth provider that links VM's network to the other countries and through out the UK though, is the same for all the Docsis platforms as far as I am aware, the only reason you may see a difference between the packet loss between a 10Mb customer and a 100Mb customer is simply, down to the fact that they are on different Docsis platforms but if they were both on the same you would see the same issue.

nope the SSL thing does not work as its based of IP as well

DOcsis 1.1 i never had issue never (apart form 2 dead 1.1 modems over 7 years), when docsis 3.0 was put in and i upgraded to 50mb it was mostly broke for the first year or 2 at peak times as there bandwidth provider that i get my connection routed to was dropping packets (but anything inside the network was fine like there Download server is inside virgins network so no packet loss so they kept saying its not there issue), the Docsis 1.1 network (at the time i had lots of issues) was not using the same bandwidth provider as the 3.0 network

@ccxo
i have only seen small number of installs i guess yes 500m would still be good (i should work out where the cab is as i got one customer that's only getting 15mb on FTTC so it must be Quite far away, they only got 0.6mb on ADSL so i guess its better then that)

also the Cabs have to be installed where the DP box is (where the older green BT cabs are or the ones with BT ground covers on them) as the FTTC system loops into the phone line from the exchange (phone line would still work when loss of power), still i would not see there been an issue with an FTTC cab been installed
f00dl3 22nd February 2012, 08:16 Quote
Sooooo let me get this. Their currency is just about shot because their almost about to default, and they are concerned with upgrading their Internet infrastructure?
DeckerdBR 22nd February 2012, 12:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccxo
Deck is BT's FTTC service avalible to you?

Would be worth looking into as its a viable alternative to Virgins network, doesnt suffer Virgins traffic mangement.

that's a good question, i'll have to check.
ccxo 22nd February 2012, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
@ccxo
i have only seen small number of installs i guess yes 500m would still be good (i should work out where the cab is as i got one customer that's only getting 15mb on FTTC so it must be Quite far away, they only got 0.6mb on ADSL so i guess its better then that)

also the Cabs have to be installed where the DP box is (where the older green BT cabs are or the ones with BT ground covers on them) as the FTTC system loops into the phone line from the exchange (phone line would still work when loss of power), still i would not see there been an issue with an FTTC cab been installed

Ive seen quite a few reports of line speed people are getting on FTTC, so 600m is about the average, is quite interesting to see what actual speeds are obtainable on some lines.
15mb is a useable service compared to 0.6mb on asdl so it vastly improves alot of people that are too far away from the exchange etc.

Cabs can be installed up to 100 meters away from the original PCP, just areas of planning conversation ie one area the green cabs had to be coloured black etc to make them more fit it.
Also in Warrington their is 8 exchanges in that area of which 4 exchanges have been enabled, Warrington istelf does not yet have a date but is the largest exchange so will take alot longer to enable.
leexgx 24th February 2012, 03:18 Quote
but the daddy Warrington exchange that needs it they get a lot of customers for FTTC as there is a large number of customers that are quite far away, Warrington has not even been considered for FTTC yet so unlikely to see it for 3-6 years (only smaller exchanges are been upgraded Around Warrington that are not that big compared to it)
ccxo 24th February 2012, 15:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
but the daddy Warrington exchange that needs it they get a lot of customers for FTTC as there is a large number of customers that are quite far away, Warrington has not even been considered for FTTC yet so unlikely to see it for 3-6 years (only smaller exchanges are been upgraded Around Warrington that are not that big compared to it)

BT's rollout is hard to judge where they go first, a few things that have been seen is they do areas where VM is present first to take away customers from VM and secondly target well off areas etc.

Will proably have Warrington planned, i would assume it would appear in the next exchange announcement from BT, should be mid march.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums