Just upgraded to 900mbps Full Fibre

[#1]

Just upgraded to 900mbps full fibre and it's fantastic. Hard wired my house and receiving speeds of 1gbps - 1.5gbps. absolutely fantastic! Only thing I would say is offer some sort of WiFi booster! Installer was brilliant too!

[#2]

@mjb2k8

Did you go for this gigabit speed for a particular use, eg one person gaming, or is it so that multiple people can be online at the same time?

How many people in your family?

[#3]

Hi there, 6 people in my family and two pcs and an Xbox, along with a fire stick and TV and multiple phones. We can all be online at the same time and the speed is actually incredible. With the Xbox and two pcs running at the same time we still get over 850mbps 😮

[#4]

There are only 3 of us in our family, each with a PC and laptop or tablet, a phone each and two TVs. None of us do the sort of gaming that apparently benefits from gigabit speeds, and for the most part our FTTC 80/20, (which syncs at the full speeds), is perfectly adequate for our needs.

However, with the forthcoming price increase, I will be paying over £29 per month. Openreach don't expect to be installing FTTP in this area for at least another year, but CityFibre has been available for about 3-4 years.

Vodaphone have regular offers for their 900Mb service, (with a VoIP phone line) - at £30/month!

I have no real need for more than 10 times our current speed, but the fact that I could get it for less than a pound more per month than I will soon be paying makes it very tempting. Unfortunately I still have 12 months on our current Plusnet contract.

Interestingly, although Vodaphone's offer is subject to the same inflation+ annual increases, the same £30/month offers have been available since soon after it first became available to us - so hopefully will still be there next year!

[#5]

Well best of luck with your choices, I just wanted to commend plusnet for their excellent service and fast speeds. Don't mind paying £45 a month at all. City fibre has just installed along our street but my address is apparently a problem for them so opted for this instead. You know I'm glad I did as before I was getting 67mbps and on WiFi even less!

[#6]

I wonder how long before Gigabit fibre will become "standard" in that nothing will work properly unless your connection is that fast? 🤣

I just upgraded from ADSL running happily at 20mbps to "Fibre" (FTTC) at about 60mbps and really there's no difference, both are fine for what we do.

Main reason for moving was that overall it's actually significantly cheaper as I've also moved from POTS to VOIP for my landline. Plus a bit of "future-proofing". 😉

[#7]

@HPsauce 

"I wonder how long before Gigabit fibre will become "standard" in that nothing will work properly unless your connection is that fast? 🤣"

My very first PC, in the mid 1990s came with a 28.8kbps dial up modem, which I soon upgraded to a 56kbps one. That didn't seem particularly slow at the time - I guess websites etc in those days were designed for those sorts of speeds. No live streaming of video of course!

When ADSL became available in our area I was one of the first to upgrade. An always on connection running at 512kbps was a wonder to behold 😀.

I suppose jumping from 80Mbps to 900 would be a similar jump as comparing goint from 56k to 512k?

[#8]

Won't belong before all traditional TV stations broadcast over the internet and aerials will just become  chimney decorations. Then there will be a need for speed...........

[#9]

Broadcast vs. multicast vs. unicast.

Broadcast is the most efficient, but the least traceable.

[#10]

@Champnet

"Won't belong before all traditional TV stations broadcast over the internet and aerials will just become  chimney decorations. Then there will be a need for speed..........."

Not to the sort of speeds that are being discussed here though.

An HD video stream requires around 10Mbps and even UHD only about 30Mbps max.

[#11]

I don't think that many people have any concept of just how fast 1Gb/s is in real world terms.

The speed of light in a vacuum is about 300,0000 km/s or 0.3m/ns. Digital data being transferred at 1Gb/s is being clocked through the delivery medium at 1ns/b. So the maths tells us that every bit of data is being delivered in the time it takes for light to travel 0.3m, or in old money, about one foot.

[#12]

@Baldrick1 

Do these speeds include the conversations between end nodes as explained to me in the late 70s ?

"Hello, are you there ? "    "Yes I'm here"

"I'm sending a lot of data are you ready ?"   "Yes, go ahead"

"OK, I'm sending the first packet, let me know when you've got it"   "Got it"

"Does it look good ?"   "Yes"   

"OK, I'll send the next one"     

Repeated till all data sent & received.................

[#13]

---

@Mr_Paul wrote:

An HD video stream requires around 10Mbps and even UHD only about 30Mbps max.

---

Are those figures restricted by the average download speed being low 60s, though I reckon this is inflated by including the odd FTTP stats ? 

If we all moved to high speed FTTP would the streaming videos be 8K, 32K or whatever the top speed is ?

[#14]

@Champnet  The quoted speeds are the actual values for the HD and UHD video streams. Nothing to do with FTTC or FTTP speeds.

[#15]

@Champnet 

Although video quality is subjective, I have some personal experience in this area:

I have been ripping my BluRay video collection to a hard drive. For us, a 1080P video encoded using the h/x265 codec, (commonly used for UHD), looks fine at 2-3Mbps when compared to the original disc.

I used to work in broadcasting - in Outside Broadcast contribution, from the OB site to the studios. Satellite delivered contribution streams in HD commonly ran at around 24Mbps. BT Sport commonly used bit rates in the range 100-140Mbps for their UHD contrubution of OB sporting events.

Contribution always uses far higher bit rates than distribution to viewers - because the feeds are usually archived for future use and editing etc.