Copper is not glass, are ISPs mass action liable for fibre optic claims?

JohnHeritage_2

Services are now being called 'Fibre'. I was happy with my 2MB at the time but, having never had cable TV and seeing Virgin's adverts about the fibre service, thought I'd try it.

I called Virgin, holding a leaflet in my hand with a picture of a fibre optic on it and specifically asked the customers service team if they would be installing a fibre to the house.

"Yes, this is a high speed fibre service" was the reply.

Upon signing up and having the technicians round, they very quickly said that wouldn't be happening as it was against building codes to install fibres in a domestic setting.

That alone has to be a breach of contract, as I was clearly told I would have a fibre to the house; I wish I had the phone conversation recorded.

More ISPs have begun picking up on this method. For example, BT is currently offering a 'fibre optic' service. You don't get a fibre optic point at your house.

Some of you will be aware that the telecommunication trunks are fibre optic, which then branch off to copper lines as they spread out.

The only thing I am aware of the ISPs doing to provide any additional 'fibreness' to the situation is changing some of their own network, not your connection to it.

You are still connected to it by copper, which will never match the speed of a fibre. Yet you are sold a fibre optic connection / service.

How can it possibly qualify as a reasonable representation of what you're getting when it doesn't actually involve a fibre touching your property? Particularly when the staff themselves tell me a fibre will be run to the house.

kwikbreaks

The ASA Ok'd Virgin's "fibre optic broadband" adverts and now BT are advertising their new FTTC service the same way. Even though it is pure BS you'd get absolutely nowhere suing either.

eamon

The building code bit is nonsense. There is no inherent fire risk in optical fibre cable. It would however be very expensive to bring fibre to the home both in labour and material costs. For what its worth Virgins cable network really only uses copper for the telephony side of things. The TV & broadband gets to your house via fibre and coax. If you google Pirelli, Commscope, Times Fiber, Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) there are others you can check out the technical specs.

Bear in mind though, you can have the most modern hardware & network but if the information that you want resides in a rickety filing cabinet operated by a beastie that only works Tuesdays, then that it how fast it gets.

moonrakerz

What sort of speed were they offering ?

I wouldn't give a d*** if it was a piece of wet string as long as it gave me the sort of speed that I was after !

You seem to be more interested in suing for "breach of contract" than anything - I wonder why could that be ?

jayme1

I was never sold a 'fiber optic connection' but I did know I was signing up for a 'cable connection'.

but to be honnest does it matter I pay for 50MB broadband and I get 50MB broadband icto facto, it doesn't matter if it isn't fiber to the house it will be many many years before it would become beneficial to have fiber to the house.

Trinitrotoluene

The fibre runs (IIRC) pretty much as close to your house as it possibly can and then a copper cable is used to take it into your property. Essentially this isn't fibre directly inside your house but essentially you will never have an issue with this in terms of speed.

As for BTs FTTC - that is pushing it saying its a fibre service when it quite clearly isn't.

Mark_In_Hampshire

That's why - and I hope this is the case - whenever I describe either cable or BT's "FTTC" service, I and others use the wording "part-fibre network"

As regards the difference in speeds, generally VM street cabinets are very close to the properties with a short copper co-ax run to the home so the headline, advertised speeds are possible. By contrast the BT cabinet could be miles away connected to the home with a narrow gauge copper or aliminium line and so the headline speeds cannot be achieved - BT's part-fibre network cannot by definition hit the headline speeds unless the last bit of copper really is copper, is short, and sufficiently good quality.

So you could say "VM is more fibre-optic than BT" (a greater percentage of the run to the home is fibre) but that's a dangerous path. Either it's fibre-optic, or it isn't. Similarly a watch is either gold, or gold-plated.

The OP is right. Neither are really "fibre-optic broadband", it's stretching the truth just a little too far. But the regulator decided it was OK when VM used it in their advertising, so BT now use it. Believe this may be under review.

KillerWatt

moonrakerz wrote: »

You seem to be more interested in suing for "breach of contract" than anything - I wonder why could that be ?

Maybe the OP used to bunk off school when he was younger, and now the only job he can get involves the catchphrase "Would you like a large fries with that sir"?

Spartacus_Mills

moonrakerz wrote: »

What sort of speed were they offering ?

I wouldn't give a d*** if it was a piece of wet string as long as it gave me the sort of speed that I was after !

You seem to be more interested in suing for "breach of contract" than anything - I wonder why could that be ?

Compensation, innit.

spike7451

Mark_In_Hampshire wrote: »

That's why - and I hope this is the case - whenever I describe either cable or BT's "FTTC" service, I and others use the wording "part-fibre network"

As regards the difference in speeds, generally VM street cabinets are very close to the properties with a short copper co-ax run to the home so the headline, advertised speeds are possible. By contrast the BT cabinet could be miles away connected to the home with a narrow gauge copper or aliminium line and so the headline speeds cannot be achieved - BT's part-fibre network cannot by definition hit the headline speeds unless the last bit of copper really is copper, is short, and sufficiently good quality.

So you could say "VM is more fibre-optic than BT" (a greater percentage of the run to the home is fibre) but that's a dangerous path. Either it's fibre-optic, or it isn't. Similarly a watch is either gold, or gold-plated.

The OP is right. Neither are really "fibre-optic broadband", it's stretching the truth just a little too far. But the regulator decided it was OK when VM used it in their advertising, so BT now use it. Believe this may be under review.

Not entirely correct there Mark.The fibre optic cable only runs to the Mux/DA which are the two boxes you will see side by side.The street cabinets are arranged in rings & the is only 1 Mux/DA per ring.These can be up to half a mile away from your home & it is there at the MUX/DA that the fibre optic is turned into copper.From the DA,which is the TV/BBand side,it then runs to the DP cabinet & then thru a Magnavox booster to the house or onto the smaller E cabinets.

penrhyn

I demand STM 64 and will accept nothing less:rotfl: