4 ms·

Exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Homes should be connected with permanent, reliable, high capacity fiber optic networks. Mobile connectivity p

Exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Homes should be connected with permanent, reliable, high capacity fiber optic networks. Mobile connectivity plays an important role but it should be complementary, an add-on to the backbone not a substitute. Given how the costs of digital technology are generally on a collapsing trend this suggests significant dysfunction. Reducing the computing experience of the entire population to mobile phones is a severe downgrade, a sort of digital precariat.

Nextgrid 3y ago
> Homes should be connected with permanent, reliable, high capacity fiber optic networks. UK solved that problem by allowing DSL to be sold as "fiber".
- thefz 3y ago
  > Exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Homes should be connected with permanent, reliable, high capacity fiber optic networks. > Mobile connectivity plays an important role but it should be complementary, an add-on to the backbone not a substitute. I desire fiber everywhere as much as any other guy, but for some, 4-5G and a cellular phone is enough. They don't even know or perceive the difference between mobile broadband and landline.
  - rcarr 3y ago
    Exactly, unless you're a heavy gaming household I don't think you'd notice much difference. My mobile internet is more reliable than my fibre wifi.
- amiga386 3y ago
  FTTC are FTTH are both fibre. I'd rather they _did_ upgrade everything to to FTTC, which they can afford, and let those that can fund FTTH pay for it, than leave it as copper wire all the way to the exchange because someone said "FTTH or nothing!" With full FTTC coverage, you're 90% of the way there for a tiny fraction of the cost of full FTTH coverage. DSL is not being sold as "fiber". People are being sold FTTC with a description of exactly what is is and what speed they can expect. Weetabix is being sold as fiber? https://www.bt.com/broadband/fibre/ https://www.bt.com/broadband/fibre/ > Also known as fibre optic broadband, it’s our most widespread broadband. It uses powerful fibre cables to transmit signals to a cabinet on your street, before copper cables connect your home. That’s why you might have heard it called FTTC (fibre to the cabinet). > The result is strong, reliable, superfast broadband, with average speeds up to 80Mb.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > FTTC are FTTH are both fibre. If FTTC is fibre then so is a 56k dial-up or public Wi-Fi. Both have fibre at some point in the path. I think it would be good to give the benefit of the doubt and brand it based on what is likely to be the bottleneck which in this case will be the DSL. > I'd rather they _did_ upgrade everything to to FTTC, which they can afford, and let those that can fund FTTH pay for it, than leave it as copper wire all the way to the exchange because someone said "FTTH or nothing!" Fair enough, but in that case call it by what it really is - DSL and not fibre. This allows consumers to make an informed decision and competition to work effectively (so only actual FTTP providers can call their offer fibre and people will instantly tell the difference between that and DSL without reading the fine print). > DSL is not being sold as "fiber" It is. They should not be calling DSL "fiber" unless you are also happy with 56k dial-up being sold as fiber, along with pretty much any other means of internet access since there's always going to be fibre somewhere along the path. > The result is strong, reliable, superfast broadband, with average speeds up to 80Mb. It is nowhere near as reliable nor fast as true fibre. Also 80Mbps is the theoretical maximum speed - the actual average is much lower, especially on upload speeds despite those becoming even more critical since both remote work and cloud-based services are becoming more relevant every day. There's also no way to tell what your actual speed is going to be without signing up for a contract at which point it will be too late to cancel. I just re-read the sentence and I find the inclusion of "average" speed redundant and can't help but think it is only there to trick you into thinking the average is 80Mbps, as opposed to it simply being the theoretical maximum. Really scummy.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    I've had FTTC for many years, and it's been like eating grilled turd. Latency was through the roof, if you try to plau CS Go you will loose to bots. Weired cal dropping issues on skype/teams/etc. But you do a speed test, and it shows solid 50+ mbps That was Virgin media. Oh, and upload is shit. The I moved to a newbuilt eith FTTH and I never looked back. It's a world of difference. If i need to move I literally reject any home without fiber. Estate agents are always surpised - i. the age of working from home!
- odiroot 3y ago
  UK is not alone in this. Germany is doing the same.
- fomine3 3y ago
  I'd take 4G than DSL
justrealist 3y ago
> Mobile connectivity plays an important role but it should be complementary, an add-on to the backbone not a substitute. Why?
- aaomidi 3y ago
  It’s expensive to maintain. It’s slow. It doesn’t scale. It depends heavily on weather. It can be interfered with by a bad party pretty easily.
  - lucb1e 3y ago
    Expensive to maintain: dunno, but I pay <10€/month for mine, so it can't be that outrageous Slow: you can watch HD video ever since 3G came out, and 4G reduced latency a lot Doesn't scale: that's also a thing 4G apparently addressed. I've never run into capacity issues, just range issues Depends heavily on weather: never noticed it depending even slightly on weather. I've tested this in heavy rain because I indeed heard that 'straalverbindingen' have issues with this ("beam connection", "directional radio"? Not sure how to translate that word) and because microwave ovens seem to work at 2.4 GHz and water adsorbs this very well, but it appeared to make no difference whatsoever for bandwidth or latency tests on mobile data Malicious third parties interfering: never heard of this happening to an ordinary citizen, and if you're scared of your government putting up an IMSI catcher, maybe use a VPN
    - bscphil 3y ago
      > I pay <10€/month for mine > you can watch HD video I wonder... do you primarily watch HD video over this wireless connection, or are you watching it via a more traditional broadband connection? In the US, I pay ~$10 a month for wireless data (across two phones), but these phones are on WiFi 90% of the time and we never watch video on wireless. Even if you have an unusual plan that allows unlimited streaming at that price (without limiting the video bitrate), it seems like it would probably not scale to most people switching to a wireless plan without a price increase.
      - 3y ago
anonuser123456 3y ago
>Given how the costs of digital technology are generally on a collapsing trend Digging trenches and maintaining lines is not a collapsing trend. >Reducing the computing experience of the entire population to mobile phones is a severe downgrade Probably not. Most internet traffic is TikTok, Netflix, adware and people yelling at one another. The useful bits are exceedingly narrow.

Nextgrid 3y ago

> Homes should be connected with permanent, reliable, high capacity fiber optic networks. UK solved that problem by allowing DSL to be sold as "fiber".

thefz 3y ago
> Exactly the opposite of what should be happening. Homes should be connected with permanent, reliable, high capacity fiber optic networks. > Mobile connectivity plays an important role but it should be complementary, an add-on to the backbone not a substitute. I desire fiber everywhere as much as any other guy, but for some, 4-5G and a cellular phone is enough. They don't even know or perceive the difference between mobile broadband and landline.
- rcarr 3y ago
  Exactly, unless you're a heavy gaming household I don't think you'd notice much difference. My mobile internet is more reliable than my fibre wifi.
amiga386 3y ago
FTTC are FTTH are both fibre. I'd rather they _did_ upgrade everything to to FTTC, which they can afford, and let those that can fund FTTH pay for it, than leave it as copper wire all the way to the exchange because someone said "FTTH or nothing!" With full FTTC coverage, you're 90% of the way there for a tiny fraction of the cost of full FTTH coverage. DSL is not being sold as "fiber". People are being sold FTTC with a description of exactly what is is and what speed they can expect. Weetabix is being sold as fiber? https://www.bt.com/broadband/fibre/ https://www.bt.com/broadband/fibre/ > Also known as fibre optic broadband, it’s our most widespread broadband. It uses powerful fibre cables to transmit signals to a cabinet on your street, before copper cables connect your home. That’s why you might have heard it called FTTC (fibre to the cabinet). > The result is strong, reliable, superfast broadband, with average speeds up to 80Mb.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > FTTC are FTTH are both fibre. If FTTC is fibre then so is a 56k dial-up or public Wi-Fi. Both have fibre at some point in the path. I think it would be good to give the benefit of the doubt and brand it based on what is likely to be the bottleneck which in this case will be the DSL. > I'd rather they _did_ upgrade everything to to FTTC, which they can afford, and let those that can fund FTTH pay for it, than leave it as copper wire all the way to the exchange because someone said "FTTH or nothing!" Fair enough, but in that case call it by what it really is - DSL and not fibre. This allows consumers to make an informed decision and competition to work effectively (so only actual FTTP providers can call their offer fibre and people will instantly tell the difference between that and DSL without reading the fine print). > DSL is not being sold as "fiber" It is. They should not be calling DSL "fiber" unless you are also happy with 56k dial-up being sold as fiber, along with pretty much any other means of internet access since there's always going to be fibre somewhere along the path. > The result is strong, reliable, superfast broadband, with average speeds up to 80Mb. It is nowhere near as reliable nor fast as true fibre. Also 80Mbps is the theoretical maximum speed - the actual average is much lower, especially on upload speeds despite those becoming even more critical since both remote work and cloud-based services are becoming more relevant every day. There's also no way to tell what your actual speed is going to be without signing up for a contract at which point it will be too late to cancel. I just re-read the sentence and I find the inclusion of "average" speed redundant and can't help but think it is only there to trick you into thinking the average is 80Mbps, as opposed to it simply being the theoretical maximum. Really scummy.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  I've had FTTC for many years, and it's been like eating grilled turd. Latency was through the roof, if you try to plau CS Go you will loose to bots. Weired cal dropping issues on skype/teams/etc. But you do a speed test, and it shows solid 50+ mbps That was Virgin media. Oh, and upload is shit. The I moved to a newbuilt eith FTTH and I never looked back. It's a world of difference. If i need to move I literally reject any home without fiber. Estate agents are always surpised - i. the age of working from home!
odiroot 3y ago
UK is not alone in this. Germany is doing the same.
fomine3 3y ago
I'd take 4G than DSL

justrealist 3y ago

> Mobile connectivity plays an important role but it should be complementary, an add-on to the backbone not a substitute. Why?

aaomidi 3y ago
It’s expensive to maintain. It’s slow. It doesn’t scale. It depends heavily on weather. It can be interfered with by a bad party pretty easily.
- lucb1e 3y ago
  Expensive to maintain: dunno, but I pay <10€/month for mine, so it can't be that outrageous Slow: you can watch HD video ever since 3G came out, and 4G reduced latency a lot Doesn't scale: that's also a thing 4G apparently addressed. I've never run into capacity issues, just range issues Depends heavily on weather: never noticed it depending even slightly on weather. I've tested this in heavy rain because I indeed heard that 'straalverbindingen' have issues with this ("beam connection", "directional radio"? Not sure how to translate that word) and because microwave ovens seem to work at 2.4 GHz and water adsorbs this very well, but it appeared to make no difference whatsoever for bandwidth or latency tests on mobile data Malicious third parties interfering: never heard of this happening to an ordinary citizen, and if you're scared of your government putting up an IMSI catcher, maybe use a VPN
  - bscphil 3y ago
    > I pay <10€/month for mine > you can watch HD video I wonder... do you primarily watch HD video over this wireless connection, or are you watching it via a more traditional broadband connection? In the US, I pay ~$10 a month for wireless data (across two phones), but these phones are on WiFi 90% of the time and we never watch video on wireless. Even if you have an unusual plan that allows unlimited streaming at that price (without limiting the video bitrate), it seems like it would probably not scale to most people switching to a wireless plan without a price increase.
    - 3y ago

anonuser123456 3y ago

>Given how the costs of digital technology are generally on a collapsing trend Digging trenches and maintaining lines is not a collapsing trend. >Reducing the computing experience of the entire population to mobile phones is a severe downgrade Probably not. Most internet traffic is TikTok, Netflix, adware and people yelling at one another. The useful bits are exceedingly narrow.