Is FTTC a con?

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by PeterC, Jul 23, 2015.

  1. PeterC

    PeterC Guest

    No. What I am saying is that if we had copperTTP and FTTexchange, the
    distance to the 'vitual exchange', i.e. the cabinet would be effectively
    like being, in my case, 800m from the exchange.
    I'm not on FTTC - that is on copper - and yes, should have been M.
     
    PeterC, Jul 23, 2015
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterC

    PeterC Guest

    Well, for a negative time! I'm not on FTTC yet, that's why I'm maxing at 3
    Mbps. As I'm with TT (stop sniggering!) and stuck until the autumn, I'll
    wait for fibre until I can change ISP.
     
    PeterC, Jul 23, 2015
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. PeterC

    PeterC Guest

    No, but blowing a fibre and putting in 1 cabinet...
     
    PeterC, Jul 23, 2015
    #23
  4. PeterC

    Andy Burns Guest

    I'd expect you to to about 40Mbps at that distance, sounds like you're
    still on ADSL2, or the profile hasn't kicked in at the ISP end.
     
    Andy Burns, Jul 23, 2015
    #24
  5. PeterC

    Andy Burns Guest

    I don't see what you're complaining about then ... sounds like you want
    something for nothing ....
     
    Andy Burns, Jul 23, 2015
    #25
  6. PeterC

    Dick Guest

    You don't 'blow' a fibre all the way from the exchange to the cabinet,
    you lay a new cable at huge cost particularly if the duct is blocked.
    The DSLAMs in the cabinet are not exactly cheap either.
     
    Dick, Jul 24, 2015
    #26
  7. I thought FTTC still required the copper pair to run back to the
    exchange from the cabinet.

    The customer's line is now terminated at the FTTC cab (meaning a shorter
    run of copper from the FTTC cab to the customer premises, hence higher
    xDSL speeds), but the copper pair running back to the exchange is still
    used for voice, with data being added to the line at the FTTC cabinet.
    Am I wrong?
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Jul 24, 2015
    #27
  8. PeterC

    Dick Guest

    No, you are correct.
     
    Dick, Jul 24, 2015
    #28
  9. No it is not a con.

    I get 30+Mbps on a similar run (and did not order 76Mbps), so I suspect a fault in your install.
     
    R. Mark Clayton, Jul 24, 2015
    #29
  10. PeterC

    PeterC Guest

    I wasn't complaining but just wondering why...
     
    PeterC, Jul 24, 2015
    #30
  11. PeterC

    Andy Burns Guest

    Nope. Of course a more sophisticated MSAN could do the POTS bit in the
    cabinet, and then they could dig up the copper, but that would involve
    giving moving all customers over to fibre ... which might dissuade many
    of them from paying extra for the privilege.
     
    Andy Burns, Jul 24, 2015
    #31
  12. So FTTC is actually FTTC+CTTC?

    If so, the big savings on copper and duct space won't be made until
    cabinets are fitted with voice circuits, so the long run from cabinet
    to exchange can be fibre only.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Jul 24, 2015
    #32
  13. PeterC

    Roger Mills Guest

    Well then I'm not quite sure of the purpose of your original post! I was
    not alone in interpreting it to mean that you *were* on FTTP - but still
    only getting ADSL speeds.
    --
    Cheers,
    Roger
    ____________
    Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
    checked.
     
    Roger Mills, Jul 24, 2015
    #33
  14. PeterC

    Dick Guest

    Which is where this thread all started.
     
    Dick, Jul 24, 2015
    #34
  15. PeterC

    Graham J Guest


    That is currently correct. My point was general, in that in principle
    BT could supply everything to the FTTC cabinet over fibre and save the
    cost of the copper. Of course voice data would have to be added at the
    FTTC cabinet - for everybody.

    Ultimately this would be easier with FTTP. The "green cabinets" would
    then only contain fibre splitters (probably some sort of router) which
    would require a small amount of electrical power. The householder would
    require a router with fibre termination, a VoIP adapter for the voice
    service, and a small UPS to keep the service alive in the event of a
    power failure.

    The UPS is not really necessary but doing away with the ability to make
    landline phone calls during a power cut might require legislation
    changes. But in reality many people with DECT phones and the like are
    already limited this way.
     
    Graham J, Jul 24, 2015
    #35
  16. PeterC

    Davey Guest

    Which is why some of us keep an old-style 'phone available.
     
    Davey, Jul 24, 2015
    #36
  17. PeterC

    NY Guest

    All sensible people like me keep an old-fashioned hard-wired phone in a safe
    place to bring out if you need to make or receive phone calls during a power
    cut.
     
    NY, Jul 24, 2015
    #37
  18. PeterC

    Scott Guest

    I thought that was exactly how FTTC (aka BT Infinity) worked?
    So why are you referring to '2.4 to 3.0 Mbps that I get' in a posting
    about FTTC if you are not on a FTTC service? If you want the benefits
    of FTTC should you not sign up for a FTTC contract?
     
    Scott, Jul 24, 2015
    #38
  19. PeterC

    Scott Guest

    It's now emerging he is not on FTTC.
     
    Scott, Jul 24, 2015
    #39
  20. They've just laid ours. They had to dig up the verge in a few bits, but
    it certainly wasn't a trench all the way.

    Now if only they'd turn it on!

    Andy
     
    Vir Campestris, Jul 24, 2015
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.