Skip Navigation


Olivia Garfield claims that 24 Meg is all a family needs
Tuesday 09 October 2012 15:18:45 by Andrew Ferguson

The section of the speech by the Openreach Chief Executive Olivia Garfield to those attending the NextGen 12 event on Monday 8th October may be seen as shocking, perhaps even a Gerald Ratner moment.

"At the moment we can't see any reason why any individual family can use more than 24 Megs, we tried it in our labs and we recreate every typical house across the UK with HD streaming, with facebook uploads, you tube downloads whatever it is, we can't create a situation where more than 24 Mega bits is used. It doesn't mean we should build the infrastructure for what we see today, we absolutely shouldn't, we should build it for the future."

Transcript from Speech at NextGen 12

The idea that 24 Mbps is more than any family can use and that even in lab tests they were unable to create a situation using more than 24 Mbps seems almost laughable. Immediately we all think of parents watching a video stream, while their son is playing a computer game and the daughter is talking to friends on twitter or facebook, while their teenage sons mobile phones photo stream is transferring onto their laptop they left switched on in their room.

So lets do some sums, if each parent is watching a HD video stream, that accounts for 5 Mbps each if good HD. The computer game is almost insignificant at 0.1 to 0.2 Mbps (Quality of Service is important, so QoS on the broadband router will help keep latency down), twitter and facebook use very little and are generally bursty so lets allow 2 Mbps. The photo stream will be perhaps 3 MB every minute or two, so averages out at 0.5 Mbps. A total of 12.7 Mbps. So not as daft as a suggestion it first seems, of course things change if all five in the household are at home and watching HD at the same time, this pushes you right to the very edge of 24 Mbps and perhaps fractionally past it. The question is whether a typical household has 2 parents and 3 children all watching their own HD streams at the same time? Is that a typical household at all in the UK? We believe that only 30% of households have children at all.

Of course our needs in the future will change, HD streams will probably get larger as the quality of picture and price to watch increases (some stores offer 10 Mbps streams). Patches and updates to games will increase in frequency, particularly as digital purchase increases, as things stand DLC map pack updates can weigh in a 2GB already. That is why Olivia Garfield said we should build for tomorrow, and here in lies the crux of the criticism of BT and Openreach, as they see the stepped and accountant type approach of Openreach where fibre is pushed in stages towards homes as too slow and lacking vision.

The positive side is that if Openreach is deploying too slowly to areas where others can make not for profit or proper commercial solutions deliver there is nothing stopping them deploying. The weekly news of more fibre deployments suggest that rather than stymying innovation, the low targets of the BDUK and Government vision might just be acting as a stimulus for others to get on and do their own thing, the end result being that in ten years time there should be a infrastructure competition deep into the rural heartlands of the UK.

Comments

Posted by driz about 1 year ago
Why did they choose 24meg as the arbitrary value? Is it because it happens to be what ADSL2+ can provide in ideal conditions?

It seems like it's trying to manipulate and misrepresent the current situation to make people think that we don't really need to invest in broadband/telecommuncations, because ADSL can already deliver enough for every household.
Posted by richardhsmith329 about 1 year ago
Probably because that's what the BDUK definition of superfast was?
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
@driz no ADSL2+ line can deliver IP throughput at 24 Meg. Protocol overheads drop you down to the 21.5 to 22 Meg area.

What it seems is they tried typical households, and got 24 Mbps as the maximum.
Posted by pcoventry76 about 1 year ago
a lot of typical households dont want or need 50/100 or even 330mbps. But some people want it because they can have it. I know that was the case for me. And it's much more useful than I thought
Posted by ronray about 1 year ago
I use way over 24meg when downloading torrents on their own. My Steam client also uses all the bandwidth it can get when it patches games. Other updates tend to use all the bandwidth they can get too. I guess you could argue that in my case it does not matter how much bandwidth you have because it will always be gobbled up but at least my systems update faster on my 50meg service than they would otherwise so there is still less chance of contention.
Posted by mervl about 1 year ago
The modern western world has made what you need irrelevant, it's all about what you want and that is as much as you can get. A big problem -yes, it causes endemic waste; reversible - no, I suspect it's a "brain-change" addiction.
Posted by Alchemyfire about 1 year ago
Funny how the subject of large areas that don't even have ADSL 2 get ignored. I am seriously getting fed up with BT. There are parts of "deep dark Africa" that have better service than BT, and are starting to offer better speeds and products.
Posted by adslmax about 1 year ago
Stupid of Openreach Chief Executive Olivia Garfield say 24 Meg is more than enough. Has she forgotten about BT exchange limit ip profile of just 21000K (not 24000K) and I cannot get more than 16 Meg on my line, so we need this 400 Meg technology here: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/10/genesis-technical-systems-preps-400mbps-dsl-rings-broadband-tech-for-q2-2013.html
Posted by tommy45 about 1 year ago
Although download speeds of 50/80/100 and more on FTTH may be very nice , but they still continue to think upload speed isn't as important as the download is,I for one don't like tying up my internet connection for several hours to upload a few GB of data,Whilst i know that FTTC offers upto 20mbps and FTTP 30mbps Why not higher? Those who use their connections shift large amounts of data wouldn't agree with Openreach's CEO
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
@adslmax, you read 24Mbps and assumed ADSL2+, she's merely saying the average family currently does not require more then 24Mbps at this time - try actually reading the article.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
Don't you love it when people avoid wasting time reading the story before sharing their views on what it says!
Posted by otester about 1 year ago
I remember this before, 0.5Mbps will be fine, then 2Mbps, then 8Mbps, no wonder we're always behind...
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
She's looking at it all wrong, but then she's only a kid - what does she know? Take for example this obsession with streaming. My skybox receives hundreds of channels, so lets imagine I want to record 10 at once - there's 50 Mbit/s right away. What Openreach, and the country, needs is a visionary not an accountant.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
last I checked Openreach FTTC could do upto 80meg.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
maybe try reading the last part of that quote: "It doesn't mean we should build the infrastructure for what we see today, we absolutely shouldn't, we should build it for the future." -Liv Garfield.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
Maybe try reading the first part of the quote "At the moment we can't see any reason why any individual family can use more than 24 Megs".
I've just given a reason. I'm surprised the boffins at Openreach didn't think of that, but I'm not surprised the kid didn't.
Posted by Gadget about 1 year ago
@dogbark, but currently you can only record two channels at once on your set-top box or to put it another way "at the moment" you can only record two channels at once not 10 but I can imagine in the future the general demand could be for more than two simultaneous recordings.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
Yes thats the definition of taking something out of context - reading 1 part in isolation then putting a slant on it like Openreach is run by a non visionary accountant.

In any case your example is nonsense, the statement is about the average family i.e mum, dad, 2.4 children - no way you example fits into that why would 4-5 people want to stream 10 TV shows all at once - your example assumes a family size of 10 all happening to want to do the same thing at the same time - very very unlikely.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
Further the bandwidth requirement to stream SDTV (Mpeg4) is 1.5-2meg so on a connection with 24meg throughput you can infact stream upto 12 tv shows at once.
Posted by KarlAustin about 1 year ago
But right now how many people in your average family do that? Not many, because they have Sky TV that brings it all in to their living room with 200+ channels with normally nothing worth watching :)
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
This is the whole point - Openreach, and earlier owners of the loop, can't see past the end of their nose. They have held up development in the country by not delivering enough bandwidth because they can't see what it would be used for. But it's not up them to decide what it's used for; they should just deliver as much as fast as they can and the uses will be dreamt up by the visionaries.
Posted by jumpmum about 1 year ago
dogbark. But they have to do it without going bust! At less than £9 a month to Openreach can they afford to invest what you want to give fible to everyone!.

She clearly says "It doesn't mean we should build the infrastructure for what we see today, we absolutely shouldn't, we should build it for the future." -Liv Garfield.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
Unfortunately, the future she's on about is here now. In the near future we will need Gbps and this is what Openreach should be providing. They should be enablers not inhibitors.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
@dogbark In 2013 in theory those who want it in areas with FTTC will able to order 330 Mbps.

And if pattern follows there will be a trial of a higher speed during the year.

Also you can order 10GigE now, just the price is a bit of a problem, but you would get 10GigE with no traffic management or contention.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
As I've said before I believe all your average customer wants is a stable 10Mbps connection

dogbark, I don't think many (if any) will NEED Gbps in the near future. I don't many will "need" it in 5-10yrs
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
Hey Gman, you sound like a BT employee.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
@Dogbark
Why on earth would anyone want to record 10 TV programmes simultaneously, or indeed any? That is the old model, not relevant if I can stream any content in real time when I want to consume it. Why waste money on a PVR simply to store something I can watch on demand anyway?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Why dogbark because I'm realistic? Tell me what killer app is coming (or combination of) that needs a gig in the near future and you have my attention
Posted by FTTH about 1 year ago
FOA - Openreach Lab, please contact this small outfit. They have some possible ways to use 24meg+ today.

http://fiber.google.com/about/
Posted by pistolpete1980 about 1 year ago
Its all relative in the end. Wants and needs are two very different requirements. I have been involved in this industry for many a year and am continually frustrated with Openreach's performance in many areas of their business, however in this case i do agree with the logic for the here and now. Technology will advance and so will the requirement for consuming data and higher speeds, but this also relies on ISP's providing that capability out the the end user.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
I'm just surprised that Openreach can't think further than yesterday. Neither can theRegister http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/10/ftth_council_uk_penetration_knocked_again/ "Copper-obsessed BT means UK misses out on ultrafast fibre gold"
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
Dammit, I meant theRegister is equally surprised!
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Sigh, once again I hate to use this overused phrase but how you do propose a full FTTH rollout nationwide is funded?

Also you do realise that as of next year anyone with FTTC will be able to have FTTH if they want it. So.. the migration path is there.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
It's good to see you toeing the company line Mr BTMAN99. That's what they want, unquestioning loyalty. Just remember you are holding the country back from achieving it's potential in the world.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
In other words, you have no answer. And its towing ;o)

You do also realise (probably not) there's not much uptake of up to 38 and up to 76mbps at the moment. But that is obviously because everyone is holding on for the 1Gbps connection that isn't needed right?

This craving for speed isn't there, doesn't matter what you think. Anyway as I say people can have fibre next year if they want it, if they want it they'll buy it :)
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about ;)
Posted by NetGuy about 1 year ago
@GMAN99 -re not much uptake...

I expect partly that's down to many of the exchanges being in areas where 'fast' competitors like Be, VM, etc have customers already in contract.

If 90% of users wanting 15+ Mbps service have a working service, only a fraction left for FTTC.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
dogbark, still waiting for those fibre killer apps?

NetGuy, yep there's certainly some truth in that. So put in fibre to the home and you have the same problem
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
BTMAN99, tell your schoolgirl boss to build the network and the apps will come.
You managed to figure out how to google "toeing the line" yet?
Posted by chrysalis about 1 year ago
24mbit conveniantly is what can be done in lab conditions without fiber. So they did tests but they forgot to download a file? As downloading a file can saturate 24mbit, silly man.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
No answers as I thought. And yes I've just googled it. I'll give you that one :)
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
Presumably this "average" family also lives in an average house, and gets average broadband today.

Ofcom tells us that the average speed for ADSL is 4Mbps, for ADSL2+ is 9Mbps, and for FTTC (@40/10) is 34Mbps.

It seems that Liv, in choosing 24Mbps, has left herself open for critisism because it appears to be defending ADSL2+ - but i read it differently. To me, it seems to point clearly to a need for FTTC deployment *and* that there isn't a need for FTTP *yet*.

That's for *average* families.
<cont>
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
<cont>
There will be some individuals & families that want more - a lot more. We do need a way to satisfy that demand too - and it looks like FTTP-on-demand will allow that to happen as people want/need it.

I'm a definite early-adopter for broadband (been connected for 12.5 years now), and we perform a lot of work-from-home activities. For family usage I can justify a 40/10 FTTC connection but, if it cost significantly more, I wouldn't truly be able to justify the 80/20 upgrade. As it is a "free" upgrade, I've chosen to take it, but it isn't necessary.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
@chrysalis: In the lab, they can do over 100Mbps on a single copper pair. They can actually achieve over 500Mbps on multiple pairs.

There's no need for the lab to stop at 24Mbps.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
I've already demonstrated at a stroke, how easy it is to need more that 24Mbit/s. The difficulty is getting access to high speed internet across the country, this is what BT should be concentrating on, not discussing what it will be used for, and not wondering how they will fund their rash purchase of the footballing rights. They aren't a TV company, they should stick to what they know and do it better than anyone else.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
How easy it is to need and what your average customer needs are miles apart though.

And as I've already told you. FTTC is being rolled out, and where that exists from next year you can get FTTH 330Mbps which can go far beyond that in terms of speeds 1Gbps+ when there is a demand

So.. this getting access to high speed internet is already happening?
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
@dogbark - you've demonstrated how easy it is to contrive an individual use case... and I've demonstrated (amongst others) that the FTTP-on-demand product will be enough to cope with such people. That'll be available wherever FTTC is - which BT *are* concentrating on rolling out as far as possible.

What BT+Openreach do (that few appreciate) is *scale*. They are approaching this from trying to get to 25 million homes. It is no wonder that they have to work out the "average" - because they have to deploy a network that copes with the average.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
They should be implementing a network that can deliver the future today to everyone, rather that trying to compete with Virgin in the quad-play market.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
The other thing that BT+Openreach must do (that few appreciate) is *availability*. The government requires that the phone systems must, basically, *never* break down.

A digital exchange must never BSOD (so no microsoft software there, then). It needs to fail & recover while still carrying calls.

The fibre network, as it takes over from copper, will inherit this requirement. It'll be a huge undertaking.

Mixing both scale & availability is a thing that Joe public just never appreciates.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
@dogbark. They are doing that.

It's just that *your* future wants 1Gbps.

*My* future wants around 100-200Mbps

My *parent's* future will be around 10-20Mbps.

The trick is to invest now for the near future. Then, when we get closer to it, invest further for the future after that.

We can't afford to do it all in one go. You've heard of the word budget, right?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
"They should be implementing a network that can deliver the future today to everyone" and why aren't they doing that? What is it they are not doing?

FTTC now which should meet bandwidth demands for now and the near future
FTTH as an option in FTTC areas when FTTC is not fast enough

Sounds ok to me, so what are they not doing that you would be doing better?
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
They should be delivering a network for an aspiration nation, not doing a bit of just-enough for the easy wins. Their short-termism will continue to damage the nation, no matter how they try to justify it by looking at the average. They should be looking to the stars.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
As for Virgin...

Well, they've never really been one for scale. They have a significant portion now, but only inherited from many small cableco's with small visions.

They have no ambition to go further - No money, and a fear of having to provide open access.

And they've always had a lackadaisical attitude to availability. Congested areas *stay* congested for a long time.

If we're going to have a national fibre network, I'd rather it were done by people who appreciate the need for scale, robustness, and availability.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
If we, as a nation, aspired more... then we need to *pay* for it. Somewhere, somehow.

The short-termism comes from:
- The customers, who want to pay Sky's bundled, £4pm price
- The customers who aren't swapping to SFBB where it is available
- The investors, who only put up enough money for a close future (and not a far-off, may-never-happen future)
- Ofcom, for changing the rules every 3 years, when investors need a 20-year picture of stability
- The government, for not stumping up the extra money needed. Who needs to receive any benefits, anyway?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
"They should be delivering a network for an aspiration nation, not doing a bit of just-enough for the easy wins. Their short-termism will continue to damage the nation, no matter how they try to justify it by looking at the average. They should be looking to the stars. "

But what does that mean? Nothing. Stick to answering what I asked
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
We've had a few goes in this country at getting telecomm competition going - but no-one has comes in and installed a nationwide network where the company vision is to get to *everyone*.

Mercury piggy-backed on BT; Cablecos only aim at the low-hanging profits; LLU's piggy-back too. Today's fibre & wireless companies are still tiny - and will go the same way as the cablecos.

It's time to realise that we are only going to have (or afford) a single national network, and we need to have a proper plan for how to migrate from copper to fibre. Then let everyone use it.
Posted by AspieMum about 1 year ago
Officially I have 24MBS broadband speed at the exchange but I only get 0.8MBs to 1.8MBs at my house. My so called 24MBs broadband package is not fast enough as a result but I am sure it would be is I could actually get such speeds. But the speeds I do get are a constant source of problems and do restrict what we can do and how many of us can connect at once even though there are only 4 people.
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
You mean up to 24Mbps?
Posted by KarlAustin about 1 year ago
Quick, Cheap, Reliable - pick any two.

You're right, most people forget what a massive undertaking it is and that BT have to make a profit - hence the Quad Play from BT Retail, but that's retail not Openreach.

Networks of a few thousand connections can be complicated, never mind ones that have to cope with many millions of connections.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) about 1 year ago
To avoid all doubt the 24 Mbps mentioned is NOTHING to do with ADSL2+ or what ADSL/ADSL2+ services individuals receive now.
Posted by WWWombat about 1 year ago
Here's my back-of-the-fag-packet budget for full FTTH:
Cost: £29 billion
Payback time: 12 years
Interest: £17 billion
Investor profit: £6 billion (they want some return)

Number of premises in UK: 28 million
Cost per premise: £1,857
Cost per year: £154
Cost per month: £13

This isn't the price of broadband. This is the *extra* monthly cost to get data over fibre instead of copper. It assumes that the cost is spread over every single property, and not (say) the 20% that want it.

For some people that *triples* their monthly payments.

Rough & ready numbers, but it illustrates the point.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
^ Shhhhh don't mention monies, its not convenient to some peoples argument that every on and their dog wants FTTH and Openreach should act as a charity.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
"Posted by dogbark about 16 hours ago
They should be delivering a network for an aspiration nation, not doing a bit of just-enough for the easy wins. Their short-termism will continue to damage the nation, no matter how they try to justify it by looking at the average. They should be looking to the stars."

Head in the clouds much?
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
It's taken you 16 hours to think of a response. You're obviously desperate.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
no just busy mate, its taken me 16 hrs to come back to this thread. I read all your posts, pretty weak stuff no real counter arguements.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
There's only one point. Saying we can't create a situation where more than 24 Mega bits is used is wrong because I easily created such a situation. Fact.
Posted by Spectre_01 about 1 year ago
Your situation is unrealistic FACT, that and 24meg could in fact handle 10 simultaneous streams of SDTV FACT.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
@Dogbark
However you're not a family, are you seriously suggesting the "average" family needs to stream & record 10 channels at once?

Also you have ignored my earlier point that the scenario you created is pointless, is based on an out-of-date paradigm about needing to record material before you watch it. With fibre broadband and VOD services like that in the YouView EPG, why would you want to record programmes first?
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
@Dogbark, others
If you must insist that "FTTP is the only viable option", please also explain how it will be financed, what the business case is as well.

Any idiot can spend limitless fantasy money, please show how this would work in reality instead.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
There are many problems with this obsession with streaming. A lot of channels like to compete in the prime viewing slots so the best programs are usually transmitted at the same time and as for catch-up tv not everything is available and/or expires very quickly. Hence the ongoing requirement to record in HD and even 3D. Its quite obvious she is attempting to manage expectations but the fact is they are already 2 years out of date. If you're suggesting it can't be done due to cost, how did our competitors manage?
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
Any competitors in particular?
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
Russia is a great example adding 719,000 new subscribers to FTTH/B networks in just the first half of 2012.
Posted by Somerset about 1 year ago
db - there is also satellite to record your 10 streams from. Rent 5 Sky boxes.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
You are Liv Garfield and I claim my 5 bucks.
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
@Dogbark
If you had a genuine need to record ten programmes simultaneously, you do of course have plenty of options available today from numerous service providers. For example, Ethernet services are available with symmetric speeds of up to 10Gbps, which would be more than sufficient for your needs. Admitedly there is a price premium versus broadband, but that should not be an issue for anyone with a genuine need to meet a non-standard requirement.
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
"non standard requirement" LOL
Posted by GMAN99 about 1 year ago
And how is the Russian rollout funded?
Posted by dogbark about 1 year ago
I doubt the Russians were thinking "24 Meg is enough"
Posted by New_Londoner about 1 year ago
@Dogbark
I defy you to show that the "need to record 10 programmes simultaneously" is a requirement, or even aspiration, of the majority of us.
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
dogbark - i assume you not on a deployed exchnage / cab -- and no other operator decided your exchnage worth investing in ? - i notice your exchnage is not mentioned

24 hours is a long time in ths business as hundreds of cabs arew bening stood as part of 2,5bn investment
Posted by herdwick about 1 year ago
The BSG came to the same conclusion, it's called engineering - making a realistic assessment of needs and economics rather than what is possible.

" The question is whether a typical household has 2 parents and 3 children all watching their own HD streams at the same time" - maybe they should have two connections ?
Posted by Shempz about 1 year ago
24mb...I wish! I'm one of those rural suckers that BT couldn't give a stuff about, no 21CN (ADSL2/2+) and certainly no fibre on its way to my telephone exchange before the end of this century! I'm stuck on 2.5mb - 3mb (and believe me, that is really pushing it on my exchange)
Posted by fastman about 1 year ago
shempz so have you check with your local authority to see if you will be covred under their countly plan -- most Local authories are no working on thei OMR Opeb Market Review to understand where their areas of internvention are and ho9w best to servce those within the funding envelope available
Posted by caterps about 1 year ago
What condescending twaddle.

"... never mind what you want, you can only have what we are willing to offer you ..."

seems to summarise this prime piece of BT Openreach twaddle.
Posted by dragon1945 about 1 year ago
BT haven't replaced our cables in 47 years I've lived here. I didn't get BB until a Royal person threw a hissy fit when he moved into Granny's old house, and couldn't get BB. BT laid on Fibre for him. On a good day I get 2 MB. On a bad day 1/2 a MB. Our old cable joined to his fibre. 3MB?- not in my lifetime. My phone line comes from Egham Exchange . Egham has good BB speeds and are getting Fibre. Why can't we have Fibre first?
Posted by AlanBG about 1 year ago
The average family is not streaming 10 channels or downloading large files. Companies have to justify their investment to their shareholders. They have to earn a return on that investment.
BUT, and it's a big but, if you read the interview I did with Garfield for Global Telecoms Business, the magazine I edit, she says (http://tinyurl.com/GTB-LivG) that Openreach will shortly be able to provide an FTTH connection to any home from any fibre-enabled cabinet, offering up to 330 megs. So if you want more than 24 megs, and want to pay for it, go ahead.
Posted by AlanBG about 1 year ago
Meanwhile, referring to Olivia Garfield, who runs a company heading a multi-billion infrastructure investment, as 'the kid' is just plain offensive.
Posted by tony8436 about 1 year ago
Openreach have already told us that we will be in the 10% without fibre. They will not invest inn our exchange and our local council withdrew its bid for BDUK funding meaning that we will only see a maximum of 1.5 Mbps. We need more than this as we have 3 children who use the internet regularly as do me and my wife. We also use Skype to keep in touch every time I go to Afghanistan, but that means that everybody has to stop what they are doing in order for me to speak to my wife.
Posted by tony8436 about 1 year ago
Why are Openreach only deploying to areas that do not need the speed increase and ignoring those that do? If they deployed to areas like mine, the uptake would be much higher with a higher return on investment.
Posted by tony8436 about 1 year ago
It also makes me sick that the nearest exchange to us has fibre already and the second nearest is getting it next year, but we are not connected to either of these, we are on an exchange so far away we struggle to get a usable speed. I have to drive past one of the exchanges to get to the one I am connected to. An Openreach engineer has also told me that there is space in the exchange for our estate.
Posted by tony8436 about 1 year ago
The estates either side of us can get the fibre service already but Openreach are happy to leave us in the dark ages. Forget looking to the future, what we get is not good enough for now let alone the future.
Posted by bsg017 about 1 year ago
Might be interesting to see what happens to the networks at the end of the month if many people try to pay and download the final version of Windows 8 on its release (presumably 2.75 GB like the pre-release versions).
Posted by locris about 1 year ago
@adslmax

Genesis Technical Systems has found a novel way to potentially provide up to 400 Mbps to properties over the existing copper network, without the expense of deploying fibre.

The DSL Rings technology was demonstrated at NextGen12 and this week has moved on to the Broadband World Forum in Amsterdam.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5495-genesis-gives-birth-to-dslrings-up-to-400-mbps-technology.html
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.