Read more.Thanks to a simplified optical receiver that could be cheaply mass produced.
Read more.Thanks to a simplified optical receiver that could be cheaply mass produced.
We have FTTH here in Uruguay, I can't believe you don't have that in the UK given the far far economical distance between you and us.
It might make a difference for new builds, but for existing buildings the biggest part of the cost would be laying of the fibre and associated groundworks if necessary.
We can't even get decent copper lines in new builds so what chance for fibre...
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
Think the only hope for us UK countryside folk is widespread use of 5G (when it arrives) and then having a route/model with traditional ADSL (for lower latency gaming event though I'm only getting 9Mbps after doing everything possible to increase speed) and 5G stick for the high speed downloads. In my village in suffolk they only enabled 50% of houses for FTC and then said they may look to enable the other 50% after 2019!
I live in Ayrshire one mile from the exchange and still not got fibre
all I get is 2/3meg total crap BT dragging there feet as usual its all about profit
the sooner we get 5g the better.
I have been thinking about satellite and then do away with the rip of line rental the greedy Bas---ds at BT charge and sky charges £17-50 for line rental total rip of
Tom G
Line rental is a joke. I mean if you rented a car that can do "upto" 70mph but because of the tyres they've fitted it can only do 20mph. You wouldn't accept it. But we've no option but to accept it. In my area I cannot get Virgin. So I have to get BT. My nearest cab is a few minutes walk away. But the cable goes around the houses before coming to me. ADSL was 5mb/sec. But I'm one of the lucky ones who can get fibre... 14mb/sec. Other people closer to the cab get 80mb/sec. We pay the same...
I think BT needs to have pricing changes enforced on them. No more line rental and charged per mb/sec they can provide. None of this "upto" rubbish. 40p a mb/sec should do it. I'd then pay £5.60 for my speed and those with 80mb/sec will pay £32. It'll encourage them to actually improve the service. I always use my mobile for calls these days so the only purpose it has is to provide internet. If the cost of 4G data dropped then I'd use that. Even on the capped giffgaff I get over 20mb/sec. Ping isn't much higher....
Anyway unless someone else is going to lay the optics in the ground, making the end components cheaper won't benefit the UK. Unless they're manufactured in the UK and we can export them outside the EU....
If your line is provided directly from the exchange - EO (Exchange Only) line then you will not be able to get FTTC. You can check it on BT checker: http://dslchecker.bt.com/adsl
BT are not allowed to do this because of the interference within the exchange building. They are getting around the restriction by putting green cabinets right outside the exchange building, but this is not very widespread yet.
To be fair though we have one of the oldest PSTN infrastructures in the world. It was installed waaaay before anyone was even thinking about using it for Interwebs n stuff. Plus councils would have to have 30 meetings to allow BT (or others) to install fibre. Plus I would imagine the cost to minimise distruption is more than installing from new as in other countries.
Lets face some facts.
Fibre is les durable than cables and cannot be spliced/connetced back together easily.
Hence the semi fibre/copper system is cheaper, more durable and easier to fix.
I think you will find fibre is more durable and has a longer lifespan , and will require less maintenance interventions, the fibre strands them selves are weak and not very good at bending as can fracture, but the cable there made up of consists of cladding and thick PVC to protect the fibre bundles
In Romania we have 1Gbit FTTH for 10 euro a month.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)