Edward Dore wrote:
Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
with "fiber optic".
Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to also
> be "fibre optic"?
Because I think "fiber optic broadband" implies access and ADSL
is no fiber optic broadband access, unless you have FTTC with not
VDSL but ADSL.
But, feel free to have your own definition, which may or may not
be legally challenged by people having common sense.
With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in
> terms of layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as
> they are both shared mediums aggregated before the exchange.
Both of them sucks badly, indeed.
There is also an "FTTP on-demenad" option where if you are in
> a FTTC area then you basically pay for BT/OpenReach to extend
> the fibre to your property and provide the FTTP service. This
> is expensive though as you foot all of the excess construction
> charges. Apparently the average cost is going to be around GBP
> 1500.
I changed your pond sign in windows 1252 encoding (even though
your improperly configured mailer says it ISO-8859-1) to GBP.
I think 1500 GBP is too high as a cost to have fiber between a
cabinet and your premise.
Considering that cost of SS is almost identical to POTS, the
reasonable cost should be GBP 500 or so.
Is it a result of BT monopoly or can there be some competition
possible to choose an entity to install the fiber from multiple
independent entities?
In either case, OpenReach are required to provide "open"
access at the exchange to any companies wishing to make use of
> the local infrastructure and provide competing services to BT.
The problem is on the density of the exchanges.
The exchanges at every CO with L1 unbundling is, seemingly, most
competitive against BT.
Masataka Ohta
