Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BT Shows First Fiber-Optic Broadband Rollout Plans

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-can-have-two-re-fibers-per-post dept.

The Internet 119

MJackson writes "BT has revealed new details about the roll-out of its £1.5bn programme to deploy super fast fibre optic broadband to as many as 10 million UK homes (40%) by 2012. Scotland will become one of the first places to benefit from next-generation broadband services, with more than 34,000 homes and businesses in Edinburgh and Glasgow receiving speeds of up to 40Mbps and potentially 60Mbps from early next year (2010). Overall, BT Openreach, which is responsible for ensuring that all rival operators have equality of access to BT's local network, aims to deploy Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC) based next generation broadband services next summer (2010) to 500,000 homes and businesses in the UK."

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great! (4, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286603)

So we'll have much faster BitTorrent downloads? Oh wait..

Re:Great! (0, Offtopic)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286623)

So we'll have much faster BitTorrent downloads? Oh wait..

Tor and freenet should work better too.

Re:Great! (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287029)

I think the GP is hinting that, without progress on copyright and politics, technological progress will be held back anyway.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287247)

I choose to believe it to be a postmodern critique of society's pressures to consume into the self without the symmetric giving of the self, leaving us no choice but to play out the dichotomy in the chaotic give-and-take game we call BitTorrent.

Re:Great! (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287041)

Pretty much - BT is the only thing that actually uses my 16mbits of downstream.

Screw faster connections for home users, how about having a minimum sustainable speed requirement for commercial web server connections? What use is a faster connection at home if the *insertURLhere* server only gives me 5% of what my brand spanking new fiber optic soundwave ultra-awesome connection has to offer?

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287847)

What use is a faster connection at home if the *insertURLhere* server only gives me 5% of what my brand spanking new fiber optic soundwave ultra-awesome connection has to offer?

* Sharing a single connection between multiple users
* Streaming video (e.g. iPlayer [bbc.co.uk] , or IPTV)
* VPN, e.g. for working from home

Re:Great! (1)

Mad-Bassist (944409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288965)

Aye, now that I upgraded from 1.5 to 7 Mbps DSL, it highlights the limitations of most servers out there. I imagine the situation is similar in the UK, and they'll still clamp down on "The Other BT."

but ... (1)

ndixon (184723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286647)

will most likely only be used at newer development / building sites

I don't know what this means: my house is about 20 years old - is that new enough?

it warned that such products would initially be more expensive than existing ADSL based land-line broadband services.

Currently, combined broadband & phone packages cost about £25-£30 a month if you want to avoid download caps, so I assume higher bandwidth will cost £40+

At least it may push down the price of up-to-8Mbps services (and later up-to-24Mbps).

Re:but ... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287105)

will most likely only be used at newer development / building sites

I don't know what this means: my house is about 20 years old - is that new enough?

I suspect what they mean is that they'll be rolling it out in housing areas that are being built now rather than to existing housing.

So unless you want to move to a brand new house, no.

Re:but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27288039)

bethere.co.uk - £18/month, 24mbps, no cap. Your exchange needs to be LLU'd though.

( be is now owned by O2, but I dont think O2 offer the 24mbps package under their brand. Also the be DNS servers are awful, but you can use somebody elses DNS [ or your own ])

Re:but ... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288765)

I don't know what this means: my house is about 20 years old - is that new enough?

It probably means anywhere where underground ducting/conduiting has been installed, particularly on business parks. Other locations would required digging up the pavements to make space for the new cabling.

Anonymous Coward (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27286649)

Bah... Been there, done that...
Optical broadband is already rolled out in Norway, the "entry level" line is 10/10mb (yes, symetric), very stable and high quality with separate extra bandwith for Ip TV.

Now, if the rest of the world follows, internet content will only get heavier and the demand for even more bandwith will grow :-(

Guess we'll have to double the bandwith every 18 month in the future?

Re:Anonymous Coward (5, Insightful)

starsky51 (959750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286905)

You're right. Progress is a pain in the arse!

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287205)

Norway Population - 4,644,457 (July 2008 est.)
UK Population - 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Insightful)

alexhard (778254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287487)

What's your point? ISPs have very good returns to scale. Also, there places like London in the UK with ridiculous population densities, which (theoretically) makes it much easier to provide high speed broadband. The problem always has been, is, and will be BT.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287545)

You're correct, BT is the main problem, however my point is that there are more people in the UK then there are in Norway and you can't just dig up the road then put down last mile fibre without it being very expensive.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287553)

Sure, it's expensive, but due to scale and population density it would be much cheaper per residence in the UK than it was in Norway.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287771)

That's how Verizon has been laying fiber in the US. They have huge crews that work along the roadside, even in cities, digging holes and drilling tunnels for conduit. They can go under roads, driveways and sidewalks. I'm sure it is expensive, but it hasn't stopped them.

And I'm a very happy fios customer now, with a 20Mb/20Mb connection.

Same thing in Paris... (1)

da5idnetlimit.com (410908) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288733)

Orange (the historical isp/phone, ex France Telecom) and Illiad (isp named Free) are battling it over in Paris to provide Ftth.

My building owners coucil ("Co-propriete") agreed to go with Free (the ISP has to "propose" to the owner of the building, in this case the "council" representing the owners of each flat), and the building was vertically "fibered" 4-5 months after they issued their writ of acceptance.

I had to explain to an assembly of elderlies why I preferred Free's technological choices : a mix of MPLS and L2TPv3.

It is actually a FTTH EFM Point-to-Point (1000BASE-LX-10). - 802.3ah to the last mile and then a giant MPLS fibre Network covering the city.

No more Dslams, what you have is an actual FC swich port.

I now await the technician visit for the horizontal link to my flat and I will have access to 100Mb/50Mb for 29.99Eu/month.

Of those I intend to provide 10Mb upload to as an anonymous Tor Node I could piggyback on for torrents and 5 Mb to an anime/manga irc bot so I can get pre-release anime and manga fansub in my favored groups (if I read it 5 mn before you, I'm still happy...)

The remanining 35Mb up are "for my personnal use".

I'm wondering about the possibility of a private VPN, to share "picture/videos of the kids/anything we damn want" among trusted friends...like that private encrypted/torrent swarm we heard about on /.

50Mb up should be enough for almost anything...

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27290905)

No he's not the problem isn't BT, BT has wanted to do fibre optic lines etc for 20 YEARS! The problem is OFCOM. An oversite group that has NO idea about the technology they've been put in charge of.

  BT only recently got permission off them to increase wholesale charges to finance this rollout and before that it took them 3 years to get permission to roll out ADSL, and before that 5 years to get permission to add 1 digit to area codes.. and so on.

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27288043)

Yeah, BT should have put in fibre in the access network years ago even though it would have cost them loads and they would have been forced to open it up to any company who wants to use it...

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Ghubi (1102775) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288619)

UK area 244,820 km2
Norway area 385,252 km2

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288945)

More mass and less people means it's cheaper to dig up the ground to lay down fibre. I poorly explained this point in my previous comment, however that's what I am trying to say.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288197)

"

Bah... Been there, done that...
Optical broadband is already rolled out in Norway, the "entry level" line is 10/10mb (yes, symetric), very stable and high quality with separate extra bandwith for Ip TV.

Now, if the rest of the world follows, internet content will only get heavier and the demand for even more bandwith will grow :-(

Guess we'll have to double the bandwith every 18 month in the future?
"

And if harddisks stayed at their 50 MB size, we only would be able to store textfiles on them. Now, with 1TB+ drives we have to worry about storing images, movies and some nice-looking games on them. The humanity.

Too little... (2, Insightful)

antanca (1424525) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286653)

I'd appreciate the investment, but it's too little, too late. Bandwidth will inevitably be capped and throttled to hell; this is BT we're talking about. Not to mention Phorm. 500,000 homes is rather a small portion, too, and they will most probably neglect south western England and rural areas as usual. I'm enjoying my 1mbps downstream immensely.

Re:Too little... (2, Informative)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287397)

Dumbass. It's your ISP that implemets the caps and throttling, not BT Openreach. They merely provide the connectivity from the POP to the customer.

Re:Too little... (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287853)

Dumbass. It's your ISP that implemets the caps and throttling, not BT Openreach. They merely provide the connectivity from the POP to the customer.

This should be +1 informative, not -1 flamebait. The AC is correct.

Re:Too little... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#27289237)

What AC?

What do we need the bandwidth for? (4, Interesting)

BestNicksRTaken (582194) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286689)

If P2P is illegal - and frankly any internet traffic seems to be illegal according to the Orwellian UK government at the moment, what are we going to use 60Mbps for - checking Email?

Mind you, 60Mbps is really going to improve the performance of the botnets, so spam levels will go up.

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (4, Insightful)

RegularFry (137639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286731)

iPlayer and whatever content providers BT wants to get into bed with will eat this up.

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (1)

gravos (912628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286773)

Good point about the botnets. But what I think this will really enable is HD programming on-demand, assuming the backhaul links are up to snuff.

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286867)

If P2P is illegal - and frankly any internet traffic seems to be illegal according to the Orwellian UK government at the moment, what

Don't worry, the government will tell your what you may use it for.

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287017)

Probably nothing, BUT, relax, as now you probably won't have any stupid bandwidth caps anymore... maybe.

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27288025)

i think you mean RELAKKS

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287193)

iPlayer streams are around 1Mb/s. Given the availability of fast enough consumer links, I wouldn't be surprised if the BBC started streaming the shows with the same format they broadcast them, which can eat up 20Mb/s easily. Two people in the house watching different streams? That's 40Mb/s. Download a big file in the background and you've got your 60Mb/s right there.

I doubt many people will be using 60Mb/s all of the time, but then I don't use all of the 10Mb/s I get now all of the time either (and if I did, my ISP couldn't afford to give me the service at the rate that they do).

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27290783)

So at the end of all this investment, we'll have an "internet" that's simply a new version of cable TV?

Re:What do we need the bandwidth for? (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288085)

what are we going to use 60Mbps for - checking Email?

The Internet is more than email and HTML websites. I use my connection for videoconferencing with clients [productivi...ldwide.com] and a slow connection is a real detriment. Even if I'll only use 10Mbps for a really high quality connection, there are three other people in my house. Asking what people are going to use fast connections for is like asking what they'll use bigger hard drives for.

A big step forward (5, Insightful)

renesch (1016465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286691)

now they will be able to install CCTVs even in private homes

Re:A big step forward (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286733)

now they will be able to install CCTVs even in private homes

That'l show those terrorists.

Re:A big step forward (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27286791)

Damn, I thought that Scandinavia was the last pocket of civilization in the entire world.

You know, if you Europeans don't want all of those undesireable Islamic savages in your homelands, then you should import Mexicans instead. The logistics may be a pain, but Mexicans are loyal, proud, hard workers. Many of them are religious, true, but they have no desire to nuke you into oblivion because you dont bow down 5 times a day to Allah. They won't go slashing the throats of your Theo Van Goghs and whatnot. They just want to live life, as most civillized people who care about family do.

In fact, it would be in the continent Europe's best interest to reject citizenship to those to practice Islam. Muslims are scumbags and any nation would have everything to gain by banning them.

Re:A big step forward (0, Flamebait)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286991)

Mexicans just breed like cockroaches (thanks to their Catholic beliefs), drink too much (thanks to all the kids), and encourage modern day slave labour by working as illegal immigrants on tiny wages.

The US would probably shit itself at the price jump on certain items if it actually had to do things legally and pay a proper wage to citizens / legal immigrants. But hey, slave labour is fine if you don't put chains on them.

Re:A big step forward (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287073)

But hey, slave labour is fine if you don't put chains on them.

Modern American "slave labour" dosen't bite the hand that feeds it. In Europe, the filthy Muslim scum are more than happy to kill the natives and pollute the population of progressive thinkers.

The difference between the Muslim and the Catholic is that the Catholic will have 8 kids, but all of them will work and none of them will try to kill you. The Muslims, especially those of African origin, will jam up your public schools and move to Spain or Holland where they will slit the throats of progressive filmmakers and issue Fatwas of death against people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali [wikipedia.org] , Waras Dirie [wikipedia.org] and Salman Rushdie [wikipedia.org] .

Re:A big step forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287227)

Are you kidding? Sure, the Mexicans aren't nearly as violent, but they do bring statistically measurable crime nonetheless.

Multiculturalism + ethnic pluralism = failure and ethnic genocide for the natives who aren't reproducing anymore.

Re:A big step forward (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287607)

Or it's just a case of you hating Muslims fullstop.

Have you forgot about the Mexicans using rocket launchers on US buildings south of the border, heads showing up along road sides and various other fun bits to go along with the drug trade?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Mafia [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surenos [wikipedia.org]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/220107mexicangangs.htm [prisonplanet.com]

Of course does this apply to all Mexicans? Of course not. Just as your silly beliefs about muslims do not apply to all muslims.

Re:A big step forward (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286885)

Good idea. It will make it very easy to investigate paedophiles. On the other hand, if you are innocent you have nothing to fear, and the police will promise nicely not to use it for amusement.

Therefore, if you object to CCTV in your home, you must be a paedophile and should be sent to jail straight away.

Incidentally, CCTV in some private homes has been seriously proposed [theherald.co.uk] .

Re:A big step forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27286983)

They want to install cameras into private homes so they can watch children? Who are they going to find to do that?

Oh wait.

Re:A big step forward (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287183)

Personally I have no problem with them doing that - on the proviso that they first install the CCTV into the homes of the politicians and their families for a 2 year trial. Wonder how many politicians would support it then?

FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (0, Troll)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286725)

FTTH is last gen. FTTC is the one before that.

Even my crappy cable company has installed 100Mbps FTTC here my low-rent burbs. (With in-your-face in-the-air cables no less!).

At my offices people are bitching that they've only got FFTH PON rather the PTP installed the other side of the street.

(Disclaimer for UK readers, I'm in France, so you are now allowed to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA I can't hear you).

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (2, Informative)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286785)

Isn't FTTH Fiber to the home? How is that last gen? And what would be the current gen? I mean i suppose technically I could connect to my fiber modem by fiber instead of TP-cable, but my connection is capped at 100 Mbps anyway..

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (0, Offtopic)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287021)

Yeah, I was trolling a bit there. I should have said "current gen" rather than "last gen". Here FTTH rollout started the year before last.

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (2, Insightful)

Fneb (1181615) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286805)

Yeah, our internet's a bit behind the curve for similarly developed countries. FTTC is a big step up from ADSL2 though, even if it's not as good as FTTH (which would have cost far more I imagine. Out of interest, what do you call better than FTTH? PTP? Wossat?

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (1)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286881)

I guess the OP is referring to [10GE|G]PON, in which multiple subscribers (usually up to 32) share a single TX wavelength using TDM and RX using encryption. PON has also been deployed in combination with DSL in places (such as apartment complexes) where there is copper but it is too expensive to pull new cables. PTP (point-to-point) gives each subscriber a dedicated RX and TX wavelength, but in reality they are still sharing the upstream connection with multiple subscribers, so there is not a whole lot of difference in practice to the end-user.

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287219)

I'm not convinced FTTH is worth it. It's a massive infrastructure investment to lay that last-mile fibre, and when you already have a cable that can carry 50Mb/s+ into your house, the extra cost doesn't seem to justify the increased speed.

If anything, I'd expect that kind of home Internet connection to fade slowly over the next few years. Quite a few non-geeks I know have started using HSPA instead of wired connections. The cost is less than I pay for cable Internet. It only works with one computer and has relatively low monthly bandwidth caps, but most of these people only have one computer, and don't use that much bandwidth. Over the summer, I intend to pick up a small laptop with HSPA; T-Mobile have a cheap pre-pay option for this kind of hardware and so I only need to pay for weeks when it's sunny enough to work outside.

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287417)

Bitching about PON? What, 2.4 Gbps split 32 ways isn't enough somehow? Given that they'll both be oversubscribed much more than that further down the line, how is that a problem exactly?

This is now frankly mere willy waving, but more nerdy. To be honest, my cheap 2 Mbps connection is fine. Faster would be a pleasant bonus I guess, but nothing to get too excited about. I had a 10 Mbps connection before and I really can't tell much difference for the most part.

Re:FTTC? Next gen? Another UK FAIL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287683)

Sure, and btw 640 kbit/s should be enough for everyone

Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (5, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286763)

Available NOW [netvigator.com] , not in a few years?

Hong Kong has it. 30 Mbit (down, 10 Mbit up) for cheap (about USD 33 per month) and up to 1,000 Mbit for those with more money to waste (about USD 280 per month). This is for residential use, by the way. Available in residential buildings.

Admittedly not available everywhere (like for me: I only can get traditional ADSL but then I'm living in a village so no surprise there), still this is nothing new. Good for the UK that they are catching up with their former colony.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (2, Informative)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286769)

In Japan... Living in what would be consider the worst part of the greater tokyo area, and on 100/100 optical connection.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27286857)

In Japan... Living in what would be consider the worst part of the greater tokyo area, and on 100/100 optical connection.

In Japan....living dead-center Shinjuku and on a 1000/1000 optical line.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27290035)

Hell even in a third-world country like South Korea you can get that (1000/1000) in Seoul or Busan. It costs a little more than the readily and cheaply available 100/100 connection, but it's there. I just moved back to Vancouver and I'm about ready to give up on the internet altogether.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (1)

Bloater (12932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286965)

Well, the Japanese have lots of savings. That sort of wealth is easily available there. Over in the west all we have is debt so we can't get that kind of service as quickly.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (2, Informative)

Bloater (12932) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286953)

We already have fiber broadband over large parts of the UK. I had it installed nearly two years ago by Virgin Media.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (4, Insightful)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287045)

Actually, despite their advertising, all Virgin have deployed is a fiber backbone, not "fiber broadband", which would include fibre to the home. For the last mile their 50Mb service goes over the same cables they've used all along.

Not that it matters much when you get 50Mbps downstream and nearly 2Mbps upstream.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287251)

Exactly. The speed is what matters, not the underlying technology. There's no point replacing the cables to my house until we get to the limit of what they can carry. I currently get 10Mb/s and the latest research shows that the same cable can carry anywhere up to 500Mb/s, with 100Mb/s more likely in the real world. Once the backbone infrastructure is upgraded to the level that can actually provided me with this kind of speed, then we'll talk about upgrading the last mile (or replacing it with 802.11n / WiMax / LTE / whatever). Until then, I get no benefit from ripping out existing cable and replacing it with fibre.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27289757)

Acutally you're wrong - the VM backbone has been fibre for over ten years. But CoAx (what the customer gets) can only be used for 250m long lengths, so fibre is used to aggregate and bring back centrally. Basically it's exclusively fibre to some cabinets already (and has been for years), and Hybrid Fibre/CoAx (HFC) elsewhere.

But obviously what BT are planning is vastly behind where VM are 'now' - but then VM didn't rack up billions in debt by sitting on it's hands :-)

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (1)

Dan B. (20610) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287199)

That requires population density, and density is something HK has plenty of, to the point where those services are cheap, however you must share it, and your street/building/rooftop/park/etc. with 10,000 other people.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287201)

I'm also in Hong Kong, living in one of the busiest parts of Hong Kong island, and our building is considered "too old" (it's about 25 years old) for the 30Mb/100Mb/1000Mb connections. The best we can get is 6Mb ADSL (which is almost the same price as the 30Mb).

So, despite it being offered, actually living in an area and BUILDING that can utilise it, is another thing.

And no, I don't live in an ancient old building. I live in one of the more modern parts of Hong Kong nearby Causeway Bay, and my building isn't old by any standards.

On the other hand, when I lived in the UK, in the outer suburbs of London I had no problem getting 20Mb cable internet.

So Hong Kong's broadband isn't that great. Especially because there's a real lack of competition here, so prices are completely stagnant (Netvigator ADSL costs about the same now as it did back in 2002, for the same lower-end speeds).

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (1)

djtachyon (975314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287809)

New Jersey has 30Mb/5Mb Cable (Optimum Online) for $55/mo, and 20Mb/20Mb FIOS $65. I have Optimum Online, it also include a domain name, web space, and open port 25 & 80 options. I find it quite satisfactory.

Re:Not too bad... how about 1,000 MBps? (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27289563)

I've wondered about this. Are there any bandwidth caps on the Hong Kong and Japanese hi-speed services. These services have among the cheapest and fastest residential access anywhere.

I just wouldn't see much a point with my ISP in Canada upgrading speed if bandwidth caps still remain.

Good for Bittorrent? (2, Interesting)

TheMightyFuzzball (1500683) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286831)

I won't move to Virgin Media's Fibre Optic Broadband because of its policy on P2P, I hope BT is better...

New, shiny, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27286845)

Will it provide IPv6?

Why Scotland? (2, Troll)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286897)

Why Scotland? Nobody lives in Scotland, they send all their bankers and politicians south of the border to ruin my life and charge me exorbitant taxes.

I wish BT would get a move on with this in England. I'm on aluminium cable last 800 metres from the cabinet to my house and that struggles to run 512/216 ADSL.

If they want a beta tester I'll do that for them.

Re:Why Scotland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27286989)

Why Scotland?

Because Scottish Oil has financed everything the UK has done for the last 20 years?

Re:Why Scotland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27290253)

And English Coal financed everything Scotland did for the previous 200 years - what exactly is your point?

Re:Why Scotland? (-1, Flamebait)

dirvine (1008915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287031)

Probably as Scotland had the poll tax first, then their industry (coal, steel, shipbuilding etc.) removed first and tested many unpopular political ideals first, as well as sending more people to war first, or perhaps having been forcefully exported (clearances).

Or maybe it's something to do with inventing telephony or television or penicillin or even starting your 'bank of England' or perhaps outlining capitalism, who knows ?

In saying all that though you can certainly keep your taxes and politicians etc. and we can keep ours as well as our oil, water, power and pretty much everything else we seem to provide.

Scotland IS a net contributer to the British economy (unfortunately in my opinion) but perhaps one day we will all have our way and this wont be the case any more. Were better neighbors than partners I think.

I am in Troon and also on aluminum, which is great for a seaside town (not). Perhaps it's best not to be first here though as theres mass changes in fiber end point technology which I think will dwarf todays capabilities. I imagine in 5 years you wont know the speed anyway it will just be subjective but immediate delivery of any amount of data.

Re:Why Scotland? (0, Offtopic)

Dan B. (20610) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287185)

You sir, have clearly never been to Edinburgh. All the Scottish Bankers and Politicians are there, in great numbers. Halifax Bank of SCOTLAND, Royal Bank of SCOTLAND, SCOTTISH Equitable (pensions, banking) SCOTTISH Widows (pensions), SCOTTISH Parliament, and so on, and so on.

English Bankers and Politicians are quite capable of fucking up their own country.

Re:Why Scotland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287473)

Didn't those English bankers just buy all of those Scottish banks when they went to the wall?

Re:Why Scotland? (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287195)

"ruin my life and charge me exorbitant taxes."

Like the Poll Tax?

Re:Why Scotland? (1)

ray_mccrae (78654) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287239)

What nonsense, Glasgow and Edinburgh are the 4th and 7th biggest cities in the UK by population. Scotland sends SOME of its politicians south because that's were the UK parliament is. This is like saying the UK sends all it's politicians to Belgium (EU parliament), in that it's blatantly untrue and misses the real point. British does not equal English. Perhaps the real question should be why not Scotland?

London 7.2 Million
Birmingham 992000
Leeds 720000
Glasgow 560000
Sheffield 512000
Bradford 467000
Edinburgh 450000
Liverpool 440000
Manchester 420000
Bristol 380000

Re:Why Scotland? (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27290763)

I do get sick of the English whining about being run by Scots. Maybe if they hadn't had such a hard-on for Thatcher and Major, they would have realised that all the experienced Labour politicians were Scottish, and so Scottish domination of the next Labour government was pretty much guaranteed.

I wouldn't hold your breath (3, Informative)

FridgeFreezer (1352537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27286929)

Cast your mind back to 2004 when BT announced they would roll out 21CN (ADSL2, VoIP, etc. and replacing the entire UK core network with IP), they were due to be rolling over more than 10,000 customers per day by now onto this new network, and be finished in plenty of time for everyone to watch the 2012 Olympics in HD video-over-broadband.

Guess how many they've done so far...

Of course, if you read their website now the original goalposts have been burned and some new ones installed much further apart and in a different place on the pitch: http://www.btplc.com/21CN/Theroadto21CN/Keymilestones/Keymilestones.htm [btplc.com]

Re:I wouldn't hold your breath (2, Informative)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287065)

I especially like this little tidbit from near the end:-

BT believes it is the only operator in the world to commit to a planned national rollout of a next generation network

I wonder what planet they are living on - maybe the same one as Sol Trujillo of former Telstra infamy.

Re:I wouldn't hold your breath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287237)

Maybe they mean commit as opposed to actually doing it.

Re:I wouldn't hold your breath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27291097)

That's partly because they recently started cancelling >10000 agency (contractor) staff.

Mind you, they did move some of the work to our Indian cousins. Wonder why the target dates have shifted? ;o)

Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber opt. (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287135)

See the link: http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/50Mb/product_pricing_and_tech_info.html [virginmedia.com]

Broadband XXL
Up to 50Mb fibre optic broadband TV
Over 100 digital TV channels Phone
Unlimited weekend UK landline calls

Re:Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber o (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287167)

Only their backbone is fibre (well, yes, it would normally be). The actual cable network is coaxial cable. They haven't really touched the cables from when NTL/Telewest ran it, and although their service can be good, it's subject to traffic shaping, stringent limits, and is extremely overcontended in many areas.

Very misleading, I know. Someone really should pull them up on that.

Re:Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber o (2, Interesting)

c_g_hills (110430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287341)

I once made a complaint to the ASA (Advertising Standards Association) but it was not upheld because apparently the average consumer would not draw that conclusion.

Re:Virgin Media UK already provides 50Mbit fiber o (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287529)

So false advertising is fine as long as the "average consumer" is sufficiently ignorant not to know the difference? That's insane.

Scotland is first because... (4, Insightful)

Dan B. (20610) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287173)

...both Edinburgh and Glasgow have relatively few BT customers at present. The residents in each city looking for broadband are pretty much all subscribers to the two major cable companies that provide phone services, pay TV and unlimited 1~10MB (shared bandwidth) cable internet for a fairly low fee. The cities are also fairly dense, but not too populated, thus making them good public pilot sites. There are also two fantastic Universities right in the heart of the cities that probably influence a lot of local council decisions.

Re:Scotland is first because... (1)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288485)

Dundee not on their list of course, already being wired up for 100Mbps fiber by H2O - http://www.fibrecity.eu/ [fibrecity.eu]

Available in certain areas in the Netherlands now (2, Interesting)

Ixlr8 (63315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287257)

Some cities in the Netherlands already have broadband fibre options for residential connections. Living in one of the pilot areas in Amsterdam, I am currently enjoying 20 Mbit/s (symmetrical!), but could go up to 100 Mbit/s (also symmetrical) if I'm willing to pay more.

Internet service can be combined with telephone and radio/TV. RTV is converted to old fashioned cable signal in your home, which with good cabling (and proper channel separation (which they did take care of)) gives excellent TV image quality, without slow channel switching, digital artefacts, and one-TV-only downsides typical for other digital TV services.

The good thing is (IMHO) they separated the network itself from the service providers, so you can have your choice of who (and what) you pay for. I'm just getting internet, because the TV package is missing BBC1 and 2 due to stupid monopoly of the old fashioned cable companies.

Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287575)

"I'm just getting internet, because the TV package is missing BBC1 and 2 due to stupid monopoly of the old fashioned cable companies."

How can that be? The BBCs (1,2,3,4 and HD) are FTA for you (and as a bonus you'll get ITV and the Channel4s).

Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n (1)

Ixlr8 (63315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287711)

Because Amsterdam is not in the UK...

The Dutch television distribution system is kind of weird. The BBC does not allow any provider but the old fashioned cable companies to distribute BBC1 and 2. As a kind of compensation the alternatives offered by the digital-over-the-air-TV-providers and these fibre providers is to offer BBC world. Yeah right... that doesn't do it for me.

There is a lawsuit going on at the moment that challenges exactly this 'bbc1 and 2 only on cable' deal.

Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n (1)

serialdogma (883470) | more than 5 years ago | (#27290405)

The FTA BBC channels are available on satellite also, across all of western Europe, you just need a dish pointing at Astra 2 [wikipedia.org] and a DVB-S receiver. The BBC has done this since the late 90s, but have just recently branded it Freesat [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Available in certain areas in the Netherlands n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27291483)

That is strange, my fibre TV provider distributes BBC 1+2 and does so since 2006:
http://www.onsneteindhoven.nl/index.php?menu=10&submenu=16 [onsneteindhoven.nl]

Fiber to the Cabinet? (2, Interesting)

thyristor pt (1507463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287375)

That's old news. In Portugal we're already developing a nation wide Fiber to the Home network. Everyone gets a fiber with 100Mb.

"super fast fibre optic broadband"?!? (2, Insightful)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 5 years ago | (#27287401)

40 Mbit/s is not "super fast fibre optic broadband". It's "slow fibre optic broadband".

Here in Sweden it's quite common with 100/100, and I have 80/10 Mbit/s (or 80/16 is more close to reality).

"super fast fibre optic broadband" would be something more than 1 Gbit/s. 1 Gbit/s would be "fast fibre optic broadband".

Re:"super fast fibre optic broadband"?!? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27287709)

Agreed.

I live in France and I get 30 Mbit/s for 22 per month, and there's not a single strand of fiber in my home or building, it's all over old school coax cable.

The cable company also offers 100 Mbit/s at the same price for areas where they did deploy FTTB, which is still not "super fast fibre optic" but still a nice improvement.

How fast? (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27288209)

Super fast!

I hate to sound pedantic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27291405)

fiber is not "next generation." I've had 100Mbps fiber for 7 years now, but I don't live in the UK or the US.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?