4 ms·

You're one of the lucky ones. I don't consider the 'fibre' crap they offer, FTTN then vdsl, to be 'fibre', so the comparison you make is misleading. If the UK g

You're one of the lucky ones. I don't consider the 'fibre' crap they offer, FTTN then vdsl, to be 'fibre', so the comparison you make is misleading. If the UK gov had got 95% FTTH they might have something to be proud of.

walshemj 9y ago
But FTTH as opposed to FTTC (Fibre to the cab) a lot more expensive and the "subs" are not keen on paying for FTTH. Whos going to pay for this extra infrastructure.
- te_chris 9y ago
  That was in my first post: The govt. should pay, or at least subsidise, as it's a national infrastructure investment. The UK is one of the world's leading tech nations, mostly due to London and the research universities, but the broadband is rubbish. If the govt. is prepared to write what looks like a blank cheque for HS2, why not throw a few billion pounds at FTTH?
  - martinald 9y ago
    Why? It's likely to be tens of billions of £ to move from FTTC to FTTH, which very few people would even notice.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    There are better uses of tax money than upgrading grans line to FTTH when all she uses it for is to call her daughter and family on the phone. and why does consumer bb speeds effect th UK's status as a leading tech nation - not treating engineers and scientists as second class citizens would do far more.
martinald 9y ago
I honestly can't tell the difference between 80/20 FTTN and 1gig FTTH for 99% of use cases. Both support HD conferencing and 4K video with ease. WiFi tends to struggle to deliver above 100meg reliably regardless (especially in dense urban environments, or conversely old rural homes with very thick walls). Keep in mind BT is starting an aggressive Gfast rollout and has a slow and steady FTTH program also running. Personally I don't think it's worth the UK govt spending £30bn+ on FTTH as I believe the commercial sector will get there, especially when FTTC is so widespread.
- nimish 9y ago
  Wifi struggles hard in British buildings but the difference between 80/20 and 1gbps is huge: worry free multiple streaming or uploads or anything involving more than one person or even 4k streaming for one person The upload does matter with everyone uploading videos and high resolution pics plus game streaming. It also helps a ton if you have the odd 200GB genome you need to archive somewhere :)
  - martinald 9y ago
    Ok, I don't know if this use case justifies many billions spend on it from government funds. Netflix's top 4K stream uses 25mbit/sec. How many households have multiple 4K TVs in use at once?
    - nimish 9y ago
      ...How many families with kids streaming 2 different shows to their ipads/phones/laptops do you know? + Parents streaming video? Maybe one of them streaming a game on twitch? It adds up. Copper is far less reliable at distance than fiber (the amount of people able to get 80mbps is < 10%). And government is totally incentivized to spend money on a natural monopoly with an immense RoI. Rural areas are basically disconnected from high end internet activities. If you build a fast national network, it will pay off. And for the record, the cost to full fiber the UK is less than the government plans to spend on HS2, a single rail link between birmingham and london.
      - martinald 9y ago
        2 different shows to phones/tablets = 2x4mbit/sec = 8mbit Parents streaming video - assume 4K HDR (even though virtually nil content is in that) = 25mbit/sec Twitch = 2mbit/sec (upload, but for the sake of argument, assume it was download) Add in 10mbit/sec for browsing, updates etc and you're still at 45mbit/sec. More than 55% of the UK can get >100mbit/sec currently - definitely not <10%: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7918-january-update-on-state-of-broadband-coverage-across-the-uk-nations-and-regions https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7918-january-update-on-s.... I know coworking spaces that operate with around 100 people on 100/100 internet with little problem. My grandmas old village in probably the most rural area of NW england can get 80/20mbit broadband (very close to cabinet). If you genuinely think that uncapped 80mbit/sec cuts you off, I don't really understand what you're saying. HS2 is a very important project and I would much rather that be funded than spending billions on slightly faster internet.

walshemj 9y ago

But FTTH as opposed to FTTC (Fibre to the cab) a lot more expensive and the "subs" are not keen on paying for FTTH. Whos going to pay for this extra infrastructure.

te_chris 9y ago
That was in my first post: The govt. should pay, or at least subsidise, as it's a national infrastructure investment. The UK is one of the world's leading tech nations, mostly due to London and the research universities, but the broadband is rubbish. If the govt. is prepared to write what looks like a blank cheque for HS2, why not throw a few billion pounds at FTTH?
- martinald 9y ago
  Why? It's likely to be tens of billions of £ to move from FTTC to FTTH, which very few people would even notice.
- walshemj 9y ago
  There are better uses of tax money than upgrading grans line to FTTH when all she uses it for is to call her daughter and family on the phone. and why does consumer bb speeds effect th UK's status as a leading tech nation - not treating engineers and scientists as second class citizens would do far more.

martinald 9y ago

I honestly can't tell the difference between 80/20 FTTN and 1gig FTTH for 99% of use cases. Both support HD conferencing and 4K video with ease. WiFi tends to struggle to deliver above 100meg reliably regardless (especially in dense urban environments, or conversely old rural homes with very thick walls). Keep in mind BT is starting an aggressive Gfast rollout and has a slow and steady FTTH program also running. Personally I don't think it's worth the UK govt spending £30bn+ on FTTH as I believe the commercial sector will get there, especially when FTTC is so widespread.

nimish 9y ago
Wifi struggles hard in British buildings but the difference between 80/20 and 1gbps is huge: worry free multiple streaming or uploads or anything involving more than one person or even 4k streaming for one person The upload does matter with everyone uploading videos and high resolution pics plus game streaming. It also helps a ton if you have the odd 200GB genome you need to archive somewhere :)
- martinald 9y ago
  Ok, I don't know if this use case justifies many billions spend on it from government funds. Netflix's top 4K stream uses 25mbit/sec. How many households have multiple 4K TVs in use at once?
  - nimish 9y ago
    ...How many families with kids streaming 2 different shows to their ipads/phones/laptops do you know? + Parents streaming video? Maybe one of them streaming a game on twitch? It adds up. Copper is far less reliable at distance than fiber (the amount of people able to get 80mbps is < 10%). And government is totally incentivized to spend money on a natural monopoly with an immense RoI. Rural areas are basically disconnected from high end internet activities. If you build a fast national network, it will pay off. And for the record, the cost to full fiber the UK is less than the government plans to spend on HS2, a single rail link between birmingham and london.
    - martinald 9y ago
      2 different shows to phones/tablets = 2x4mbit/sec = 8mbit Parents streaming video - assume 4K HDR (even though virtually nil content is in that) = 25mbit/sec Twitch = 2mbit/sec (upload, but for the sake of argument, assume it was download) Add in 10mbit/sec for browsing, updates etc and you're still at 45mbit/sec. More than 55% of the UK can get >100mbit/sec currently - definitely not <10%: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7918-january-update-on-state-of-broadband-coverage-across-the-uk-nations-and-regions https://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7918-january-update-on-s.... I know coworking spaces that operate with around 100 people on 100/100 internet with little problem. My grandmas old village in probably the most rural area of NW england can get 80/20mbit broadband (very close to cabinet). If you genuinely think that uncapped 80mbit/sec cuts you off, I don't really understand what you're saying. HS2 is a very important project and I would much rather that be funded than spending billions on slightly faster internet.