Moving home to fttp connection

Arklight

It!!!8217;s actually not true that the UK couldn!!!8217;t have had national fibre to the home. Plenty of other countries have managed it.

Back in the 80s, when governments still invested in infrastructure, BT was starting a national FTTH rollout, was leading the world in FTTH, and had two factories manufacturing cable.

Then Margaret Thatcher came along. Thatcher didn!!!8217;t want BT leading the world in internet provision. She wanted American cable companies to operate in the UK and thought that they wouldn!!!8217;t be able to if their 500kbs connections were trying to compete against BT's unlimited fibre bandwidth.

Immediately after that decision by Thatcher's government, the UK fell far behind in broadband speeds and, to this day, has never properly recovered. When the current government came to power it pledged that the UK would have the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015 and 90% of homes will be connected to superfast broadband by 2017.

But, as Dr Cochrane explains, there are two things wrong with this. Firstly, the government's definition of superfast broadband is 24Mbps. Secondly, comparing against Europe is pointless. "Western nations blindly compare with each other. There's no point in saying 'we're better than the French, we're better than the Germans' - that's not the point. Are we better than the Japanese, the Koreans and other competing nations?"

"[In Southeast Asia] they roared ahead. The Japanese in particular formulated a plan. While we were faffing about with half an Mbps 'being sufficient' the Japanese were rolling out 10Mbps. When we got to 2Mbps they were rolling out 100Mbps. Hong Kong in 2012 already had a gigabit both ways. In 1999 Japan already had 50Mbps universally and South Korea was comfortably using 4G by 2006. In the UK there's no vision, mission or plan, we're engaged in a random walk into the future".

https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784

Anyway, I digress, it looks like the OP's internet move is sorted.

iniltous

Mister_G wrote: »

No, not at all.

I agree with Arklight's point that it is wrong for the ASA to have permitted it to be called fibre.

My original post was merely to make the point that faster speeds can be obtained over coax rather than copper pair. No more, no less.

But when this went off topic and became about the ASA and if referring to hybrid copper/fibre systems as legitimate, then regardless of cooper pair or co-axial cable, both are either justified or not, in calling what they offer as 'fibre', and as it was Virgin who started calling their hybrid system 'fibre broadband' first, and not being challenged by the advertising authorities, then for 'BT' to call their own hybrid system 'fibre broadband' is perfectly fair....it's ludicrous to say VM are OK to call their broadband 'fibre', but BT cannot, given that they are both in the main , FTTC

onomatopoeia99

Arklight wrote: »

Back in the 80s, when governments still invested in infrastructure, BT was starting a national FTTH rollout, was leading the world in FTTH, and had two factories manufacturing cable.

Then Margaret Thatcher came along. Thatcher didn!!!8217;t want BT leading the world in internet provision. She wanted American cable companies to operate in the UK and thought that they wouldn!!!8217;t be able to if their 500kbs connections were trying to compete against BT's unlimited fibre bandwidth.

BT in the 1980s wanted a monopoly over their own fibre lines, unlike the current situation where they have to provide wholesale access to other providers. So it you had a BT line, you would have to use BT Internet for your fibre broadband, like you have to get your internet provision from VM is you are using VM coax.

The government of the time said no, so BT didn't spend their own cash on building out FTTH infratructure for other providers to use. We've since had 30 years of evolution of the wholesale model and the split of "BT" into multiple division with chinese walls between them. I'm way happier with the wholesale model of today than I would have been with the monoply provider model that would have sseen a faster FTTH rollout.

Arklight

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

BT in the 1980s wanted a monopoly over their own fibre lines, unlike the current situation where they have to provide wholesale access to other providers. So it you had a BT line, you would have to use BT Internet for your fibre broadband, like you have to get your internet provision from VM is you are using VM coax.

The government of the time said no, so BT didn't spend their own cash on building out FTTH infratructure for other providers to use. We've since had 30 years of evolution of the wholesale model and the split of "BT" into multiple division with chinese walls between them. I'm way happier with the wholesale model of today than I would have been with the monoply provider model that would have sseen a faster FTTH rollout.

So it was OK for Richard Branson to lay inferior DOCSIS cable to people’s homes and only allow them to use Virgin Media through it, but BT couldn’t lay superior fibre cable to the same homes for their own customers, as it would have made them a monopoly?

Branson is certainly glowingly grateful to Thatcher for this (I wonder why).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9979483/Sir-Richard-Branson-Margaret-Thatcher-changed-the-country-for-the-better.html

In actuality there would have been many options for partitioning BT after this capital investment project. Keeping what is now Openreach in public ownership would have made the most sense. But that would have jammed a rock in the works of the Tories selling off BT and all our other utilities and sending cheques out to all all the newly converted Tory voters.

People are being quoted sums in excess of £30,000 now to have FTTPod fibre connections laid all of 100 metres to their properties, so I hope they invested the money wisely.

iniltous

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

BT in the 1980s wanted a monopoly over their own fibre lines, unlike the current situation where they have to provide wholesale access to other providers. So it you had a BT line, you would have to use BT Internet for your fibre broadband, like you have to get your internet provision from VM is you are using VM coax.

The government of the time said no, so BT didn't spend their own cash on building out FTTH infratructure for other providers to use. We've since had 30 years of evolution of the wholesale model and the split of "BT" into multiple division with chinese walls between them. I'm way happier with the wholesale model of today than I would have been with the monoply provider model that would have sseen a faster FTTH rollout.

BT was privatised in 1984....but was (and still is) restricted in its operations by the Government's regulator (Oftel then Ofcom)
Much like BT was not allowed into broadcast TV ( to the benefit of Sky ) the Thatcher Government didn't want BT being the only game in town, as far as phone and data transmission, and to encourage American cable networks into Britain, made it plain to BT that a national fibre network was not going to be allowed to proceed, as this would put off the Americans.
Things like unbundling and wholesale access were developed well after BT were stopped from building a national fibre access network, and were mainly EU directives anyway

JJ_Egan

OP must be well confused .
Asking a question about actual Fibre to the Actual Premises and post gets spammed and told its not to the premises .

cajef

JJ_Egan wrote: »

OP must be well confused .
Asking a question about actual Fibre to the Actual Premises and post gets spammed and told its not to the premises .

FTTP or FTTH (both the same thing) are most certainly to the premises, I am sat here in my study looking at the fibre cable connected to my ONT next to my router.:D

onomatopoeia99

Arklight wrote: »

So it was OK for Richard Branson to lay inferior DOCSIS cable to people’s homes and only allow them to use Virgin Media through it, but BT couldn’t lay superior fibre cable to the same homes for their own customers, as it would have made them a monopoly?

No. The playing field should be level, all telecommunications networks that extend to premises should be opened to wholesale access, so VM should be forced to offer wholesale like BT do.