When fibre optic gets put in at the main box

[dbgtz]

Any houses linked to the box, would they all get the ability to upgrade instantly or does each house get the ability to upgrade one by one?

I ask this as my friend and some neighbours can get fibre optic, but others can't and I'm wondering if I will eventually get it or if I don't have the option now I probably won't get it.

[Recursion]

Depends how Virgin decide to roll out that particular area.

FTTCs a waste of time anyway, surprised they aren't doing FTTH.

[dbgtz]

Depends how Virgin decide to roll out that particular area.

FTTCs a waste of time anyway, surprised they aren't doing FTTH.

BT is doing it.

[Recursion]

Same as my post before then :P

[Chippiewill]

I wish they'd do ETTR already.

[dbgtz]

I wish they'd do ETTR already.

I just want to get a faster internet than 1.2mb. What's the difference anyway?

[Jin]

It depends on the area that these people live in, essentially to provide fibre broadband, a connection of fibres between exchange and nodes to the cab needs to be made. A lot of areas need additional cabs installed, you may have seen silver cabs popping up next to green ones these are generally the fibre cabs.

As you can imagine this does take some time to go around and provide these links. In my area they have been over a year delayed as they can't seem to install a stable infrastructure so have been digging up roads everywhere to make new connections available.

Depends how Virgin decide to roll out that particular area.

FTTCs a waste of time anyway, surprised they aren't doing FTTH.

No point doing FTTH unless they plan to provide speeds in excess of 100mb. VDSL allows speeds of up to 100mb on short hops of copper by using pair bonding however the downside is that each DSLAM can only serve half of it's original connections. FTTC brings cost for provider and consumer down as well as address the increase demand for bandwidth (from the provider POV) as data, voice and video all travel on the same lines. It also results in a far quicker and cheaper deployment as existing infrastructure and network architecture can be utilized.

On a separate note I actually don't see a legitimate reason why consumers need excessively high broadband speeds it just seems to me that for whatever it would be useful for would probably breach the ISP's terms and conditions especially in an era where all ISP's now throttle speed.

[Chippiewill]

I just want to get a faster internet than 1.2mb. What's the difference anyway?
Ethernet to the room, dedicated Gbit connection from house to exchange. Just a wee bit faster.

[Recursion]

It depends on the area that these people live in, essentially to provide fibre broadband, a connection of fibres between exchange and nodes to the cab needs to be made. A lot of areas need additional cabs installed, you may have seen silver cabs popping up next to green ones these are generally the fibre cabs.

As you can imagine this does take some time to go around and provide these links. In my area they have been over a year delayed as they can't seem to install a stable infrastructure so have been digging up roads everywhere to make new connections available.


No point doing FTTH unless they plan to provide speeds in excess of 100mb. VDSL allows speeds of up to 100mb on short hops of copper by using pair bonding however the downside is that each DSLAM can only serve half of it's original connections. FTTC brings cost for provider and consumer down as well as address the increase demand for bandwidth (from the provider POV) as data, voice and video all travel on the same lines. It also results in a far quicker and cheaper deployment as existing infrastructure and network architecture can be utilized.

On a separate note I actually don't see a legitimate reason why consumers need excessively high broadband speeds it just seems to me that for whatever it would be useful for would probably breach the ISP's terms and conditions especially in an era where all ISP's now throttle speed.

Services like OnLive and on demand 1080p streaming perhaps? :P

[Chippiewill]

And on demand 4k when we get that also (I can hope..), and streaming 3d means double, the increase in devices using the internet etc.

I'm fairly certain that when the internet was first envisioned they hadn't even considered images, let alone HD Videos. We're certainly not nearing the end of the tunnel.

[Jin]

And on demand 4k when we get that also (I can hope..), and streaming 3d means double, the increase in devices using the internet etc.

I'm fairly certain that when the internet was first envisioned they hadn't even considered images, let alone HD Videos. We're certainly not nearing the end of the tunnel.


Services like OnLive and on demand 1080p streaming perhaps? :P

From the last case study which was given to me (and by given I mean thrown at the side of my head) stated that HD streams require a connection around 10-12mb/s, sadly they didn't quite specify what they meant by HD, even so that would mean that a 50mb connection could potentially allow 4 simultaneous streams.

Don't get me wrong I can think of lots of great uses for 100mb or 1gb broadband but not many which wouldn't be considered illegal or break the T&C of my provider.

In terms of 3D side by side format wouldn't make a difference it would be about the same as 2D HD bandwidth but frame sequential 3D would be an issue and I don't think any network architecture in the consumer world could support that without a massive overhaul.