Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35794697)

Which shows how silly the EU 5ghz channel range is.

Although more than 8 channels are available, lots of vendors are locking them off as they dont want to implement complex restrictions on the radar channels.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35794203)

Given your desperation to save a few quid on Virgin Media services as you happily tolerate crap speeds from Plusnet in return for a big discount it's fair to say you aren't the right person to look to for beta testing of BT's G.fast products.

G.fast is a way from production yet, sadly. Longer term Openreach have bugger all to compete with Virgin Media as they made the wrong bet. They hoped they could spend the bare minimum on FTTC and collect the plaudits for delivering 'fibre optic broadband' and it's looking increasingly like they were wrong. Virgin Media can deliver 600Mb without breaking a sweat, Openreach can't deliver 500Mb to me without further investment in deeper fibre.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35794701)

yeah.

Of course delivering access speed and throughput are two different things, I have no trust in VM to have the right capacity in my local area.

For me personally FTTC has been overall great, In reality 40mbit+ speeds are fine for my usage, and as such both g.fast and VM's upgrades dont excite me as its a decreasing rate of returns the higher you go. Higher speeds will of course excite those who have torrents going 24/7 for 4k content and as such the demand on backhaul will skyrocket and it will be a test for both BTw and VM if they can cope.

What I value is stable low latency and reliability during peak hours not just been fast at off peak.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35794697)

Which shows how silly the EU 5ghz channel range is.

Although more than 8 channels are available, lots of vendors are locking them off as they dont want to implement complex restrictions on the radar channels.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35794756)

There's a certain sense of Irony in being able to get VM but not BT.

Originally Posted by Harryn9000 (Post 35794754)

if openreach was any good they wouldnt do half a job, only half my road has infinity and no chance of me getting it anytime soon i've no choice but to have vm for internet as bt cant even give me a decent speed

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35794855)

Because at some point, someone calculated what it would cost to cable the other side of the street and deemed it wasn't a good investment. I'm sure there's some reason why the opposite side of the street would have been marginally more expensive - perhaps capacity was hit in that area, or some kind of landmark prevents a straight run. Green boxes can only accommodate so many connections (40 or something?), maybe they hit their limit and it wasn't worth the cost of building another?

Originally Posted by alanbjames (Post 35794852)

Why is it though both BT and Virgin only do part of some roads and not others?.

My friend lives on a street where only the opposite side of the road can get Virgin.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35794855)

Because at some point, someone calculated what it would cost to cable the other side of the street and deemed it wasn't a good investment.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35794898)

Don't think BT does this - it is under a legal obligation to connect all premises, but obviously not all to fibre - this will be an economic assessment.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35794941)

Which is why we need a universal service obligation for next-gen broadband.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35794951)

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how that could apply to the likes of Virgin in a way that's sustainable without pumping a lot of public money into it.

Like the kind of money they've spent on HS2...