Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

BT Confirms Plans for 300Mbps Broadband Later This Year

By - Source: British Telecom | B 19 comments

And a new Home Hub for your troubles.

Back in February of 2012, UK telecoms provider British Telecom announced that it had successfully trialled "FTTP on demand." FTTP, or Fibre to the Premise broadband, is an evolution of BT's FTTC (Fibre to the Cabinet) solution that allows additional fibre to be run on demand to a home or business in an FTTC-enabled area. BT said last year that while FTTP speeds weren't previously possible in FTTC-enabled areas, it had developed a solution that takes advantage of the fibre it had already deployed between the exchange and the street cabinet. At the time, the company said the development meant FTTP could be made available anywhere in BT's fibre footprint and relayed plans to make the service, which is capable of offering speeds of up to 300Mbps, commercially available to all communications providers by the spring of next year.

As you may (or may not) have noticed, we're in the midst of summer at this stage, but BT today provided an update on that ultrafast fibre broadband. Speaking via a press release, British Telecom confirmed that it would "soon" be offering ultrafast 300Mbps FTTP service to customers. Though BT did specify that the service would initially be available withing 50 exchange areas where FTTP infrastructure has been deployed to date, it didn't give any clue as to when "soon" might be. The company's Infinity 300Mbps FTTP service will come with 20Mbps upload speeds and existing FTTP customers can upgrade to the new speeds via the £50 Unlimited package from BT.

BT also announced a new router, the Home Hub 5, for BT Infinity customers. When it launches later this year, it will feature superfast 802.11ac Wi-Fi and 4 GigE ports and an integrated VDSL modem.

Display 19 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 6 Hide
    Shaun o , July 11, 2013 4:47 AM
    Traffic shaping ,an data capping here we come.
  • 2 Hide
    billybobser , July 11, 2013 5:17 AM
    Still can't manage 5Mbps at the moment....
  • 0 Hide
    Nakal , July 11, 2013 5:25 AM
    And I thought my 30/5 was quick.. i wants more!
  • 0 Hide
    mapesdhs , July 11, 2013 5:26 AM

    I just wish for once UK companies would drop the prices of existing
    link speeds, instead of increasing the speed at the same price level
    again and again. Or at least give one the option. I haven't changed
    my package in quite a while, but over time the monthly cost has
    crept up from 76 to almost 100 per month.


    billybobser, I have VM's 20meg setup atm. I get the full
    20Mbit download speed most of the time. Tried grabbing
    an 80MB file from my site just now, 2.3MB/sec sustained.

    Ian.

  • 2 Hide
    someperson123 , July 11, 2013 7:48 AM
    I do so loathe the speed reporting discrepency between ISP advertising and internet reporting downloads, where the former is reported in Mb (megabits) to make the number look larger and the latter in MB (megabytes).

    Thusly, Ian's example is prime as it illustrates that an ISP advertised 20 Mbps connection reaches downloads of around 2.5 MB/s. So silly.
  • 1 Hide
    lockhrt999 , July 11, 2013 8:20 AM
    "I do so loathe the speed reporting discrepency between ISP advertising and internet reporting downloads, where the former is reported in Mb (megabits) to make the number look larger and the latter in MB (megabytes).

    Thusly, Ian's example is prime as it illustrates that an ISP advertised 20 Mbps connection reaches downloads of around 2.5 MB/s. So silly."

    Well transfer of data has always been measured 'bits per second' basis. It's not a gimmick from ISPs. Same goes for SATA I, II, III speeds, USB etc all are measured into 'bits per seconds'.

    Data storage on the other hand, measured in bytes.
  • 0 Hide
    lockhrt999 , July 11, 2013 8:21 AM
    "I do so loathe the speed reporting discrepency between ISP advertising and internet reporting downloads, where the former is reported in Mb (megabits) to make the number look larger and the latter in MB (megabytes).

    Thusly, Ian's example is prime as it illustrates that an ISP advertised 20 Mbps connection reaches downloads of around 2.5 MB/s. So silly."

    Well transfer of data has always been measured 'bits per second' basis. It's not a gimmick from ISPs. Same goes for SATA I, II, III speeds, USB etc all are measured into 'bits per seconds'.

    Data storage on the other hand, measured in bytes.
  • 2 Hide
    goodevil , July 11, 2013 8:41 AM
    Why the hell optic fiber internet has different upload speed from download in UK? Everyone knows optic fiber is not asynchronous service! In Lithuanian optic fiber internet with 100mbps download upload speeds are available for more than 5 years already. No traffic shaping too.
  • 1 Hide
    xelliz , July 11, 2013 11:54 AM
    I don't need 300Mb broadband, I just need for American companies to actually provide what we are paying for. This means that companies like AT&T need to give us appropriate speeds for the money. 6 Mb internet for $46 a month is BS.
  • 0 Hide
    shahrooz , July 11, 2013 12:25 PM
    people stop moaning I pay 30$ for a 768kbps and the my ping from yahoo is 500ms. I'm getting mad sometimes people speak in my head about my connection. and you are b*tching because your 20Mbps gets down to 15Mbps sometimes...
  • 0 Hide
    xelliz , July 11, 2013 12:27 PM
    Quote:
    people stop moaning I pay 30$ for a 768kbps and the my ping from yahoo is 500ms. I'm getting mad sometimes people speak in my head about my connection. and you are b*tching because your 20Mbps gets down to 15Mbps sometimes...


    This is exactly what I am talking about. If you only get 700k internet, your bill should only be like $10...period!
  • 0 Hide
    someperson123 , July 11, 2013 1:58 PM
    "Well transfer of data has always been measured 'bits per second' basis. It's not a gimmick from ISPs. Same goes for SATA I, II, III speeds, USB etc all are measured into 'bits per seconds'.

    Data storage on the other hand, measured in bytes."

    Doesn't mean it's not silly. Just like the translation difference between GB and GiB. You have different groups developing interacting software that define things differently. Ideally, an standards group like the IEEE should standardize all such definitions (and have tried). To me, you should always define storage/transfer speeds as the highest whole integer (i.e. 1 MB/s versus 8 Mbps; 1 GB versus 1024 MB [Forgive me if I used GB/MB incorrectly if it was supposed to be GiB/MiB] )
  • 1 Hide
    __-_-_-__ , July 11, 2013 3:04 PM
    lol 300Mbps... 3rd world speeds.
  • 1 Hide
    KelvinTy , July 11, 2013 10:29 PM
    Always going for the higher advertised speed. I paid for 20Mbps plan and get 7xxkbps dl with 2xxkbps ul, changed ISP to BE Unlimited, 3MBps all the time.
    F#$! BT, traffic shaping, horrible service terms, "bandwidth" locking to the max, and extremely frustrating customer service.
  • 0 Hide
    mapesdhs , July 12, 2013 6:05 PM
    Quote:
    Thusly, Ian's example is prime as it illustrates that an ISP advertised 20 Mbps connection reaches downloads of around 2.5 MB/s. So silly.


    You've lost me completely. Are you saying you're mentally unable to convert between
    Mbits and Mbytes? What's the problem? Just divide by 8. I've been naturally familiar
    with binary, hex and such stuff since the early 80s, it's second nature to me, and that
    was in the pre-mobile era; these days, I would expect bits & bytes to be taught in
    schools from an early age. My post was meant to convey that the download speed I
    personally observe is exactly what I expect it to be, and basically maxed out too.

    I have no issue with ISPs using Mbits/sec in their advertising. If a reader can't convert
    between such numbers and MB/sec, that's their problem.

    What I do dislike however is the way the upload speeds one has are so much lower
    than download speeds, which for a properly functional net link is not good. And the fact
    that upload speeds are often missing from ISP PR, or hard to find on their product pages.

    Ian.

  • 0 Hide
    mapesdhs , July 12, 2013 6:11 PM
    Quote:
    lol 300Mbps... 3rd world speeds.


    Alas the UK had a missed opportunity in the early 1990s; BT offered to lay
    fiber just about everywhere (total cost 12 billion), if the govt covered half
    the costs, but the govt of the day declined, so nothing happened. Since then
    UK services have always been kinda behind the curve. When my VM (Telewest
    at the time) service was 4Mbit, I knew someone in rural France who had 20Mbit,
    and they were provided with more than a dozen static IPs to use - in the UK,
    even today, obtaining static IPs is a lot more expensive.

    I remember ages ago the Japanese govt stated they wanted 100Mbit to
    all homes by 2010. No idea if they achieved that, but it certainly seems
    like Far East & Asian nations, especially South Korea, appreciate the
    importance of moderns coms infrastructure. I don't know about the rest of
    Europe, but in the UK it's always dragged out by arguments over who will
    cover the initial costs (same as every other infrastructure row).

    Ian.

  • 0 Hide
    damian86 , July 13, 2013 6:03 PM
    not complaining about my 20 megs on adsl but still there is no fibre Installed so how the hell are we going to get over 20mb
  • 0 Hide
    someperson123 , July 23, 2013 2:58 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Thusly, Ian's example is prime as it illustrates that an ISP advertised 20 Mbps connection reaches downloads of around 2.5 MB/s. So silly.


    You've lost me completely. Are you saying you're mentally unable to convert between
    Mbits and Mbytes? What's the problem? Just divide by 8. I've been naturally familiar
    with binary, hex and such stuff since the early 80s, it's second nature to me, and that
    was in the pre-mobile era; these days, I would expect bits & bytes to be taught in
    schools from an early age. My post was meant to convey that the download speed I
    personally observe is exactly what I expect it to be, and basically maxed out too.

    I have no issue with ISPs using Mbits/sec in their advertising. If a reader can't convert
    between such numbers and MB/sec, that's their problem.

    What I do dislike however is the way the upload speeds one has are so much lower
    than download speeds, which for a properly functional net link is not good. And the fact
    that upload speeds are often missing from ISP PR, or hard to find on their product pages.

    Ian.



    No, I am not saying a I cannot translate. I am simply stating that I wish (in vain) that there was more uniformity in data measurements. Written data is measured in KiB (I think), hardware space is written in KB (I think), and transport speeds are written as Kbps. The issue the former two (albeit I may have them backwards as listed) are the stranger being that you gain large discrepencies the larger the volume of data since one measures 1 KB as 1,024 Bytes, where the other does so as 1,000 Bytes.

    The point is that translation is a matter of math, which is no concern, but it is more of, as I said, just plain silly that they have no deisre to standardize these measurements.
  • 0 Hide
    mapesdhs , July 23, 2013 4:32 PM

    I empathise, but that's marketing I guess. People do no doubt fall for the numbers b.s. used
    by many manufacturers & sellers. Bit like the whole .99 thing in product pricing. Do people
    really fall for that? Sadly yes.

    Coming from the SCSI world as I did, I always thought of 1MB meaning 2^20, so I certainly
    found it annoying when first dealing with IDE/SATA drives to discover the much more simplistic
    10^6 being used instead. Personally I felt it was misleading, given that users of a Windows
    system do not see the OS using the 10^6 definition at all, eg. the Properties tab of a drive letter.

    But what can ya do? That's the way the cookie crumbles. Companies will use whatever tricks
    they can to sell their wares.

    Ian.