Skip Navigation


£10 subsidy per premises grants 40meg broadband to Iwade in Kent
Thursday 08 July 2010 17:04:17 by John Hunt

A £10 subsidy per premises and some joined up thinking has granted the small rural community of Iwade in Kent access to super-fast broadband from Autumn 2010. The subsidy provided by a grant from Kent County Council has helped fund investment in to the service as this additional money has pushed the area in to the viable category from BT which has unlocked a further £62,000 of investment. This brings the total cost per premises up to £55.56 each based on the 1350 expected to be covered by this investment.

This has been made possible by the fact that the nearby exchange of Sittingbourne was already scheduled to be enabled for faster broadband using fibre-to-the-cabinet technology. Iwade had already set forth plans to improve their local broadband with a 10-person strong committee who had applied to Kent County Council for community projects. One option being investigated was the deployment of satellite based broadband, but when the nearby exchange of Sittingbourne was announced for an upgrade, it made sense to try and connect up to BT's nearby high-speed network.

"Up to now, broadband has always been about huge amounts of public money, but in the process of that we risk forgetting the small communities and we risk missing the chance to fill in places on the map that aren't viable for us to do on their own.

We haven't announced a lot of where the two-thirds of the UK that we'll be covering actually is yet, and a lot of that will then be susceptible to incremental increases with additional, alternative sources of funding. But because we're an ex-state monopoly, people look at us and think this is our job to go and install broadband where it simply is not economically viable. It's not. We're a private company.

It's going to depend on our ability to minimise the cost of deployment. If we see more people signing up, that may change the economics. But there'll still be a gap. The fastest way to find out how big that gap is is to get on and build the network.

I feel the 66 per cent roll-out will be a minimum, and I would fully expect us to go beyond that. But it's dependent on alternative sources of funding. The vast majority is likely to be public."

Steve Robertson, (Chief Executive) BT Openreach

This enablement is a great example of how those desperate for broadband can work out a solution that will work for them, and relatively cheaply. One could argue that the whole country could be rolled out in a similar fashion once BT have reached the 66% coverage as it should in theory become small incremental amounts of additional funding that will be required to make the step out to the remaining communities. The question is how many can actually get access to the relevant funding, particularly when central government is pulling in the reigns on government spending. It is also an example of why the campaign for 'final third first' may not be the best approach to get places enabled.

Perhaps one option would be for BT to introduce a higher installation fee in these more expensive areas. When broadband first became available, businesses used to pay £260 for installation with home users paying £150. Current install prices for fibre-to-the-cabinet are £75 excluding VAT, but a special offer is running until the end of the year reducing this to £35.

PC Pro have looked into the pricing of BT's fibre-to-the-cabinet offerings and are wondering if the numbers add up. Extrapolating figures based on the cost to Iwade and estimating the amount of business premises across the country, they arrive at around £1.622 billion for a nationwide deployment of fibre-to-the-cabinet technology, far below BT and the Broadband Stakeholder Groups estimated £5.1 billion. They accept that the numbers are "dubious" and this is particularly so as they will have failed to include a contribution toward the cost of getting fibre to a nearby area as is the case with Iwade. The numbers are, however, interesting considering that Iwade would be considered as one of the 'final third' of the country which wouldn't expect to get connected without additional funding. There will at least be many more places like this which will be able to connect relatively cheaply.

Comments

Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
A BT solution means a large choice of ISPs, unlike other schemes?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
It looks like Iwade is served by Sittingbourne exchange so was it just not viable for FTTC due to distance?

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange_mapping?olo=NDSIT

It's essential the 66% is announced down to cabinet level asap.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
More here:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/07/08/is-fibre-broadband-as-expensive-as-bt-makes-out/

Looks like 3 of the 4 cabinets would have been enabled anyway.
Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
The cabinets on Sittingbourne exchange were already scheduled for FTTC. The one on Newington exchange would have been left without service, it's that cabinet that the £13,000 is for and BT has made out that they have stumped up £75,000 extra, but that is not the case. Openreach had already planned to enable the three Sittingbourne cabinets.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"..... But because we're an ex-state monopoly, people look at us and think this is our job to go and install broadband where it simply is not economically viable. It's not. We're a private company."

LOL who still wants government handouts to do work in rural areas.
Posted by mistynow over 6 years ago
@timmay

<<<<The one on Newington exchange would have been left without service, it's that cabinet that the £13,000 is for>>>>

Wasn't aware that Iwade was running off Newington which is my exchange and very antiquated plus overlooked for any form of upgrade, have you any link or info. please
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"LOL who still wants government handouts to do work in rural areas." but its the same thing isn't it? They are saying if its not economically viable they want someone to help fund it.
Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
Only about 15 homes in Iwade are off Newington exchange, if my memory serves me correctly. Openreach have no plans to upgrade Newington exchange.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
Openreach should be infrastructure only like C&W.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
What do you mean? C&W do more than infrastructure...

Why is Newington very antiquated?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - why LOL?
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
One way of silencing the voices, but still only a stop gap solution making sure the copper gets another few decades... and I can see many councils jumping on this bandwagon. It means that to email or talk to your neighbour you have to go via the internet. It isn't NGA. real NGA is fibre to the home innit? keep traffic local. keep the pipes clearer, cheaper. If BT are gonna get public handouts they should be used for fibre to the home. Or given to someone else to do it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Iwade Broadband is delivered via the Sittingbourne exchange. Only a very limited number of phone lines come from the Newington exchange which will be very very old lines. Some phones lines (not just serving Iwade) were moved from Newington to sittingbourne exchange years ago. Iwade only got UPTO 8Mb due to local council pressure on BT and residents being encouraged to say they wanted it even if they didnt to trigger the then at the time BT trigger levels which were needed before they would roll out services to areas.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
The Newington exchange serves homes up to Rainham (IE a north and west direction) anything in an eastly(ish) direction is normally handled by the sittingbourne exchange, when you get to the Isle of sheppey that has its own exchanges. Teynham/Faversham likewise have their own exchanges. A family member lived in Iwade back when 512k and 1Mb services were common and moved just as 2Mb for most areas and UPTO 8Mb for others was coming in. So im quite familiar with the setup in that area and how residents have screamed about poor quality from a couple of the exchanges.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote""LOL who still wants government handouts to do work in rural areas." but its the same thing isn't it? They are saying if its not economically viable they want someone to help fund it."

Private company...... They have no right to government funding or tax payers money, they gave up that right years ago..... They should start spending and stop lying about how much things will cost... http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/07/08/is-fibre-broadband-as-expensive-as-bt-makes-out/
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
It regards to Iwade not being viable due to distance...... You would be right that is probably the reason they were not going to do Iwade but now money has been waved under their noses they are happy to.
It will be interesting to use Iwade to see how bad FTTC speeds drop as its about 3 miles(ish) from sittingbourne exchange to centre(ish) of Iwade village.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
Of course it isn't as expensive as BT makes out. They never lowball it, because then they can't complain about not receiving any public funding and they can't pat themselves on the back when they miraculously come out under budget (or on budget, when they've finished putting money in their pockets).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
They trouble with sittingbourne is for a small town its quite large (if that makes sense) and constantly growing (lots of new housing) when it comes to areas outside sittingbourne a few small villages do not have their own exchanges..... A small village called Borden is another example of a village about 2 miles from the sittingbourne exchange... The place is surrounded by small villages without exchanges..... Central sittingbourne'rs get great choice and speed those just outside the town dont.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - 'It will be interesting to use Iwade to see how bad FTTC speeds drop as its about 3 miles(ish)'

FTTC speeds depend on distance from cabinet to home, not from cabinet to exchange.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd - 'It means that to email or talk to your neighbour you have to go via the internet.'

What do you mean? Please, find out how the technoology works before posing on forums.

And yes, this FTTC is NGA. The industry calls it that.

A public handout would have to be a lot bigger to get FTTP installed, perhaps you could tell us how much.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
So did the money from the council just provide one cabinet, the figures are confusing.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
@Somerset

I mean anything but being an ISP themselves.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@CB "They should start spending and stop lying" but no and this is where the problem lies. If they won't go into areas which are not economically viable (which makes total sense) people should shut up moaning, they are either a private company that gets no funding, or they have to provide next gen broadband to everyone at the request of the government, it can't be both? You can't say... oh you are a private company go about your business but the government can also make you go into areas you don't want to because of high costs? Its one or the other not both.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"cb - 'It will be interesting to use Iwade to see how bad FTTC speeds drop as its about 3 miles(ish)'

FTTC speeds depend on distance from cabinet to home, not from cabinet to exchange."

That statement isnt exactly true... Using that logic everyone even if there is just a singular exchange serving the whole UK everyone should get the same speed, FTTC speeds are down to 2 things...... The length of cable to the cabinet and the length of copper from cabinet to a persons home.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - wrong! There is virtually no delay in the fibre from exchange to cabinet.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@GMAN99
1 They do not have to provide to everyone, no fixed percentage of homes they will have to supply FTTC to has ever been set
2 Other companies and communitys have raise their own funding for Fibre broadband schemes, why should BT make further money from those people and areas when BT did not want to invest?
3 The government and ofcom can insist they cover whatever percentage of the UK they deem fit, the same has happened with numerous other services in this country..... Time BT spent some of their profits and stopped whinging about it like spoilt little brats.
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
CB/CD No one else is going to do it, the last time it was tried the companies (NTL/Telewest) went bust and the shareholders lost all their money. CB, so you're saying they should invest in something that will not return their investment or even result in a loss? Why? Give us your business plan on how BT should operate! We wait with baited breath!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
You are wrong Somerset.... The same thing happens on Virgin cable whos services are also a mixture of fibre and copper.

Length of a fibre run can affect speeds to an area, not as much as having a lone coppeer run from cabinet to home, but fibre speeds do drop the longer the fibre run is.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
1) Correct, 2) Let other companies do it then, and why are BT making further money? From the backhaul to the Internet do you mean, then go C&W or Virgin it doesn't have to be BT. 3) And if they insist/force BT to go into areas not commercially viable they should fund or part fund it. Name me another private company that the government has forced to rollout services at a loss.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@themanstan I have no problem with BT making money. I have problems with the lies they tell regarding costs and the crying they do even though they will make profit from subscibers for years to come even if they didnt 100% fund the roll out to some areas.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Why should a PRIVATE PROFIT MAKING company get richer due to local government and local people investment? There are plenty of small business that employ local people in their business to say answer a phone (unlike BT and India call centres) that would love to be given tens of thousands of government cash to enrich their business, which make nowhere near the profit BT do.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Oh no CB oh no.... "Length of a fibre run can affect speeds to an area" just... no.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But CB it can't be both ways. Its either:-

A) Leave BT alone to make money in areas where they can make it (like all other companies do!) and everyone including the government shuts up about telling them they have to rollout Broadband everywhere

B) If the government insists BT (why just BT?) must rollout broadband whether its ADSL or FTTC/FTTH everywhere and there are areas that are not commercially viable, the government (as they are requesting it) should help fund it

How hard is that to understand, not hard?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@GMAN99... The whole point of fibre and government schemes was to empower local communitys to help fund services to their areas and also allow other businesses to become involved supplying areas..... So far Ive not read many stories of small communitys using business to supply to areas other than BT, even when it has been smaller business doing it, its still been using a BT backhaul so BT are still getting rich at others expense... Make them pay if they want profit from it all i say.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
As to naming other companies that have been forced to roll out to other areas i can name several, i cant name several that make a loss though, then again i dont believe you can prove BT will make a loss from any FTTC scheme they are involved in.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I can't just like you can't prove they will make a profit. As for using BT backhaul that is their choice there are other companies they can use.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I can't just like you can't prove they will make a profit. As for using BT backhaul that is their choice there are other companies they can use."

Huh i cant prove they will make a profit?? So if a local community entirely funds the roll out of a service to their area and BT do the work... They will never make a profit from doing so.... Is that what you are telling me? LOL yep if you say so..... 10 years on after not having to spend a penny they will still be making a loss in those areas?? Of course they will.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Infact heres another point given this story and location of cabinets and how many premises they serve and likely distance of SOME of those cabinets to premises........

Shall we stop calling their tripe FTTC and call it what it actually is FTTN, which is the bottom end of the FTTx bunch.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - doesn't FTTC give dedicated bandwidth from cabinet to exchange? What does the Openreach product description say?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Couldnt give a care what BT openreach lies say....
FTTN - is terminated in a street cabinet up to several kilometers away from the customer premises, with the final connection being copper.
FTTC - is very similar to FTTN, but the street cabinet is closer to the user's premises; typically within 300m..... BTs product is obviously FTTN not FTTC. Especially if locations of cabinets for the most part are going to be in the same/similar location as old cabinets or the same (rough) sort of numbers.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Somerset yes it is dedicated bandwidth. @CB as usual you are tieing things in knots. I'm talking about BT not making a profit if they do if themselves, nothing to do with funding. If BT can make a profit by doing the work themselves on these hard to reach areas why aren't they what is their reason do they not like these people is that what your saying or are we going down the usual conspiracy theory they are they trying to pull a fast one and eek money out of the state that isn't really needed.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Where are you getting this FTTN from CB? Its FTTC the work is done in the street cab not a cab km's away.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 The sittingbourne exchange in this example serves 20,555 residential premises &
1,102 non-residential premises. Are you saying fitting a cabinet in Iwade which is served by that exchange and for the most part is going to have fibre cabinets they were not going to do Iwade as in TOTAL for the area they wouldnt make money? How many people need to be served by an exchange before they make money?? Put simply its more BT lies to avoid extra work and initial cost.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
The FTTN and FTTC descriptions i gave come from several sites including wikipedia and are accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - the Uk telecomms industry uses the term FTTC.

There is no difference in the bandwidth available in a 1km length of fibre and a 20km length.

'fibre speeds drop' What do you mean, latency or bandwidth?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
ya wrong somerset FTTN and FTTC are different.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/FTTX.png
Indeed there is no difference POTENTIAL bandwidth available a 1 or 20km length of FIBRE.... But FTTC and FTTN have different length of copper in them.

PURE Fibre speeds can and due drop over distance, someone 1km away on a FTTH service would attain different attenuation to someone 20km away. The light refraction also tends to flatten out over distance also increasing delay times.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - not over the distances involved here. Do you have some examples?

Attenuation does not affect the bandwidth to the customer. Hence - fibre length does not affect the FTTC product.
Posted by jumpmum over 6 years ago
Backhaul is ethernet over fibre, it make no difference what the distance from Cabinet to Exchange is. Openreach appear to be using 1Ge bandwidths. tech specs from Openreach site say they will only provide if they can Guarantee line speed of 15Mb. They claim the 15Mb is uncontended to the exchange this equates to 66 customers per 1Ge backhaul. Anything over the 15Mb (up to 40) is contended.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Oh CB you should have just stopped earlier... your out of your depth on fibre speeds/distances. What has that wiki got to do with Openreach NGA? Nothing.
Posted by jumpmum over 6 years ago
CB: The Lasers used in the backhaul depend on distance, SX up to 10km, Lx up to 100Km, zx 100m only. You pick your power for your distance. If attenuation is to great the optics will not work. Speed is either there or not as the Transmission system sets this. 1G or 10G. If in the Core network you use WDM with multiple wavelengths over 1 pair of fibres, You can get 160 x 10G paths over 1 pair of fibres over 60 Miles without regeneration IF you pay the money.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"cb - not over the distances involved here. Do you have some examples?"

Cabinet in Newington serving someone on the boundry of Rainham would be several hundred metres away which would make the service more comparable to FTTN not FTTC..... Go look at google maps and samknows if you dont believe the distance i quote.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"your out of your depth on fibre speeds/distances. What has that wiki got to do with Openreach NGA? Nothing."

And as i said i dont care what openreach liars call their product.....
I suppose this site which describes each service is also wrong http://www.fttxtra.com/
You listen to the well know truth tellers called BT though LOL
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
CB your talking riddles AGAIN, how is that an example of where FIBRE speeds drop, both FTTN and FTTC have copper elements to them, there's no back-peddling to be had.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
None of those sites are wrong in what they describe. Openreach are rolling out FTTC
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@JUMPMUM
If all that were true why is it some people will only get 15Mb of the potential 40Mb with BT?..... WARNING.. Think before you answer and say because of the copper. (A copper length of under 300M would give you more than 15Mb so if the product is true FTTC that is not the reason)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"None of those sites are wrong in what they describe. Openreach are rolling out FTTC"

Really so what product does someone greater than 300m from the cabinet get if the sites i mention are correct? It technically speaking based on atleast one of the links (no matter how BT spin it)cant be FTTC.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
What difference does the distance from the cab mean for a name? So are you saying it should be called FTTC for some (probably the majority) and FTTN for others? Your doing a great job of trying to deflect your "fibre speeds drop over a distance" shcoker, shame its not working.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
However, the length of fibre from cabinet to exchange does NOT affect performance.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Nope its FTTN for all, it can only be called FTTC if the product as a whole meets the spec......

More evidence its FTTN
http://www.glgroup.com/News/BTs-FTTC-is-Apparently-no-Different-from-ATTs-Limiting-FTTN-Approach-26596.html

ho hum........ BT liars again....... End of discussion.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"However, the length of fibre from cabinet to exchange does NOT affect performance."

Ill rephrase that for you...
However, the length of fibre from cabinet to exchange SHOULD NOT affect performance.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Whatever its a name, tomato's vs tomato's what difference does it actually make to the product. Its still the same product it was yesterday whether it uses the term FTTC or FTTN
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - so now you are saying 'should not'? As an expert in this area could you please give some examples of the difference between say, 0.5km and 5km from exchange to cabinet.

Fibre will run 50km without repeaters so what exactly is the issue you are trying to explain?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Whatever its a name, tomato's vs tomato's what difference does it actually make to the product. Its still the same product it was yesterday whether it uses the term FTTC or FTTN"
Wrong again...... FTTN allows for longer copper runs than FTTC......
More evidence it is infact technically FTTN and not FTTC.....
http://www.fttxtra.com/fttx/fiber-to-the-curb-fttc-overview/ CONT....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago

Quote from about halfway down....
" Note that BT also uses the term FTTC to describe its VDSL2 deployments. However, in BT’s usage of the term, FTTC stands for Fiber to the Cabinet, and this is virtually identical to what is called FTTN in the US."
It is not a FTTC product... Now who was out of their depth on the FTTC Vs FTTN debate?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"cb - so now you are saying 'should not'? As an expert in this area could you please give some examples of the difference between say, 0.5km and 5km from exchange to cabinet."

Attenuation and ping time for starters. Fibre speeds over distance do drop even in a pure fibre network, ask the Japanese about that if you dont believe me. As this is a FTTN (or as some insist FTTC) service the copper length will be the most limiting factor as to whether someone gets 20Mb or 40Mb.... That factor though and the distinction in what the service SHOULD be called is an important one though.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
If the copper length in somecases is several km in length (or even 1km) the service is FTTN which is not as capable of speed as what a true FTTC service would be.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - FTTC can mean cabinet or curb. As the majority of customers are close to cabinets fibre-to-the-cabinet is correct.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"Now who was out of their depth on the FTTC Vs FTTN debate?" I'm sorry were we debating that? No we were all laughing are your "PURE Fibre speeds can and due drop over distance" comments.

I couldn't care less whether BT calls it FTTC or FTTN or Fibre to a green box. It has no bearing on your earlier statements where you say that the FIBRE distance between the cab and exchange has a bearing on speed.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Has anyone got a number for "The Japanese"?

I love how you keep deflecting this back to copper, forget copper we are talking fibre from the cab back to the exchange, pure fibre. In your view then (the wrong one BTW) when we all get FTTH distance will place a key to the speeds you can get? Do you know how many businesses have their WAN connects over fibre they are all different distances from their PoP's but they always buy and get the same speeds they ask for, there's no "up to" for pure fibre.

And please.. PING is not SPEED.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
We know the limitation is the copper length. You are telling us there are significant differences due to the distance from cabinet to exchange.

'Length of a fibre run can affect speeds to an area'

Everyone else here says the difference between a 0.5km and 5km fibre distance is insignificant.

FTTC - fibre to the cabinet, we all know that.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Length of fibre run can have an inpact on speed. If you do not think it does explain why users in the USA with a fios service (thats FTTH) can have different sync rates neighbour to neighbour (never mind state to state)? If what you say about fibre is accurate they should all sync AT THE EXACT SAME... They dont. The longer a beam of light has to travel the more unfocused it becomes and in fibre cable the less accurate (for want of better terms) the light bounces down the cable. It doesnt matter if you correct it, the strength of that light signal will always vary (for better AND worse)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
No connection method for anything be it electrical or light will be the EXACT same person to person. If you truely think a fibre light signal does not deterioate over distance thats your issue..... Laugh at me all your wish, i wont be the idiot asking why their speed is slower than someone the other end of the country if the UK ever gets a FULL fibre service.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
You need a bigger spade.. much bigger. I think we are all waiting on these real world examples to be provided.
Posted by john (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Hmm.. so latency;
Speed of light is 2.998x10^8
Therefore latency will be-

1.668x10-6 s for 0.5km
1.668x10-5 s for 5km

or 0.000001668s (1.668 microseconds)
vs 0.00001668s (10.668 microseconds)

Don't think people will notice that...


FiOS uses PON. That's not comparable to use fibre for backhaul. BT will likely be using 1GE or 10GE backhauls and will use appropriate optics for the length that they need such that they don't get loss.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Go look on verizons forums if you want real life fios (FTTH) users and examples of varying speeds..... You will need to sign up there obviously, i assume you can manage that and dont need me to copy and paste the thousands of posts which mention various sync speeds.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"FiOS uses PON. That's not comparable to use fibre for backhaul."

Nobody ever said it was, i claimed the longer a fibre run is the more the beam of light can vary. Which in turn can affect speed the subscriber gets.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
If what you say is true it's a miracle it all works.

So you are suggesting that it's not possible to send 1G over 5km?

Sorry, but you are out of your depth here.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
As to the ping time calculation.... whether anyone notices is another point entirely....
I claimed ping (delay) increases and you have just shown me to be TECHNICALLY right
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - yes there is attenuation, but the signal is fully recovered by the terminating equipment.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"So you are suggesting that it's not possible to send 1G over 5km?"

No im not claiming that at all and never did, i claimed fibre speed deteriorates the longer the fibre cable run is.... Which it does.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
How about instead of trying to prove me wrong all the time you BT fanboys admit some of your own errors like this service not being FTTC and that theres no reason BT should of needed any additional funding to provide to Iwade as they will make a huge profit from Sittingbourne and surrounding areas..... But oh no you fanboys could never admit your precious BT are liars that want government funds where its not needed.... You BT fanboys could never admit an area is financially profitable but they still want to take take take from anyone they can.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - wonderful, you are right, an extra 9 micro seconds. A tiny amount compared with the latecy round the world to a server somewhere.

Should I sit closer to the screen to reduce the delay to my eyes?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BT services are poop, they are a nasty little company that refuse to spend any money. The sooner true fibre solutions and proper unbundled non limited fibre based services get here and BT start to get crushed again Just as they did with ADSL2+ LLU the better. They can take their lie of a monthly capped P2P and other protocol throttled, over priced so called FTTC service and shove it right up their........
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"cb - wonderful, you are right, an extra 9 micro seconds. A tiny amount compared with the latecy round the world to a server somewhere.

Should I sit closer to the screen to reduce the delay to my eyes?"

Too old to be a gamer obviously and not comprehend ever ms can make a differnce especially on a flakey server.

Stick to the BT defending ya better at that
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
No no... he said MICRO seconds, not milliseconds, that's 1/1000 millisecond for reference :)

Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
...and there's no need for us to prove you wrong, your doing fine on your own.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - what do you mean by fibre 'speed'?
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
somerset, in answer to your question earlier. http://5tth.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-is-nga.html
Fttc is not NGA.
also please see http://5tth.blogspot.com/2010/07/iwade-up-odds-and-went-with-bt-wot-f-up.html
I didn't write these posts but I believe them far more than I believe BT.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Forget it cyberdoyle the BT fanboy drones only believe BT litrature...... Or rather lies they spoon feed them.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
So a blogger says FTTC is not NGA and that's it? Next you'll be telling me everything on Wikipedia is true!

Why is everyone getting wrapped up in names, who cares what its called. current gen, last gen, next gen. If we've not seen or used it before surely its something new?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
A bit off topic maybe, but how will FTTH be funded?

Until that is sorted FTTC gives higher speeds at a relatively lower cost than digging up all the roads like the cable companies did.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
How was FTTN in iwade funded? Oh thats right its a joint venture.
The sooner fibre alternatives start to hit in this country where the provider doesnt have to pay the scam rates BT demand the better.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
This is entertaining, thank you for this read while stuck at work.

CD - who are Barry Forde and Miles Mandelson so that I can check their credentials? Quite an important part of thinking about how seriously to take their views I think.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - maybe some have knowledge and experience in the IT industry and are able to put forward sensible statements.

I see you have moved from your well thought out comments to rants about BT.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"The sooner fibre alternatives start to hit in this country where the provider doesnt have to pay the scam rates BT demand the better" And what is stopping that happening?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote""The sooner fibre alternatives start to hit in this country where the provider doesnt have to pay the scam rates BT demand the better" And what is stopping that happening?"

BT as they obviously keep taking additional funding even when they dont need it rather than letting anyone else into the market even in tiny areas like Iwade....... God forbid anything affects the BT monopoly, oh no sorry according to Steve Robertson, (Chief Executive) BT Openreach above they aint a monopoly anymore but a private business, no doubt more truth telling (atleast for a BT fanboys mind).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I see you have moved from your well thought out comments to rants about BT."

Thats what happens when people rant and start to insult me directly first..... Still good to see once i start ranting about BT you realised my initial comments were well thought out.... Glad you admitted that in the end. Perhaps if you and other had stated that in the beginning i wouldnt of had to retailiate with similar ranting at the organisation itself.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Oh great and mighty carpetburn who clearly understands everything to do with UK network infrastructure and the business practices of network providers along with all government protocol for funding....

Please explain *HOW* BT stop people investing in their own networks? I can provide examples of dozens of companies/individuals who invest in their own networks without trouble?
Posted by john (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
I am stopping comments on this post as this seems to be going nowhere constructive.
Further commenting is disabled for this news item.