Networks in 2016: A full fibre diet for UK.gov Blighty’s post Brexit diet must include a "full-fibre" eating plan, or so says the UK’s new digital minister Matt Hancock. Amid all the political noise over the last 12 months, the volume for infrastructure investment was dialled up to 11. In the Autumn statement, chancellor Phillip Hammond announced a £400m "full fibre" …
Starman - Estonia, announce they are rolling out 10Gbps EPON Everywhere, after buying Finnish telco Elisa, rolling out the tech from the lab into the field.
Entrenched BT (and Ofcom regulation of it) is such an embarassment to the UK. Split Openreach and be done with it, Ofcom.
What do we have proposed? A 10Mbps USO. Not even implemented or agreed. BT have Ofcom wrapped around their little finger, with BT doing exactly as they please.
would be that all those new 'Starter Homes' and 'Garden Villages/towns' (and even all new homes) must be built with
- Fibre to the Premises
- Solar PV on the roof.
FTTP should be easy to do with new developments. Instead of laying copper, just lay Fibre.
Just issue a directive to the planning departments up and down the country to make those a pre-requisite to granting Planning Consent.
A second step could be to direct the Mobile providers to allow roaming in the 'Not Spots'. That will save an awful lot of masts being built where there is already at lest one network providing coverage. Then make the providers not building duplicate masts fill in the 100% Not Spot areas. Should even out the costs a bit.
but those are far too simple and reek of common sense to have any hope in hell of being done.
Indeed - it should be compulsory for all new developments (housing or commercial) to have empty ducts or whatever to each premises, back to a central kerbisde point where multiple operators can install their cabinets onto their backhaul. Developers have to provide water, power, sewage, etc.,as part of the development so it is simple and cheap for them to do at the build time, but unless it becomes a requisite it will not happen. And no-one wants to dig up new streets a few months later... The Building Regulations (if anyone has ever had cause to read) are full of some unbelievable fluff (for instance - you are required to have a flushing toilet and running water in a bathroom!) but no mention of what is quickly becoming an essential feature of peoples lives (and probably will be for the next 50-100 years).
Elsewhere, there are plenty of little industrial units and places (such as converted farm buildings) where there is sweet FA connectivity, and I have seen quotes of £20,000+ to get 100mb/s connections into such premises, yet cities are to get gigbit FTTP. We all know that cities are congested polluted gritty places to live and work and are only going to get worse unless we can get business in rural areas connected onto a decent backbone. In some of these small business premises, even a 10meg connections needs to have 4 or 5 bonded pairs back to the exchange as the line lnegths and cable quality are so poor - and there is probably only a 20 pair cable to the site, installed 50 years ago, so once a few companies take up broadvand and phone lines, the capacity is all gone.
"FTTP should be easy to do with new developments. Instead of laying copper, just lay Fibre."
How are you going to explain to the new occupiers that they're going to have to pay monthly FTTP costs when they only wanted FTTC service and costs?
The suggestion of specifying ducts so the occupier has the choice makes more sense.
DoctorSyntax...
After spending avg. 300K-500K. plus on a brand new build, are you really suggesting new homeowners want a pair of copper wires from BT just so they have a matter of choice? Most today wouldn't buy a new build unless it had true Fibre FTTP, or would be bloody annoyed to find out all they had was shitty 'upto' copper.
"After spending avg. 300K-500K. plus on a brand new build, are you really suggesting new homeowners want a pair of copper wires from BT just so they have a matter of choice?"
You're showing a serious reading comprehension here.
Firstly who mentioned the house price? The Beeb report says "built as a response to meeting local housing needs - especially for first-time buyers." You're making an assumption about the house prices and hence on the income of the occupants on no basis.
Secondly, if there are ducts and they want to pay a monthly fibre subscription they can have fibre. That's choice. If only fibre is installed they don't have choice, they've got to stump up for fibre subscriptions even if they don't need or want Gb service.
Its not choice at all. The two (Copper v pure Fibre, FTTP) are not comparable regards a new build. It's a chalk and cheese, comparison.
The point I'm making is if I'm buying a brand new house, I'm looking for everything to be brand new, and that includes internet connectivity.
I'm not looking for BT to supply me a bamboozled, obfuscated 'upto' service over outdated legacy copper. I couldn't give a shit if BT is able to connect me via copper if there is true Fibre to the Premises available, and why would I? I'm paying a riddiculous amount for the new build. I'm not looking to save £10 a month, to move house and have poor 'upto' copper based connectivity.
"The point I'm making is if I'm buying a brand new house, I'm looking for everything to be brand new, and that includes internet connectivity."
OK, you do and presumably you're willing to pay. But if you imagine everyone else is like you how do you explain TalkTalk's customer numbers? If FTTC is good enough that's what they'll pay, not a penny a month more and they wouldn't thank you for committing them to do so. They'd agree with your comment that it's chalk and cheese, it's just that they'd see it differently.
"Most today wouldn't buy a new build unless it had true Fibre FTTP..."
And your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?
It it were true then there would be thousands of new builds standing empty for want of FTTP.
Can I propose that AC postings are banned for any topic involving broadband speeds?
Commswonk,
Can I propose any 60+ yo retiree is banned from commenting on Broadband, because their working career is over and FTTP v shitty copper 'upto' connectivity and penny pinching over cost no longer affects them. We need to concenrate on Millennials or less, when planning future true fibre optic FTTP connectivity.
Can I propose any 60+ yo retiree is banned from commenting on Broadband, because their working career is over and FTTP v shitty copper 'upto' connectivity and penny pinching over cost no longer affects them.
Wrong! While I would wholeheartedly agree that "up to" speeds are dishonest, I fail to see how you can eliminate retirees from concerns over broadband costs; while the capital outlay to provide any sort of B/B may come from the taxpayer, over time that cost is recovered by selling the product to end users. Your "argument" (if it really can be called that) would force not just retirees but everyone to pay more for their service than they might be prepared to, and if customers (retired or not) decide to vote with their wallets then the entire dream of universal connectivity risks failure. I am at a loss to understand how you can suggest that the cost of broadband no longer affects retirees; the cost of more or less everything affects them*. Perhaps your argument boils down to "let's disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with me".
As it happens I have no argument with the idea that where it is reasonably practical to do so FTTP should be offered to users, but trying to flood - wire the UK with FTTP only on a "big bang" basis is a non - starter.
* I will allow commuting costs as an exception, but as a trade off we probably have to pay more for our heating because we're at home more.
The example was in relation to new builds. (The flippant remark regarding retirees was with regard to your comment to ban people from the forum, nothing gets my back up more).
It's hardly trying to flood the market when (as a Nation), we are hardly building any new homes/properties. It's like saying (in terms of Copper v Fibre) you can have the choice of Candles or an Electricity supply. Why would you choose Candles for a new build in 2017 (even though it would save you the standing charge), when the house has Electricity.
We've just (as a Nation) paid BT Billions to install hybrid 'Fibre' and we still rely on a copper twisted pair for the final leg, even for new builds. That's the non-starter to me. It's completely ridiculous idea, having to stimulate the market (as taxpayers), yet carry on with obsolete technology because the incumbent BT sits on their hands, because it suits their plans/entrenches their position.
The house been built doesn't just have to cater for you, it has to cater for everyone who is going to own that house at a future date for the next 100 years. The time to make that future switch to pure/true Fibre is at the point of build.
For the monthly amount you save on line rental, choosing 'upto' copper over pure fibre cabling would de-value the house by a greater amount, far more than you save in monthly payments, in choosing Copper over Fibre.
Have you even heard of WhatsApp? There is no good reason to be rolling out Copper to new builds. In 3-5 years avg. (max 8 years according to BT) the call will made via VoIP and transmitted across the UK as IP Packets.
It's a pointless notion that Copper is somehow more resilient to make an Emergency call when you need to, as said at most you have 8 years before BT transitions to a full IP Network, in many places its already the case/underway.
It's not a non-starter. It's what is absolutely needed to bring the UK's telecoms infrastructure into the 21st century.
A lot of the rollout cost can be offset by the reduced maintenance costs after you dump all that copper, once you sell off the bulk of the exchange buildings (assuming BT still owns them, if not, their rental costs), once troubleshooting costs plummet as you're no longer having to troubleshoot someone's line because it's got a bit wet or corroded, or is experiencing RF interference.
Simplifies the network too - no horrendously expensive electronics being rained or snowed on, frozen or baked to death. Allows for a high quality service during power outages if the CPE is also suitably backed up.
It's too late now, but the billions we spent on crappy old VDSL (and will spend on G.fast) would have also helped pay for a good chunk of FTTP.
It's the future, though it really should be the present - and constantly saying "too expensive, can't do it" contradicts what other telcos (of similar size and stature to BT) have been saying.
Besides, all those lovely 5G small cells will need fibre run to them anyway. Might as well carry on and bring it to the home too.
after you dump all that copper,
Hmm. What about all the other infrastructure that still uses the copper: the traffic lights, burglar alarms, ATMs, etc.? Or do you think that phones are all it's needed for? Much of that copper will still be there for decades, even if internet traffic is caried by fibre. "Just pull out the copper and blow in fibre" is a favourite suggestion from people who have no clue what's actually underground, or what uses it.
no longer having to troubleshoot someone's line because it's got a bit wet or corroded,
Have you spent much time debugging fibre, and it's own unique set of problems?
Allows for a high quality service during power outages if the CPE is also suitably backed up
So does copper. So what?
Besides, all those lovely 5G small cells will need fibre run to them anyway
You're somewhat fixated on 5G, I get the impression that you have to have the latest everything. 4K UHD 3D TV, electric cars, FTTP, 5G. All very clever, but not necessarily wanted or required by everyone.
I believe L'Oreal has a hairbrush you might like.
They get modernised - because that's what you do.
Burglar alarms - move them to 3G/4G, or plug the POTS port into your fancy new FTTP modem instead. Even the Blessed BT now advertises IP as being just as good enough as a traditional redcare line, along with cellular backup.
ATMs - many of these already use IP over DSL, or over a 3G/4G data connection, so the type of bearer doesn't matter too much
Traffic lights - if it's a dialup modem still, then FTTP accomodates telephony too. If it's IP, no real issue.
Re fibre faults: Such as? We're talking about PON networks here, for the sake of argument. How common are they in relation to copper faults which are ten a penny, especially after bouts of "extreme" weather? Because telcos around the world have gone on record as stating that their maintenance costs have plummeted. I'm sure even BT has the spreadsheets saying the same thing.
Re power outages: Actually, no it doesn't. The VDSL cabinets can only run for a matter of hours before their batteries conk out. Exchange based ADSL can run for as long as the generators, but that's 20thC technology now grandad.
Re 5G: It isn't just me, it's every one of the mobile network operators, it's the phone manufacturers. But it isn't just about 5G, it's also about increasing 4G or even 3G coverage. Small cells are the only way you do that, and they need to get backhaul from somewhere. That could be an insanely expensive dedicated fibre, it could be a slightly less expensive microwave link if LOS is available, or it could be a matter of plugging into the existing FTTP network.
Can I propose any 60+ yo retiree is banned from commenting on Broadband, because their working career is over and FTTP v shitty copper 'upto' connectivity and penny pinching over cost no longer affects them.
Yet those very retirees make up a huge proportion of home internet users, seeing as how they're at home most of the time. If they can be disregarded as not needing GB speeds doesn't that simply demonstrate that a large and growing part of the population has no need for FTTP speeds? Will Gbit/s FTTP really make the online shop at Tesco a better experience? Will those retirees be willing to pay for it?
Well done for missing the point.
The beauty of FTTP is that it gives everyone what they want. A cheapskate on TalkTalk can have 2Mbit on FTTP if they like, while the power user next door can have 1Gbit, and the business down the road can have a 10Gbit leased line without BT (or A. N. Other Telco Ltd) having to spend forever digging up the road to give it to them (at enormous cost). If the TalkTalk cheapskater decides to join the 21st century, they too can upgrade their speed virtually instantly - and they'll get what they pay for, no distance issues
Telcos who have been a bit more forward thinking than BT have already admitted that FTTP is much cheaper to maintain than the masses of aging, rotting copper (and/or aluminium in BT's case).
The only way this stuff works economically is to have one network. The mobile networks have proven what happens when everyone is trying to duplicate each other's work. Patchy coverage and cherry picking of profitable areas.
Basically, we need an Openreach-like organisation, only one that is determined to do FTTP and perhaps without BT owning it.
The beauty of FTTP is that it gives everyone what they want
Really?
I want 50Mbit/s on my smartphone. How does FTTP give me that?
I need 10Mbit/s just for email & shopping, and I want it as cheaply as possible. How does FTTP give me that?
I want to live out in the country away from a town, how does FTTP work cheaply for me?
FTTP everywhere is an unnecessarily expensive pipedream which could be superseded by 4G and 5G even before any rollout could be complete. It makes no sense to try and second-guess what people might need in 20 years, and to spend taxpayers money on it now. The sensible approach is to invest in what most people will want for the next 5-10 years, and keep it under review, not to throw billions of taxpayer cash at a "futureproof" solution for a problem most people don't yet have, and may never have.
"I want 50Mbit/s on my smartphone. How does FTTP give me that?"
You must work in BT/EE Sales/marketing and clueless at that. At least learn how 4G/5G mobile coverage works before spouting such nonsense.
Blanket FTTP rollout is the ONLY way you'll ever get 50Mbps "5G speeds" on your mobile, because the mobile mast itself needs FTTP backhaul to deliver you the 50Mbps. You can't achieve concurrent users each receiving 50Mbps any other way. You certainly not going to do it with Pointless G.fast technology between two points over multiple copper cores, even if BT were to further develop this. (and why reinvent the wheel? Fibre Optic is tried and tested, works, Copper G.fast is unproven)
Have you every thought how they get the data to/from these wonderful 4G/5G mobile masts you talk of?
You must work in BT/EE Sales/marketing and clueless at that.
No, I'm a Chartered Engineer with a background in telecomms. Are you?
Blanket FTTP rollout is the ONLY way you'll ever get 50Mbps "5G speeds" on your mobile
5G again!` Even 4G/LTE is specced for 300Mbit/s.
the mobile mast itself needs FTTP backhaul to deliver you the 50Mbps.
Of course, and you can put those masts in places where it's easy to get the fibre. That's a completely different situation to trying to get fibre to arbitrarily-placed houses that aren't near convenient ducts/wayleaves/roads etc.
If we followed your arguments we'd be building 3 new runways at Heathrow, running HS2 to Aberdeen, and making the M25 24 lanes in each direction. Sure, it would look great on paper, but why should my tax money be squandered on it?
Example 1: by providing cost effective and easily provisioned backhaul for all those 4G/5G small cells that will be needed to do that. Though I think you knew full well that we're really talking about wired connections here.
Example 2: by configuring your FTTP ONT (modem) to give you a 10Mbit service. How simple is that, eh? Then when you want 100Mbit, they just reconfigure it in seconds. Such simplicity.
Example 3: same way you got an electricity or water supply - by contributing to the cost, if it's going to cost a disproportionate amount (like if you chose to live on a country pile). If you don't want to pay, no service for you. But then, if you're that rural, FTTC would likely have missed you anyway. Even 5G is unlikely.
Like I said, that wonderful 5G network will need small cells everywhere to have any chance of working properly. That means fibre near homes - with small cells on telegraph poles etc. If you're going near, you might as well go in. Why use flaky wireless when you can use wired solutions? It just doesn't make sense.
The sensible approach is to stop wasting money on bodges. We haven't done that, we spent billions on VDSL - which we're now about to spend billions replace with copper bodge mk2 - g.fast. Why? Because it's been realised that 80Mbit (if you live next to the cab) ain't cutting it. The people for whom BT has already deployed FTTP, meanwhile, have no such problem. BT's about to give them 1Gbit without any fuss, and the now-laid fibre is capable of virtually any future requirement even if the equipment at the ends is not.
It makes no sense to try and second-guess what people might need in 20 years, and to spend taxpayers money on it now.
WTF?????
That is literally how all major infrastructure planning is conducted - whether you're talking roads, railways, power grids, sewerage systems or - indeed - communications networks. Start out with projections of future demand and then make sure the system you're going to be build will be easily interoperable with the system that will succeed it. You don't build for today when you could build for tomorrow at no additional cost (e.g. laying fibre to new builds instead of already-redundant copper).
Also, whilst past performance is not a guarantee of future trends, 20 years ago (1997) most people didn't have internet access at all. In another 20 years they'll be streaming stereo 20K streams for massivley immersive virtual reality gaming or movie viewing, or skype will be conducted through holograms. Maybe.
"would be that all those new 'Starter Homes' and 'Garden Villages/towns' (and even all new homes) must be built with
- Fibre to the Premises
- Solar PV on the roof.
Can someone remind me what the appropriate emoticon is for long, uncontrollable, hollow laughter?
My home is close to the proposed location of four of these "Garden Villages" each of which will be several times the size of any of the nearby market towns. There are no services and there's no consideration that Hampshire is short of water. The infrastructure planning is non-existent.
The locations seem to be so poorly chosen (one is in the green belt and is an ex-military test track) that there's more than a whiff of "big bung may be associated with this decision" about the whole business. For "Garden Village" read "packed-in cardboard boxes without gardens".
Downvote for "Solar PV on the roof"
If it has a working lifetime of say 25 years, and (without subsidy) doesn't pay for itself from the cost of electricity used in 25 years, then it's just a waste of money.
If you think solar PV is the solution to electricity generation problems, then at least put them in solar farms where there are economies of scale and they can be steered for maximum efficiency.
How about offsetting the cost of charging your Electric Car?
You know the ones that apparently we will all have within the next 10 years.
Even on a sunny winters day, my small PV array can generate enough KWh to give my car enough charge for around 10 miles of travel. That's fine for local journeys which burn petrol at higher rates than longer ones. In the summer I consume no grid electricity at all (measured over 2-3 months)
If every house had PV panels then we'd need a few less gas fired power plants.
soon it will be economic to have your own electricty storage device. Then you can go off grid if you want.
Oh, and where I live it puts at least £5K on the value of your home. That's almost the cost of the installation.
FTTP should be easy to do with new developments. Instead of laying copper, just lay Fibre.
I've wondered for the last few years why this is even legal. Overbuilding the copper network is expensive, but all the cost exists in paying people to physically dig up the road. If you're laying new lines into new builds, it is insane that OpenReach have been laying copper in. All the cost is in the trench, fibre costs sod all per metre.
Presumably they're working on the principle that in 10 years time the Government will pay them to dig it up again and lay FTTP.
In the meantime, G.Fast is great, except for rural dwellers who live long distances from cabinets or even the drop points, exacerbating the ruralurban split.
As Dan Howdle says, gigabit is massive overkill for almost all home and businesses and points out even 4K only needs 24mbps (easily covered by current FTTC or DOCSIS 3.0 offerings, never mind G.Fast). As he says, the difficulty is the final 5% where it's 1Mb by copper or anything else by fibre. Having laid FTTP you can be churlish and introduce differential tariffs and artificially limit people to 10/50/100/250mbps, or do as B4RN and Rutland Telecom did and just run everyone at their line speed and be limited by backhaul. So you'll get full gigabit off-peak and still manage better than 100mbps on-peak. It;s not about gigabit, it's about anything better than megabit!
How are you going to explain to the new occupiers that they're going to have to pay monthly FTTP costs when they only wanted FTTC service and costs?
The suggestion of specifying ducts so the occupier has the choice makes more sense.
As I recall, BT's "FTTP On-Demand" service actually didn't let you have just fibre, you got fibre and your copper line would continue to operate alongside for calls.
In any case, fibre costs sod all, the big money is in digging the trench to lay it in. You're quite right - every new house should be ducted (rather than direct bury) for easy upgrades, but I'd say just lay the copper and fibre in any way.
There's also nothing stopping BT setting a sane pricing strategy for FTTP if they're rolling it out as the standard install for new builds (if you're building an entire estate which will have FTTP, then costs per house are much lower than if one solitary customer on a FTTC cabinet is requesting an FTTP install, providing consequently lower prices to customers).
BT actually does have a sane FTTP pricing strategy - for the places that got BT FTTP from the off instead of FTTC, not as "FTTP on demand".
For installation and a 40 or 80Mbit service, Openreach charges identical prices to FTTC. So at retail you're talking free installation and not too much per month, it'll be the same pricing for Infinity 1 and 2 in terms of BT's own offerings.
Openreach also offers 200 and 330Mbit tiers too (and 1Gbit at some point). The pricing is very reasonable, and certainly at retail I think BT charges £50 a month for 330Mbit (plus line rental, which is odd).
They've thought that out well enough. It's just a shame that the coverage is so poor.
The FTTP network already has the capability to provide voice service too. The "modems" have phone ports on them, and Openreach sells a product called "fibre voice access" to the ISPs.
The not-spots definitely need to be sorted out - and they aren't all in rural areas. The main problem with these has always been cost. Unfortunately all too often the not-spot debate descends into bashing BT and claims that rural residents are being treated like 'second class citizens'.
What's needed is a debate that acknowledges that:
* Every property in the UK ought to have a decent connection. I'd currently define that as A minimum of 20Mb/s usable bandwidth during peak hours.
* It's difficult and very expensive to provide these locations with such a connection.
And here's a New Year's resolution: Before anyone engages in BT-bashing they should first ask themselves what have the other CPs done to help.
That's not so much a defence for BT as it is an attack against the entire industry of Communication Providers. Because 5% of the country is not being adequately provided with communication services.
Well you may think it's BT bashing but OpenReach have shown some bizarre behaviours in recent years. For example I recently saw OpenReach pull fibre along 12 miles of country road that passes through a number of villages, none of them with decent broadband. I asked one of the engineers if this meant a possibility of getting FTTP along the route. No, of course not. OpenReach wanted to join a city to a large market town. No plans for anyone in the sticks to benefit from the pipe that runs just 24ft from their home/the local exchange. Since then I've been told that the plan to provide fibre to any of these villages is "never".
I can do one better than that.
Here in Cornwall BT has done a good job on FTTP, something like 1/3rd of properties have access to it (instead of FTTC). I think that any FTTP is a good idea.
The only problem is that they've relegated areas onto FTTC that really could have had FTTP very easy, while spending tons stringing fibre to select ultra-rural properties - "my neighbour lives 3 miles away" territory. I may be slightly bitter, because I'm on FTTC (overhead wiring, old houses) while the next road over (also overhead wiring, old houses) is on FTTP.. even though FTTC would have been feasible for them. It's a lottery.
My favourite is FTTP all the way to a telegraph pole in the middle of a car park. There are no copper customers on the pole, let alone potential fibre ones. Not sure of the return on that investment...
Hey BT, if you don't want BT bashing, give up the local loop. Instead of BT trying desperately to hold onto it and refusing to do anything decent with it. Ofcom just bite the bullet, take it from them.
Pointless obfuscated bamboozled 'upto' sweated Copper Carcass G.fast is not the future and shouldn't be used as an interim technology, because it will become an entrenched Cul-de-sac technology (due to apathy,obfuscation) that we can't move away from, and BT know this.
And on the point no one is requesting speeds higher than 80Mbps. You can't achieve blanket coverage of real 80Mbps speeds with anything other than true FTTP. Due to the sheer exponential number of 'carpet bombed' Infill cabinets using FTTC/G.fast, costs would be more than FTTP rollout to achieve blanket 80Mbps speeds (not 'upto'), throughout the UK.
Blanket true 80Mbps using FTTC/G.fast (not 'upto 80Mbps) is just not practical, in any shape or form and Pointless G.fast an obsolete technology before its even out the door.
You can bet for every 1 installation of Pointless G.fast that achieves more than 'upto' 160Mbps consistently, there will be 9 installations that don't for some reason or another (copper, alu cabling, poor damp connections, low frequency 'pump noise', Power supply faults, supply noise transferred through, ADSL interference, incorrectly matched equipment firmware issues etc, and ABOVE ALL DISTANCE from the cab and the prohibitive cost of the sheer number of actively powered FTTrN/FTTdP nodes required.
All the time spent fault finding, would have been better spent laying true FTTP in the first place.
G.fast is Pointless tech, that will require vast resources to sort out the post installation problems, especially as more connections come on-line, equipment gets older, firmware updates on older stuff still in use ceases/fails to get updates. It will end up in a real 'ball of wool' mess going forward.
BT know this, just don't want to admit it. All the technical 'puff pieces' / (you really can't call it valid reasoning) is completely biased towards utilisiing their own outdated copper carcass infrastructure, getting further handouts, control/artificially restrict bandwidth limits by controlling the final mile connection by utilising copper, rather than upgrading their networks to true fibre to stay current themselves.
You're watching 4k TV on your main set in the living room. The kids don't want to watch what you are watching so go watch 4k TV in their bedrooms, separately from each other. Then your partner watches more 4k TV in the kitchen while making the dinner... Apparently there is simply no need or use for 1Gbps.
Exactly. There seems to be a dastardly plan to stop broadcast TV at some unspecified future point & put it all on 'broadband'. At least that's what a woefully under-advised House of Lords committee suggested a year or two back. If that ever happens, then 'broadband' will need to carry multiple decent quality TV channels for those houses that have multiple viewers with different tastes. So there's your FTTP use case right there (and a properly engineered multicast network). Of course, the HoL were totally out of their tree but I can imagine the lure of filthy lucre from mobile companies for the UHF spectrum might precipitate the same end result.
Phil, Do you even understand how those smartphones and tablets stay connected? Get their data to/from the device? It's not by magic.
All that wireless/mobile data to/from the mobile mast eventually ends up on a fibre backhaul. If you want each phone to 'magically' have 5G connectivity speeds, the only way to route that amount of backhaul data is with a fibre optic backhaul. If you want/expect blanket 5G mobile coverage, that requires masts spaced at <1km intervals across the UK, depending on the topology/population density/cities, even higher densities of 5G masts.
Once the connected device signal reaches a mobile mast/(or a Wifi hotspot), its transmitted from there by a fibre optic backhaul. To route that amount of 5G traffic is a job in itself. If you want faster 5G speeds, you're going to need a lot more Wifi Hotpots, a lot more Mobile Masts to get blanket coverage, and a lot more fibre backhaul.
In places like football stadiums (high concentrations of devices), you need smaller mobile cell sizes with little overlap, vast numbers of fibre backhauls to cater for sheer numbers of devices/amount of traffic.
Unless you have an underlying fibre network to put all this data on, re-transmit it, you're not going to get very far with your Smartphone/Tablet in terms of 5G connectivity speeds. Above all its going to be very expensive per MB pricing, when it doesn't need be.
Phil, Do you even understand how those smartphones and tablets stay connected?
Funnily enough, I do. I've even written some of the software for it. Do you have any actual technical point to make, or will you just stay with the ad-hominem, anonymous, insults?
if you want each phone to 'magically' have 5G connectivity
Who mentioned 5G? And what does the provision of fibre backhaul between dedicated, carefully chosen, radio sites have to do with FTTP links to arbitrarily sited homes with no nearby infrastructure? Getting fibre to central hubs and exchanges is the easy bit, and is what BT are doing. It's the "TP" bit of FTTP that is expensive and, so far, mostly unnecessary.
In places like football stadiums (high concentrations of devices),
All streaming video? I don't think so. No need for 5G, or even 4G speeds there.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
