1Gbps over existing copper lines with G.fast

This is done in Europe. Use G-Fast for customers within the right distance to the SDC, and only deploy fibre for the ones beyond the range. At the end of the day, a consumer should only be worried about the service and not the medium it is delivered on.
 
G.fast.png
And then:
When BT first launched its VDSL2 FTTC service, profile 8a was selected, which used only 8.5 MHz bandwidth to deliver a maximum download connection speed of 40 Mbps. The use of a wider bandwidth allows VDSL2 to deliver greater speeds for households and business premises situated within about 750 metres of a fibre cabinet. In April 2012, BT implemented the 17a profile (using nearly twice the original bandwidth of profile 8c), allowing download connection speeds up to 80 Mbps. In the future, BT has the option to increase the bandwidth with VDSL2 even further (to 30 MHz), which would increase download speeds to well over 100 Mbps for premises close to the street cabinet.

The bandwidth used by G.fast is considerably wider than VDSL2 (about 6 to 12 times wider than current VDSL2 services). The use of higher frequencies inevitably limits the distance of transmission to a maximum of about 250 metres (and significantly lower than this for the highest speeds), due to strong signal attenuation at high frequencies. In the initial stages of G.fast deployment, G.fast technology will use the 106 MHz frequency band, although there will be the option to increase the bandwidth to 212 MHz in the future (to achieve even greater speeds).

Due to the frequencies used by G.fast, there will be a risk of interference to other services, including FM radio. Real G.fast deployments may require certain frequency bands to be ‘notched out’ to avoid interference with other services.
http://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/2015/what-is-gfast
Click to expand...
So very fast but extremely susceptible to interference and an extremely limited range.

Also from the same page:
G.fast versus Fibre to the Premises (FTTP)
So why is G.fast being developed when Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) (where fibre is laid all the way to the premises) could potentially provide even better performance than G.fast without its dependence on copper cables? The answer is cost. FTTP can be very expensive to implement (particularly in so-called ‘brown field’ deployments) with high labour costs. Austrian ISP A1 says that, even though FTTP remains its long-term vision, it considers G.fast as an “intelligent interim solution” until fibre has the same coverage as copper does today.

We certainly understand the frustration among some technology evangelists that the current deployment of FTTP is painfully slow since FTTP offers the ultimate in speeds and reliability. However, we have also witnessed the many challenges faced by Openreach engineers (shown below) laying cables in a BDUK project, with frustrating and time-consuming delays caused by numerous blocked ducts. Laying fibre to all homes and business premises in the UK would certainly be a very costly and onerous project! In 2008, Analysys Mason estimated that taking fibre to every UK home would cost as much as £28.8 billion (nearly six times higher than FTTC deployment, which is currently being undertaken).
Click to expand...

Btw I would take anything A1 says as bull as A1 basically has a monopoly on Austrian fixed line and a large portion of its cellular network, they would take any excuse to twiddle their thumbs.


A nice graph of speed vs distance:
pr1506012158_graphic.jpg

And will edit when I find out more about the upload capabilities.

EDIT:
All right, found some mentions:
For example, earlier this year British network operator BT said download speeds of around For example, earlier this year British network operator BT said download speeds of around 700Mbps and upload speeds at 200Mbps over a distance of 66 meters were achieved during a field trial. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2856...-get-closer-thanks-to-new-gfast-standard.html
Click to expand...

But in Britain they are rolling out as:
1. NGA2 G.Fast
* Up to 330 Mbit/s downstream
* Up to 50Mbit/s upstream
* Downstream prioritised rate 80Mbit/s
* Multicast enabled
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...-fast-and-fod2-ultrafast-broadband-trial.html
Click to expand...
So 50Mbps when it reaches the 300Mbit mark as a max. (about 250m)

EDIT2: Do note that all these trials are done on good quality copper that has been maintained better than the copper here by Telkom.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is why MyBB cannot add more information to their news articles, why do I have to go search for a simple thing like what's the max upload and what's the distance the technology can reach?
Shouldn't it be the de facto standard for a tech site?
 
agentrfr said:
Or you could just lay and use fibre? 250 meters? Mostly useless.
Click to expand...

In SA yes, in densely populated cities like London I imagine you could reach a few thousand people within 250m of an exchange. That will definitely make it worth it. In SA you would only reach a few hundred at most in that range.
 
furpile said:
In SA yes, in densely populated cities like London I imagine you could reach a few thousand people within 250m of an exchange. That will definitely make it worth it. In SA you would only reach a few hundred at most in that range.
Click to expand...

The hope here, as BT has stated before, is to begin a commercial G.fast roll-out to “most homes” from 2016/17 (assuming Ofcom doesn’t throw a spanner in the works by splitting Openreach). This would be a 10-year long deployment, with top service speeds starting at 300Mbps and rising to 500Mbps towards the end of that period. We suspect this would at most reach 60-70% of UK premises. A further trial update is expected next month.http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...-fast-and-fod2-ultrafast-broadband-trial.html
Click to expand...
They say they can cover 60-70% of the population with it but it would take 10 years by which time those speeds would be obsolete. Might as well roll out fiber.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a nice tech, but perhaps a little bit of a superfluous solution in light of FTTX. It could be used as an excuse to avoid digging up densely populated areas for fibre...
 
furpile said:
In SA yes, in densely populated cities like London I imagine you could reach a few thousand people within 250m of an exchange. That will definitely make it worth it. In SA you would only reach a few hundred at most in that range.
Click to expand...

That's what LTE-A has been developed over the last couple years for.... :p
 
jackshiels said:
Seems like a nice tech, but perhaps a little bit of a superfluous solution in light of FTTX. It could be used as an excuse to avoid digging up densely populated areas for fibre...
Click to expand...

The reason for looking at it is that a big proportion of the cost of FTTH comes from outside the home. The costs are from multiple home visits for each installation. Also, quite a few people cancel when they see the damage about to be done.

Imagine how much cheaper, faster and more effective if the fibre installers laid down the road and simply connected each home via the existing copper on the street, past each house, then simply replaced the modem in the home.

The three issues are 1. FM radio interference (dealt with in the specs); 2. Power needed for the street-side of the G.Fast modems; 3. Variable quality copper into each home
 
Chris.Geerdts said:
The reason for looking at it is that a big proportion of the cost of FTTH comes from outside the home. The costs are from multiple home visits for each installation. Also, quite a few people cancel when they see the damage about to be done.

Imagine how much cheaper, faster and more effective if the fibre installers laid down the road and simply connected each home via the existing copper on the street, past each house, then simply replaced the modem in the home.

The three issues are 1. FM radio interference (dealt with in the specs); 2. Power needed for the street-side of the G.Fast modems; 3. Variable quality copper into each home
Click to expand...

4. Distance
5. Future proofing
 
agentrfr said:
That's what LTE-A has been developed over the last couple years for.... :p
Click to expand...

While LTE-A is fast, it is not practical as a fixed line alternative if you stream video or do anything that transfers 100's of GB's per month.

That would be a tragic way to bankrupt yourself.
 
interesting!

not worth deploying anymore, as other tech has come along.

maybe telkom can use it to improve their backhaul with the existing copper... a box every 250 meters hehe. im sure there will be signal boosters for this too eventually just like there is for DSL
 
access said:
interesting!

not worth deploying anymore, as other tech has come along.

maybe telkom can use it to improve their backhaul with the existing copper... a box every 250 meters hehe. im sure there will be signal boosters for this too eventually just like there is for DSL
Click to expand...

That's the thing, FTTC is a bad move overall. It requires one to build exchanges extremely close to houses, which are then rendered worthless as they become obsolete and are replaced by fiber.
Australia found this out as well.
 
Kingofmybbknowitalls said:
Wonder if this could be the answer for SA where we're still a long way off from getting fiber in the burbs.

http://bgr.com/2016/05/17/g-fast-google-fiber/
Click to expand...

Other advantages of G.Fast include its ability to sustain high speeds even in crowded areas like apartment buildings. DSL internet can lose up to 90% of its speed by the time it reaches modems in buildings, but G.Fast would only lose 5% to 10% on the same trip.
Click to expand...

I wonder where they are getting these stats from considering g.fast drops off in speed a lot more sharply/quicker than adsl.
They also forget to mention things like distance.
It might "beat" Google fiber in speed if you are less an 50m from the exchange but all Google would have to do is set it to 2Gbps instead, the fiber is easily capable of it. G.fast would not be able to catch up. Fiber also does not drop off over distance.
 
MickeyD said:
You may want to re-phrase that... :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, wow that was bad. Wrote from my iPad, it rephrases things for me :D
#blame tech. iPad is set to German though, auto correct and I keep forgetting to change it back.

Let's say that it delivers the full speed from exchange to house, it does not decrease in speed based on distance like copper dsl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X