Not so G.fast: Hybrid fibre 'under review' as Openreach remembers it's all about FTTP now BT's Openreach is pausing its hybrid G.fast fibre investment as it mulls the product's future in light of its recent conversion to full fibre. The company confirmed it is reassessing capital injection plans across all broadband technology platforms, including G.fast, while it drafts the next phase of fibre-to-the-premises …
About 10 years ago, a friend of mine moved into a new house on a new estate. The whole estate had been laid with fibre to "futureproof" it. Of course, no-one on the estate was able to get a landline or broadband! It took about 6 months before any of the telecoms companies or ISPs were able to get themselves organised, and even then, they retrofitted copper lines at first.
Opposite.
I moved into an old (presumably 70's?) flat on a little cul-de-sac not far from a major town centre.
Not only is there no gas, but the only service available is a copper telephone line that they said could only do a handful of Mbps even with VDSL ("fibre" to them). Initially it was ADSL-only ("1Mbps expected"). Then they went round and stickered all the street cabinets with "Fibre is coming" and wanted me to have something around 8Mbps from that.
Day one of moving in, there was everything on the doormat from Virgin (not available in that area at all, except over BT lines as a virtual-service-provider-thingy) to BT to the landlord's "preferred" kickback ISP.
I threw them all in the bin, after checking the availability and speed testers. Bought a 4G dongle. Got 30-40Mbps inside the flat. Bought a 4G antenna the next week to keep it stable and give it the best chance outside. I pay £25 a month for unlimited data now, play all my Steam games over it, VPN into various places, stream live TV, etc. - does everything I want. Left the phone line to rot (never even activated it - it was £160 just to activate the line, and then £16.99 line rental + contract + broadband, etc.).
If you want me to use stuff, you have to actually give me something worth buying.
I could literally throw a stone from my window and hit a shop in the centre of a large town inside the M25 that I guarantee you've all heard of. But I can't get fixed broadband approaching even the speeds I was getting in the early 00's, or even comparable to what I get on my smartphone.
"It took about 6 months before any of the telecoms companies or ISPs were able to get themselves organised"
My understanding is that the developer is responsible for the provision of telecoms to an agreed point with telco's. If the developer choose a fibre only telco, the six months may have been waiting for the developer and telco to come to an agreement to let others onto the site as there was likely to be an exclusivity agreement in-place.
Never underestimate the ability of a developer to cock things up trying to save a few quid...
Any new premises: FTTP straight away.
That's up to the property developer. Openreach runs schemes to encourage property developers to request fibre (things like same cost install as copper) and some developers are choosing to do that. Unfortunately a number of developers have been slow to make that choice.
Openreach can/will only install what the developer asks them to. If the developer asks for copper then copper is what openreach will install.
Depends on the development and the local infrastructure. For small stuff (e.g. self build) they'll only connect to whatever is there. When I built my house (2014-15), BTO would only run copper as that was all the exchange would connect to. They even wouldn't commit to giving me a FTTC line.
But why give the developer the choice at all? If BT are really serious about increasing their FTTP numbers and they are offering to install fibre at the same price as copper (frankly I’m surprised it’s not cheaper given the current copper prices) then why even offer the option not to? Maybe I’m being unfairly cynical but I can’t help but wonder if their tardy fibre rollout is simply aimed at milking government grants. Keep narrowly scraping the minimum required speeds to meet the latest government target, while requesting additional money to upgrade all the “legacy” copper. No point in voluntarily laying fibre now when there’s money to be made in upgrading it down the line... (excuse the pun).
But why give the developer the choice at all?
Well, you can't have a a sub-contractor (openreach) telling the builder what they can and can't do. You could do something with building regs but you can't mandate FTTP everywhere because not everywhere is capable of supporting it. You have to connect your new development to an exchange and if the exchange isn't capable of dealing with FTTP you're stuck. Upgrading an exchange could be very costly as you need new equipment and will need to upgrade the links to other exchanges. And maybe some of those exchanges will also need upgrading. Openreach might be looking at upgrading a collection of exchanges for just one development.
I suppose building regs could mandate FTTP where FTTP is possible but then again - do building regs say anything at all about telecoms? Anyone know?
I can't see any reason why they shouldn't cover telecoms. Broadband is as much of an essential service as power and water for many these days.
Why knows, maybe updated building regs could include household multi-gigabit Ethernet cabling too, while we're demanding the moon on a stick? :o)
Well, this is interesting.
"Part R introduces a new requirement for ensuring that ‘the building is equipped with a high-speed in-building physical infrastructure, up to a termination point for high-speed electronic communications networks’. Where the work concerned contains more than one dwelling (flats/apartments), the work must be carried out ‘to ensure that the building is equipped with a common access point’.
The requirement is to provide ‘only the in-building physical infrastructure, from the service provider’s access point to the occupier’s network termination point. It is not a requirement to provide any cabling either within the building or external or site wide infrastructure. Satellite and wireless technologies must also be taken into account when providing in-building infrastructure design where the required network speeds can be met.'"
But I note this exemption:
"Where the cost of implementing Part R can be justified to be greater than the benefits gained."
But that seems pointless. It doesn't seem to be requiring network infrastructure within the house nor outside the house. So basically it's a requirement to provide a high speed capable socket on the outside wall?
Or there's this. But it's Friday afternoon, I have the day off work and I can't be arsed to read all that. Feel free to summarise it for me at your employer's expense :)
It doesn't seem to be requiring network infrastructure within the house nor outside the house. So basically it's a requirement to provide a high speed capable socket on the outside wall?
Not quite.
It says that if you are building (or substantially renovating) a property then you have to make provision for a network operator to be able to get cables from the street into the property. That could mean taking a duct inside, or bringing the duct up outside and providing a hole through the wall from a cover on the outside to where a socket can be installed, or ...
So in theory, BTOR or someone else can come along later and find it easy to get a service cable, whether that's copper or fibre or a combination, into the premises. I say "in theory" because I've seen houses built where provision has comprised a socket inside and a cable sticking out through the wall - requiring BTOR to run washing lines from a pole and down the side of the house, which is not ideal if they later want to put in fibre. Those houses probably predate Part R - but I bet many developers will put more money into working out how little they can get away with than they do in actually doing it !
I never understood why it was ever started. Range is far too short for most deployments - even in towns, were cables can take long, crazy runs to get a few metres.
FTTP should have been installed were this stuff has already gone in, but that wouldn't have got the last few pence out of the copper* "investment" and they would have to repair a lot of collapsed ducting that's been left to rot.
* or aluminium, if you're unlucky like I am.
Great, so we get their shitty FTTP which only does 330Mbps down / 30 up. Because BT.
Openreach fibre can go a lot faster from a technical POV. However at the moment they see no immediate reason to go any higher. And, frankly, neither can many people. There's very little demand for 150Mb/s, there's not even a great deal for 80Mb/s. The number of people who want 330Mb/s is vanishingly small and is likely to remain so for many years.
I can't think of anything a typical residential customer would want 1Gb/s for. Certainly not at the kind of price point that speed would command.
There might be a better market for a 150Mb/s service that can burst to 1Gb/s for short periods but that kind of service is rare in the residential market.
...on the market. In York we have the option of TalkTalk's UFO fttp in many areas for £27.50 a month for 24 months, and that's 'advertised' as over 900 Mb. Makes 330 Mb look poor. Mind you, all the pavements look poor after TalkTalk's groundworks have trenched all along them, looks like a big black slug trail everywhere. And have I switched? No, because TalkTalk! I expect BT, I beg your pardon, OpenReach will suddenly upgrade the area to fttp if UFO starts seriously affecting their market share.
I can't think of anything a typical residential customer would want 1Gb/s for. Certainly not at the kind of price point that speed would command.
That's probably true for most households, but people trying to download big games etc or a photographer trying to back their photos up . might disagree. However, the same infrastructure would also be used by small-mid size businesses where the connection will be shared by more people and also might have large bandwidth requirements (eg graphic designers).
They many not 'need' 1gbps, or even 330mbps... But seeing as they have a tendency to oversubscribe lines to a ridiculous degree... then having that capability of 1gbps or higher means there's less chance of everything slowing to a crawl come 5-6pm when the whole street comes home and starts using it.
When I was with Virgin (utter useless and incompetent fuckwits) my service degraded to the point that I averaged around 13-15mbps on a 100mbps service... AT ALL TIMES, they actively throttle anyone who dares to protect their privacy with a VPN (They've admitted as much to me) and complained when I was using my unlimited connection in an unlimited manner.
VM can quite frankly go and frack themselves... and don;t get me started on the bullshit they pulled with my mum, conning her out of almost £100 because. So when I left.. they claimed I still owed them £72.. I told them to take it out of the money they stole from her. They can go to hell if they think they're ever getting a penny out of me.
I don't think you have that idea in your head correctly.
It is, and forever, will be a shared service.
So the motorway traffic is moving at 30, they change the speed limit sign to read 50.
Does everything magically get faster?
There is a pot of stew, shared between 100 people. Everyone takes an equal amount.
If everyone uses larger bowls then is there more stew?
I am with Virgin and it's fine. Some areas are horrible. I have no choice here... 4 meg dsl, or cable.
You're on a motorway and traffic is moving along at 30mph... they increase the speed limit to 50mph whilst at the same time increasing the number of cars on the road. What you end up with is a net slow down in average speeds.
All because that 50:1 contention ratio is actually being used at 70:1
Hong Kong i-Cable:
Hong Kong i-Cable: Telephone "line" : $65 per month - riding on my i-Cable connection.
Hong Kong i-Cable: "Broad Band" D 200/ Up 10 Mbps : $123
I have been using 50/10 for the last 4 years, and that is perfectly adequate for my purposes.
Contract renewal time gave me an opportunity to cut the costs & somewhat increase speeds!
US$1= ~HK$7.75
Grotty British £1 = ~HK$9.67 and getting worse by the hour! [ I recall when it was £1=HK$16 !! ].
A lousy "Atlantic Peso" currency !
The spokesman said it was "highly likely" that to meet its FTTP plans, Openreach would need to overbuild homes and businesses served with G.fast
Industry pundits have been pointing that out ever since the G.FAST roll-out started. It's probably the main reason most of us object to it. G.FAST only uplifts a percentage of properties on that cabinet and it could be less than 50%. VDSL uplift was distance limited but at least most of the properties on a given cabinet would benefit somewhat.
And it is unlikely to make sense to only roll FTTP out to those properties on a cabinet that are out of reach of G.FAST so as soon as a given cabinet is targeted for FTTP the G.FAST pod becomes obsolete. Add in that at the moment the demand for any kind of ultra fast service is pretty small and G.FAST looks like a poor stop-gap solution that hardly anyone wants and that will be removed before it ever reaches widespread take up.
The only problem G.FAST solves is a paper one. It can point to the number of properties covered by G.FAST and say that it's uplifted XXX number. But it's a short term fix for a problem that doesn't really exist and that will be ripped out by a better solution soon.
While what the industry pundits say about G.FAST is correct, it doesn't tell the full story for large numbers of existing VDSL2 users.
The G.FAST rollout provides two "benefits":
- G.FAST service to improve maximum speeds upto 330Mbps down/30Mbps up in ideal circumstances.
- replacement of the weaker parts of the VDSL2 network (i.e. the ECI headends/modems lacking feature support to reliably provide >40Mbps on many lines or support 10GbE uplinks), much of which is 8+ years old.
While you rightly identify that V.FAST won't provide more speed to a significant number of users, I suspect it would allow a 100Mbps option (technically VDSL2 already does, but there are stability issues using this) but more importantly, it would address speed issues for those currently on VDSL2 cabinets but stuck at <40Mbps. It also addresses some of the capacity issues with existing cabinets (3%-5% of cabinets require upgrades to add more households). The ECI upgrade is likely to improve services for ~8 million properties alone in a 2-3 year timeframe.
FTTP is the ultimate solution, but it has a lot of challenges to overcome during deployment - it's likely to take ~10 years to reach the coverage of current FTTC levels (FTTC serves ~25 million homes and FTTP is expected to reach 15 million homes by 2025) and still leave many who are currently unable to get FTTC without any improvement in their service until further agreements to extend coverage are in-place.
Given the nature of the work in each case (cabinet upgrades for V.FAST vs installing cable for FTTC), I suspect there is minimal skills overlap where focussing on one technology would result in a significantly faster deployment.
Having the V.FAST option may also allow areas with poor Internet access speeds to be prioritised over areas getting acceptable V.FAST speeds (again I'm thinking 100Mbps).
My point is that this is a complex balancing act between ensuring existing services provide an interim solution until the new services are able to deliver faster speeds across most of the country in 5-10 years time.
While you rightly identify that V.FAST won't provide more speed to a significant number of users, I suspect it would allow a 100Mbps option (technically VDSL2 already does, but there are stability issues using this) but more importantly, it would address speed issues for those currently on VDSL2 cabinets but stuck at <40Mbps.
Sadly, no it won't. All DSL versions are impacted by distance for the same reason - higher frequencies do not travel as far. VDSL uses a higher range of frequencies than ADSL and that's why it drops off sooner. G.FAST uses higher frequencies than VDSL and that's why it's seriously distance limited.
If you can't get full speed VDSL (ie;80 Mb/s sync) you're unlikely to be able to get any form of G.FAST. There have been reports of people syncing in the high 70s on VDSL managing to get a viable G.FAST connection (just about achieving BT's self-imposed 100Mb/s threshold) but their upstream suffers as a result. A lot of them cancel the service and return to VDSL in order to get a more useful upstream speed.
A line that can't even support 40Mb/s with VDSL is going to be totally beyond G.FAST. It probably won't even register the presence of a signal let alone a viable one.
Using an analogy: Imagine there are a ten shelves in front of you each shelf contains better items than the one below. The bottom two shelves are cheap tat but you can reach both of them. The next four shelves are much better quality but unfortunately you can only reach three of them. The top five shelves have top notch gear on them. Unfortunately you have no chance whatsoever of getting at that stuff because you can't even reach the top shelf of the mid-tier stuff.
G.FAST could benefit the more distant users but only if it was allowed to utilise the full spectrum of frequencies. For technical reasons that is impossible. All three variants of DSL have their assigned frequency ranges and will never stray outside of them. G.FAST can only usefully operate on copper loop lengths less than 300 metres. Far less on aluminium of course.
You are looking purely at the specs rather than the actual Openreach VDSL2/2+ implementation and its current limitations.
For a significant percentage of VDSL2 users, the difference between a 40Mbps line and a 70Mbps line is not the capabilities of the line, but the ability to support vectoring - the ECI kit doesn't support it and ECI is installed in around 33% of the cabinets. Add in limits to uplinks (4 x 1Gbps on ECI vs 2 x 10Gbps on Huawei) and cabinets requiring more cards to support new customers and there are significant improvements available for existing customers or potential new customers which the G.FAST upgrade was going to provide.
For customers within 400 meters of a cabinet, speeds of around 100Mbps should have been possible on Huawei kit with G.FAST - the 300 meter limit was for ~330Mbps. Looking for trial results, the only thing I can find indicates G.FAST has been underwhelming at present, showing <60% of households reaching 100Mbps on carefully selected cabinets where it was believed the majority of households were within the limits.
Yes, this won't help customers with Al cables, copper damage or distances over ~600 meters where cable replacement is the only option, but it does still provide an improvement over existing VDSL2 services to existing FTTC customers by 2025 - FTTP customers will either be in the lucky 50% who have it or still potentially be 5+ years away from that luxury.
Having said all that, it looks like BT are suspending G.FAST so this is largely irrelevant although maybe the ECI replacement/uplink upgrades will still go ahead as a larger project rather than relying on cabinets hitting their limits and being scheduled for upgrades at that point.
For customers within 400 meters of a cabinet, speeds of around 100Mbps should have been possible on Huawei kit with G.FAST - the 300 meter limit was for ~330Mbps.
My line is only 350 metres - at the most - and I'm out of range. A chap nearer the start of my road does have VDSL and I think he said he's getting 120/25. His house is down a bit of a side street but I would think his line is less than 300 metres.
I currently sync at 74Mb/s on VDSL.
From talking to people on Thinkbroadband the consensus is simply that if you're not at least 70Mb/s you can forget it because you won't even sync at 100Mb/s on G.FAST and as I originally suggested even if you can get G.FAST at that level the upload will be lousy.
But interestingly I've just come across this article from back in May. They are looking at getting G.FAST to share spectrum with VDSL. If they do that then the range would extend enough to see uplift to more lines.
But in truth we can't be sure because take-up has been so low. We may never find out the true capabilities of G.FAST because it remains a niche product until it gets replaced.
I don't think all the people on TB have given you a balanced impression.
Today I've had G.fast installed. Previously I was on a good VDSL2 line and, like you, I was syncing at 74 down and 19 up. The DSLAM cab is about 120m from my flat.
Openreach engineer did the work at the cab and set up an OR G.fast modem and his diagnostic returned sync speeds of 330 down and 50 up, which is the max attainable in the spec and what my ISP estimated I would get.
Doing a speedtest using fast.com on a wireless connection in a bedroom I am getting 300 down and 43 up. I'm fairly convinced that if I had a system connected to the modem via gigabit, my speeds wouldn't be far off the max sync speed.
Whilst I'm certain that it very much a case of "your mileage may vary" - what you're posting here amounts to scaremongering and hearsay. Use the bt DSL checker website and put your phone number in and see what comes back. Look at the downstream handback threshold for an impacted line. That will give you a good indication of what speeds you're likely to get. Mine showed 330/50 for both the clean and the impacted line figures. I have only a BT master socket and it was installed 10 years ago and hasn't been touched since.
I thought the plan was to run the fibre to the DP rather than the cabinet, then just using G.FAST down the drop cables to hit the mythical 1Gbps.
This allows the fastest speeds with the least hastle in the terms of planning and Wayleave and allows them to hit the targets for speed roll-out, but still leaves the issues with rural properties an long lines.
I thought the plan was to run the fibre to the DP rather than the cabinet, then just using G.FAST down the drop cables to hit the mythical 1Gbps.
Openreach's plan for FTTP is GPON. That's fibre to a passive optical switch then fibre to each property from there. True FTTP where each property has a dedicated fibre cable back to the exchange is not currently on the cards.
There was talk of using G.FAST from lamp posts and underground chambers but that seems to have been dropped. I think the problem was that the cost difference between 'G.FAST at the end of the road' and 'TPON switch at the end of road' was too small. It's cheaper to drop an unpowered PON node in a hole than a powered G.FAST DSLAM (the link back to the exchange is the same for both). For GPON the final fifty metres of fibre for each property will be more expensive but that can be done on demand and covered by installation costs.
it dhould be easier to do older towns and villages first.
Most I've come across have telephone poles, rather than underground ducts. Slinging a fibre along the old poles, is a lot easier than trying to feed through an old broken duct.
But no doubt they will target the usual areas first.
sometimes it's the ducting that messes everything up.
around here you have 2 choices...
adsl (2mb / 256k) or vdsl/fttc (13/1)
However last summer openreach laid in new ducting for fibre along the whole length of the private road to replace the undamaged ducting that was already there (apparently the old stuff was asbestos based and they aren't allowed to touch it), the only problem is that the person that lives at the end of the road will not allow openreach to install additional ducting (their wayleave allows access to or replacement of existing ducting but not for extra ducting) so we have ended up with new ducting (specifically for fttp) all the way from the exchange / cabinet to within 5 feet of my property being prevented from being put into use by a 20 foot length.
Last we heard openreach were looking at putting a pole either side of his property.
I had a free 6 month trial of G. Fast at one of our offices. It worked well and ran in tandem with our VDSL connection from another provider (apparently we have enough copper coming into the building to support both). Speed was around 70Mbit though so hardly an upgrade.
No idea how much the G. Fast router and 'modem' cost, it is still in the comms cabinet not doing anything.
Still waiting on FTTC or preferably FTTH from Zen Internet, site to site VPN works much better with them as they seem to connect our sites without a 150 mile trip to London. The ping time across the VPN is less than 20ms, using a different provider it jumps closer to 100.
Is it just me, or are BT saying they are binning G.FAST as they woudl put FTTP in the SAME PLACE!
So rather than leaving the G.FAST as that and using the resorces to make more FTTP happen. They are going to re-do the same locations that have already got G!
They really dont want to roll out to the rest of the UK, just keep upgrading the same cheery picked locations!
They really dont want to roll out to the rest of the UK, just keep upgrading the same cheery picked locations!
Oh they do want to but as a public listed company they have a legal obligation to maximise profits. And a given amount of investment money generates more returns in wealthy built-up areas than it does in less affluent and rural areas. That's why humans invented urbanisation. It reduces the costs and difficulty of providing services to the community.
Only governments are going to spend money and not expect or require a decent return on it and that's because it's not their money.
'twas ever thus :-/
There was loads of activity, fibre pulled, ducts repaired, fibre connections installed at the top of each pole.
Then nothing.We already have the option of VM cable or FTTC and we now look to be cabled up to the exchange for FTTP.
Why is there no offer of service?
Similar at another house I know in a different part of the country.
In this case there is what appears to be FO cable slung from pole to pole with clusters of terminations at the top of each pole.
Again VM cable, or (I assume) FTTC are also available.
Again no sign of activation of the FTTP.
Are OR putting in the cabling but not upgrading the exchanges?
Although I read here that the infrastructure back to the exchange is the same for FTTC and FTTP.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
