Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population circa
3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to 900 Mb/s
at £40 per month.

In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town) as
having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots of
people would give their right arm for that speed,

I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?

Is this work sponsored by government in some way? It must cost a fortune
to put the infrastructure in.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.
It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.

On 06/06/2023 09:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population
> circa 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to
> 900 Mb/s at £40 per month.
>
> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town)
> as having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots
> of people would give their right arm for that speed,
>
> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to
> notice any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>
No.

In the early days of DASH style iplayer live encoding, to get full UHD
resolution iplayer streams you needed about 36 Mb/s, but those max
requirements have dropped too..

Most UHD streaming is now sub 20 Mb/s, HD sub 8 Mb/s

However, from a resilience and reliability point of view I'd opt for a
40 or 80 Mb/s FTTP service, over an 30 Mb/s FTTC service

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]
>
> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
> any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?

No.

You might notice an improvement in performance. FTTP ***should*** be
significantly more reliable than FTTC.

I used to have FTTC (1.1km to green cab, so about 20 Mbits/sec) which
lost sync perhaps once per week taking (as expected) over a minute to
re-synchronise. Since 6/3/23 I have had FTTP and there have been just
two breaks, each lasting about 1 second. Typical router log:

<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Remote Terminating (PPPoE)
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Hang Up ()
<158>May 31 08:46:28 V2860n: PPP Closed : Remote Terminating (PPPoE)
<158>May 31 08:46:29 V2860n: PPP Start (PPPoE)
<158>May 31 08:46:29 V2860n: CHAP Login OK (PPPoE)
<158>May 31 08:46:29 V2860n: IPCP Opening (PPPoE);

> Is this work sponsored by government in some way? It must cost a fortune
> to put the infrastructure in.

I can't imagine the government sponsoring it. And there would be better
uses for their money - perhaps paying NHS staff?

Given that POTS will be discontinued, and we will all be moved to a form
of VoIP (if we haven't moved already), there will be a revenue stream
from phone calls as well as the internet service.

Openreach are clearly responding to the competition from the likes of
Giganet. I'm sure my rural location only got FTTP because of
competition from County Broadband, and I've heard similar stories from
elsewhere. In time, the new fibre installation will cost less because
of reduced maintenance and support costs. I'm sure the bean counters
understand this.

It's nothing to do with giving the user a better experience!

--
Graham J

On 06/06/2023 10:00, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 09:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population
>> circa 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to
>> 900 Mb/s at £40 per month.
>>
>> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town)
>> as having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots
>> of people would give their right arm for that speed,
>>
>> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
>> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to
>> notice any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>>
> No.
>
> In the early days of DASH style iplayer live encoding, to get full UHD
> resolution iplayer streams you needed about 36 Mb/s, but those max
> requirements have dropped too..
>
> Most UHD streaming is now sub 20 Mb/s, HD sub 8 Mb/s
>
> However, from a resilience and reliability point of view I'd opt for a
> 40 or 80 Mb/s FTTP service, over an 30 Mb/s FTTC service

My experience is the same as the OP's (although with Zen). I am also the
only user of the FTTC here, but even when four other family appear with
their iPhones/iPads there seems to be enough capacity. I can't say I've
ever noticed an issue with the FTTC here, but agree that FTTP /should/
be more reliable if there's a "copper issue". OOI, is the fibre used for
FTTP exactly the same as that used for FTTC?

--

Jeff

On 06/06/2023 10:13, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 10:00, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 06/06/2023 09:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population
>>> circa 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to
>>> 900 Mb/s at £40 per month.
>>>
>>> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town)
>>> as having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots
>>> of people would give their right arm for that speed,
>>>
>>> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
>>> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to
>>> notice any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> In the early days of DASH style iplayer live encoding, to get full UHD
>> resolution iplayer streams you needed about 36 Mb/s, but those max
>> requirements have dropped too..
>>
>> Most UHD streaming is now sub 20 Mb/s, HD sub 8 Mb/s
>>
>> However, from a resilience and reliability point of view I'd opt for a
>> 40 or 80 Mb/s FTTP service, over an 30 Mb/s FTTC service
>
> My experience is the same as the OP's (although with Zen). I am also
> the only user of the FTTC here, but even when four other family appear
> with their iPhones/iPads there seems to be enough capacity. I can't
> say I've ever noticed an issue with the FTTC here, but agree that FTTP
> /should/ be more reliable if there's a "copper issue". OOI, is the
> fibre used for FTTP exactly the same as that used for FTTC?
>
The weak point with FTTC is that bit of copper between you and the local
cabinet. It is prone to all sorts of catastrophe, not least on
underground runs having a joint sat in permanently in water, and
overhead runs in a junction box without a lid.  Also the amount of
Openreach staff skilled enough to trace and fix 'copper' based faults
are fast diminishing. All new recruits are only being trained for fibre
technology. My recommendation, get on to FTTP as soon as you're able to,
regardless of your current FTTC condition.

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population
> circa 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up
> to 900 Mb/s at �40 per month.
>
> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town)
> as having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots
> of people would give their right arm for that speed,
>
> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to
> notice any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>
> Is this work sponsored by government in some way? It must cost a
> fortune to put the infrastructure in.

Hi Jeff, long time since we saw you in UPS. Hope you are well!! I had
that pacemaker fitted back in April and at times it feels like I've had
a turbo-charger fitted. Unfortunately I can't say that about my BB.
It's still not fibre and is just ambling along at 9.72 Mb/s, like it
has for some years now. :(
Mind you, I'm only paying around �12/month for it. :)
--
Heard messages are sweet but those Unheard are sweeter.
FN 2�22+. Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland..
flyingnun@roseofwhite.plus.com

On 06/06/2023 10:37, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 10:13, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 06/06/2023 10:00, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2023 09:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population
>>>> circa 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to
>>>> 900 Mb/s at £40 per month.
>>>>
>>>> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town)
>>>> as having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots
>>>> of people would give their right arm for that speed,
>>>>
>>>> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
>>>> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to
>>>> notice any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> In the early days of DASH style iplayer live encoding, to get full UHD
>>> resolution iplayer streams you needed about 36 Mb/s, but those max
>>> requirements have dropped too..
>>>
>>> Most UHD streaming is now sub 20 Mb/s, HD sub 8 Mb/s
>>>
>>> However, from a resilience and reliability point of view I'd opt for a
>>> 40 or 80 Mb/s FTTP service, over an 30 Mb/s FTTC service
>>
>> My experience is the same as the OP's (although with Zen). I am also
>> the only user of the FTTC here, but even when four other family appear
>> with their iPhones/iPads there seems to be enough capacity. I can't
>> say I've ever noticed an issue with the FTTC here, but agree that FTTP
>> /should/ be more reliable if there's a "copper issue". OOI, is the
>> fibre used for FTTP exactly the same as that used for FTTC?
>>
> The weak point with FTTC is that bit of copper between you and the local
> cabinet. It is prone to all sorts of catastrophe, not least on
> underground runs having a joint sat in permanently in water, and
> overhead runs in a junction box without a lid.  Also the amount of
> Openreach staff skilled enough to trace and fix 'copper' based faults
> are fast diminishing. All new recruits are only being trained for fibre
> technology. My recommendation, get on to FTTP as soon as you're able to,
> regardless of your current FTTC condition.

It's not really up to me, as there's no FTTP on the horizon here. It's
all around in the new estates, but our telegraph poles will fossilise
before FTTP arrives. Anyway, I'm on a fixed price contract with Zen, and
as the price will go up when FTTP is introduced, I'm in no hurry. :-)

The only time I lost FTTC was when a car hit the cabinet. The DSLAM
continued working, but as the door had been bent open and there was
mains inside, Openreach disconnected the power until the cabinet could
be replaced.

--

Jeff

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> I can't imagine the government sponsoring it. And there would be better
> uses for their money - perhaps paying NHS staff?

The government are sponsoring it, via a 'super deduction':
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-visits-openreach-as-governments-super-deduction-supports-creation-of-7000-new-jobs-and-expansion-of-broadband-rollout-to-rural-homes
which is expiring soon:
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/02/bt-calls-for-tax-relief-to-aid-uk-fttp-broadband-and-5g-builds.html

Basically any time an ISP makes an investment in FTTP, the government gives
a reduction of 130% of the value from their tax bill. That's effectively
the government letting them off taxes and putting 30% in their pocket.
This, plus the gigabit vouchers for difficult areas, is why everyone and
their dog is installing FTTP as fast as possible (before the deduction times
out).

> Given that POTS will be discontinued, and we will all be moved to a form
> of VoIP (if we haven't moved already), there will be a revenue stream
> from phone calls as well as the internet service.
>
> Openreach are clearly responding to the competition from the likes of
> Giganet. I'm sure my rural location only got FTTP because of
> competition from County Broadband, and I've heard similar stories from
> elsewhere. In time, the new fibre installation will cost less because
> of reduced maintenance and support costs. I'm sure the bean counters
> understand this.

County Broadband are installing around here (planning notices up, no shovels
yet), and no signs of Openreach awaking from their slumbers.

Although it seems OR are more likely to wire people on marginal ADSL or FTTC
than with solid FTTC, so if you're marginal they may do you first.

Theo

On Tue 06/06/2023 09:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population circa
> 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to 900
> Mb/s at £40 per month.
>
> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town) as
> having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots of
> people would give their right arm for that speed,
>
> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
> any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>
> Is this work sponsored by government in some way? It must cost a fortune
> to put the infrastructure in.
>

Around here in sunny North Yorks Giganet is one of the group of 11
providers running over CityFibre. Is it actually Giganet that are
digging or CityFibre?

On 06/06/2023 in message <xn0o2rmil762j6d00n@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:

>I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
>generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
>any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?

Many thanks for the replies :-)

I don't know who is actually doing the digging, they have a somewhat
coarse but repetitive repertoire if that gives a clue?

If I'm still around when they start selling it then I will give it a look,
even if only from the reliability viewpoint.

Thanks again.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?
(President Hayes speaking to Alexander Graham Bell on the invention of the
telephone)

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 09:38:01 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population circa
> 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to 900 Mb/s
> at £40 per month.
>
> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town) as
> having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots of
> people would give their right arm for that speed,
>
> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
> any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?

For email, telephony, surfing and streaming (even at 4k) no.

You may online notice back up taking longer, especially as the uplink is usually slower even over fibre.

>
> Is this work sponsored by government in some way? It must cost a fortune
> to put the infrastructure in.
>

Dunno, but they have been allowed to put their ducts inside BT ones and erect poles all over the place.

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.
> It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.

On 06/06/2023 in message <ke8jk0F4iaiU1@mid.individual.net> Flyiñg Ñuñ
2°22+ wrote:

>Hi Jeff, long time since we saw you in UPS. Hope you are well!! I had
>that pacemaker fitted back in April and at times it feels like I've had a
>turbo-charger fitted. Unfortunately I can't say that about my BB. It's
>still not fibre and is just ambling along at 9.72 Mb/s, like it has for
>some years now. :(
> Mind you, I'm only paying around £12/month for it. :)

Hi FN, good to hear from you!

Can you turn the pacemaker up and go jogging?

I think Internet speed is a bit over played and it will be expensive.
Interesting though, the digger has reached my property. The driver digs
away for 5 minutes then stops for a 5 minute break. Driving one of those
things must be exhausting :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Here we go it's getting close, now it's just who wants it most.

notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 09:38:01 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population circa
>> 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to 900 Mb/s
>> at £40 per month.
>>
>> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town) as
>> having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots of
>> people would give their right arm for that speed,
>>
>> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
>> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
>> any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
>
> For email, telephony, surfing and streaming (even at 4k) no.
>
> You may online notice back up taking longer, especially as the uplink is
> usually slower even over fibre.
>
>>
Only with OpenReach provided fibre. Most altnets provide symmetric speeds.

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 18:32:12 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:
> notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 09:38:01 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >> Giganet are currently digging up the village I live in (population circa
> >> 3,000) to put in fibre with the intention of offering FTTP up to 900 Mb/s
> >> at £40 per month.
> >>
> >> In its advertising blurb it referred to Fordingbridge (nearest town) as
> >> having speed of 75Mb/s before they installed fibre, I reckon lots of
> >> people would give their right arm for that speed,
> >>
> >> I get 30 Mb/s using FTTC and I live in my own. I have a Roku box so
> >> generally watch streamed rather than broadcast TV. Am I likely to notice
> >> any real world difference with 900 Mb/s?
> >
> > For email, telephony, surfing and streaming (even at 4k) no.
> >
> > You may online notice back up taking longer, especially as the uplink is
> > usually slower even over fibre.
> >
> >>
> Only with OpenReach provided fibre. Most altnets provide symmetric speeds..

And BT Openreach market share is?

notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 18:32:12 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:
> > Only with OpenReach provided fibre. Most altnets provide symmetric speeds.
>
> And BT Openreach market share is?

Virgin Media: 15.6 million premises
Openreach: 9.6 million premises
Altnets: 5.4 million premises

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/02/a-quick-look-at-the-changing-growth-of-uk-full-fibre-altnets.html

(I think these are 'gigabit capable', ie Virgin HFC is included in the
numbers. Of course HFC is very much not symmetric)

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 18:32:12 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:
>>> Only with OpenReach provided fibre. Most altnets provide symmetric speeds.
>>
>> And BT Openreach market share is?
>
> Virgin Media: 15.6 million premises
> Openreach: 9.6 million premises
> Altnets: 5.4 million premises
>
> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/02/a-quick-look-at-the-changing-growth-of-uk-full-fibre-altnets.html
>
> (I think these are 'gigabit capable', ie Virgin HFC is included in the
> numbers. Of course HFC is very much not symmetric)
>
> Theo
>

It’s a mystery to me as to why OR are continuing to deploy with what is
seemingly an obsolete technology.