Skip Navigation


Openreach give Erbistock users option of migrating to another exchange
Thursday 09 September 2010 15:14:35 by Andrew Ferguson

Erbistock appears to be the centre of the broadband universe this week. A BT press release has announced that BT is to bring broadband to a welsh 'not-spot'. Erbistock is due to get a FTTC service from Rutland Telecom later this year, but it appears that BT Openreach is not giving up without a fight. The 80 customers in the Erbistock area will now have the chance to contact their current or prospective broadband supplier to get their line moved from the Bangor-on-Dee (Bangor ls-Y-Coed) exchange to the Overton exchange (map of the area). There is a cost to this move of around £100. No exact figure can be given as it is possible the retail broadband providers may vary the price. One downside is that the move to another exchange will necessitate a change of phone number.

The move should be relatively transparent for broadband users, as both exchanges currently only offer BT Wholesale ADSL based services. Openreach estimates connection speeds between 1Mbps and 4Mbps after the line migration should be possible.

"We have bent over backwards to find a broadband solution for Erbistock and have been exploring possible solutions for more than a year now. There have been considerable technical hurdles to overcome but we are pleased to say that we are now very close to delivering a broadband service to the community.

The proposed solution will deliver a stable copper broadband service to everyone in the village, and the open nature of our network means that local people will be able to enjoy a choice of broadband supplier and the great value deals that come with competition."

Olivia Garfield, (Strategy Director) BT

While the best value deals will not be available to Erbistock customers, since there is no LLU available at the exchange, we are sure residents will be very happy to be able to start abandoning dial-up Internet access. A few months down the line, once Rutland Telecom gets its service up and running, access speeds of 20 to 40Mbps should be possible too. The big question for those in the area is whether they should wait for Rutland Telecom or order broadband now - the best recommendation would be to look for broadband with a provider who offers short one month contracts to give you a flexibility in the future. For those working from home where the company is willing to pay for the broadband, the availability of a wide range of providers can be paramount, as a firm can use their preferred broadband supplier.

We can expect to see lots of comments that BT is only doing this because of the possible competition from Rutland Telecom, and in the past similar situations were common where an area would arrange for an alternate solution to get first generation broadband to an area (e.g. wireless) and then BT would then enable the exchange for basic ADSL services. This seems to be the nature of commercial competition, a town will have no coffee shops for years, then within months of the first one opening, the usual suspects will have appeared in the High Street.

A big question now for other not and slow spot areas, is that now BT Openreach has done this once, are they willing to do it again? We doubt that a single customer would be able to request such a change of exchange, but if there are 60 to 80 lines that would benefit, perhaps something can be made to happen.

Comments

Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Tough decision time :)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
LOL More like desperation time from BT....... We couldnt get your half a million but we damn well will still try to get your custom.
I see no benefit for the customer, potential £100 charge, phone number changed, and then what about the cabinets??? What cabinet/s will these customers hook into, and how long will the copper run between cab and customer be, sounds like they want to screw them over to me more rather than help. Sniffs of pure desperation to make bad news go away to me.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
The benefit for the customer is choice. Before you explode please put your rational hat on ;o)

If its a town of speed freaks go Rutland and don't look back. But you are then locked into just one provider. If they go the BT route they will have lower speeds than Rutland and lets be honest they'll probably remain on that low speed for years I can't see FTTC coming there anytime soon. But what they will have is ISP choice, not the full monty as the article says as there's no LLU but its choice all the same, no choice with Rutland is them or nothing.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
An offer of a slow ADSL service via another exchange which still has no promise of future services and even if it does, what charge will BT want second time round for FTTC cabinet installs in that area.

Besides they have made there self look dumb already, i thought the original quote included rebuilding the network in that area... Are they now saying people could get atleast ADSL and the "rebuild" isnt necessary??? They seems to be back peddling on their statements and quotations daily.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Sounds like it to me yes, ADSL is available via the other exchange.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
They could move exchange later surely GMAN99 even if they end up unhappy with Rutland..... Or is this another of BTs so called limited time only special offers???
Seriously why cant they just hold their hands up and say yes sorry we screwed up on the cost estimate in that area?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Heheh that was my first thought, that it would be a get it while you can otherwise you can do one :)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Seriously this was funny before, and you could argue before BT may had offered more for the money than Rutland, but ever since BT have opened their mouth on the subject all they have done is make there self look even more stupid, seriously if a BT PR person is reading, do yourself and the company a favour, stop thinking of bright ideas and stop commenting on the £550,000 quote screw up, you are making yourself look even more stupid.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Well if it had been me I would have gone in the with £100 offer first saying its not hot, its not future proof but it will get you a service at least, there are other options but you would need a lottery win in the village first.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I think instead of a "entirely new copper network" it found a way to refurb'd itself for the area to support ADSL at the least over night ;) They are not moving people to another exchange, the pixies fixed the copper in the area with special copper dust ;)
Its just plain funny now
Posted by TonyHoyle over 6 years ago
I bet the £100 offer comes with a 12-18 month contract renewal. If enough people take it it locks Rutland out.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Yet again CB just being the BT hater we all love to hate. You just cannot see any benefit from this.

Given that Rutland won't be in overnight, those desperate for service can switch for a few months, get online and do what they need them jump the BT ship. Long as there is no sneaky tie in period....

Giving customers a choice is only a good thing, contrary to what you insist continually.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
What screw up on the cost estimate, a competitor said BT was going to charge £500,000.

BT said there was a range of options, they are under no obligation to tell us what the various options are.

While 1 to 4Meg is not brilliant, if you are on dial-up then it will feel pretty special.

Remember Rutland have not built their network in the area yet. Would I wait - nope, would I have both once available, probably. One for work with nice static IP options, and the other for gaming etc

Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Oh I remember going from dial-up to ISDN my eyes were watering and then to ADSL 512k... well... I was thinking about a seat belt for the chair. Erbistock could have the best broadband connections in the UK, they should write to all other providers including Virgin and ask what they can offer, they've already got two fighting over their custom might as well get more on board for the best deal.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
And yes if it were me, if I was on dial-up now and didn't care about my phone number I'd be at the ATM drawing a hundred sheets right now.
Posted by docmel53 over 6 years ago
Call me a BT hater or call me a cynic but this is just BT simply being BT. They cannot stand or bear competition in any shape or form - and its been the same ever since the days of Mercury Communications - be it the size of Virgin or small guys like Rutland...and they will do anything to keep it that way
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Its the same in any business though docme not just telecomms
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@docmel53 - What business is just going to shrug their shoulders? if there is a pie going, you go for a piece.
Posted by Foggy_UK over 6 years ago
at £100 a line BT isn't going to make any money on this project. This is about putting Rutland out of business or making them abandon this vilage. Stinks of the anticks BT did with the WIFI networks around 2003 !! Stick to your guns Rutland Telecom !!!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"BT said there was a range of options, they are under no obligation to tell us what the various options are."

I wonder why, they seem happy to open their gobs daily since.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
If BT had offered them a £100 move in the first place it wouldn't have made any news article in the country. What were you saying about how rubbish this BT PR bloke is CB? I'm in awe! :)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Call me a BT hater or call me a cynic but this is just BT simply being BT. They cannot stand or bear competition in any shape or form - and its been the same ever since the days of Mercury Communications - be it the size of Virgin or small guys like Rutland...and they will do anything to keep it that way "

Exactly it stinks of pure desperation now to make the stupid quote go away. Its actually pretty darn funny. Anyone still defending them (AND NOTE ITS ONLY THE REGULAR MOB HERE) and the imaginary "entirely new copper network" the area are equally as funny.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"If BT had offered them a £100 move in the first place it wouldn't have made any news article in the country. What were you saying about how rubbish this BT PR bloke is CB? I'm in awe! :)"

I think they are all stupid and obviously do not discuss what previous comments have been made by other stupids. BT really should just hush them now. Its no longer just foot in mouth, but both feet, both fists and a large slice of humble pie that cant be swallowed.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
^ I don't think anyone has defended it?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
In tomorrows news........

The £100 quote is only an estimate and only one of the options offered also LOL
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
No no in tomorrows news the residents of Erbistock wake up to an overnight migration to ADSL and year's gratis subscription to BT Broadband
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
There's no way they can make any money on this I wouldn't have thought not short term anyway. What is involved in an exchange change surely its as basic as it sounds and feeding new copper from the other exchange to their cab? What if only 5 residents take up BT's offer they can't do it for £500? £500 probably wouldn't even cover the admin fee of the move never mind a new cable and repatch.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
In tomorrows news........

Carpbetburn sees sense and agrees that a BT product benefits a group of people!
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Seems like a dumb question but to move exchange wouldn't BT have to put new copper to the cabs or is there an cable going from the village to the other exchange?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 they can dream :D
@TaRkADaHl Would it kill you to comment on points relating to the news item, rather than me personally? Every comment you have recently made seems to be directed at me personally. Are my flys unzipped or is it something else giving you a weird attraction to me? I hate to let you down but you are not my type, so you can give up on the seduction.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Quote from ISP Review "...unable to receive a broadband service due to their homes being too far away from the nearest telephone exchange - Bangor-on-Dee. BT believes it has overcome this challenge by offering residents the option of transferring their line from the Bangor-on-Dee exchange to the closer exchange at Overton-on-Dee." cont...
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
if Overton-on-Dee is closer then Bangor-on-Dee is not their nearest exchange... that dont make sense...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Exactly, statements being made are just senseless now, funny but senseless.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Overton-on-dee is alot closer.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Maybe we need the actual quotes from BT and not the mangled ones.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Bangor was the nearest in terms of active network, in terms of physical distance it was not. Notice how we linked to a map so you could speculate with some information!

Believe a suitable cable in situ was found that would allow an exchange move.

Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
But if that's case, shouldn't the move of been done years ago, it's a coincidence this cable was found shortly after a good competition has entered.

Would be good to get all of the quotes BT mentioned. Personally is would wait for Rutland FTTC as it would be more reliable and faster. Either way it would still be owned by a monopoly lol!
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@Andrew "Notice how we linked to a map so you could speculate with some information"

information, facts etc absolutely not required by some in order to pass comment - in fact, could be a positive hinderance to venturing an opinion! :-D
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I read the entire text and the other articles, I didn't click the link as thought it would just be a google map link. I have since looked at the link, and still think BT should of done this ages ago!
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@Lego:Should the move have been done sooner? Maybe. Depends how long the village has been crying out for broadband. It would be interesting to know why the option to move has only just become known. Also whether or not that £100 includes a profit margin for BT.

It might just be bad process from BT. Maybe the village got dropped during a triage phase.

But any way you slice it BT have been remiss. At best their business process is poor. At worst CB is right.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
I think Ofcom should initiate an investigation. I don't subscribe to CB's view of BT but I do think this suggests BT are not doing all they can. I say let's shine a light on them and see which way they scuttle.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Investigate what exactly?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Did I misread the original news story or was this all prompted by something from the Welsh Assembly? Wasn't that why quotes were produced by BT, Rutland, possibly others too? 7

If so, it might be no more complicated that all of this was kicked off by a request from Cardiff to propose some options. SHould be easy enough to check either way if anyone is interested enough to bother.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"But if that's case, shouldn't the move of been done years ago, it's a coincidence this cable was found shortly after a good competition has entered."

Obviously discovered after their ONE DAY investigation found "entirely new copper network" isnt needed and neither was their £550,00 quote ;)
Just sit back and enjoy the comedy defending of BT.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
We need "entirely new copper network" chaps thats why that quote was so high....... No,no the magical copper fairy, a day later has found some spare we never used.
Before they were back peddling now they are attempting to peddle a square front wheeled trike.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@CB:It was only Rutland (a competitor) who claimed BT were quoting £500,000. BT's response is that that was just the most expensive of the options they offered. A very common business practice.

You really do make yourself look silly by continuing to ignore that or trying to make something big out of it.

The new cable is not hard to understand either. It just got overlooked or someone at BT couldn't be bothered to do a proper in-depth search the first time round.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
All we have here is a big company too busy with the bigger picture to pay proper attention to a small opportunity and another company seeing a cheeky way to create sensationalist headlines.

Six of one and half a dozen of another. I'd still like to know more about how BT's processes failed it and/or what has prompted them to come out with the new solution. But that's just because I think they deserve a kick up the bum for ineptitude.
Posted by c_j_ over 6 years ago
"All we have here is a big company too busy with the bigger picture to pay proper attention to a small opportunity"

I beg to disagree, and it's nice to see I'm not the first.

"This is about putting Rutland out of business or making them abandon this vilage. Stinks of the anticks BT did with the WIFI networks around 2003 !!"

Spot on. BT have got fphorm on this, especially in North Wales, where various exchanges were said to be "unviable" till local WiFi competitors started up.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
I'm told BT do have plans to make BT Infinity available to everyone in the country before too long.
Posted by EnglishRob over 6 years ago
If they're going to offer it on this one exchange then they should offer it on every viable exchange. Someone I know at work would possibly have been interested in this (if it wasn't for them having cable) as they aren't on the Exeter exchange which is getting FTTC, they're stuck on a different exchange and they said shops up the road from them are on the Exeter exchange so will have the option for FTTC.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
BT press release:

http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=76D4E235-AA68-4F92-82CE-55E5AE16AE26
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"I'm told BT do have plans to make BT Infinity available to everyone in the country before too long." Really? They can start with my exchange if they want
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
from what i had been told there was something from ofcom that stopped openreach from feeding properties from a different exchange to the one it should be served from, if i had been told right and that was the case maybe they have had to beg ofcom to let them do it. or maybe its as others have already said?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB:It was only Rutland (a competitor) who claimed BT were quoting £500,000. BT's response is that that was just the most expensive of the options they offered. A very common business practice.

You really do make yourself look silly by continuing to ignore that or trying to make something big out of it."

If thats the case rather than 2 follow up stories which contradict each other why dont they just say how much their quote was to do the same work Rutland quoted for? Its obvious they have dug there self a hole and now burying there self in it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
FURTHERMORE... AND THIS IS JUST THE FACTS... Why is it suddenly these people can have ADSL for just a £100 charge each when for years they have gone without? Are we supposed to believe for FIVE YEARS theres been a copper link available to the this Overton exchange that BT never knew about and thats why they never moved them to it (5 years is how long the overton exchange has had ADSL available... http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/WNOOD) Why didnt they move them to it before????
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
The quotes, FACT NO 2.. There was a £550,000 charge, BT admit that was ONE OPTION they gave. A BT spokesperson says part of that quote included building an "entirely new copper network". Why did they even quote that area needs an "entirely new copper network", when its clear now it doesnt? Technically speaking why cant they enable the 80 people on this newly discover Overton exchange option with ADSL, upgrade that exchange to 21CN and shove probably a single cabinet in the area to serve those 80 people with FTTC?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Where does needing a "new copper network" come into things, why quote for that? Surely what ive just said would be a more sensible thing to do and allow them to hook up close to 1000 people total with all the options, ADSL,ADSL2+, and if when they decide to put cabinets in areas FTTC.

Sorry but its clear they have made a balls up, and now they are trying to PRETEND they didnt while also trying to PRETEND they want to do those 80 people a favour....... TOO bad they didnt do them the favour of ADSL at the very least 5 years ago isnt it?????
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Is this what its going to be like for those 80 people when they pay their £100 and are allocated a new number for their shiney new ADSL i wonder???????...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROaPYVwXy9Q
Seriously the more people they wheel out the more mess ups they make, and its always been like that. (oh and i picked that link cos the guys story of VM is just as funny, so it should keep the BT fans happy also) I thanks you and goodnight LOL
Posted by donkey_hellfire over 6 years ago
This story reminds me of when BT classed my exchange as unviable for ADSL deployment back in 2003. So I contacted OFTEL to inquire about obtaining a telecoms licence to install a not for profit open FTTH network in my village. Two weeks later BT miraculously allocated the exchange a trigger level of 300. lol
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Why did they bother quoting the 500k option? You run a business don't you CB? When bidding for work you explore and put on the table all options for the customer you don't assume one will be too pricey and dismiss it straight off. Rutland scream to the press about the 500k option, BT come back with a £100 option which as far as we all know was one of the options anyway? And no I'm not defending them, if one thing is clear no-one knows the facts behind this so people are assuming a lot, the £100 might have been their all along and Rutland by mistake "forgot" to mention it
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
As suggested previously, if anyone is that bothered about this and actually has an interest in the facts as opposed to just wanting to soap box, why not look on the Welsh Assembly web site and see if there is any more information?

Some facts to inform this debate would be useful, rather than the usual suspects offering their predetermined opinions and prejudices.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
I have finally cracked it...

Carpetburn loves BT! He just can't admit it...

Its like the playground love thing where the boy hits the girl he likes...

Awwww. Its sweet :)
Posted by themanstan over 6 years ago
From the view point of how customers were allocated to exchanges, the original basis was likely capacity. Now the emphasis is distance.
If BT are remiss in not checking their customers are connected to an optimal exchange, i'm not surprised as the process to check all customers (even a % of customers) are connected to the best exchange and whether there is a suitable cable to reconnect them is an immense and complicated job.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@New_L I had a quick look and couldn't find anything on the WA website
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"BT come back with a £100 option"

For a service thats been on the exchange they would connect those £100 customers to for FIVE YEARS... Why didnt they offer that before to them?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I have finally cracked it...

Carpetburn loves BT! He just can't admit it...

Its like the playground love thing where the boy hits the girl he likes...

Awwww. Its sweet :) "

The disturbing way you follow me around and comment randomly to me directly and nothing about the story itself, is the true love story and the only thing you want to crack is me. Unlucky for you i dont go for the demented, hermaphrodite, stalker type. I suggest you try some weirdo web site instead.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
"For a service thats been on the exchange they would connect those £100 customers to for FIVE YEARS... Why didnt they offer that before to them?" Because its BT, they only do stuff when faced with competition, if there is none then they dont care. The amount of money they could have made by selling them broadband if they moved their exchange earlier.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Exactly Legolash2o it just stinks of desperation, anyone can see it. All they are doing is making there self look worse, NOT better.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Amount of money? This is 80 customers we are talking about here and they wouldn't have had to buy BT broadband anyway.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
If people start moving their lines from one exchange to another, isn't that going to make it difficult for Rutland to install one cabinet in the village when the lines are from two separate exchanges... perhaps that's the idea!
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I don't think it matters does it Mark? The fibre from Rutlands cab will go back to whichever exchange they choose for the broadband side, the fact the voice is served by the same or different exchange should not matter.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I dot see why openreach can't do what Rutland is doing in the first place, £50k isn't that much considering the welsh can get up £1000 toward there connection.

Technically if that welsh fund is paying for it then it's free for BT isn't it?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Im still waiting for a supporters answer on why didnt they offer ADSL to these people 5 years ago?? Legolash2o Im not sure funding would be giving in full, or if you are right with your figures but even if you are i doubt it would be enough for BT they to me atleast seem to quote for work + Profit. Not just the cost involved. So its no wonder why those people aint interested and i doubt the Welsh assembly would be either in their quotes. Screw up start to end... Although i suspect this is far from the end of this story. BT havent goofed enough just yet ;)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
What about you on about supporters CB? Do you think people on here have inside knowledge or something? I'm sure who you call supporters/defenders are as perplexed by all of this as everyone else. There's no facts out there to look at so there's not much to comment on tbh
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
So you still dont want to answer why didnt BT hook these people up to ADSL five years ago on that exchange they want to move them to? Simple question, give a good answer, the next BT PR tool can use it in their next statement which is bound to happen next week. Oh the comedy of it all.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I'm with u on this CB, they need to explain why they didn't do this earlier, as I said above it's a coincidence that they found this solution suddenly after some competition. Also, it said they was looking for a solution for other a year.. I bet that would of cost bit of money, would of been faster and cheaper to just stick an FTTC cab in there! LOL
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Cont... It would actually be cheaper for the welsh community project thing or whatever it's called, they put towards £1000 towards a customer cost to get broadband. 80 customers would be £80k but Rutland can do it for £50k saving organisers of the community project £30k AND the FTTC can support upto 288 customers, so can have bigger savings in different areas.
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
Cont.. Would be even cheaper if the used overhead poles for the fibre to the village. Example, those big electrify cables running all over the countryside :) companies don't really think out-of-the-box anymore... Why does the fibre cable have to be underground????
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
Because when strung on poles it needs protection, fibre is broken by strong winds etc

So needs armour or carrying through a tube to protect it. This can add to the weight, meaning new telepgraph poles, or upgrades to old ones.

Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
CB I'm not a spokeperson for BT how could I possibly have any answer to give I know as much as you about this whole saga...
Posted by Legolash2o over 6 years ago
I meant have he fibre on the big electricity pylons and then once close to the village it then goes underground, would save alot on the digging costs. I think virgin media doing some trials using poles and electricity pylons.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I think the hassle of digging would be more of an issue when you get closer to the premises to be honest, more than getting it from the exchange to the street.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@Legolash
I think there are some quite strict rules about accessing the pylons due to the potentially lethal voltages involved. You may even need a special licence to do so.

Also, as Andrew says, you need external grade protection which is more epensive - and even then I think needs replacing after X years exposure to the elements. So savings may not be as great as some think versus other options.
Posted by cf492bcc over 6 years ago
But, andrew, copper cables are easily broken in strong winds too, and so also need protection. So does this mean copper is also unsuitable for the task? No, obviously. There's nothing complicated about creating a strain relief in a cable/fibre. No need for heavy armour either; that's a rubbish excuse. It's possible a fibre equivalent could even prove far lighter in weight than copper.
Posted by russianmonkey over 6 years ago
From: http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=76D4E235-AA68-4F92-82CE-55E5AE16AE26

"The news follows reports in the media that BT had quoted more than £500,000 to deliver broadband to the area. This quote was, in fact, just one of several put forward by BT and the company has since developed other potential solutions."
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
Next step: reroute and/or replace all the lines in urban areas which are too long/too poor quality to get ADSL. (This has been done in one place I used to live - connected to a different exchange)

Or, stop faffing around, and just get on with replacing the entire phone network with one suitable for broadband.
Posted by russianmonkey over 6 years ago
Cont... Sensationalist headlines!

Yes it looks very... dodgy. However we don't know what the solutions were.

Could the top figure have been for an FTTH rollout? No one knows.

I think if we did, then we'd be able to know more about it.
Posted by CaptainHulaHoop over 6 years ago
@ cf492bcc
modern copper overhead cables last over 10 yrs in even some quite extreme weather, overhead fibres from what i hear can suffer worse wear and tear even in quite average british weather. things may have changed though, overhead fibres may be better now?
Posted by kijoma over 6 years ago
Simple solution to the number changing issue and the speeds etc.. Consider a fixed wireless (not wifi) solution. Far faster/scalable speeds and move your existing number over to VoIP. escapes BT local loop altogether. No copper/line rental and at a cost to implement of ~10% of Rutlands figures :)
Posted by NorwichGadfly over 6 years ago
Surely Erbistock should have been on the Overton exchange anyway, as it a lot closer than Bangor.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Sensationalist headlines!"

Not until BT made them so by admitting they could give people ADSL at the very least but have refused to do so for 5 years.
Obviously that wasnt in their so called "several" quotes and solutions put forward at the time either, or the original spokesman speaking out on BTs behalf days before this would had mentioned it and there wouldnt be any need for this further announcement would there?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@Kijoma
Does this give a choice of providers for telephony and broadband, or does it deliver a local monopoly like Rutland?

(Amazing to see 90+ posts on this, plus numerous others on the earlier articles, given the lack of factual information to underpin the story. Would be good to see more detail before people pass judgement).
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@New_L as you know full well some people don't need any details or facts to pass judgement in fact lack of allow them to thrive ;o)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ FACT BT want people to pay £100 to connect to a service thats 5 years old which apparantely was never an option previously for them.
Thats enough FACTS for me to point and laugh at their desperation.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Only you could use the word "apparent" in a fact..

I'd like to see the what was actually offered and when.
Posted by rogerforward over 6 years ago
It's quite funny to see all the BT sycophants hurling abuse at CB, when it is quite clear that BT have made an enormous mess of this whole thing and CB is obviously correct. If BT had included the £100 option originally and Rutland had "forgotten" to mention it, you can be 100% sure that BT would have mentioned it subsequently.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Would be helpful to have some facts from one of the 80 customers in Erbistock.
Posted by TheGuv over 6 years ago
Unlikely Somerset... they don't have broadband!
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
roger, its nothing like that. No-one knows hardly anything about this story. I'd agree it looks like a right mess but we simply don't know enough about it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Only you could use the word "apparent" in a fact..

I'd like to see the what was actually offered and when."

Its called sarcasm, something you or BT obviously dont get
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"It's quite funny to see all the BT sycophants hurling abuse at CB, when it is quite clear that BT have made an enormous mess of this whole thing and CB is obviously correct. If BT had included the £100 option originally and Rutland had "forgotten" to mention it, you can be 100% sure that BT would have mentioned it subsequently."

If BT had previously offered it years ago, they would all probably be on that exchange happily getting ADSL, probably at around the rate which is average for the country. But oh no we mustnt point out the obvious to supporters.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Again speculation, from what we can gather there is a cable running past the cab to this other exchange, do we know it was there a year ago? Do we know it was there 6 months ago? Its not supporting CB its about asking for facts. Let's get all of the facts and then laugh at them, no problems with that at all.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
What are you blabbering about? There is no speculation its a BT cable they should had known it was there. You dont have to know if it was there a year ago, its common sense... It didnt just pop up over night did it?
When do you think this cable was put there?
If its been there all this time they look idiots for not knowing it was there (or not saying anything). If its just been installed in recent months it shows there was no reason they couldnt had hooked them up years ago.
Either way they look idiots
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BT have vastly over quoted for work
BT have not hooked up people to ADSL which could had been done years ago.
BT are crying (like they always do) someone else wants to offer a better deal to people.
BT have effectively done nothing for these people, my god the best they have done is wanting to charge them £100 each to get ADSL, if they offered anything better than Rutland why aint they bragging about it huh?
One good thing is no more statements from them today, maybe they have took a hint and decided to shut up see they dont look even dumber.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
The more of this story you write yourself CB the more daft you look. Just look at what you wrote, if full of "ifs" and "?". I'd rather deal with facts personally.
Posted by docmel53 over 6 years ago
Looking at the latest news on the BBC Wales news page it would seem that the villagers have rejected the BT offer in favour of Rutland Telecom. Power to the people!
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Really? Good on them... <goes for a look>
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Good for them, looks like they also realise BT were trying to do nothing but screw them...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11287904
quotes"Village broadband campaigners say they will not accept BT's lower quote."
"Villagers who have campaigned to get the connection for more than five years said they still want to pursue a solution with Rutland Telecom" So FACT they have been asking BT to do something for 5+ years and that other exchange has had ADSL for 5 years.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Also looks like this isnt the end of it. Looks like from another story regulators may get involved. The proper people again will look at the facts of what went on eh GMAN99 LOL. Not that i was planning of making another complaint about BT practices.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Obviously none of the so called other quotes from BT match what Rutland have promised for the money, do they now. I assume if they did offer something better than or equal for the same price the villagers would had took it from BT.
But clear now, they want nothing to do with BT now or their so called "other" offers LOL
Posted by chrysalis over 6 years ago
So what happened to moving lines to new exchanges not been viable? seems it is when it suits BT to kill off competition.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Exactly chrysalis. The more BT opened their gob on this whole episode the dumber they looked. Thank god that village didnt fall for BTs dangled and rather old rotten fruit and told them where to shove it :)
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
IF the story is accurate as reported - ie broadband available to the village at £100 per head from BT or £1000 per head from Rutland, and if this money is coming from the public purse, then I assume that the Welsh Assembly will prefer to go with BT from a value for money perspective.

Why spend up to £80,000 when £8,000 will give the whole village broadband? Especially when the higher figure creates a local monopoly with no choice of supplier for voice or broadband.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
That said, I continue to be amazed at the volume of posts commenting on this story given the absence of hard facts about what was being offered and by whom.

Clearly some are not troubled by the facts when venturing their (many) thoughts on this story.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Why spend up to £80,000 when £8,000 will give the whole village broadband?"
Er maybe because for that £8,000 they will be paying it will go to an organisation that should had and could had provided that service years ago at the requests of those villagers.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"That said, I continue to be amazed at the volume of posts commenting on this story given the absence of hard facts about what was being offered and by whom.

Clearly some are not troubled by the facts when venturing their (many) thoughts on this story."

LOL says the person thats just screamed pay BT instead LOL I continue to be amazed you continue to support BT even when other posters here can see they are wrong and havent helped that village at all. Not to mention the fact a village of 80 people also disagree with you and tell BT to shove their pathetic offer.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Especially when the higher figure creates a local monopoly with no choice of supplier for voice or broadband."

Where does voice even come into it?

Do you know something we dont or is this another example of you being "amazed at the volume of posts commenting on this story given the absence of hard facts"?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Regarding the choice of vendors, suggest you need to understand what the Welsh Assembly asked for. If it was to provide the best possible broadband for now more than £1k per head then the Rutland offer may be the best, if it was to provide any level of broadband for no more than £1k per head then the Rutland offer is 1000% more expensive than the BT one.

Neither of us know what other options were offered by these two companies, what other companies responded and what the requirement was, so impossible to make a definitive comment.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB "Where does voice even come into it?"

Suggest you read up on what Rutland usually offer, the web site has teh following in the FAQs:

"Do I have to take telephone service (line rental)?
Yes this is a requirement. You do not have to use the phone but line rental is payable."


Like I said, clearly some are not troubled by the facts when venturing their (many) thoughts on this story.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Suggest you read up on what Rutland USUALLY offer"

Oh i see so i was right it is another example of you "commenting on this story given the absence of hard facts" and you know nothing about Rutlands offer to that specific area or group. Dont let that stop you wittering on about others "in your opinion" doing the same though.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Look forward to you being able to link to relevant, authoritative sources to support your many comments on this story too - or is this another example where you're not able to, pending an Ofcom complaint? :-)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
The Welsh assembly if they have any brains wont be giving BT a single penny there are clearly questions here to be asked and answered. Like why the service they are now suddenly offering was not offered years ago. There is no technical or financial reason it could not had been. If anyone here is a monopoly its BT who are now trying to flex their financial might to suddenly provide broadband to these people at a suddenly cheap rate on a suddenly found bit of copper which suddenly appeared overnight and which was never known about beforehand. Even an idiot can see their game.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
The regulators when they look at all this though will also suddenly reach a very obvious conclusion hohoho.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB
Look forward to you being able to link to relevant, authoritative sources to support your many comments on this story too - or is this another example where you're not able to, pending an Ofcom complaint? :-)"

I wont have to complain, ill just point and humiliate you when Rutland get the contract.
Much quicker and easier than a long letter.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
So no sources then?

Anyway, presumably no guarantee that this will go to either BT or Rutland as there may well be other companies that responded too. No doubt all will become clear in due course.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
It will be clear in due course just like i said canvas is dead and big name players wont follow it but will choose stuff like google TV instead, remember me saying that????.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gtbk2Hqp_o

Oh opps, Sony made their choice Enjoy your dead Canvas TV along with BT your fave provider LOL

Thats an example of the future when i point and laugh at you some more.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Fantastic timing to make a negative comment about Canvas - have a look at the lead news item! Clearly the YouView team have yet to be told that their service is "dead".

Look forward to some more examples....
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
PS I assume that the irrelevant mention of Canvas means that there are in fact no sources that would back up your comments.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Bwahahaha it is dead...... ooooooo pause live tv, thats soooooo furturistic bwahahaha.

The video of a Sony demo with it built into a Sony TV and google and Sony announcing its OFFICIAL release dates at IFA 2010 wasnt fact enough for you?

And back to this story, as i said when im right on this one also ill point and giggle at you some more...... Jog on and buy your Canvas, which they cant even decide on the hardware specs or OS on yet ROFL, seriously you are a clown.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Good to see intelligent discussion continuing here!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Theres not much to be serious about when talking about this whole BT mess up and project canvas or should we call it YouView, my god the thing cant even do 1080p video :o
And BT couldnt give these people ADSL years ago.... Its that simple.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
As stated above, I assume that the irrelevant mention of Canvas means that there are in fact no sources that would back up your comments.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
More than forty organisations have expressed their support for the Project Canvas proposals to bring consumers standards based, internet-connected TV devices that will change the way they watch television.

So they are all wrong?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Canvas - Devices shall be built using the Linux operating system with either glibc or uClibc.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Its dead Somerset, who bigger than the likes of Sony, Intel, Logitech and loads more are supporting Canvas? Those 3 just for starters are official Google Tv partners.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Who won the HD-DVD Vs Bluray war? Who was in the Bluray camp? Enough said Sony almost on their own crushed bigger fish. Canvas hasnt got a chance.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Still off topic. Still no credible sources then that would back up your many comments relevant to the actual subject of this news item?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I dont need to comment on this story any further ill just laugh in the follow ups to it.
Just as i am at the Project Canvas tripe you highly praised previously also.
Do you want me to point you back to your arguments about how great canvas would be? I can if you wish and i can do the same with this story in follow ups, im happy to make you look stupid twice over if you wish. Oh who am i kidding you like dated tech you bought BT internet and are going to buy a Canvas box.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Come on New_Londoner come join us all in the latest YouView story that you were quick to point out, give everyone a laugh defending it some more. Everyone in that story is soooo impressed by the tech hoho.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Like I said, still off topic. Still no credible sources then that would back up your many comments relevant to the actual subject of THIS news item?

As per previous advice, important to stop confusing opinion with fact. Helpful also to avoid irrelevant posts, personal attacks when unable to offer anything credible on-topic.

As I have pointed out previously above, neither of us know what other options were offered by these two companies, what other companies responded and what the requirement was, so impossible to make a definitive comment.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ awwww dont cry you were wrong and you will be wrong on this also. Ill be grinning at you, yet again...... Gonna be a lot to laugh at you about in the coming year infact LOL

I stated my opinions on canvas, now people are beginning to see what i said for there self..... The same will happen with this story, and you will be left to look silly AGAIN!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Regulators that look at services related to BT and then hand them the slap..... You have to love it, gonna happen with this, gonna happen with canvas.
You keep plugging away defending them though, luckily your defending doesnt seem to help their services now doesnt it?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
No idea how you can characterise the above comments as being defensive any more than you could suggest yours were objective.

You will note I've said in my comments above that the Rutland offer may be the best if it fits with what was being asked for, equally there may be a third party offer not mentioned that is better than any of those covered in the news posts.

Still looking forward to you being able to link to relevant, authoritative sources to support your many comments on this story.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
All in good time when the decision and official announcements are made which you wont be able to deny this site will have news about it. Anything i say now you will deny and say im wrong just like you did in prior Canvas V google TV debates.
I said first part of this year google tv would be better than Canvas and tech and feature wise it is.

I said canvas would get more complaints and it has.

I say Rutland will win this contract and BT will face some hard questions over coming months about what went on with Erbistock.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
As soon as this site has news im right AGAIN on this Erbistock matter you will be the first to know cos ill be sure to rub it in AGAIN.

I dont need to argue with you i just wait for the site to confirm im right AGAIN then point and laugh.

Im gonna be right about a HELL of alot of things you and GMAN99 have challenged me on over the previous few months...... Each and every item, including stuff ive complained directly to appropriate authorities about ill be sure to give you a poke with the stick when this very site confirms what i said was right. Watching you worm is fun.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
To be fair, you ARE right about a lot of things, for example:

- The speed people are likely to experience on FTTC
- The appeal court decision relating to Vtesse’s alleged underpayment of rates
- The degree to which BT compresses HD content on its Vision service
- How contention affects performance of internet services
- How to assess the relative accuracy of different software speed testers
- Whether Rutland’s FTTC offer includes a mandatory voice element

Oh hang on.... :D
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
If you “load, fire, aim” your many opinions enough times you are bound to hit the target every so often. However, as the above shows, there is an enormous amount of collateral damage to the facts along the way. Sometimes, “less is more”.

Suggest we leave this news item to the good folk of Erbistock and wait for the facts to emerge ...... Who knows, you might be right on this one.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
- The speed people are likely to experience on FTTC I still say that will be an average of 15Mb still waiting on enough people having FTTC to confirm that though aint we.
Fibre tax thing and Vtesse is far from over
BT do compress HD content
Contention does affect performance of SOME internet services (MY SERVICE it doesnt, you didnt get that before ;) )
Speed testers do vary some are more accurate for people than the one here
Rutland will win this contract (AGAIN when the proof here arrives as you say we will see)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Opps that should had been 25Mb
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - do you now agree that FTTC user speeds are unrelated to the length of the fibre from the cabinet?

Where do BT compress HD content?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BT Vision material is compressed non of it exceeds 1080i for starters, it is all encoded with a lossy (NOT) lossless codec.

quote"do you now agree that FTTC user speeds are unrelated to the length of the fibre from the cabinet?"

FROM the cabinet was never my arguement, there is no fibre FROM the cabinet on FTTC, only TO the cabinet.

Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
OK, if you insist, the fiber from wherever TO the cabinet. The user connection speed is not affected by its length. Fibre lengths from the exchange where the ISP handover occurs vary from 100m to 20km.

Looking inside an FTTC cabinet being installed recently I thought I saw some fibres going FROM the cabinet to the exchange...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"OK, if you insist, the fiber from wherever TO the cabinet. The user connection speed is not affected by its length."

Define where-ever? How can i possibly comment if speed is affected or not if you dont mention a clear distance.

quote"Fibre lengths from the exchange where the ISP handover occurs vary from 100m to 20km."

Ill wait until its all done to confirm that thanks.

quote"Looking inside an FTTC cabinet being installed recently I thought I saw some fibres going FROM the cabinet to the exchange..."

What does that have to do with user speed which your original question asks?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Also if it were Fibre FROM the cabinet wouldnt it be called FFTC and not FTTC (AKA Fibre TO the cabinet)......
All irrelevant anyway considering its technically FTTN anyway.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
OK, Cabinet A - 201km from cabinet via exchange to ISP.

Cabinet B - 210km from cabinet via exchange to ISP.

Surely a customer close to either cabinet will get the same 40M connection speed?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Im not sure i fully understand what you are asking, what do you mean by "from cabinet via exchange to ISP" when refering to Cabinet A and B, and are you talking about th same ISP?
Also no a customer wouldnt get the same connection speed on each cabinet, thats always going to vary.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
I thought you were claiming the connection (not throughput or latency) speed of an identical connection on 2 cabinets different distances from the exchange would be different.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I thought you were claiming the connection (not throughput or latency) speed of an identical connection on 2 cabinets different distances from the exchange would be different."

So why are you babbling on about "customers" and "user connection" in your prior posts.

Clarify what you are asking, are you talking about speed from exchange to cabinet, exchange to cabinet to user, sync, throughput, what?

My original claim you refer to if you look back was about speed a "user ends up getting" un-quote.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
speed a "user ends up getting"

Do you mean connection or throughput? Both unaffected by the fibre length.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^ Really? So a 1Gbps fibre link should give the user 1Gbps than shouldnt it?
Furthermore fibre length can and does affect speed the user gets the other end. Maybe not in sync terms (that depends on the system used) but in throughput it does. If fibre was so consistant that speed doesnt vary then why is it in areas of the world that have FTTH/FTTP users throughput speed varies home to home? People that have 100Mbps FTTH do not always reach that full 100Mbps speed (and no its not due to other things like contention).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BTs own FTTH trials to small groups of users throughout the country even give variations in speed they get. (Im not saying it varies massively but it does vary, fibre speed is not 100% consistant or as you put it 'unaffected').
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
If I put 1Gbps into a fibre interface 1Gbps comes out the other end.

How does fibre length affect throughput?
Posted by omarty over 6 years ago
im x bt and the reason there is acable in the cab some 20 to 30 yrs ago erbistock was fed from overton xchange but was getting near capacity so they moved them over to bangor on dee a bigger xchange not many people around with localknowledge but i think rutland is the way foward it will years for bt to roll out fibre to the cab in wales it wont pay
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"If I put 1Gbps into a fibre interface 1Gbps comes out the other end."

What at the users end? Cos thats not happening right at this moment is it.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
The fibre from exchange to cabinet provides a fixed 1G connection regadless of distance. The kit in the cabinet connects the virtual paths to the copper line.

The copper determines the speed of connection for the user, nothing to do with the fibre.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
If thats true answer my question of why those on a FTTH/FTTP service dont get the same consistant speeds, something must affect it.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
FTTP get a 100M connection, throughput depends on the core network and servers.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
So you are talkin sync now are you? Not what a user actually gets, like you originally asked?

Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
You wrongly claimed throughtput was dependant on the fibre length.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Prove im wrong, you still havent.

Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
2 connections both FTTP, each connection downloading same file, from same source at same time of day. One download goes slightly slower.... Why? Go on im all ears, if 100Mb is 100Mb why is one running slower.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Good question. The internet is a shared resource which means there are not dedicated paths. How slight is slightly and how many tests were made? Each connection could take a slightly different route.

If I rent a 100Mb dedicated leased line provided over fibre will I get 100Mb?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
and...

if you claim there are issues over a few km. how does fibre to the US work?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Signal is amplified (AKA doping) over long distances. If fibre didnt lose speed over distance they wouldnt need to amplify it. Thats what happens in the USA.
Go look it up.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
It does not lose speed, it loses signal level beyond which it is not possible to recover the original signal.

However... that's after 50km so for FTTC connections less than that there is no issue with the signal. 1G in, 1G out.

You make it sound like 1G in, 200k out.

You can't say a digital signal loses speed, it either works or it does not.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"You can't say a digital signal loses speed, it either works or it does not."

Oh really explain ping time then....... Thats a digital signal

Fibre is doped to maintain signal level, quality and speed, go read up as i said before about signal doping and how things work in the USA which was your example.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Whether the distance it loses signal and potential speed over is irrelevant and i dont even know why you have bought distance into your equation. If its consistant no matter what the distance why are you now making excuses about distance lengths?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Fibre works the same way in the UK and the US.

Ping time is a delay due to transmission times through cables, routers and servers.

Meanwhile... 2 FTTC cabinets with different fibre distances to the local exchange will have neglegible difference in ping time (micro seconds) and this will have no affect on the end user connection speed. (You claimed it would)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Fibre works the same way in the UK and the US."

No it doesnt totally different system to FTTC here.

quote"Ping time is a delay due to transmission times through cables, routers and servers."

Delay in cables??? I thought there was no delay in speed of transmission?

quote"Meanwhile... 2 FTTC cabinets with different fibre distances to the local exchange will have neglegible difference in ping time (micro seconds) and this will have no affect on the end user connection speed. (You claimed it would) "

Ping is part of connection speed, it is the delay time measurement.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Do you need links as to why they dope the signal in your USA example also?
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
I talking about the raw fibre, not what's on the end.

I have a 10M link, that's the connection speed or data rate. Delay time is another measurement.

Ping times are mainly due to routers and servers.

Delay though a few km of fibre is due to the speed of light, not something to worry about.

'Dope the signal' - what do you mean?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Doping a signal is basically amplifying it. If fibre didnt need amplifying, then why do they do it? Its clear its maintain connection quality and the speed..... That doesnt even always work those, plenty in the states paying for say a 25Mb fios service and not getting their full 25Mb, only have to look at some USA net provider forums to see that.
quote"Delay though a few km of fibre is due to the speed of light"
What does delay in this context mean? Surely you dont mean an increase in time, i thought what went in one end came out the other with fibre?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Eeek the wording errors in that, teach me to start typing, go away, make coffee, come back and edit before submitting without reading through several times.
Posted by AlconburyTelecom over 5 years ago
What happened in Erbistock - I Googled it and there is no info since this announcement/
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.