Skip Navigation


Openreach publishes more price information for FTTP pilot
Monday 21 September 2009 21:48:34 by Andrew Ferguson

The Openreach product pilot that will see places such as Highams Park in London benefit from a Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) product covering up to 40,000 homes is progressing, with indicative pricing being released.

Openreach has given a range of prices from £175 a year up to £255 a year for the cost of the FTTP products right up to the 100Meg down, 10Meg up product. Products with higher upload speeds will cost more. At £14.60 to £21.25 per month this seems very cheap, but before you start to get too excited remember that this is just for the rental of the fibre that is in the local loop, your data has to get from the telephone exchange to the Internet, and this is where providers like BT Wholesale and the LLU providers such as Sky, O2, TalkTalk take over. For providers using the BT Wholesale product range it will be based around the 21CN service, which generally is retailed with usage limits, i.e. the more you want to use, the more you pay per month, so if your usage habit is around 30GB a month, expect to add £20 or so on top of the Openreach prices.

Of course critics will be questioning why users would pay more to only have limited usage of what may be a 100 meg connection. Some may opt for a faster service simply because they want to be on the end of the fastest possible line whilst others will want a lower latency connection which is more stable and not prone to interference. It is inevitable that over time ISPs, particularly LLU operators, will be offering larger usage allowances or even unmetered connections as the market matures.

Looking into the crystal ball, maybe in three years time, fibre products will have proved popular enough that providers will see that a profit can be made and investment will rapidly increase to ensure the UK has a growing availability of fibre based products to consumers.

Comments

Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
What interference? It's fibre.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Ah, apologies, I misunderstood. Ignore previous statement :)

It'd be interesting to see what kind of take-up there is from LLU providers.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 7 years ago
wow, they quoted us £76k a year for 100meg a few months ago. Just shows the difference in price between rural and urban.
Posted by TonyHoyle over 7 years ago
There's a huge difference between a leased line, uncontended with SLA, and of a home broadband connection - even a 100mb one. 76k seems a lot though, even then.

Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Heh. Look, I've had 2MBit connection with game pings of 30 and 100MBit connecitions (University) with game pings of 7500 (no, not a typo).

Most broadband technologies and even ISDN are fully capeable of very low latencys, depending entirely on the ISP hardware and peering/transit.

ElBobbit - imperfect reflection, for starters.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
That's not interference. Try again.

By the way 30ms is not low - 3ms is low, even 0.3ms is achievable for the first hop.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
30ms to the game server? I think that's entirely acceptable. Not first hop.

And yes, it most certainly /is/ interference. Another issue which can cause it in some applications is cherenkov radiation, incidentally.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
What you think is irrelevant. Sub millisecond to local (same country) is a nominal latency for FTTH connections.

The attenuation - which is not interference, I have no idea why you would be confused by the two - in an optical fibre is a known and consistent value. Unlike copper, you don't have the problem of inconsistent and unknown EMI. Hence, you can account for the attenuation in the design and structure of your network.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Not the first hop. N-O-T. Total time to server. Sure, FTTH might be able to shave 2-3ms off a deacent connection, but this is ingificant compared to the hundreds of ms difference transit and peering make.

And attenuation is not the same thing as interference. And you can accomodate for a cable being bent in the network design? Right. Nice design, let's see it.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Sub millisecond connections from the premises to the game server are perfectly achievable.

You don't have to accommodate for fibre being bent, you just use the right fibre. There are plenty of examples of fibre being used in FTTH that can be bent a lot more than twisted pair - I'm surprised you don't know about... well, any of them.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
They're perfectly achieveable in a LAN setup, sure. Back in the real world, where spending thousands per-server per-user for ideal interconnects...

And yes, you can bend certain fibre considerably without it shattering, but there are still (although reduced) reflection issues.

I know about them and the limits on their *practical* uses, lacking your magic "fibre" bit.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
You can wrap bendable fibre around a normal pencil, staple it to a wall, all with negligible attenuation.

It doesn't take much to have a low latency connection - it's perfectly normal to get sub millisecond latencies across a country so long as you're not having to deal with an outdated first hop. Have you not used a decent connection before? From a FTTTH connection in Paris you can get 3ms to a UK gaming server!

Penny pinching at BT is probably going to put a real kink in it - congestion can really increase network latency and we know how little they like to spend on, well, anything.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Firstly, are you aware how expensive said fibre is, (and the specs thereof), and secondly attenuation is, once again, not the same issue. They have the same cause, incoherent scattering, but one refers to signal strenght loss and the other to data loss within the signal from scattered light.

And please provide evidence of BT's spending policy complete with notations proving your accusations.

(I'm going to lol @ your claims about latency. Which specific "UK gaming server", and provide tracerts)
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Oh and here's a hint, once you get much under 50ms, assuming a one-way control loop (i.e. direct control, not the sort pushed by e.g. Gaikai), ping becomes a minor factor in Human perception.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Verizon uses one of the bendable fibres, so obviously it's perfectly affordable - unless you want to use substandard fibre, which is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from the beancounters at BT.

Here's a tracert from a server I have in Paris to a London gaming server hosted by some random gaming company in the UK I googled, INX Gaming - 5ms tonight:
http://pastebin.com/m16ee4bfd

Hundreds of milliseconds? What complete rubbish.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Well yea, that's the ping to their web servers, not the game servers themselves (game servers do /not/ run on port 80), and it's from "a server", as you note, not a domestic connection. So it's not meaninful when you're talking about an actual domestic connection.

Heck, I get 16ms to that server on this connection, which is midlands-UK and has sub-optimal peering.

And again, back up your accusations about BT with data, or they're simply whaaaambulance material.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Aww, really, a whaaambulance line? That figures, I guess.

Here's a hint - check before you open your mouth. INX runs a Day of Defeat Source server on 85.234.148.30. traceroute uses UDP and certainly doesn't use port 80...
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
They run a TF2 server on 85.234.148.30, a Day of Defeat server on 85.234.148.40.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Now ping their web server. Uh-huh. Maybe that /is/ what you're pinging. (Heck, ping /any/ arbitrary IP they control, same result)

And yes, I'm quite aware how ICMP works, thanks, and why I made the reference I did. Thanks for confirming that you don't have a clue.

And, again, thanks for admiting you don't have any solid data on BT and you're just whining.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Their web server is 92.48.82.149, mate. There's a clue for you. Try nmap, genius, you can see they are three entirely different machines. Good job there, you sure showed me! Oh, but it's a UK location, just like the gaming servers. France to the UK and back in 5ms. See how that works?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
And you'd know precisely why security concerns would stop them from allowing ICMP to access servers other than their frontend webserver.

...

Ah, right, thought not.

And no, you're measuring from a datacenter, not a home PC. The transit/peeting arrangements are typically not the same, and you're cutting out the last mile and ISP servers.

What matters IS the peering/transit, some is terribad and is had very little to do with broadband speeds per-se.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
"Posted by cyberdoyle about 10 hours ago
wow, they quoted us £76k a year for 100meg a few months ago. Just shows the difference in price between rural and urban." - Good god your not FINALLY beginning to get it are you???
Posted by mikeblogs over 7 years ago
So that's twice to three times the cost of MPF.

Does this head line price encourage or discourage other potential builders?

A good start I think, just need the country to move away from backhaul costs based on call conveyance charges.
Posted by GMAN99 over 7 years ago
"A good start I think, just need the country to move away from backhaul costs based on call conveyance charges." To be replaced by what?
Posted by mikeblogs over 7 years ago
buk data transfer rates! Ofcom /Analysis Mason Oct 08 showed bandwidth could drop by a factor of 16 - circa £80 per peak hour Mbps to £5. This is exchange to ISP -POP excludes -POP to internet and peering charges.

No idea on the mechanics on getting to that number, but our headline bandwidth appears to double the US, but out rentals are less.
Posted by Rroff over 7 years ago
The reason you'd want a low ping in online games is more than just about perception/reaction times... the higher the ping the larger margin of error there is between what you see on the screen and whats actually happening on the server... with a 5ms ping you could for the most part aim right at another player with a hitscan weapon and hit them... even at 50ms theres going to be a lot of times you have to lead the target by quite a margin to hit them...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Again, sure, but that has very little to do with absolute connection speed...
Posted by scootie over 7 years ago
you will find the word speed would relate to the latency of a connection and not the avabilable bandwidth
speed (spd)
n.
1. Physics The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially:
a. Distance traveled divided by the time of travel.
b. The limit of this quotient as the time of travel becomes vanishingly small; the first derivative of distance with respect to time.
c. The magnitude of a velocity.
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
@DawnFalcon re Cerenkov radiation: do you know what it is ? (Hint: ask a physicist) Any references to how it causes problems?

@scootie: latency and throughput/bandwidth are separate and often unrelated, exactly as Dawn says. "Speed" might relate to either, depending on context. A hihger bandwidth connection does *not* ncessarily have lower latency than a lower bandwidth one on the same route (it might, or it might not).
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
And it's not just the last mile latency.
Posted by Dixinormous over 7 years ago
This discussion is amusing, please carry on!
Posted by herdwick over 7 years ago
"At £14.60 to £21.25 per month this seems very cheap" - seems more than the Ebbsfleet greenfield prices though - is this still the case ?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
c_j_ - I'm fully aware what Cherenkov radiation is. And think about it's properties, it can actually light a fibre...
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
@Dawn

Thank you for your non-answer. Once again: how's about you "enlighten" readers, with some definitive references on the significance of Cerenkov radiation as a practical (not theoretical) cause of trouble in any kind of fibre network...
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
I suspect the significance is approaching zero.

Recommend the gaming people buy this:

http://globalservices.bt.com/LeafAction.do?Record=Financial_Markets_Low_Latency_Connectivity_and_Management_solutions_gbl_en-gb
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
c_j_ - It's been a real problem using it arround reactors.

What? I didn't say it was a *common* problem, but to claim that there's no interference with fibre is an out and out *lie*.

Somerset - just lol. You're aware of the pricing, I take it?
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
ukonline show you the exchange as the first hop, my latency to my exchange which is about 4km of cable distance away is about 3ms. This is on fast path.
and yes there will be demand for burst speed, high speed low usage fibre products will get signups.
Posted by herdwick over 7 years ago
Down / up w/e from £install £pa rental ex VAT

2.5 / 0.5 Mbit/s 30/06/2008 130.00 175.00
10 / 2 Mbit/s 30/06/2008 130.00 210.00
30 Mbit/s Peak Rate (includes 10/2 product charges) 30/06/2008 130.00 234.00
100 Mbit/s Peak Rate (includes 10/2 product charges) 30/06/2008 130.00 294.00

Openreach price list (Ebbsfleet)
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
Oh dear Dawn.

You couldn't have known this, but years before BT's fttc trials, I was working with folks doing Magnox reactor life-extension computer system upgrades.

My recollection is these folks liked FDDI (F = fibre) networks - has some kit vendor been pulling your leg? If I still had contacts at Barnwood I'd enquire, but it got closed a long time ago.

It really doesn't matter; real fttp deployments in the real world won't really be affected by Cerenkov.

Nice try for a distraction though.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Oh dear c_j_, you seem to be flat out lying given a 2 second google search.

And it's not a distraction, it's debunking junk claims related to certain people's magic fibre bit.

chrysalis - Oooh noes, 7ms here! Sorry, 4ms (and this connection is distinctly sub-optimal, as mentioned) is really non-significant when you consider peering and routing can easily add hundreds of ms if poor.
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
"flat out lying given a 2 second google search."

Care to say specifically what offended your sense of truth?

When I searched for Magnox and FDDI I got a pile of stuff including
http://apps.ornl.gov/~pts/prod/pubs/ldoc6813_ornl_nrc_ltr_07_05_ver_8_17_07__final.pdf

Have a look at fig 3.7 and thereabouts, for example.

Even if it doesn't mean much to many readers, it's a better reference for use of fibre in the nuclear industry than you've been able to provide to support for your Cerenkov theory so far.

Fibre may not answer everyone's problems, but let's keep fact and fiction separate.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Fact: Fibre can have interference.

That's all there is to my point.
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
Yes fibre can have interference.

The Cerenkov scenarios which Dawn has been referring to but not naming presumably include things like high energy particle accelerators. You can find them in specialist hospitals for cancer treatment, and similarly obscure places. The particle beam is small and well protected and outside the beam there is no disruption.

The copper scenarios which BT lie about are not obscure they are widespread and BT can't even make them work reliably at up to 8Mbit without wanting to charge £100+ a go for an SFI visit. Fact.
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
whoops. The "BT lie about" bit was a reference to today's "up to 24Mbit" but the "up to 24Mbit" bit mention dropped out. Sorry.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
I named one quite explitly, c_j_ - reactors.

And what "lies" are you refering to? Please provide documentary evidence, because I'm sure the shareholders would be interested in fraud on the scale you're accusing them of.

And you want BT to change the laws of physics now. Roofle.
Posted by chrysalis over 7 years ago
dawn I never said 3ms is significant, to me its fine. Of course if I was heavily interleaved and had a 40ms latency to the exchange I wouldnt be happy.
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
Dawn may claim to have named an example but provides no references to support his claim. Read the ORNL reference I provided (ignore my personal experience of FDDI in the reactor industry). Draw your own conclusions.

Wrt BT: what kind of idiot believes their implausible claim of "24Meg to 75% of the country by 2011". It's not going to happen, and even if it could they couldn't keep it usably reliable (even with the £100+ per visit SFI stupidity).

I don't want BT to change the laws of physics but some honesty in the industry would be welcome.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
You mean like they broke their promises on activating exchanges? Oh wait, they did those. It's entirely reasonably to believe that on past performance, they'll achieve their goals.

And look up Cherenkov radiation. Don't out yourself as a fool, rly. (Nuclear physicist you are clearly not...)
Posted by c_j_ over 7 years ago
"Nuclear physicist you are clearly not.."

I'm not asking readers to believe me, I'm asking them to believe verifiable stuff from folks like ORNL. Readers can look up Cerenkov radiation and see where it's found.

As it happens I do have a physics degree and spent a few years working with folks in Barnwood and Wythenshawe and Stone (if you were in the industry back then, you'd know these placenames), folks who knew what they were doing with Magnox monitoring systems and fibre networks.

What have you got?

Bored with this game now, have a nice weekend.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
The ability to do a google search.

glfh.
Posted by Gzero over 7 years ago
So in a nutshell, why argue about this radiation? How does it affect joe public and prevent fibre being deployed around the UK instead of BT's new faster 21cn that doesn't seem to be what they claim, 'faster'.

Their advert said no slow down during peak time, has this been proven?
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Dawn - as most of us don't have a nuclear reactor in the garden will you accept there is no relevance in this for rolling out fibre for broadband?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Gzero - It's debunking a false claim, where does joe public come into it?
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 7 years ago
Dawn - you're a fool taking on a physicist on their own turf! I can tell you from my own involvement in high energy nuclear physics that c_j_ knows what he's talking about and you don't.

Sure you are likely to get the occasional cosmic ray induced Cerenkov radiation event in fibre optic cable, but it wouldn't be very often and you'd need a photomultiplier to register it, whereas the EM noise induced in telephone twisted copper pairs is horrendous.
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 7 years ago
I've had my doubts about your arguments in the past but I think you've just demonstrated a marked inability to distinguish between what you really know and what you know naff all about that destroys any credibility you might have had
.
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 7 years ago
Hint: When you're stuck at the bottom of a deep hole - stop digging!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Yea, I think you need to put your shovel down.

The claim was NO interference. This is clearly and plainly untrue, as you yourself accnowledge. I didn't try and equate it to copper noise, there is no inference you can draw there... I was simply and plainly debunking the magic fibre bit.

It's a technology, not magic, and people like you need to step back and take a deep breath from the claims made about it.

(PS, this thread is hillarious)
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
So what claims are untrue? Please be realistic.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
...

That there is no interference on fibre.

That's it, that's allways been it.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Dawn - So what are the practical problems?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Who mentioned practical problems? Not me.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Oh dear, Dawn, I've come across this thread again only to find you making stuff up again.

Please show us where someone made the claim that fibre was totally immune to external sources of interference.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Dawn - you said 'Another issue which can cause it in some applications is cherenkov radiation, incidentally.'

What's the relevance?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Oh dear Bobbit, the first comment here.

Somerset - The relevance is it's interference. Seriously, stop wasting time looking for something that's not there.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
Please read the first comment then, Dawn. It does not make any claims... and yet the only possible thing you could even google up is - as you stated yourself - not a "practical problem".
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
You made a claim. It'd been debunked.

And no, I simply haven't addressed the issue of "practical", since it's entirely irrelevant.

And no, that was the /first/ thing found on google. There's hundreds of pages more if I wanted to keep searching for more things...but I don't need to. A single counter-example debunks the claim.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Sample: Alpha and Beta radiation can damage fibre. (Sure, no /EM/ interference, but that's not the same thing at all)
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
You're so right, of course, Dawn, you can damage it with radiation! It's so important that we have you around here to provide us with all of these valuable things we couldn't have known.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
I'd have said it was more like your piss poor 'counter-example' was debunked.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
So you're saying that radiation dosn't cause issues with fibre? You're an idiot. And wrong.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
At some point you'll say something of relevance but I suspect we'll all be dead and gone by then.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
Dawn - where is this radiation damage likely to occur? Any examples of telecomms companies having problems?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Somerset - Why are you hung up on this? Srsly, it was just a debunking, heh. You're searching for things which don't exist.
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 7 years ago
Sigh! I think we're on the Dawn of another era of error
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
DF - You say radiation causes problems. What exactly?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Mr Plushy - Yea, the error is that people think that there's this hidden agenda. It's funny.

Somerset - Alpha and beta radiation can damage fibre. Seriously, this is stuff you can easily look up. Again, I am in no way commenting on ANYTHING but that one fact. Why are you hung up on this? This is going from funny to "The joke's on the people looking for the hidden agenda".
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
I don't see anyone else laughing. You've come up with utterly implausible scenarios and they've been shot down.
What makes me laugh is that if there is no hidden agenda your crazy need to find problems (cherenkov radiation, really?) with fibre even more inane.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
DF - is this relevant to UK deployment of fibre, which has been around for over 30 years?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
No, because it's such a BAD joke on your part.

You made a claim. It is wrong, and you aren quite unable to admit it. Plausability was not a part of your claim, it's a smokescreen for your pathological inability to admot you're wrong.
Posted by ElBobbo over 7 years ago
I'll "admot" I'm wrong when you come up with real world problems. See the second post, where I admitted I'd misunderstood?

Somerset - of course it's not relevant, he can't find anything that is or he'd have brought it up. He can't even find any examples of the problems he did google up.

After all there are millions of miles of fibre all around the world having absolutely none of his "problems".
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Right, of course you won't admit you're wrong because you made an absolute statement, it got debunked and you have to preserve your "allways right" record *somehow*.

You're wrong in this case. And your refusal to admit it reflects on everything you type.
Posted by Mr_Fluffy over 7 years ago
Dawn - have you been forgetting to take your dried frog pills again?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
Mr Plushy - Yea, see, those are /your/ pills, stop trying to give them to me.
Posted by Somerset over 7 years ago
How about ending this discussion with us all agreeing there are no practical problems with fibre due to radiation.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 7 years ago
How about admitting that "practical" had absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the discussion, Sunset?
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.