Reply to post: Re: Pitfalls of G.fast

Sckipio touts fibre-like symmetrical G.fast kit

Adam Jarvis

Re: Pitfalls of G.fast

The point here though is there is a choice/a crossroads.

At the moment consumer 240VAC devices (made to the cheapest price point) connected to BT lines aren't actively acting as PSUs sending several watts to Power BT Equipment outside the subscribers home, which is what is been proposed, that's a big change, no opto-isolation.

The sheer exponential number of G.fast nodes needed, hence the term 'carpet bombing', to get effective blanket G.fast coverage, rather than selective coverage (which is what it will end up, notspots still notspots).

This isn't a cheap alternative to Passive Fibre Optic FTTP. Especially, if you rationalise it to lines 500 metres or more in length and when you rationalise it, you may aswell just stick to Passive Fibre Optic FTTP, across the network, keep it simple to one technology (cheaper to bulk purchase), going forward within the local loop. (legacy FTTC technology will be around for a while yet).

BT using the difficulties of final termination of Passive Fibre Optic as the reason to rollout of G.fast. I don't buy it, that termination of Passive Fibre Optic is overly diffcult or expensive, when you factor in all the pitfalls of G.fast. I don't buy the BT line 'Fibre is expensive, G.fast is the cheaper'.

G.fast is a pointless technically biased solution put forward by BT, for BT. Taxpayers should play no part in it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022