300 and 500 Mbps Trials

[amcclean]

Bt are going to start trials of 300 and 500 Mbps G.Fast with a view to roll out in 2016 I hope PN may return to their old way of being a leader when it does roll out. The one thing this dosn't talk about is the upload speed. I sure hope it will be above 2Mbps.
http://www.stuff.tv/news/bts-300mbps-broadband-service-will-melt-cables-later-year
Podman

[Estragon]

I can see the obvious joke in your post :), but wonder if you have a deliberate secondary one in the link?

[Jaggies]

You mean that the article quoted is two years old?

[Estragon]

Yes.

[Townman]

Before BT start rolling out such crazy speeds to those who already have more than enough, they need to be addressing the needs of those who get less than 8Mbps and have little prospect of seeing fibre / decent speeds on fibre.  If there is money to thrown around, it should be spent on FTTP/H in rural areas.

[HairyMcbiker]

Won't be as there is no money in it, unless the gov puts some up. Faster for those with most money/largest population, same as always.

[amcclean]

Thought that as the upload speed has gone backwards so should the news :-)
podman

[Kremmen]

Quote from: Townman

Before BT start rolling out such crazy speeds to those who already have more than enough, they need to be addressing the needs of those who get less than 8Mbps and have little prospect of seeing fibre / decent speeds on fibre.  If there is money to thrown around, it should be spent on FTTP/H in rural areas.

My thoughts exactly

[AndyH]

Quote from: Townman

If there is money to thrown around, it should be spent on FTTP/H in rural areas.

There is no business case for areas that are economically unviable.

[MattyC]

Off the top of my head, it's being trialled this summer is Gosforth and Huntingdon. Don't think I'd class either of those places as rural after looking on Google Maps, but I can be stood corrected.
Even if we've thrown our hat into the ring for this, I wouldn't be able to confirm unfortunately.

[danludlow]

Since upgrading and improvement investment goes where the quickest returns are (the densest populations), the Sticks (countryside) always loses out. Is there any mileage (excuse pun) in allowing higher charges for faster broadband packages in Rural areas, or Ofcom allowing a higher overall average charge but with rural improvements to match the city expansion subsidised by it?
Something that kept rural in the frame, and kept it there. After all, fast communication needs to be universal and allow technology to grow and spread everywhere.

[x47c]

Quote from: AndyH

Quote from: Townman  If there is money to thrown around, it should be spent on FTTP/H in rural areas. There is no business case for areas that are economically unviable.

The problem is how to measure viability
I know of several areas that
1. BT found uneconomic in the commercial FTTC rollout stage
2. the local council also found uneconomic with a public subsidy so did not cover in the BDUK roll out either.
....yet Gigaclear found by actually asking the inhabitants that they were indeed commercially viable and they now have a far better full FTTP solution from them than BT were  errr.. not offering.  It's even more bizarre when you consider that Gigaclear needed to build a whole new network from scratch while BT could have at least used their existing ducting where they existed...had BT actually been remotely bovvvered - which obviously they are not.
Ironically some residents even consider now that BT/BDUK have done them a favour by not including them in the half-way house of FTTC as this gave the opportunity for a superior FTTP solution for all to be provided.
Interestingly Gigaclear seem to be winning some BDUK SEP phase two contracts so it looks like some councils have had enough of BT as well as the odd omitted village targeted by Gigalcear.

[ejs]

Should people really be complaining about not getting FTTP if they have FTTC available, which could give them a better speed than what they get on ADSL, but they don't take it up? On one hand they'll be complaining about not being offered a good enough service for the price, and on the other they'll be complaining about people not paying enough for their broadband!
It seems like people just want faster broadband so long as someone else is going to pay for it! How about building enough new houses out in the rural wherever until it becomes more economically viable?
I thought Gigaclear require a decent proportion of the inhabitants to actually agree to take their service before rolling it out to a village.

[x47c]

Indeed, so far the Gigaclear installations have indeed required a % takeup 'signed and sealed' commitment from residents prior to them agreeing to roll it out in the village area.
In effect they require the area to be commercially viable!
The very thing BT and BDUK decided was not the case in my examples above.
However now Gigaclear seem to have changed/expanded their strategy to bidding for stage two BDUK SEP funds and have been winning contracts.
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7032-gigaclear-wins-deal-to-deliver-fttp-to-part-of-rural-berkshi...
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7017-gigaclear-wins-contract-to-deliver-ultrafast-to-4-500-premis...
So I presume in those areas covered by such a contract the residents will simply get the facility provided and will have had to make no prior commitment.