Reply to post: Re: Sharon White...where is the fibre backhaul for 5G?

Ofcom head Sharon White slams 5G hold-up in spectrum auction

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Sharon White...where is the fibre backhaul for 5G?

You can't talk up (as a regulator/Government) ubiquitous blanket 5G from street lights yet not have the necessary fibre backhaul infrastructure in place to deliver that, that's what I'm saying. The practical implementation of 5G as it's been described is just not possible in the way Gov/Ofcom are describing its rollout.

FTTC has its place now, that decision is done (you can't look back), it doesn't mean from now we should be continuing on this obfuscated, bamboozled "up to" copper carcass network of BT's, for the benefit of BT, when it is clearly now only in BT's interest, not the UK as a whole.

Network Management is the only thing masking the current network congestion, and people aren't getting the capacity they are paying for at peak times, it doesn't live up to the hype.

G.fast is a dead end technology, sweating copper to its limits. It's also highly susceptible to deliberate interference from cheap signal generators, so not a good choice in terms of security that we so now need with regard to the Telecoms Network.

It's basically very bad choice/route to take. I keep saying it, but G.fast is going to be a "can of worms" to rectify/fault find going forward.

I admit, if you want to test G.fast, Edinburgh's tenements are probably a good place as any to test G.fast pods, but its overall market for G.fast is limited to tenements, regards the BT network as a whole and BT are wasting far too many resources developing Pointless G.fast further. At 500m by cable length (250m as the crow flies) G.fast is at it's limit of usefulness because those active G.fast pods require connecting to the grid. Whatever hype there is about backfeeding the supply in the UK, we're nowhere near that, on the grounds of safety.

As said, G.fast is a dead end technology. Enough is enough.

It's time to make the switch. We have to find more efficient methods/processes to deploy real fibre and I'm fed up of hearing the usual line "Fibre is expensive, FTTC/G.fast is cheap", once you add in all the ancillary costs to support "up to" FTTC/G.fast, further copper deployment isn't cheap at all.

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

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021