Family quoted 2,300 quid for fibre to the PREMISES... and is whinging

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by Mike Tomlinson, Aug 5, 2015.

  1. "A Suffolk family hoping to have the broadband in their rural home
    upgraded to a superfast fibre optic connection have been told they’ll
    need to pay £2,323 for installation"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-
    bills/11782490/Upgrade-to-superfast-broadband-Thatll-be-2323.html

    Can't see what they're whinging about, really. Not only are they
    getting FTTP (not FTTC), but Openreach is paying £1000 of the cost and
    the price includes digging up roads and pavements and laying new fibre
    from the (non FTTC-enabled) street cabinet to their door.

    In their place I'd be biting off Zen/Openreach's hand.

    The only thing we're not told is how fast the service would be. Any
    ideas?
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Aug 5, 2015
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Tomlinson

    Andy Burns Guest

    If I had no plans to move, so would I.
    330Mbps down, 30Mbps up.
     
    Andy Burns, Aug 5, 2015
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Tomlinson

    Davey Guest

    I live in Suffolk, and we have just got FTTC available. I can
    understand the family's annoyance, but if the kids can do nothing other
    than stream TV and play online games, what do they expect? Get a life,
    go visit Sutton Hoo just down the road, go sailing. Anything. We used
    to be quite happy without all this technology.
     
    Davey, Aug 5, 2015
    #3
  4. Mike Tomlinson

    Graham J Guest

    I live in Norfolk - about 6 miles from Thetford. FTTC is never likely
    to happen in my village because the nearest green cabinet is about 2km away.

    So I've asked Zen about getting FTTP. Previous estimates were nearer
    £50,000 setup and £1,000 per month ongoing ...
     
    Graham J, Aug 5, 2015
    #4
  5. ouch.
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Aug 5, 2015
    #5
  6. Mike Tomlinson

    Davey Guest

    So much for the Broadband to the Masses promises. It will be
    interesting to hear what the current estimate is.
    Personally, I can't justify the expense, but if I was a business, or a
    confirmed film-streamer, then I might think differently.
     
    Davey, Aug 5, 2015
    #6
  7. Given that BT briefly offered this for £300 install and £100 per month I am not surprised that they are winging.

    So Openreach don't use existing ducts or put in more than one fibre channelwhen they install anything? What they did here was thread fibre cables through their existing ducts, each cable has many strands [of fibre] each fibre can carry Gbps, which is why BT only charged me the postage on the router when I went onto ADSL2.

    Telling a punter it is ££££ is just a polite way of saying no.
     
    R. Mark Clayton, Aug 5, 2015
    #7
  8. Mike Tomlinson

    Dick Guest

    So you think there are existing ducts and fibre cables passing every
    home in rural areas do you?
     
    Dick, Aug 5, 2015
    #8
  9. So many things are now done online that we *should* be able to regard
    the internet as an essential utility like electricity, water, refuse
    collection etc, with all the usual legal protections and emergency
    provisions when it goes wrong, but there's no hope of this without the
    infrastructure to match. It would *have* to be through political
    commitment because the commercial incentives simply aren't there, and
    for that to happen we would need a government that understands the
    essentials of how it all works. Don't hold your breath waiting.
    Exactly. The current political fantasy is that we can provide 21st
    century communication services on an infrastructure that was designed
    for a 19th century invention and mostly built when our main
    communication channels were handled by a real public service and not a
    commercial company. It is, as you suggest, a bit like promising lots
    more trains without building any more tracks for them to run on. When
    you consider that what FTTC amounts to is sending shortwave radio
    signals down miles of twisted pair audio cables, it's astonishing it
    works at all, never mind working as well as it sometimes does (when
    the conditions are right). But in the end you can't beat the laws of
    physics, and can only achieve so much without building something new.
    Political attitudes have got to change before anything else can.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Aug 6, 2015
    #9
  10. They don't pass every home in urban areas, hence the higher fee for FTTP. They brought fibre to the out side of the premises (home or single occupieroffice building), and then converted it in a little box to Cat6.

    I would expect Openreach to install FTTC in villages or even hamlets, and in many cases they have done so.

    Part of the reason seems to be that BT realised they could sting the government £3k for business installs on their "Connection Voucher" scheme.

    See http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...new-orders-330mbps-fttp-demand-broadband.html and read between the lines...

    The whole thing is a disgrace.
     
    R. Mark Clayton, Aug 6, 2015
    #10
  11. Mike Tomlinson

    Kráftéé Guest

    "Roderick Stewart" wrote in message

    So many things are now done online that we *should* be able to regard
    the internet as an essential utility like electricity, water, refuse
    collection etc, with all the usual legal protections and emergency
    provisions when it goes wrong, but there's no hope of this without the
    infrastructure to match. It would *have* to be through political
    commitment because the commercial incentives simply aren't there, and
    for that to happen we would need a government that understands the
    essentials of how it all works. Don't hold your breath waiting.
    Exactly. The current political fantasy is that we can provide 21st
    century communication services on an infrastructure that was designed
    for a 19th century invention and mostly built when our main
    communication channels were handled by a real public service and not a
    commercial company. It is, as you suggest, a bit like promising lots
    more trains without building any more tracks for them to run on. When
    you consider that what FTTC amounts to is sending shortwave radio
    signals down miles of twisted pair audio cables, it's astonishing it
    works at all, never mind working as well as it sometimes does (when
    the conditions are right). But in the end you can't beat the laws of
    physics, and can only achieve so much without building something new.
    Political attitudes have got to change before anything else can.

    Rod.
    At last, someone who does have a grasp of the basics.
     
    Kráftéé, Aug 8, 2015
    #11
  12. Mike Tomlinson

    Optimist Guest

    Why this obsession with fibre to the home? There are affordable fixed wireless ISPs
    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/isp_list/ISP_List_Wireless.php
     
    Optimist, Aug 13, 2015
    #12
  13. Mike Tomlinson

    Martin Brown Guest

    It is even worse than that. The bloke who lives opposite the FTTC
    cabinet in our village is on the "wrong" side of the road with an EO
    line. They quoted him over £3k for a road closure and trench or slightly
    less for new pole overhead line for the new service.

    You have to be kidding. They only do it if they can harvest the grants.

    Many hamlets are on Exchange only connections and the pricing model for
    FTTRN is seriously broken. The village where the suits paraded to say
    how wonderful superfast broadband rollout has been is now struggling.

    Even the sycophants flogging how wonderful it all is have conceded that
    FTTRN trails show it is not even remotely cost effective.

    http://www.darlingtonandstocktontim...rth_to_benefit_from_new_broadband_technology/
    Undoubtedly. It doesn't help when government insists on more and more
    online forms without providing infrastructure outside major towns.
    Not enough coverage though and expensive. It would be a lot better for
    all concerned to provide enhanced 3/4G mobile coverage with beamed
    directional aerials along the typical linear ribbon development of small
    villages instead of faffing about installing fibre.

    Unfortunately wireless technology doesn't qualify for the grants :(
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 13, 2015
    #13
  14. Mike Tomlinson

    Optimist Guest

    Some of the fixed wireless packages on offer are cheaper than regular broadband! That this
    technology does not qualify for grants confirms my suspicion that this project to cable up the whole
    country is a scam to enrich the incumbents.
     
    Optimist, Aug 13, 2015
    #14
  15. Some of these figures look impressive, but nearly all the services in
    this list only serve specific areas, and some of them have very
    disappointing data rates - and that's only the *quoted* figures. I
    have no experience of these fixed wireless internet services, but it's
    fairly well known that the actual performance of ADSL/VDSL services
    can be very different from the quoted figures, so it wouldn't surprise
    me if the same applies to wireless. I'd want to know more about how
    these services perform in reality before I could be convinced they
    aren't best regarded as a last resort where nothing else is available.

    The only one in the list that serves Liverpool, where I live, has a
    startup fee of 500ukp, a monthly subscription of 250ukp, and upstream
    and downstream rates of 1Mb/s. Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll stay
    with Zen.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Aug 13, 2015
    #15
  16. Mike Tomlinson

    Optimist Guest

    Well you live in an urban area, as I do. I wouldn't use fixed wireless either as I have cable,
    recently upgraded to 50mbps, far too high for my needs.

    But If I lived in a rural area with a very poor ADSL or even dial-up connection, then one of these
    wireless offerings would be attractive. Why should taxpayers have to finance expensive fibre when
    there is a perfectly adequate alternative available? And surely where the performance of wireless
    is poor (say under 20mbps) the option of improving the performance of wireless should be considered
    before agreeing to install fibre at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds per subscriber.

    No doubt I will be flamed by those that believe they have a divine right to ultra-high-speed
    broadband at public expense but hey, you can always move.
     
    Optimist, Aug 13, 2015
    #16
  17. FTTP is future-proof, wireless isn't. With fibre, you can route Tb/s if
    you can pay for the equipment at each end - equipment whose cost tends to
    decline as technology improves.

    You have a certain fixed amount of bandwidth you can squeeze out of
    wireless, improved slightly by better coding and better spatial division
    (beam shaping, cell sizes, etc). But relatively soon you run out -
    propagation gets you in the end.

    FTTP is like rural electrification - it's a long term multi-decade
    investment. Wireless is like handing out torch batteries - it doesn't
    scale.

    I'm not impressed by FTTC, which is a bodge that simply puts off the need to
    install FTTP for a few years.

    Theo
     
    Theo Markettos, Aug 13, 2015
    #17
  18. Mike Tomlinson

    Optimist Guest

    There are people in remote areas desperate or broadband now. Surely wireless could be considered
    even if just as a stop-gap pending cabling at a future date?
     
    Optimist, Aug 13, 2015
    #18
  19. I agree that it's a bodge, but if you happen to be lucky enough to
    live near a suitably equipped cabinet, it's a very impressive bodge.
    The "proper" way to provide modern communication services is of course
    to replace all telephone cables everywhere with optical fibres, and
    extend the network to everywhere with human habitation, but given that
    there is no feasible way to make this happen overnight, a bodge that
    enables some people to have service is better than nobody having it.
    Much the same argument applies. If nothing else is available and the
    internet is sufficiently important to you that you're willing to pay
    the price and make do with the shortcomings, then the decision
    effectively makes itself. Then all you have to do is cross your
    fingers and hope it won't be too long before the service providers get
    round to doing the job properly.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Aug 14, 2015
    #19
  20. Mike Tomlinson

    Martin Brown Guest

    FTTC will probably do the vast majority domestic users perfectly well.
    Once you can stream more movies simultaneously than there are screens in
    the house any additional bandwidth is pretty much going spare.

    Backhaul capacity has become a problem in some areas recently FTTCd due
    to unexpectedly high uptake rates. No use having the high sync rate if
    the data is being throttled by contention issues at peak viewing times.

    Commercial users are another matter entirely.
    Agreed. Unfortunately I don't.
    It is quite a decent solution in towns and cities and allows the system
    wiring to be reused to consumer premises. Likely to stay like that for
    the forseeable future since very few people *need* faster connections.

    You can always sell premium priced faster connections to speed freaks.
    Satellite is the only other game in town and it is basically out of
    reach for domestic users (and the latency is horrible).

    I have contemplated using a Three 3G contract for my main home internet
    connection with a highly directional aerial. It is marginally faster
    than my fixed line even with a basic Mifi device. Roundtuit job...

    I do use Three as backup for line failure and also when out and about.
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 14, 2015
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.