Slashdot Mirror
BT To Test Huawei 1Gbps Broadband Over Copper
judgecorp writes "BT is testing a different fiber broadband topology FTTdp (Fiber to the distribution point) and G.FAST, which could give 1Gbps broadband speeds at its research site Adastral Park in Britain. FTTdp pushes the network fiber closer to the user's premises than FTTC (Fiber to the Cabinet). In many cases this is less than 250m, a distance at which it's possible to get 1Gbps over the copper phone network using G.FAST, a new variation of VDSL broadband ."
"FTTdp pushes the network fiber closer to the user's premises than FTTC (Fiber to the Cabinet). In many cases this is less than 250m, a distance at which it's possible to get 1Gbps over the copper phone network using G.FAST, a new variation of VDSL broadband"
Throughput depends on the quality of the copper and the properties of the earth it's buried in. There's also cross-talk to consider which can lead to a reduction of 2/5ths in the worst case scenario.
The US gov't buys plenty of things made in China. That's not the issue. Buying equipment from Huawei is buying products from Palantir (a CIA funded technology company). They are both companies with close ties to military and intelligence gathering.
Still, when the US Gov't does buy from China they do prefer to source it from companies like Foxconn, which are Taiwanese owned.
Yeah. I'm not sure whether she hated "socialism" or "free markets" more, but she did as much as she could to make sure Britain enjoyed the features of neither.
Test speeds rarely relate to what consumers can expect to get. In the mid-late 90s (don't remember the exact year) I was in one of the early places to get Cable modems. The ISP was testing 100Mbps as a proof of concept, I had 2Mbps which was the fastest they offered customers. It has only been in the past couple of years that they started offering 100Mbps to customers - so roughly 15 years after it was tested.
Umm.I don't think this is about removing fiber, indeed by the sounds of it it's about installing fiber closer to the customer.
Many telcos are reluctant to do fiber to the premisis because it means sending a fiber tech into the home to liase with the customer about locations and then route and splice the new fiber, whereas apparently with this new tech they can achive gigabit speeds while only having to route the fiber to within 250m of a cluster of premises (e.g. to the top of the pole serving those premisis).
The question I would have is whether there is enough demand in the required speed range to make it worthwhile doing this. Does it make sense to put boxes on the top of poles that only end up serving one house each because everyone else is happy with their existing FTTC (or even regular ADSL) service or does it make more sense just to run fiber directly to those few houses who want something more than FTTC can offer?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
No, numbnuts, Brits are blaming Thatcher for explicitly prohibiting BT from deploying its final brilliant development as a public telecommuncations researcher and provider. It would have been like Reagan saying, if relevant events were contemporaneous, "No, AT&T, now we've broken you up, you must wipe all your Unix source code rather than releasing your new OS. Otherwise Microsoft won't be able to compete so effectively."
Of course we continue to blame that government for implementing the arrangement which exists to this day - one where progress is merely about playing technical catch-up, and where the regulators have to drag the children kicking and screaming to get them to provide any decent level of service.
I could blame you if it makes you feel better, though?