Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BT Shows First Fiber-Optic Broadband Rollout Plans

Posted by timothy on from the you-can-have-two-re-fibers-per-post dept.

MJackson writes "BT has revealed new details about the roll-out of its £1.5bn programme to deploy super fast fibre optic broadband to as many as 10 million UK homes (40%) by 2012. Scotland will become one of the first places to benefit from next-generation broadband services, with more than 34,000 homes and businesses in Edinburgh and Glasgow receiving speeds of up to 40Mbps and potentially 60Mbps from early next year (2010). Overall, BT Openreach, which is responsible for ensuring that all rival operators have equality of access to BT's local network, aims to deploy Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) based next generation broadband services next summer (2010) to 500,000 homes and businesses in the UK."

119 comments

  1. Great! by microbee · · Score: 4, Funny

    So we'll have much faster BitTorrent downloads? Oh wait..

    1. Re:Great! by Jurily · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So we'll have much faster BitTorrent downloads? Oh wait..

      Tor and freenet should work better too.

    2. Re:Great! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I think the GP is hinting that, without progress on copyright and politics, technological progress will be held back anyway.

    3. Re:Great! by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Pretty much - BT is the only thing that actually uses my 16mbits of downstream.

      Screw faster connections for home users, how about having a minimum sustainable speed requirement for commercial web server connections? What use is a faster connection at home if the *insertURLhere* server only gives me 5% of what my brand spanking new fiber optic soundwave ultra-awesome connection has to offer?

    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose to believe it to be a postmodern critique of society's pressures to consume into the self without the symmetric giving of the self, leaving us no choice but to play out the dichotomy in the chaotic give-and-take game we call BitTorrent.

    5. Re:Great! by xaxa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What use is a faster connection at home if the *insertURLhere* server only gives me 5% of what my brand spanking new fiber optic soundwave ultra-awesome connection has to offer?

      * Sharing a single connection between multiple users
      * Streaming video (e.g. iPlayer, or IPTV)
      * VPN, e.g. for working from home

    6. Re:Great! by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

      Aye, now that I upgraded from 1.5 to 7 Mbps DSL, it highlights the limitations of most servers out there. I imagine the situation is similar in the UK, and they'll still clamp down on "The Other BT."

      --
      "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
    7. Re:Great! by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me that 10+ down and 1+ mbit up aren't enough for a bit of VPN and video streaming? Sure, I can't stream a BD-ROM with my pipe, but pretty much anything else is no problem ;)

  2. but ... by ndixon · · Score: 1

    will most likely only be used at newer development / building sites

    I don't know what this means: my house is about 20 years old - is that new enough?

    it warned that such products would initially be more expensive than existing ADSL based land-line broadband services.

    Currently, combined broadband & phone packages cost about £25-£30 a month if you want to avoid download caps, so I assume higher bandwidth will cost £40+

    At least it may push down the price of up-to-8Mbps services (and later up-to-24Mbps).

    --
    Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
    1. Re:but ... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      will most likely only be used at newer development / building sites

      I don't know what this means: my house is about 20 years old - is that new enough?

      I suspect what they mean is that they'll be rolling it out in housing areas that are being built now rather than to existing housing.

      So unless you want to move to a brand new house, no.

    2. Re:but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bethere.co.uk - £18/month, 24mbps, no cap. Your exchange needs to be LLU'd though.

      ( be is now owned by O2, but I dont think O2 offer the 24mbps package under their brand. Also the be DNS servers are awful, but you can use somebody elses DNS [ or your own ])

    3. Re:but ... by mikael · · Score: 1

      I don't know what this means: my house is about 20 years old - is that new enough?

      It probably means anywhere where underground ducting/conduiting has been installed, particularly on business parks. Other locations would required digging up the pavements to make space for the new cabling.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:but ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Virgin are charging £52/month for their 50meg offering, but I expect that will fall a bit when there is competition. Also, there is no word on what upload speeds BT will get but hopefully it will be better than the rather pathetic 1.5mb VM manages.

      "New" means new estates, where they are having to install telecoms from the ground up. So, your new house may be only slightly larger than a rabbit hutch, but at least it will have moderately fast broadband :-)

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bah... Been there, done that...
    Optical broadband is already rolled out in Norway, the "entry level" line is 10/10mb (yes, symetric), very stable and high quality with separate extra bandwith for Ip TV.

    Now, if the rest of the world follows, internet content will only get heavier and the demand for even more bandwith will grow :-(

    Guess we'll have to double the bandwith every 18 month in the future?

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by starsky51 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right. Progress is a pain in the arse!

      --
      There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who understand ternary and those who don't.
    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Norway Population - 4,644,457 (July 2008 est.)
      UK Population - 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by alexhard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's your point? ISPs have very good returns to scale. Also, there places like London in the UK with ridiculous population densities, which (theoretically) makes it much easier to provide high speed broadband. The problem always has been, is, and will be BT.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    4. Re:Anonymous Coward by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      You're correct, BT is the main problem, however my point is that there are more people in the UK then there are in Norway and you can't just dig up the road then put down last mile fibre without it being very expensive.

    5. Re:Anonymous Coward by alexhard · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's expensive, but due to scale and population density it would be much cheaper per residence in the UK than it was in Norway.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    6. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's how Verizon has been laying fiber in the US. They have huge crews that work along the roadside, even in cities, digging holes and drilling tunnels for conduit. They can go under roads, driveways and sidewalks. I'm sure it is expensive, but it hasn't stopped them.

      And I'm a very happy fios customer now, with a 20Mb/20Mb connection.

    7. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, BT should have put in fibre in the access network years ago even though it would have cost them loads and they would have been forced to open it up to any company who wants to use it...

    8. Re:Anonymous Coward by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      "

      Bah... Been there, done that...
      Optical broadband is already rolled out in Norway, the "entry level" line is 10/10mb (yes, symetric), very stable and high quality with separate extra bandwith for Ip TV.

      Now, if the rest of the world follows, internet content will only get heavier and the demand for even more bandwith will grow :-(

      Guess we'll have to double the bandwith every 18 month in the future?
      "

      And if harddisks stayed at their 50 MB size, we only would be able to store textfiles on them. Now, with 1TB+ drives we have to worry about storing images, movies and some nice-looking games on them. The humanity.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    9. Re:Anonymous Coward by Ghubi · · Score: 1

      UK area 244,820 km2
      Norway area 385,252 km2

    10. Re:Anonymous Coward by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      More mass and less people means it's cheaper to dig up the ground to lay down fibre. I poorly explained this point in my previous comment, however that's what I am trying to say.

    11. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he's not the problem isn't BT, BT has wanted to do fibre optic lines etc for 20 YEARS! The problem is OFCOM. An oversite group that has NO idea about the technology they've been put in charge of.

        BT only recently got permission off them to increase wholesale charges to finance this rollout and before that it took them 3 years to get permission to roll out ADSL, and before that 5 years to get permission to add 1 digit to area codes.. and so on.

    12. Re:Anonymous Coward by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      BT's plans won't even catch up with you guys then. They are only planning fibre to the cabinet, not to the home, so the line from the cabinet to your house will still be a normal copper telephone line and access will be via ADSL. They can offer higher speeds due to newer, better spec'ed lines and reduced line length, but it's still copper.

      Virgin claim to offer "fibre optic" broadband, but similarly only go as far as the cabinet. They also claim to offer "unlimited" service, but throttle anyone who uses it too much to less than 25% of their paid-for speed. Apparently, when it comes to broadband, you are allowed to lie in the UK.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise in Portugal: 100/10 MB is already beeing deployed and in use in this southern Europe country where I live.

  4. Too little... by antanca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd appreciate the investment, but it's too little, too late. Bandwidth will inevitably be capped and throttled to hell; this is BT we're talking about. Not to mention Phorm. 500,000 homes is rather a small portion, too, and they will most probably neglect south western England and rural areas as usual. I'm enjoying my 1mbps downstream immensely.

    1. Re:Too little... by Computershack · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dumbass. It's your ISP that implemets the caps and throttling, not BT Openreach. They merely provide the connectivity from the POP to the customer.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    2. Re:Too little... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Dumbass. It's your ISP that implemets the caps and throttling, not BT Openreach. They merely provide the connectivity from the POP to the customer.

      This should be +1 informative, not -1 flamebait. The AC is correct.

    3. Re:Too little... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      What AC?

    4. Re:Too little... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Virgin Media are already offering speeds "up to 50MB/second" in Cabled areas - at a cost of 35 pounds.month (XXL broadband).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Too little... by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just South Western England and rural areas, it's pretty much all of Yorkshire (North, East, South and West) and the Lake District as well as much of Scotland and most of Wales. About the only places not neglected are London and some other big cities like Manchester.

      We're seeing signs of rollouts to rural areas to appease OFCOM but they always go to the extreme with this, they rollout a 1mbps connection to a single person in the middle of the Pennines or whatever and go "Look, we care about rural people!" whilst ignoring the millions that live in much less remote rural locations but still get shafted.

      What annoys me most is that I'm only 3km from the exchange and have SnR ratio and other factors well within the bounds of 8mbps yet I can only sync at 1.6 to 2.2mbps and we've even had new lines into our house not so long ago, there's definitely not an issue with our wiring (checked, checked and checked again) so the issue has to be from the top of the street to the exchange or the exchange itself - it effects my neighbours too yet BT will do absolutely nothing about it because it's a rural area so we have this situation where even people in rural areas who could get 8mbps or damn near can't get it simply because BT don't want to spend money fixing faults. I also don't believe the governments scheme to mandate a minimum of 2mbps will help because BT will just say "Well look he sync'd at 2.1mbps for 30mins 7 weeks ago so surely that's good enough!" despite the fact I'm stuck at 1.6mbps 99% of the time.

      Oh, and did I forget to mention, every time it rains heavily my line repeatedly drops and needs to re-sync as do my neighbours - again, it's pretty clear something is screwed at the exchange or along the lines but BT simply do not care, neither do OFCOM and there's nothing we can do about it.

      BT do the bare minimum to keep OFCOM and the government happy and the government and OFCOM are happy (as with everything) with the bare minimum and that's the problem. There is no sign of us getting a technically competent government anytime soon however - The Conservatives have stated they'll put someone from the creative (i.e. content) industries in charges of the UK's broadband future so we can only expect things to get worse under them as they have demonstrated on countless occasions they're in big content's pockets.

    6. Re:Too little... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      When I was having problems with broadband a few years ago I found, (via either the thinkbroadband.com or zen adsl pages) a page which showed the state of the exchanges and when BT were likely to be addressing said issue.
      Doubt I could find it easily now, but what struck me then, was how many exchanges were suffering issues for ages and BT had no scheduled interest to sort the problem. You could be complaining to your ISP, having checks of your line - it would all be academic.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  5. What do we need the bandwidth for? by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If P2P is illegal - and frankly any internet traffic seems to be illegal according to the Orwellian UK government at the moment, what are we going to use 60Mbps for - checking Email?

    Mind you, 60Mbps is really going to improve the performance of the botnets, so spam levels will go up.

    --
    #include <sig.h>
    1. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by RegularFry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      iPlayer and whatever content providers BT wants to get into bed with will eat this up.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    2. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by gravos · · Score: 1

      Good point about the botnets. But what I think this will really enable is HD programming on-demand, assuming the backhaul links are up to snuff.

      --
      This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
    3. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      If P2P is illegal - and frankly any internet traffic seems to be illegal according to the Orwellian UK government at the moment, what

      Don't worry, the government will tell your what you may use it for.

    4. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably nothing, BUT, relax, as now you probably won't have any stupid bandwidth caps anymore... maybe.

    5. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      iPlayer streams are around 1Mb/s. Given the availability of fast enough consumer links, I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC started streaming the shows with the same format they broadcast them, which can eat up 20Mb/s easily. Two people in the house watching different streams? That's 40Mb/s. Download a big file in the background and you've got your 60Mb/s right there.

      I doubt many people will be using 60Mb/s all of the time, but then I don't use all of the 10Mb/s I get now all of the time either (and if I did, my ISP couldn't afford to give me the service at the rate that they do).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you mean RELAKKS

    7. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 1

      what are we going to use 60Mbps for - checking Email?

      The Internet is more than email and HTML websites. I use my connection for videoconferencing with clients and a slow connection is a real detriment. Even if I'll only use 10Mbps for a really high quality connection, there are three other people in my house. Asking what people are going to use fast connections for is like asking what they'll use bigger hard drives for.

      --
      Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
    8. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      So at the end of all this investment, we'll have an "internet" that's simply a new version of cable TV?

    9. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 1

      My point was that most of the high-bandwidth-requiring things to do on the internet are frowned upon by the powers that be - I'm sure telecoms carriers won't like you using VoIP or video conferencing as much as the MAFIAA dislike music/video over BitTorrent.

      As someone said above - why do we need the internet to deliver video when we already have cable/satellite and such?

      --
      #include <sig.h>
    10. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by pmarini · · Score: 1

      well, if your neighbours all start using 40Mb/s at night to watch BBS programs, I can only imagine the congestion during those oh-so-lovely cricket games...
      say a couple of new blocks of flats are built and 50% of the new tenants get the new wideband BT lines, how big has the pipe got to be back to the mothership ?
      40Mb/s * 25 families = 1Gb/s for each pair of new buildings !! (that's roughly an OC-24 line...)

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    11. Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      f P2P is illegal - and frankly any internet traffic seems to be illegal according to the Orwellian UK government at the moment, what are we going to use 60Mbps for - checking Email?

      Not only that but BT has joined the voluntary scheme with the record industry for making it easier for them to get your contact details AND judging by their past history of silent and prompt compliance will likely be one of the first to join the latest and greatest surveillance scheme from the Government whereby they have a centralized database with all the web addresses you access and all the e-mails you sent.

      If you live in the UK and are concerned with the slow erosion of your privacy I suggest you both use your vote to kick the current crop of would-be-dictators out and vote with your money by moving away from those companies who bend over backwards to satisfy the government's (and the record industry's) wishes.

  6. A big step forward by renesch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    now they will be able to install CCTVs even in private homes

    1. Re:A big step forward by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      now they will be able to install CCTVs even in private homes

      That'l show those terrorists.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:A big step forward by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Good idea. It will make it very easy to investigate paedophiles. On the other hand, if you are innocent you have nothing to fear, and the police will promise nicely not to use it for amusement.

      Therefore, if you object to CCTV in your home, you must be a paedophile and should be sent to jail straight away.

      Incidentally, CCTV in some private homes has been seriously proposed.

    3. Re:A big step forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to install cameras into private homes so they can watch children? Who are they going to find to do that?

      Oh wait.

    4. Re:A big step forward by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Mexicans just breed like cockroaches (thanks to their Catholic beliefs), drink too much (thanks to all the kids), and encourage modern day slave labour by working as illegal immigrants on tiny wages.

      The US would probably shit itself at the price jump on certain items if it actually had to do things legally and pay a proper wage to citizens / legal immigrants. But hey, slave labour is fine if you don't put chains on them.

    5. Re:A big step forward by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 1

      Personally I have no problem with them doing that - on the proviso that they first install the CCTV into the homes of the politicians and their families for a 2 year trial. Wonder how many politicians would support it then?

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
    6. Re:A big step forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? Sure, the Mexicans aren't nearly as violent, but they do bring statistically measurable crime nonetheless.

      Multiculturalism + ethnic pluralism = failure and ethnic genocide for the natives who aren't reproducing anymore.

    7. Re:A big step forward by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Or it's just a case of you hating Muslims fullstop.

      Have you forgot about the Mexicans using rocket launchers on US buildings south of the border, heads showing up along road sides and various other fun bits to go along with the drug trade?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Mafia

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surenos

      http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/220107mexicangangs.htm

      Of course does this apply to all Mexicans? Of course not. Just as your silly beliefs about muslims do not apply to all muslims.

  7. FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 0, Troll

    FTTH is last gen. FTTC is the one before that.

    Even my crappy cable company has installed 100Mbps FTTC here my low-rent burbs. (With in-your-face in-the-air cables no less!).

    At my offices people are bitching that they've only got FFTH PON rather the PTP installed the other side of the street.

    (Disclaimer for UK readers, I'm in France, so you are now allowed to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA I can't hear you).

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  8. Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Available NOW, not in a few years?

    Hong Kong has it. 30 Mbit (down, 10 Mbit up) for cheap (about USD 33 per month) and up to 1,000 Mbit for those with more money to waste (about USD 280 per month). This is for residential use, by the way. Available in residential buildings.

    Admittedly not available everywhere (like for me: I only can get traditional ADSL but then I'm living in a village so no surprise there), still this is nothing new. Good for the UK that they are catching up with their former colony.

    1. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Japan... Living in what would be consider the worst part of the greater tokyo area, and on 100/100 optical connection.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Japan... Living in what would be consider the worst part of the greater tokyo area, and on 100/100 optical connection.

      In Japan....living dead-center Shinjuku and on a 1000/1000 optical line.

    3. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Bloater · · Score: 2, Informative

      We already have fiber broadband over large parts of the UK. I had it installed nearly two years ago by Virgin Media.

    4. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Well, the Japanese have lots of savings. That sort of wealth is easily available there. Over in the west all we have is debt so we can't get that kind of service as quickly.

    5. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, despite their advertising, all Virgin have deployed is a fiber backbone, not "fiber broadband", which would include fibre to the home. For the last mile their 50Mb service goes over the same cables they've used all along.

      Not that it matters much when you get 50Mbps downstream and nearly 2Mbps upstream.

    6. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Dan+B. · · Score: 1

      That requires population density, and density is something HK has plenty of, to the point where those services are cheap, however you must share it, and your street/building/rooftop/park/etc. with 10,000 other people.

      --
      Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
    7. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also in Hong Kong, living in one of the busiest parts of Hong Kong island, and our building is considered "too old" (it's about 25 years old) for the 30Mb/100Mb/1000Mb connections. The best we can get is 6Mb ADSL (which is almost the same price as the 30Mb).

      So, despite it being offered, actually living in an area and BUILDING that can utilise it, is another thing.

      And no, I don't live in an ancient old building. I live in one of the more modern parts of Hong Kong nearby Causeway Bay, and my building isn't old by any standards.

      On the other hand, when I lived in the UK, in the outer suburbs of London I had no problem getting 20Mb cable internet.

      So Hong Kong's broadband isn't that great. Especially because there's a real lack of competition here, so prices are completely stagnant (Netvigator ADSL costs about the same now as it did back in 2002, for the same lower-end speeds).

    8. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The speed is what matters, not the underlying technology. There's no point replacing the cables to my house until we get to the limit of what they can carry. I currently get 10Mb/s and the latest research shows that the same cable can carry anywhere up to 500Mb/s, with 100Mb/s more likely in the real world. Once the backbone infrastructure is upgraded to the level that can actually provided me with this kind of speed, then we'll talk about upgrading the last mile (or replacing it with 802.11n / WiMax / LTE / whatever). Until then, I get no benefit from ripping out existing cable and replacing it with fibre.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by djtachyon · · Score: 1

      New Jersey has 30Mb/5Mb Cable (Optimum Online) for $55/mo, and 20Mb/20Mb FIOS $65. I have Optimum Online, it also include a domain name, web space, and open port 25 & 80 options. I find it quite satisfactory.

      --
      "What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
    10. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I've wondered about this. Are there any bandwidth caps on the Hong Kong and Japanese hi-speed services. These services have among the cheapest and fastest residential access anywhere.

      I just wouldn't see much a point with my ISP in Canada upgrading speed if bandwidth caps still remain.

    11. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acutally you're wrong - the VM backbone has been fibre for over ten years. But CoAx (what the customer gets) can only be used for 250m long lengths, so fibre is used to aggregate and bring back centrally. Basically it's exclusively fibre to some cabinets already (and has been for years), and Hybrid Fibre/CoAx (HFC) elsewhere.

      But obviously what BT are planning is vastly behind where VM are 'now' - but then VM didn't rack up billions in debt by sitting on it's hands :-)

    12. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by korean.ian · · Score: 1

      Hell even in a third-world country like South Korea you can get that (1000/1000) in Seoul or Busan. It costs a little more than the readily and cheaply available 100/100 connection, but it's there. I just moved back to Vancouver and I'm about ready to give up on the internet altogether.

    13. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In Hong Kong, none as far as I know. I have a 6 Mbps ADSL, and no bandwidth caps that I am aware of. There is probably a "fair use policy" but I have never heard of anyone being capped.

      The same line is used for their digital TV service; when using the Now TV I see my bandwidth drop to 3 Mbps.

    14. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by pmarini · · Score: 1

      the London transport company has also just ditched the project to bring mobile communications in underground trains... that gives you an idea how things are moving...

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    15. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In Hong Kong, I can get 3G in all underground tunnels. There are more than that I have tried but as far as I know it's available in all tunnels.

      Unfortunately the above ground rail lines have less good coverage, but that is the fault of the individual providers.

    16. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Vlado · · Score: 1

      Even Slovenia has 1.000 MBps with FTTH for a few years now.
      Same as above the connectivity starts with 10/10 for 14 EUR/month and tops up with 1.000/1.000 for 1000 EUR/month.

      Not to shabby.

      It's not available to all subscribers yet but major cities are all mostly covered and the network is still growing.

    17. Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, NTT (Japan's) cap introduced recently.. it's so rough. 30GB a day.. upstream. Downstream is still unlimited.

                Don't know about Hong Kong.

  9. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Isn't FTTH Fiber to the home? How is that last gen? And what would be the current gen? I mean i suppose technically I could connect to my fiber modem by fiber instead of TP-cable, but my connection is capped at 100 Mbps anyway..

  10. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by Fneb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, our internet's a bit behind the curve for similarly developed countries. FTTC is a big step up from ADSL2 though, even if it's not as good as FTTH (which would have cost far more I imagine. Out of interest, what do you call better than FTTH? PTP? Wossat?

  11. Good for Bittorrent? by TheMightyFuzzball · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I won't move to Virgin Media's Fibre Optic Broadband because of its policy on P2P, I hope BT is better...

  12. New, shiny, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it provide IPv6?

  13. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by c_g_hills · · Score: 1

    I guess the OP is referring to [10GE|G]PON, in which multiple subscribers (usually up to 32) share a single TX wavelength using TDM and RX using encryption. PON has also been deployed in combination with DSL in places (such as apartment complexes) where there is copper but it is too expensive to pull new cables. PTP (point-to-point) gives each subscriber a dedicated RX and TX wavelength, but in reality they are still sharing the upstream connection with multiple subscribers, so there is not a whole lot of difference in practice to the end-user.

  14. Why Scotland? by Dark$ide · · Score: 2, Troll
    Why Scotland? Nobody lives in Scotland, they send all their bankers and politicians south of the border to ruin my life and charge me exorbitant taxes.

    I wish BT would get a move on with this in England. I'm on aluminium cable last 800 metres from the cabinet to my house and that struggles to run 512/216 ADSL.

    If they want a beta tester I'll do that for them.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    1. Re:Why Scotland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Scotland?

      Because Scottish Oil has financed everything the UK has done for the last 20 years?

    2. Re:Why Scotland? by Dan+B. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You sir, have clearly never been to Edinburgh. All the Scottish Bankers and Politicians are there, in great numbers. Halifax Bank of SCOTLAND, Royal Bank of SCOTLAND, SCOTTISH Equitable (pensions, banking) SCOTTISH Widows (pensions), SCOTTISH Parliament, and so on, and so on.

      English Bankers and Politicians are quite capable of fucking up their own country.

      --
      Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
    3. Re:Why Scotland? by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      "ruin my life and charge me exorbitant taxes."

      Like the Poll Tax?

    4. Re:Why Scotland? by ray_mccrae · · Score: 1

      What nonsense, Glasgow and Edinburgh are the 4th and 7th biggest cities in the UK by population. Scotland sends SOME of its politicians south because that's were the UK parliament is. This is like saying the UK sends all it's politicians to Belgium (EU parliament), in that it's blatantly untrue and misses the real point. British does not equal English. Perhaps the real question should be why not Scotland?

      London 7.2 Million
      Birmingham 992000
      Leeds 720000
      Glasgow 560000
      Sheffield 512000
      Bradford 467000
      Edinburgh 450000
      Liverpool 440000
      Manchester 420000
      Bristol 380000

    5. Re:Why Scotland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't those English bankers just buy all of those Scottish banks when they went to the wall?

    6. Re:Why Scotland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And English Coal financed everything Scotland did for the previous 200 years - what exactly is your point?

    7. Re:Why Scotland? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      I do get sick of the English whining about being run by Scots. Maybe if they hadn't had such a hard-on for Thatcher and Major, they would have realised that all the experienced Labour politicians were Scottish, and so Scottish domination of the next Labour government was pretty much guaranteed.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    8. Re:Why Scotland? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's because the issue isn't being run by Scottish MPs, it's getting fucked over by them:
      - I didn't vote for a labour MP
      - I can't vote on laws passed in the Scottish parliament
      - Scottish MPs get to vote on laws passed in the British parliament that wont apply in Scotland
      - Scottish MPs have been the deciding factor is passing some frankly atrocious legislation

      Note that I didn't vote for Thatcher or Major either.

      Feel free to get sick, but don't pretend there isn't a significant flaw in our current model.

    9. Re:Why Scotland? by u38cg · · Score: 1
      Many people didn't vote for Labour MPs. That doesn't mean they didn't win the election.

      The West Lothian question is a problem, of course, and of course Labour are going to abuse their Scottish majority as long as they can get away with it. I expect a protocol of Scottish MPs sitting out English votes to arise eventually, but it will take time.

      Arrow guarantees that no representational system will be ideal; some group is always going to get the shaft. We have it worse at the moment due to recent history, but I don't think overall our system is a bad one (Italy much?). I hope that one effect of recent history will be to discourage the electorate from electing such long lived governments; two governments (effectively) since 1979 is a dangerous state of affairs. Governments should live in fear of the electorate - it's pretty obvious what happens when they lose that fear.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  15. I wouldn't hold your breath by FridgeFreezer · · Score: 3, Informative
    Cast your mind back to 2004 when BT announced they would roll out 21CN (ADSL2, VoIP, etc. and replacing the entire UK core network with IP), they were due to be rolling over more than 10,000 customers per day by now onto this new network, and be finished in plenty of time for everyone to watch the 2012 Olympics in HD video-over-broadband.

    Guess how many they've done so far...

    Of course, if you read their website now the original goalposts have been burned and some new ones installed much further apart and in a different place on the pitch: http://www.btplc.com/21CN/Theroadto21CN/Keymilestones/Keymilestones.htm

    --
    There is no music - home taping killed it.
    1. Re:I wouldn't hold your breath by c_g_hills · · Score: 2, Informative
      I especially like this little tidbit from near the end:-

      BT believes it is the only operator in the world to commit to a planned national rollout of a next generation network

      I wonder what planet they are living on - maybe the same one as Sol Trujillo of former Telstra infamy.

    2. Re:I wouldn't hold your breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they mean commit as opposed to actually doing it.

    3. Re:I wouldn't hold your breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's partly because they recently started cancelling >10000 agency (contractor) staff.

      Mind you, they did move some of the work to our Indian cousins. Wonder why the target dates have shifted? ;o)

  16. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, I was trolling a bit there. I should have said "current gen" rather than "last gen". Here FTTH rollout started the year before last.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  17. Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber opt. by Zapotek · · Score: 1
    See the link: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/50Mb/product_pricing_and_tech_info.html

    Broadband XXL
    Up to 50Mb fibre optic broadband TV
    Over 100 digital TV channels Phone
    Unlimited weekend UK landline calls

  18. Re:Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only their backbone is fibre (well, yes, it would normally be). The actual cable network is coaxial cable. They haven't really touched the cables from when NTL/Telewest ran it, and although their service can be good, it's subject to traffic shaping, stringent limits, and is extremely overcontended in many areas.

    Very misleading, I know. Someone really should pull them up on that.

  19. Scotland is first because... by Dan+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...both Edinburgh and Glasgow have relatively few BT customers at present. The residents in each city looking for broadband are pretty much all subscribers to the two major cable companies that provide phone services, pay TV and unlimited 1~10MB (shared bandwidth) cable internet for a fairly low fee. The cities are also fairly dense, but not too populated, thus making them good public pilot sites. There are also two fantastic Universities right in the heart of the cities that probably influence a lot of local council decisions.

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
    1. Re:Scotland is first because... by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      Dundee not on their list of course, already being wired up for 100Mbps fiber by H2O - http://www.fibrecity.eu/

  20. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I'm not convinced FTTH is worth it. It's a massive infrastructure investment to lay that last-mile fibre, and when you already have a cable that can carry 50Mb/s+ into your house, the extra cost doesn't seem to justify the increased speed.

    If anything, I'd expect that kind of home Internet connection to fade slowly over the next few years. Quite a few non-geeks I know have started using HSPA instead of wired connections. The cost is less than I pay for cable Internet. It only works with one computer and has relatively low monthly bandwidth caps, but most of these people only have one computer, and don't use that much bandwidth. Over the summer, I intend to pick up a small laptop with HSPA; T-Mobile have a cheap pre-pay option for this kind of hardware and so I only need to pay for weeks when it's sunny enough to work outside.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  21. Available in certain areas in the Netherlands now by Ixlr8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some cities in the Netherlands already have broadband fibre options for residential connections. Living in one of the pilot areas in Amsterdam, I am currently enjoying 20 Mbit/s (symmetrical!), but could go up to 100 Mbit/s (also symmetrical) if I'm willing to pay more.

    Internet service can be combined with telephone and radio/TV. RTV is converted to old fashioned cable signal in your home, which with good cabling (and proper channel separation (which they did take care of)) gives excellent TV image quality, without slow channel switching, digital artefacts, and one-TV-only downsides typical for other digital TV services.

    The good thing is (IMHO) they separated the network itself from the service providers, so you can have your choice of who (and what) you pay for. I'm just getting internet, because the TV package is missing BBC1 and 2 due to stupid monopoly of the old fashioned cable companies.

    --
    -- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  22. Re:Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber o by c_g_hills · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I once made a complaint to the ASA (Advertising Standards Association) but it was not upheld because apparently the average consumer would not draw that conclusion.

  23. Fiber to the Cabinet? by thyristor+pt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's old news. In Portugal we're already developing a nation wide Fiber to the Home network. Everyone gets a fiber with 100Mb.

  24. "super fast fibre optic broadband"?!? by Heddahenrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    40 Mbit/s is not "super fast fibre optic broadband". It's "slow fibre optic broadband".

    Here in Sweden it's quite common with 100/100, and I have 80/10 Mbit/s (or 80/16 is more close to reality).

    "super fast fibre optic broadband" would be something more than 1 Gbit/s. 1 Gbit/s would be "fast fibre optic broadband".

    1. Re:"super fast fibre optic broadband"?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreed.

      I live in France and I get 30 Mbit/s for 22 per month, and there's not a single strand of fiber in my home or building, it's all over old school coax cable.

      The cable company also offers 100 Mbit/s at the same price for areas where they did deploy FTTB, which is still not "super fast fibre optic" but still a nice improvement.

  25. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bitching about PON? What, 2.4 Gbps split 32 ways isn't enough somehow? Given that they'll both be oversubscribed much more than that further down the line, how is that a problem exactly?

    This is now frankly mere willy waving, but more nerdy. To be honest, my cheap 2 Mbps connection is fine. Faster would be a pleasant bonus I guess, but nothing to get too excited about. I had a 10 Mbps connection before and I really can't tell much difference for the most part.

  26. Re:Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber o by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    So false advertising is fine as long as the "average consumer" is sufficiently ignorant not to know the difference? That's insane.

  27. Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm just getting internet, because the TV package is missing BBC1 and 2 due to stupid monopoly of the old fashioned cable companies."

    How can that be? The BBCs (1,2,3,4 and HD) are FTA for you (and as a bonus you'll get ITV and the Channel4s).

  28. Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, and btw 640 kbit/s should be enough for everyone

  29. Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n by Ixlr8 · · Score: 1

    Because Amsterdam is not in the UK...

    The Dutch television distribution system is kind of weird. The BBC does not allow any provider but the old fashioned cable companies to distribute BBC1 and 2. As a kind of compensation the alternatives offered by the digital-over-the-air-TV-providers and these fibre providers is to offer BBC world. Yeah right... that doesn't do it for me.

    There is a lawsuit going on at the moment that challenges exactly this 'bbc1 and 2 only on cable' deal.

    --
    -- Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  30. How fast? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    Super fast!

  31. Same thing in Paris... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    Orange (the historical isp/phone, ex France Telecom) and Illiad (isp named Free) are battling it over in Paris to provide Ftth.

    My building owners coucil ("Co-propriete") agreed to go with Free (the ISP has to "propose" to the owner of the building, in this case the "council" representing the owners of each flat), and the building was vertically "fibered" 4-5 months after they issued their writ of acceptance.

    I had to explain to an assembly of elderlies why I preferred Free's technological choices : a mix of MPLS and L2TPv3.

    It is actually a FTTH EFM Point-to-Point (1000BASE-LX-10). - 802.3ah to the last mile and then a giant MPLS fibre Network covering the city.

    No more Dslams, what you have is an actual FC swich port.

    I now await the technician visit for the horizontal link to my flat and I will have access to 100Mb/50Mb for 29.99Eu/month.

    Of those I intend to provide 10Mb upload to as an anonymous Tor Node I could piggyback on for torrents and 5 Mb to an anime/manga irc bot so I can get pre-release anime and manga fansub in my favored groups (if I read it 5 mn before you, I'm still happy...)

    The remanining 35Mb up are "for my personnal use".

    I'm wondering about the possibility of a private VPN, to share "picture/videos of the kids/anything we damn want" among trusted friends...like that private encrypted/torrent swarm we heard about on /.

    50Mb up should be enough for almost anything...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  32. Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n by serialdogma · · Score: 1

    The FTA BBC channels are available on satellite also, across all of western Europe, you just need a dish pointing at Astra 2 and a DVB-S receiver. The BBC has done this since the late 90s, but have just recently branded it Freesat.

  33. I hate to sound pedantic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fiber is not "next generation." I've had 100Mbps fiber for 7 years now, but I don't live in the UK or the US.

  34. Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is strange, my fibre TV provider distributes BBC 1+2 and does so since 2006:
    http://www.onsneteindhoven.nl/index.php?menu=10&submenu=16

  35. First? by Marin3 · · Score: 0

    Here in Portugal, We already have fiber optic internet wideband for some time...

  36. what is the outbound bandwidth? by dgallard · · Score: 1

    I am more curious if this is symmetric bw.

    As time goes by we will continue to need high
    speed outbound (outbound video, etc.)

    I also don't think it hurts to be able to
    have more distributed servers and that
    means more outbound bandwidth everywhere.

    We have not yet invented all the reasons we
    will want outbound bandwidth.